Dynamic Entrepreneurship Generator Of Sustainable Economic Growth And Competitiveness

Description
Our paper about dynamic entrepreneurship generator of sustainable economic growth and competitiveness.

61

DYNAMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP – GENERATOR OF
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
COMPETITIVENESS
*

Viljem Pšeni?ny
**

Edvard Jakopin
***

Zoran Vuk?evi?
****

Gordana ?ori?
*****

Received: 25. 09. 2013 Preliminary communication
Accepted: 14. 04. 2014 UDC: 005.342 (497.5)
(497.16) (497.11) (497.4)

Fast-growing companies (gazelles) are the main creators of new jobs, revenue
growth and vibrant, competitive economy. This paper reviews (a) conditions for
dynamic entrepreneurship in Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia and (b)
recent studies on dynamic enterprises (gazelles) conducted in these countries.
However, since the authors are in the process of launching new research on
gazelles (based on the same methodology and selection criteria), which is to be
carried out simultaneously in all four countries in 2014, the paper provides (c)
discussion on these initiatives and initial results as well. A constant growth of
dynamic enterprises and gazelles and their increasing share in the economy

*
This paper has been accepted for publication in Management – Journal of Contemporary
Management Issues, within the cooperation with the Challenges of Europe Conference
(http://www.efst.hr/eitconf). Papers presented at the conference were evaluated for
publication in different official journals of the conference, including Management – Journal
of Contemporary Management Issues.
**
Viljem Pšeni?ny, PhD, DOBA fakulteta, Prešernova ulica 1, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia,
Phone: ++ 386 41 610 552, E-mail: [email protected]
***
Edvard Jakopin, PhD, Ministry of Regional Development and Local Self-Government,
Makedonska 4, Beograd, Serbia, Phone: ++381 11 3345 233, 3345 234, Fax: ++381 11
3345 531, E- mail: [email protected]
****
Zoran Vuk?evi?, PhD, The Parliament of Montenegro, Bulevar Svetog Petra Cetinjskog 10,
Podgorica, Montenegro, Phone: ++ 382 20 242 161, E-mail: [email protected]
*****
Gordana ?ori?, MSc, University of Applied Sciences VERN’, Iblerov trg 10/I, 10000
Zagreb, Croatia, Phone: ++ 385 91 48 25 898, E-mail: [email protected],
[email protected]
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
62
presents an invaluable analytical instrument for forecasting overall economic
growth in the next period. In order to define favorable, supportive environment for
dynamic and sustainable entrepreneurship, the authors addressed the institutional
and regulatory environment, level of knowledge of entrepreneurs, access to
finance, incentives for introduction of modern technology, innovations,
internationalization, etc. The authors also monitored the trends of entrepreneurial
development index, entrepreneurial activity index and competitiveness index for
each country. Since the integral pilot project was already implemented in Slovenia
in 2011, and a number of conclusions were drown, the authors studied the main
features of fast-growing companies and differences between the growth factors
that affect growing companies in Slovenia, and compared respective results in all
four countries. Among factors for growth, the most critical ones in Slovenia were:
environmental barriers, management systems, and financing; these factors were
further examined in other three countries. In addition, the growth rates of dynamic
enterprises were compared with the ones of their European counterparts, and
therefore these studies were able to offer an indication of what time is required by
the Southeast European gazelles to catch up with their counterparts abroad. The
most important findings of this research and its impacts on respective countries,
served as a basis for making recommendations for better addressing the
phenomenon of dynamic entrepreneurship, sustainable growth and rising
competitiveness.

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we present the most important findings of the initial research
and comparison of dynamic entrepreneurship that has been carried out in
Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Serbia. We find that dynamic enterprises do
not significantly differ in growth rates. If backed up by a favorable environment
and supportive atmosphere for entrepreneurship, gazelles could catch up with
their counterparts in the EU in ten years' time. Among factors for growth, the
most critical are: environmental barriers, management systems and financing.
Fast growing companies are crucial to the recovery of the economy.

Gazelles are the fast-growing companies that create most of the newly
created jobs in the national economies. They represent not more than 3-5% of
companies in the total number of businesses. These companies can achieve
above average growth rates and can operate in any field of activity, even in
those with low growth rates. The creator of the name gazelles is David Birch
(Birch, 1987), professor of entrepreneurship from Boston MIT and founder of
research and consultancy company Cognetics. During the seventies, with a
booming Silicon Valley, it was learned that only 3% of the companies (the so-
called dynamic businesses, gazelles) both survive and continue to grow.

Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
63
2. THEORETICAL CONTEXT OF DYNAMIC
ENTREPRENEURSHIP

We have established that entrepreneurship, entrepreneur and the
entrepreneurial organization have their roles in the economic science as well as
in business science and that entrepreneurship cannot be automatically equated
or restricted to small business only, or to the creation of new enterprises.
However, both in literature and in everyday life this connection is frequently
used and can be attributed to the fact that new economic entities do not emerge
unless there is an entrepreneurial approach and entrepreneurs. On the other
hand, there are not many economic entities in the small business sector that act
in an entrepreneurial way, have real potential for growth, or demonstrate wish
to generate growth.

We recognized the necessity of an interdisciplinary treatment of
entrepreneurship as a socio-economic phenomenon of the twenty-first century
(Pšeni?ny, 2002), linking at least three basic approaches:
(1) the economic aspect: from the macro-economic and socio-economic
aspects we can establish, assess and measure the contribution of
entrepreneurship to the economic growth, employment, advanced stage
of the country's economy, and the prosperity of the society. From the
micro-economic point of view, we can establish the economic effects of
individual entrepreneurial entities, their optimum size to achieve the
expected return and balance the use of resources to achieve the
maximum effects;
(2) the business-organizational aspect helps us to assure the economic goals
in an entrepreneurial organization – an enterprise – and administer and
manage the business functions that are prerequisite for the
specialization of entrepreneurship to achieve the economic and socio-
economic goals;
(3) the aspect of entrepreneurial management and entrepreneurial behavior
allows us to clarify, to a certain extent, what the entrepreneurial
handling and conduct of the entrepreneur (or the entrepreneurial team)
and the entrepreneurial organization should be like to be able to apply
the professional techniques and models developed by the business and
organizational science and achieve economic, as well as non-economic
goals as set by the entrepreneur and all others entering the
organizational relationship.

We have restricted our study of entrepreneurship at this point of time to a
narrower scope – the dynamic entrepreneurship and its role in economic
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
64
growth. This has proved to have an exceptional macroeconomic role, and the
growth of the most dynamic enterprises contributes crucially to the growth of
national economies, social prosperity, job creation, technological progress and
development, and also creates the highest added value (Pšeni?ny, 2009).

Dynamic entrepreneurship has been defined in great detail in the
framework of the theory of growth (Penrose, 1959), by models and factors of
growth divided into the environmental and internal ones (the enterprise and
entrepreneur), by the motivation for growth (and harvest), by the strategies of
growth, as well as by the management systems and development of the
organization of enterprise. In the long run, growth stands for profit – i.e. the
harvest for the entrepreneur who has identified and seized a market opportunity,
and developed, on the basis of his clear vision and harvest expectation, a
proactive strategy of growth and organization throughout all organizational
stages up to the corporate entrepreneurship (Pšeni?ny, 2002). Dynamic
enterprises are led by dynamic entrepreneurs who create the change and have an
effect on the environment, are innovative and successful in the long-run, which
can be measured by financial and non-financial indices, and whose business
strategies are competitiveness, internationalization and globalization.

Dynamic enterprises can be found in all developmental stages of an
enterprise, not only in the so-called stage of growth. The long-term growth is
related to, and depends on, the assertion of the leadership professionalization
and the development of an entrepreneurial and managerial team, as well as on
an advanced, professional organizational structure, tailored to the nature of the
business. Underlying for the dynamic enterprise leadership is the understanding
and awareness of the management techniques of a growing enterprise, which
means that we cannot expect the most dynamic enterprises to be led by
individual entrepreneurs, but by strong entrepreneurial and management teams,
under the lead of an influential entrepreneur or an entrepreneurial manager, who
need not necessarily be the founder of the enterprise.

The study of the current cognizance has proved that the growth of
(dynamic) enterprises depends on certain factors (Mei-Pochtler, 1999; Roure,
1999): (1) the business environment, (2) the entrepreneur and/ or the
entrepreneurial-managerial team and their capability, (3) the attitude of the
entrepreneur and the enterprise to innovation, development and research
activities, and introducing changes, (4) the strategy or model of growth and
harvest, (5) the management system and business model, (6) the employees and
human resources management, and (7) the financing of growth. The factors of
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
65
growth have an external – environmental component (1) and several internal
ones (2-7).

The similarities and differences in the interplay of these factors and
individual principles on the dynamic enterprises in Croatia, Montenegro,
Slovenia, and Serbia were scrutinized and compared with the dynamic
enterprises in the European Union (EU). Dynamic enterprises and dynamic
entrepreneurs were categorized, according to the EU criteria, among the fastest
growing dynamic enterprises in Europe.

Our hypothesis is that the dynamic enterprises in studied countries emerge
and operate in the same characteristics, but different internal and external
conditions that are relevant for the fast growth of enterprises in the EU. In order
to accelerate the enterprise growth and support to the dynamic entrepreneurship,
we should at least provide similar conditions in the environment and inside the
fast-growing enterprises, as the dynamic enterprises in Europe have.

If we identified these differences, we could stimulate the activities that
should lead to provide similar conditions for dynamic entrepreneurs in the near
future, such as the European dynamic enterprises enjoy now. Therefore, our
fundamental hypothesis shall read:

Hypothesis. Even in the time of crisis, not more than 5% of economic
entities generate almost all economic growth and most new jobs.

To verify the differences in growth between dynamic companies in studied
countries, we have selected from the database of all enterprises such enterprises
that fulfilled certain criteria, and checked them additionally against the criteria
of growth as specified above. The criteria that were applied to select the most
dynamic enterprises are equal to the criteria applied for the selection of the
European dynamic enterprises – the Europe's 500 (GrowthPlus, 2001).

2.1. The development and competitiveness of entrepreneurship in
Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro

The entrepreneurial sector in analyzed countries accounts for 99.8% of the
number of enterprises, in the structure of economy employs 2/3 of the
employed, generates 2/3 of the turnover and 55% of the newly created value; it
accounts for 49% of exports and 1/3 of the GDP. However, in comparison with
large enterprises the entrepreneurial sector is less productive and less profitable.

Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
66
Table 1. Weight of the entrepreneurial sector (SME
1
s) in the economy 2011 (%)

Indicators Serbia Slovenia Croatia
No of enterprises 99.8 99.47 99.6
No of employees 65.3 64.62 65.6
Turnover 65.5 49 50.2
-GVA 55.2 53.91 58.9
Exports 48.5 46.12 42
Imports 55.8 61.95 40.4
Balance of goods 66.7 236.52 n/a
Investments 52.1 61.41 n/a

Source: National statistical offices.

In the structure of the entrepreneurial sector, micro enterprises are most
numerous, while small and medium-sized enterprises dominate all the indicators
of reference. Medium-sized enterprises export 47.2% and have the best export-
import ratio; micro enterprises employ 45.6%, while the balance of goods is the
highest in small enterprises.

The level of competitiveness of the SME sector of Serbia significantly lags
behind the European average and most transition economies. Qualitative
indicators of the development level of the entrepreneurial sector are lower in
comparison with the EU average and the majority of analyzed countries
(employment per enterprise, turnover, gross value added - GVA, and profit per
employee). The rate of profitability is above average, consequence of a low
starting point and not of the expansion or a higher level of this sector’s
internationalization.

Due to a deteriorated business climate, the number of start-ups as well as
new entrepreneurs is decreasing, which heavily restricts opportunities for the
creation of new jobs and productivity growth. For example, in the course of
2011 each month around 3,400 individuals established new business entities,
much less than 5,000 individuals (an average number of people that set up
businesses each month in 2007).

The entrepreneurial environment in Serbia has deteriorated since the
outbreak of the economic crisis. Consumer demand has been decreasing and the
loss of business trust has had an adverse impact on the availability of financial
support; therefore the opening of new and development of existing enterprises

1
Small and medium sized enterprises (SME).
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
67
and shops has been seriously limited. The rate of the setting up of new
enterprises has slowed down substantially. Namely, in 2007 per each 6 newly
established enterprises one was closed down, and per three newly opened shops
two were closed. In 2011, per 6 newly established companies 10 were closed,
and the number of established shops was by about 10% lower than the number
of closed ones.

Table 2. Comparative indicators of entrepreneurship development in 2011

EU BG CZ HU RO SI SR HR
*
MNE
**

No of
companies
(in 000)
20989.9 287.0 934.5 552.7 535.3 106.9 319.3 1689 233
No of
employees
(in 000)
87818.2 1459.2 2368.8 1876.8 3032.3 396.9 786.9 1432 1237
No of SME
per 1,000
citizens
41.8 38.9 89.1 55.3 25.0 52.1 43.6 334 373
No of
employees
per company
4.2 5.1 2.5 3.4 5.7 3.7 2.5 51 53
Turnover per
employee
(in EUR 000)
141.9 53.5 100.5 84.7 49.4 122.0 64.8 1392 n/a
GVA per
employee
(in EUR 000)
41.3 10.1 20.6 13.5 9.2 29.3 10.9 306 n/a
Profit per
employee
(in EUR 000)
10.9 4.2 3.6 0.6 7.2 2.4 4.0 n/a n/a
Profitability
rate
27.0 38.1 19 2.0 52.0 9.0 36.1 n/a n/a

Source: EUROSTAT, DG Enterprise and Industry and national statistic offices.
*
Data 2010
**
Data 2009

The prospects of newly established companies to survive on the market
diminished, and so the share of companies that live through the first two years
of operating went down from 92.0% (2007) to 87.6% (2011), while the rate of
survival of shops fell from 66.2% to 55.4%. At the same time, unemployment
significantly increased, which leads to continued forced emigration, particularly
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
68
of the young and the educated. The global economic crisis has made an adverse
impact both on economic entities in the early stage of operating and on the
already established companies – there are fewer business opportunities and it is
more difficult to start a business.

Since the beginning of the crisis in the second half of 2008 the Slovene
business sector experienced an above average economic growth of annually 3 to
4%. In 2008, the Slovene gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in terms of
purchasing power reached 91% of the EU average and in 2009 a sharp slump
followed as a consequence of the financial and economic crisis. The GDP
shrunk by 8 %. Initially, weak positive growth was observed followed by a
slight deterioration in 2011. In the three years since the beginning of the
economic crisis Slovenia has been lagging behind the European average and the
difference rose by 7 percentage points. In comparison to the EU average, the
fall of the GDP per capita in 2009 generally resulted from a relatively larger fall
of productivity compared to the EU. In 2010, the unemployment rate adjusted to
the economic situation in a great extent (SIB, 2013).

The lack of fresh property and loan financing resources presents the
greatest risk for the economic recovery. Beside weak financial markets
weakened by a long-term debt and financial crisis in the euro area, other
obstacles in the way of recovery are the drop of the domestic demand and the
decline of demand on foreign markets, where the Slovene economy is
traditionally present. The Slovene economy is also too slow at accessing new,
growing world markets or is only indirectly present.

The number of business entities in Slovenia rose by 3,800 or 2.5 % in 2006
and in 2009 (the first year of the crisis) by 6,310 or for more than 5 %. In 2011,
more entries but also more deletions from the Slovenian Business Register were
recorded (the difference being 4,141 entities). In the year 2012, the positive
difference between new entries and deletions dropped to only 1,457 and that is
significantly less than in the period before the crisis.

A positive element are high growth companies, which were practically
responsible for the entire economic growth in the period 2006–2010, for the
overall increase in added value and all new workplaces in the Slovene economy.

As per Entrepreneurship Development Strategy (2013-2020), proposed by
the Croatian Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts, which measured the
number of enterprises, total employment in these companies and their value
added, small business sector in Croatia shows no significant differences in
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
69
relation to the EU. In Croatia, there is a total of 168,931 small business entities
(data for 2011, taken from Financial Agency’s (FINA) report on the financial
performance for 2011, the Trades/crafts registry at the Ministry of
Entrepreneurship and Crafts, and Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts).

The same source reports that, of these, 92.2% are micro enterprises (up to 9
employees), 6.3% are small businesses (10 to 49 employees) and medium-sized
enterprises amounted to 1.2%. The sum of these percentages shows that in
Croatia there are 99.7% of small business entities. Data for the EU Member
States (EU-27) show that there are 99.8% small businesses.

Employment in small enterprises in Croatia in 2010 amounted to 702,071,
or 69.83% (calculation based on data at FINA and administration of the Central
Bureau of Statistics for 2010) of total employment. Micro enterprises employed
26.06% of the total number of employees, small businesses 27.07% and
medium-sized 16.71%. Data for the EU-27 amounted to 67.5% of all small
businesses, and 20.6% for small businesses. Compared with the EU-27, a small
business in Croatia is more important for the creation of employment.

With regard to value added, small business sector in Croatia amounted to
58.9% of the 11 total value added in 2009, out of which micro businesses
created 20.3% of value added, small businesses 19.6 %, and medium-sized
enterprises contributed with 19.1%. If the same data is compared to those from
2008, when the total value added of the small business sector amounted to
57.1% (of which micro enterprises incurred 16.6% of value added, small
businesses 20.2%, and medium-sized ones 20.3%), it is evident that the
percentage of value added in this sector has increased thanks to the micro-
enterprises, which are the only continuing to give a positive contribution to the
value added. In the EU-27, the share of the small business sector amounted to
58.4% of value added produced by all companies and of these, micro-
enterprises to 21.5%, small businesses to 18.6% and medium-sized to 18.3%.

Small business sector in Croatia did not show significant differences with
respect to the same sector in the EU Member States with regard to the
composition and the importance of sub-sectors for the total number of
enterprises, the share of total employment and contribution to total value added.

In the period between 2001 and 2010, the density of small businesses per
1,000 population in Croatia has increased from 12.71% in 2001 to 22.47% in
2010, as a result of increasing the number of small businesses and a declining
population. The same data for the EU-27 average is 39.3%. The latest available
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
70
data also indicate that a significant percentage of the recorded number of small
enterprises in Croatia is not active (28.4%).

Although Croatia shows very similar characteristics to those of the EU in
terms of the share of small and medium enterprises in the total number of
companies and its contribution to employment and value added, it is necessary
to increase the number of active small and medium enterprises in the country.

2.2. The impact of the recession on the entrepreneurial sector

Before the outburst of the global economic crisis, the SME sector had been
the most vital segment of the economy and a major source of new jobs. Due to
general deterioration of business conditions, there was a considerable decrease
in the volume of employed labor and, consequently, a comparative
improvement of business performances relative to the number of employees.

Table 3. Performance indicators in the SME sector (growth rates)

Serbia Slovenia Croatia Montenegro
‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11
No. of
companies
3.7 1.2 0.2 4 2.5 3.1 n/a n/a -5.7 n/a -4.4 8.9
No. of
employees
-7.2 -6.6 -3.4 -4.9 -3.5 -2.1
-
3.6
-4.5 -1.4 4.8 -7.5 0.8
Turnover -14.7 0.3 0.2 -14.8 4.4 4.3 n/a -5.6 5.7 n/a n/a n/a
GVA -15.7 -1.4 -3.2 -8.6 -0.5 1.3 n/a -12.7 12 n/a n/a 4.5
Exports -8.9 15.9 6.0 -15.1 15.9 13.4 n/a 13.2 25.9 n/a n/a n/a
Imports -24.2 1.9 1.3 -24.5 13.8 11.6 n/a -29.2 14.3 n/a n/a n/a
Balance of
goods
-33.1 -9.1 -3.5 -37.9 -9.8 -8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: EUROSTAT, DG Enterprise and Industry and national statistic offices.

The recession tide (decline of external and internal demand, investments,
higher risks and costs of investment, as well as a fear of failure) hit the
entrepreneurial sector in Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro particularly
hard. Robust entrepreneurial dynamics of the previous period was undermined
(slower establishment, growth, and development of new enterprises, and faster
closing), and so the number of shops fell and the number of enterprises is
stagnating. -The research done on the basis of the GEDI index and its sub-
indexes relating to key dimensions of entrepreneurial activity in 2008-2010
point to strong negative effects of the crisis on the entrepreneurial climate in
SEE: deteriorated business conditions led to a decrease in perceived
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
71
opportunities for staring a new business, expansion of the fear of failure
(induced by higher investment risks) and a decline in social support for
entrepreneurial activities, coupled with more intensity of the market
competition. At the same time, the share of new companies in the sector of
medium and high technology is heavily decreasing, and chances for a company
to apply new technologies and to introduce innovations into business strategies
that ensure faster growth are slimmer. The degree of orientation of new
companies to an external market is in ever greater decline, and so is their
readiness to employ venture capital.

Data extracted from the Entrepreneurship Development Strategy for
Croatia 2013-2020 includes the following: SME share in GDP is 51.6%; the
number of small business entities: 168,931; the share of micro enterprises:
92.2%, of small businesses: 6.3% and of medium-sized companies: 1.2%; in
total, 99.7% of all businesses are small businesses (EU average: 99.8%); SME’s
contribution to the GDP is 50.6% (EU: 67%); the number of employees in 2010
was 702,071, which contributes with 68.83% to total employment (EU: 67.5%);
the share of value added (2009) was 58.9% (EU: 58.4%).

According to data from the 2012 Eurobarometer, 54% of the Croatian
population experiences self-employment as positive event (EU: 37%), but 80%
do not consider it feasible (EU: 67%). According to the same survey, 54% of
Croatian citizens want to be entrepreneurs (EU: 37%), a significant increase
compared to 2009 when 43% of Croatian citizens (EU: 45%) had a desire to be
self-employed.

2.3. The quality of entrepreneurship

Measuring the quality of entrepreneurship entails a study of various
dimensions of entrepreneurship development by states, the focus being on
measuring the impact of innovations, the quality of technology, education of
labor, and availability of the venture capital.

One of the most representative composite indicators for measuring the
quality of entrepreneurship is GEDI - Global Entrepreneurship Development
Index
2
. In particular, GEDI examines the effects of entrepreneurship and
innovations that are produced by individual and institutional factors.

2
Acs, Autio, and Szerb (2010, 2011, 2012). GEDI comprises three different entrepreneurship
dimensions: The entrepreneurial attitude (???); The entrepreneurial activity (ACT); The
entrepreneurial aspiration (ASP).
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
72

Figure 1. GEDI index

Source: GEDI 2012.

The value of GEDI is different from county to country: Serbia 0.18 (the
rank being 63), Romania and Macedonia (0.23), Montenegro 0.27, Hungary and
Croatia (0.29), Slovenia (0.42), Austria (0.46). The average value for SEE is
three times less than in Denmark (0.55). In the group of countries whose
development is driven by efficiency
3
, Serbia is at the bottom of the list – the
highest ranked country is Columbia (0.27), and the lowest value of GEDI is that
of Ecuador (0.15). In relation to the attained level of economic development, the
level of GEDI and all three sub-indicators (ATT, ACT, and ASP) in SEE
countries is low.

Sub-indicators of the dimension Entrepreneurial attitude show that the
deterioration of business conditions in Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro has led
to a reduction of perceived opportunities for starting a new business, growing
fear of failure (related to the amplification of investment risks), and a decline in
social support for entrepreneurial activities. In comparison with adjacent
countries and the EU average, a lower value of the sub-index Entrepreneurial

3
Average of the group “Stage 2 – Efficiency-driven Economies” (WEF).
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
73
attitude (0.29) is registered only in Bosnia and Herzegovina/BiH (0.21) and
Romania (0.22).

Figure 2. The quality of entrepreneurship in Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro

Source: GEDI 2012.

The trend of some sub-indexes of Entrepreneurial activity is extreme
decline: the share of new companies in the sector of medium and high
technology is heavily decreasing and opportunities of businesses to apply new
technology are tighter. Serbia and BiH have the lowest values of this sub-index
(0.14 each), while an above average value is that of Slovenia (0.46 vs. 0.44 of
the EU). As for the segment of Entrepreneurial aspiration, the degree of state-
of–the-art technology and innovation application is in decline, and so are
entrepreneurs’ chances to apply business strategies that provide faster growth,
the level of openness of new companies to the international market, as well as
the degree of venture capital usage. For example, the sub-indicator of the
internationalization degree of the SME sector in Serbia is only by 0.10 and 5-6
times lower than that of Romania (0.65), Croatia (0.60), Macedonia (0.50), and
Hungary (0.46).

Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
74
2.4. Policy of entrepreneurship development - SBA

The official framework for the policy of entrepreneurship development in
the European Union is based on the Small Business Act - SBA. The guidelines
for the creation and implementation of policies at the level of the EU and SBA
member states are defined in the form of 10 principles: creating a stimulating
environment that appreciates entrepreneurship and family business; providing
opportunities for the ‘second chance’ for honorable entrepreneurs that went
bankrupt; defining rules and regulations in line with the principle ‘think small
first’; building up of public administration that is more responsive to the needs
of SMEs; facilitating participation of SMEs in public procurement and better
use of state aid; facilitating the access of SMEs to sources of funding and
creating conditions for due payment of debts; providing assistance to SMEs so
that they would take full advantage of the common market; improving skills and
knowledge; encouraging innovations; facilitating eco-innovations, and SME’s
penetration into the emerging markets (especially those of China and India). All
the principles are backed by elaborate proposals for concrete actions and
activities, divided as commitments of the European Commission and
recommendations for member states. Since 2009, the SBA has been the
reference framework for policies of support for SMEs and Western Balkans
countries.

Figure 3. SME Policy Index in 2012

Source: OECD.

SBA is translated into practice through the monitoring of the SME Policy
Index which has been developed by most eminent global institutions such as the
OECD, European Commission, EBRD, and ETF (European Training Fund). On
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
75
the basis of the latest Report and the Index results, the rate of reforms has
slowed down:
? Various levels of economic development and the fact that some countries
have made greater progress in the process of EU accession have impacted
on opportunities for development and an effective implementation of SMEs
policies in a consistent and harmonized way.
? The global financial crisis diverted the attention of governments from
structural reforms of SME policies to short-term measures of support.

Table 4. Index of SME policy by areas in 2012

HR SR SI MNE
1. Education and training 3.25 2.25 2.5 2.5
2. Bankruptcy and second chance 3 2.75 2.75 3.75
3. Regulatory framework for SMEs’ policy
making
3.75 4 4 3.75
4. Operational environment 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
5a. Business support for SMEs and start-ups 4 3.5 2.5 3
5b. Public procurement 3 3 2.5 3.25
6. Access to finance for SMEs 3.5 3.75 2.5 3
7. Standards and technical regulation 4.25 4 3.75 2.75
8a. Enterprise skills 3.25 3 2.75 2.75
8b. Innovation policy 3.75 3.25 2.75 2
9. SMEs in a green economy 3.25 2.75 2.25
10. Internationalization of SMEs 4 4.25 2.75 3.25

Source: OECD.

The SEE countries are given the following recommendations:

? Working environment should be improved and targeted measures of
support for most dynamic enterprises designed and implemented. For
example, while the system of business registration is largely efficient, it
can be additionally improved by adjusting the company’s registration
number and expanding the online registration service that at the
moment is available only to entrepreneurs.
? Bankruptcy procedures should be made more efficient.
? The existing network of incubators should be reinforced and support for
them increased. Incubators need to be more oriented towards science-
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
76
based companies, i.e. high-quality services that provide greater value
and support for innovations.
? The promotion of green economy could generate new opportunities for
the SME sector, both in the country and on export markets. Eco-
efficiency and eco-innovations should be underlined as priorities in the
following SME strategies and linked to clear goals and measures.
? In the area of development of human capital, the role of higher
education institutions in the promotion of cooperation with the business
community, and the cross campus concept of entrepreneurial learning
need to be promoted.

3. RESEARCH RESULTS IN SLOVENIA, SERBIA AND CROATIA

Since the projects in Slovenia and Serbia used the same methodology, their
research results will be presented and compared in this chapter. In addition,
research results from the Croatian gazelles project
4
will be presented separately.

3.1. Methodological framework and initial results

The research of company’s growth is based on various methodological
concepts, which include most representative indicators such as: an increase in
total or business income, a newly created value, the number of employees, the
market value of a company, market shares, the value of goods or service brands,
company’s assets, etc. The paper promotes an entirely new methodological
concept of measuring the dynamic entrepreneurship in Serbia and Slovenia.

The criteria and indicators result from a continuous research into dynamic
entrepreneurship in Serbia (Jakopin, 2003 and 2008) and Slovenia (Pšeni?ny
2002 and 2012). The research is based on the quantitative analysis of growth of
all the companies in Serbia and Slovenia during the period 2005-2010. The
methodological framework for studying the dynamic entrepreneurship in 2005-
2010 was based on the following criteria that had to be met by rapidly growing
companies:
? They had more than 2 employees in 2010 or more than one employee
(this criterion refers to entrepreneurs);
? Their business income was higher than EUR 65000 (Serbia) and EUR
100000 (Slovenia) in 2010 (the border value represents average
business income in an economy);

4
Different criteria used.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
77
? Their GVA (newly created value – Gross Value Added) per employee
from 2006 to 2010 was larger than an average GVA per employee in
the economy;
? Their enterprise worked continuously over the analyzed period of 5
years;
? Their enterprise had at least the same number of employees in 2010 and
higher GVA in 2010 compared to 2006;
? They created at least twice as high average growth of business income
than created in economy over the period 2006-2010;
? The minimal cumulative profit was registered over the period 2006-
2010;
? Enterprises were not in majority ownership of the state (over 50%) on
December 31
st
2010;
? Enterprises dealing with the following activities were excluded: l – real
estate; o – public administration and defense, compulsory social
insurance; s – other services; t – household activities with employers;
various goods; u – extra-territorial organizations and institutions.

The listed criteria were met by 2,583 enterprises in Serbia in 2010, which
equaled 2.84% of the total number of enterprises in Serbia. In Slovenia,
following the same criteria 4,511 fast-growing companies or 3.55% of the total
number of enterprises, both value added and the number of employees grew
even during the economic crisis. These enterprises generated 26,000 jobs while
the economy lost 24,000 jobs in 5 years (2006-2010).

The methodological process of ascertaining gazelles in Serbia was based
on the well-known Birch’s indicator
5
(Birch, 1987), which analyzes changes to
the number of the employed, the newly created value, or their combination. The
application of the Birch’s indicator helped differentiate 300 gazelles in Serbia,
which is slightly more than 10% of dynamic enterprises.

In Croatia, somewhat different project aimed at identifying and promoting
the concept of gazelles and fast growing companies, was initiated in 2006
(?ori?, Meter & Bubli?, 2012). Croatian newspaper Business.hr launched the
study of fast growing companies (Croatian Gazelles) based on the growth

5
The Birch’s indicator aims to reduce the impact of a company’s size on the growth indicator,
and presents a combination of the proportional and absolute rise in employment: m=(X
i,t -
X
i,t0
)*
(X
i,t
/ X
i,t0
), whereby X
i,t
and X
i,t0
present the number of employees at the end and at the beginning
of the period of reference. The Birch’s indicator still depends on the size of the company, but the
degree of bias is lower in relation to the company’s size than with the proportional or absolute
measure of growth.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
78
criteria defined by achieving cumulative turnover growth of at least 20% (30%)
in the three preceding years. Since then, Business.hr researched the data of over
5000 Croatian Gazelles in 6 consecutive listings, provided by the national
financial agency FINA. The study was divided into six regions in Croatia.

Eligibility criteria for the selection among Croatian gazelles included the
following:
? The company operates three full calendar years with a cumulative profit
in all three years, provided that the profit is higher than 0 in the last
(upper) reference year ;
? The company is founded at the latest on January 1
st
of the year n-2
(lower reference year), and is still active;
? There are at least five employees in all these three years, and the
company was not employing 1,000 or more employees in the year n-2
? At least three final accounts were submitted to the national financial
agency for the years n-2, n-1 and n;
? Business income/turnover earned in the year n is at least 20% higher
than the business income earned in the year n-2 (in the first 4 listings,
the increase requirement was defined at 30%);
? Business income must be higher than HRK 3,000.000,00 in the year n-
2, but should not exceed HRK 500,000.000,00 in the year n;
? Company must be market-oriented (not to be a utility company or
institution);
? Financial institutions are excluded (due to different reporting
obligations);
? Clean record - the company and/or management were not subjects of
the open investigation(s), there were no verdicts against them for an
economic or other serious wrongdoing in the business, and there were
no doubts in the legality of the business.

Since 2010, when the additional criteria for establishing the priority in the
ranking of companies were introduced, the priority was given to the companies
that had growth in employment in the period of the three studied years,
according to the Birch index, representing the absolute difference in
employment between the upper and the lower (n-2) reference year,
multiplied by employment in the upper reference year, divided by employment
in the lower reference year.

In 2010, in addition to the concept of gazelles as fast-growing companies,
the concept of sustainable gazelles was introduced in the project Croatian
Gazelles. Sustainable gazelles are gazelles that were featured (ranked) amongst
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
79
the winning gazelles in all the listings since the commencement of the project in
2006, and thus showing outstanding performance and growth for 8 years.

Referring to data from 2010, 1,085 companies-gazelles created 12,827 jobs
between 2007-2009; on average, each company created 12 new jobs. However,
the data reported in the 2011 gazelle report showed a significant drop in
numbers: 976 gazelles created 6,767 new jobs between 2008 and 2010, which
makes only 7 new jobs per company.

3.2. Dynamic enterprises and the economic growth in Slovenia and
Serbia

Dynamic enterprises are present in all economies, both in the period of
growth and in the period of recession. Their maximum number is up to 5% of
all the enterprises, they report an above average increase in revenues and
employment, and they drive innovation and sustainable development. Each
economy should place its focus on these enterprises, encourage them, and
continually create conditions for their growth. According to research done over
the past ten years, dynamic enterprises have propelled economic growth of
Serbia.

During the period 2006-2010, in Serbia 2583 dynamic enterprises did
business, out of which 300 were gazelles (most dynamic enterprises) that during
the period of major global recession (first since the Great Depression in 1929)
in 2009 presented an economic buffer zone against the collapse of the economic
system; they generated an overall economic growth. The potential for growth of
dynamic enterprises is above average. In the period 2006-2010, 2583 rapidly
growing enterprises in Serbia:
? participated in the increase in business income of Serbia with 114.14%,
which means that these enterprises covered 14.14% of the loss of the
remaining segment of economy;
? generated 90% of the increase in newly created value in Serbia;
? generated all the profit in economy;
? created 33,000 new jobs in the economy (7.45% of overall employment
in the corporate sector), while in the corporate sector employment went
down by 108,000.

The survey in Slovenia (Pšeni?ny et.al., 2012), whose partial results are
presented in this article, shows that almost the total growth of net sales revenue
(EUR 8 million) in the 2006-2010 period was generated by only 4,511 or 3.55%
of all economic subjects. These enterprises generated 26,094 new jobs in five
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
80
years (a 46% increase compared to 2006), which was more than the loss of jobs
in the economy in the same five-year period.

Figure 4. Growth indicators for gazelles, dynamic enterprises and the corporate sector

Source: Authors’ calculations.

They increased value added by EUR 1.6 million (or by 71%), which equals
the total increase of value added in the 2006-2010 period. They increased the
value added per employee by 17%, however we need to stress that the average
value added per employee in 2010 in potential high growth enterprises stood at
EUR 47582, which is substantially above the economy's 2010 average that
stood at EUR 35152 per employee (Vidovi?, 2011). In the 2006–2010 period,
these 4511 enterprises:
? generated 23.7% of the total net sales revenue in the country,
? employed 16% of all the employees,
? held 16% of the total capital,
? paid out 18.7% of all salaries, and
? generated 21.8% of the total value added in the economy.

Almost the entire economic growth in 2006-2010 was generated in Serbia
by 2583 dynamic enterprises, i.e. 2.8% of all the enterprises, and by 4511
dynamic enterprises (3.55%) in Slovenia. This serves to confirm the well-
known Birch’s rule that at least 85% of economic growth and job creation in
any economy is generated by 5% of enterprises at the most.

Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
81
3.3. The overall growth in Croatia and dynamic entrepreneurship

The study Diagnosis of Growth, particularly its component Is there an
Entrepreneurial Deficit in Croatia
6
? (as per Bi?ani?, 2012; and Šoši?, 2012)
showed that Croatian companies often roam between profit and loss, and that
the growth was concentrated in a very small number of businesses.

It turned out that the fast-growing enterprises (gazelles) in the period from
1995 to 2009 on average accounted for about 2-6% of the total number of active
firms, but their share in employment was between 10 and 20%. In addition, in
the analyzed period, these companies generated almost the entire increase in net
employment.

The study identified that the gazelles on average were more productive
than other firms and had significant indirect effects on the companies in which
they operated, and their efficiency. After the initial phase of fast growth,
gazelles retained higher rate of productivity and thus also affected the
productivity of the economy. These results suggest that among the fast-growing
businesses in Croatia the prevalent type of productive entrepreneurship and the
success of these companies in most cases does not depend on administrative
barriers that would affect their competition.

Whatever the conclusion might be, as the research leaves the story open
without confirmed conclusions, the gazelles can be considered to be a group
large enough to affect the outcome, which is successful without being a part of
clients' networks and corruption and, last but not least, their success is probably
not related to the political model.

4. RISKS

4.1. National competitiveness decline trend

Before the outbreak of the economic crisis, economic growth in Serbia had
been increasing by 23% per year (IMF) and getting closer to the SEE average.
GDP per capita decreased in 2009 and 2010 (on average by 11%) but in 2011
Serbia again saw growth of 11%, which was not sufficient to get to the level
before the start of the crisis (of all the adjacent countries Macedonia and
Montenegro managed to achieve this).

6
In Croatian: Postoji li u Hrvatskoj poduzetni?ki deficit?
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
82
Table 5. Indicators of international competitiveness

Serbia Croatia Slovenia Montenegro
Competitive-
-ness pillars
R
a
n
k

2
0
1
2
/

2
0
0
7

E
u
=
1
0
0

R
a
n
k

2
0
1
2
/

2
0
0
7

E
u
=
1
0
0

R
a
n
k

2
0
1
2
/

2
0
0
7

E
u
=
1
0
0

R
a
n
k

2
0
1
2
/

2
0
0
7

E
u
=
1
0
0

GCI 95 102.3 81.7 81 96.2 85.3 56 96.8 91.6 72 106.1 87.5
Sub-index A:
BASIC
REQ’S.
95 99.1 80.1 60 101.9 90.5 39 99.0 97.4 74 100.3 86.6
1
st
pillar:
Institutions
130 93.7 69.6 98 91.2 77.6 58 91.0 89.1 44 118.8 96.5
2
nd
pillar:
Infrastructure
77 139.2 73.7 44 117.8 90.7 35 113.7 95.7 66 145.3 79.1
3
rd
pillar:
Macro-
-economic
environment
115 84.9 81.3 60 99.0 98.6 50 90.3 102.5 118 71.3 79.9
4
th
pillar:
Health and
primary
education
66 94.9 92.1 60 100.6 93.4 24 102.1 101.1 73 94.3 90.9
Sub-index B:
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
88 107.7 81.5 72 100.3 85.2 55 96.5 90.2 74 110.7 84.7
5
th
pillar:
Higher
education and
training
85 108.8 77.4 56 103.8 87.2 23 102.3 101.4 51 124.7 90.3
6
th
pillar:
Goods market
efficiency
136 101.1 77.0 114 93.9 83.0 49 95.5 95.2 48 113.8 95.3
7
th
pillar:
Labor market
efficiency
100 104.6 89.9 106 91.2 89.0 91 93.6 92.4 93 93.7 92.1
8
th
pillar:
Financial
market
development
100 98.5 83.8 92 89.0 86.5 128 70.4 75.0 40 94.5
102.
4
9
th
pillar:
Technological
readiness
58 122.8 77.9 50 126.0 82.8 34 115.5 94.0 56 117.7 78.7
10
th
pillar:
Market size
67 112.4 82.9 71 103.6 81.4 78 105.4 78.9 130 158.2 47.4
Sub-index C:
INNOVATIO
N FACTORS
124 89.6 68.6 83 90.0 78.7 36 95.6 93.1 69 112.2 82.7
11
th
pillar:
Business
sophistication
132 88.3 67.5 96 89.2 79.4 53 89.8 90.6 76 104.2 83.0
12
th
pillar:
Innovation
111 91.1 67.6 74 91.1 75.2 32 102.7 92.8 60 123.1 79.7
Source: WEF - Global Competitiveness Report 2012/2013.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
83
The global barometer of competitiveness (World Economic Forum), which
includes 114 countries, ranks Serbia 95
th
, and by GDP per capita of USD 6081
places it at the foot of the group of 33 countries (Stage 2 – Efficiency-driven
economies) that by improving efficiency aim for economic growth and an
improved competitiveness position overall. Almost all of the countries in the
region are in the second stage of development except for Hungary (60) and
Croatia (81) that are moving to the group of the most robust economies that
already includes Slovenia (56) with GDP per capita of USD 24533.

For years, the competitiveness of Serbian economy has been stagnating and
structural changes have been delayed, which is why the country fails to reach
higher ranks in the global rankings that other SEE countries have. In this stage
of development, Serbia should strive to develop its own production processes
and upgrade the quality of its products through constant enhancement of high
education, professional training of the workforce, and the ability to use
available technologies so that eventually the price of work and the standard of
living would go up. However, the prerequisite for boosting efficiency and
transiting to innovative development in order to generate high productivity are
solid institutions (pillar 1) and competent pursuit of macroeconomic policy
(pillar 3), and with respect to these Serbia lags behind other countries a lot.
These two pillars, apart from innovations (pillar 12), have registered the
steepest drop in rankings compared to the year before.

Croatia's ranking for 2012 in the Global Competitiveness Report 2012-
2013 dropped by five places compared to 2011. This year's real decline of four
positions compared to 2011 puts Croatia in 81st place out of 144 countries.
Since 2002, when it was first included in these rankings, Croatia's results in the
competitiveness rankings have oscillated, registering improvements from 2005
to 2007 and then a continuous decline from 2008 to 2012. Croatia's results this
year show the decline in infrastructure (44th) and in technological readiness
(50th). In addition, the results in health and primary education (60th) continue
to be a concern, while higher education (56th), goods market efficiency (114th)
and market size (71st) are stagnating. The rankings for those pillars of
competitiveness in which Croatia was already falling behind continued to
deteriorate – financial market development (92nd), business sophistication
(96th), and institutions (98th). The decline in the evaluation of innovation (74th)
was halted, while there was an improvement in the evaluation of labor market
efficiency (106th), but it continues to be at a very low level. The improvement
in the pillar for macroeconomic environment (60th) is simply due to changes in
methodology.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
84
In the last few years, the international competitiveness of Slovenia has
deteriorated. The ranking of Slovenia on various indexes, such as WEF - World
Economic Forum, IMD (International Institute for Management Development)
World Competitiveness ranking, Doing Business, GEM – Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, EIS – Europe Innovation Scoreboard, has either
stagnated or declined. The reasons for this can be found in difficult financing
conditions, the inefficient labor market, the ineffectiveness of the rule of law,
smaller foreign investments, the high tax burden on employment as well as the
current development of the business innovation environment.

In the framework of the WEF survey, in the years 2012 and 2013 Slovenia
was placed 56 among a total of 144 economies, which means Slovenia gained 1
position compared to the previous year but lost 11 positions compared to two
years before. Slovenia was well positioned in the pillars higher education and
training as well as health and primary education, followed by the pillars
innovation, technological readiness, and goods market efficiency. The most
problematic areas of Slovene competitiveness in the last three years were (i)
financial market efficiency and (ii) labor market efficiency. According to the
survey’s findings, access to financing is the biggest obstacle for business
activities, followed by inefficiency of governmental administration, stiff labor
legislation, tax rates, and tax regulations. Some of the 13 most critical areas for
raising competitiveness are: protection of small shareholders, the scale of
market domination, brain drain, efficiency of legal procedures, and efficiency of
the anti-monopoly policy (see Table 6).

Table 6. The most critical competitive fields

Competitive fields according to WEF
Global rank out of 144 countries
SI SR HR MNE
Protection of minority shareholders’ interests 126 143 120 65
Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes 126 138 137 51
Efficiency of corporate boards 122 141 127 93
Burden of government regulation 124 136 139 33
Extent of market dominance 71 142 117 59
Effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy 64 142 90 87
Intensity of local competition 41 137 120 114
Buyer sophistication 108 138 116 88
Brain drain 83 141 126 60
Cooperation in labor-employer relations 114 139 133 109
Availability of latest technologies 78 142 77 100
Nature of competitive advantage 35 134 43 59
Willingness to delegate authority 47 139 109 41
Source: WEF - Global Competitiveness Report 2012/2013.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
85
In addition to the date presented in Tables 5 and 6, some of the significant
declines have happened in Croatia (agricultural policy costs - 143), Slovenia
(Hiring and firing - 142, soundness of banks - 137), Montenegro (all indicators
in the 10th pillar of the market size - 130).

Common areas of the most critical fields for all four states are presented in
bold. They include data on protection of small shareholders’ interests, law
efficiency in legal procedures, efficiency of state corporations, burden of
government regulation and worker-employer working relation.

4.2. Improvement of the business environment

By conditions for doing business (World Bank, Doing Business 2013),
Serbia is ranked 86th in the rankings of 185 countries. Of all the European
countries, Serbia is better positioned only than Ukraine (137), BiH (126),
Russia (112), and Malta (102). Although in 2011 Serbia made some positive
reform steps (it promoted conditions for doing business in segments of starting
a business, enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency), Serbia has not seen a
marked improvement in the business environment whereas some countries
managed to promote operations and alleviate effects of the global economic
crisis through faster structural reforms.

The lowest rank and 179th position Serbia occupies with respect to the
process of obtaining licenses and various permits (for construction, electricity
access, telephone, permits from various inspectorates, etc.). Although it
improved its performances in this area (the number of procedures went down by
2, the number of days by 10, and costs by 11%), other countries develop much
faster with respect to creating conditions for attracting potential investors, and
thus the low rank is further lowered.

A very low rank of Serbia is induced by high costs of issuing construction
permits although they have a declining trend, viewed by years. While in the EU
on average it takes 99% of the GNI per capita (most in Ireland, 626%, and least
in Hungary, 6%), in Serbia entrepreneurs need to pay a 14 times higher value
than the value of the GNI/capita or 1.427% (only 11 countries located out of
Europe face higher costs), while in countries located out of the EU costs stand
at: in Montenegro 1.170%, in Bosnia 1.102%, in Croatia 573%, and in
Macedonia 518% of the GNI per capita.

Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
86
Table 7. Poorer conditions for doing business

Serbia Croatia Slovenia Montenegro
Doing business
2013 2
0
1
1

2
0
1
2

?

2
0
1
1

2
0
1
2

?

2
0
1
1

2
0
1
2

?

2
0
1
1

2
0
1
2

?

BUSINESS
CONDITIONS,
rank
95 86 9 80 84 -4 35 35 0 57 51 6
Dealing with
construction
permits, rank
178 179 -1 141 143 -2 61 61 0 175 176 -1

Procedures
(number)
18 18 12 12 n/a 11 11 n/a 16 16 n/a n/a
Time (days) 279 269 317 317 n/a 197 197 n/a 267 267 n/a n/a
Cost (% of
income per
capita)
1.60
3
1.427 591.1 573.3 n/a 64.9 65.3 n/a 1469.9 1169.6 n/a n/a
Paying taxes, rank 145 149 -4 47 42 5 80 63 17 119 81 38

Payments
(number)
66 66 18 18 n/a 22 11 n/a 42 29 n/a n/a
Time (hour) 279 279 196 196 n/a 260 260 n/a 372 320 n/a n/a
Income tax (%) n/a 11.6 n/a 11.3 n/a n/a 14.1 n/a n/a 7.1 n/a n/a
Taxes and
contributions for
employees (%)
n/a 20.2 n/a 19.4 n/a n/a 18.2 n/a n/a 12.8 n/a n/a
Other taxes (%) n/a 2.2 n/a 2 n/a n/a 2.4 n/a n/a 2.5 n/a n/a
Total tax rate
(% profit)
34 34 32.9 32.8 n/a 34.7 34.7 n/a 22.3 22.3 n/a n/a

Source: The World Bank Group, Doing Business 2013

In the year 2012, as well as the year before, the World Bank survey “Doing
Business”, which analyses the regulations of doing business in individual
countries, ranked Slovenia as the35
th
among the 183 surveyed economies, what
represents a relatively high position. Most obvious is that Slovenia gained 16
positions in 2011; this is a consequence of the changed methodology (the
indicator “employment”, where Slovenia achieved a very low position, has been
removed). The county’s decline is a result of an even deeper credit crunch,
which slows down financing and growth (SIB, 2013).

5. CONCLUSION

If backed up by a favorable, supportive atmosphere for entrepreneurship,
dynamic enterprises in Southeastern Europe could catch up with their
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
87
counterparts abroad in ten years' time. However, among factors for growth, the
most critical in the four studied countries are: environmental barriers,
management systems and financing. As state capacities should act as an
enabling factor and thus support entrepreneurship and growth in all sectors, it is
necessary to direct them and produce incentive mechanisms capable to
strengthen entrepreneurship in all stages and types of entrepreneurial
development, not only in those of individual entrepreneurs.

The analysis of conditions for dynamic entrepreneurship, doing business in
four countries and sharing of initial results of the stable performance of
sustainable gazelles during these years in respective countries, produced an
additional proof that the authors should continue with exchange of information,
experiences and sharing the results of projects in these countries. This should
serve as a platform for improving studies of gazelles as real job creators and
launching a joint study in order to benefit from mutual comparisons, exchange
of best practices and lessons learned from mistakes. The authors should also
continue their search for sustainable growers, business excellence of gazelles,
and enablers of sustainable growth. The understanding of particular reasons and
driving forces behind sustainable fast-growing companies should be deepened,
so that the slowdown factors will result in creating a range of strategies and a
large variety of options for achieving stability and dealing with issues such as
lack of demand, turnaround factors, recession, growth in unemployment, etc.

Recessionary waves had an impact on reducing demand in the whole
Southeastern Europe, which consequently affected the increase in
unemployment. The model of growth based on domestic demand is exhausted
(very high fiscal deficit, high public debt, problems with restraining inflation,
etc.). After fiscal consolidation, economic policy makers have no possibility to
achieve further growth, but must focus on finding new sources of growth -
especially exports, for which it is necessary to start production. It should be
stressed that structural reforms and constantly delayed reform of the public
sector are of equal importance of. It seems that the growth model based on
exports mostly depend on the export possibilities of dynamic companies in the
manufacturing industry.

Understanding weaknesses of the present environment(s), the effectiveness
of the past and current support programs, and identifying upcoming trends,
should improve the effectiveness of forecasting scenarios for future
development of gazelles, their impact and flexibility, and thus provide better
conditions for higher quality dynamic entrepreneurship in all four countries.

Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
88
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship and
Development Index 2013. London, Edward Elgar, ISBN:978 1 84980 844 6
2. Bi?ani?, I. (2012). Generiranje postojanog rasta u Hrvatskoj u silaznoj fazi
gospodarskog ciklusa, in 3. Zagreba?ki ekonomski forum 2012. Zagreb:
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Retrieved 30.11.2012, fromhttp://www.fes.hr/E-
books/pdf/ZEF3_web.pdf
3. Birch, L. D. (1987). Job Creation in America: How our smallest companies
put the most people to work, New York: Free Press Macmillan.
4. Chouhan, V., Vasita, M. L., & Vyas, D.K. (2012). Entrepreneurship
challenges and Opportunities: Indian Scenario. Retrieved 30.11.2012, fromhttp://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/articles/
entrepreneurship-challenges-and-opportunities-indian-scenario.html.
5. ?ori?, G., Meter, J. & Bubli?, V. (2012). Evidence from the Project
Croatian Gazelles – Promotion of Sustainable Growth, Revija Mednarodno
inovativno poslovanje, 4 (2), Retrieved fromhttp://journal.doba.si/
letnik_4_%282012%29_st__2?aid=451&m=1
6. ?ori?, G., Senegovi?, I. & Beki?, I. (2012). The Significance of Education
Programs for Dynamic Entrepreneurship in Maximizing Regional
Competitiveness, in Revija Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje. Letnik 4
(2012), #2 (ISSN 1855-6175).
7. EIM (2011). Do SME`s create more and better jobs? The report prepared
for the European Commission under the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme 2007-2013, Retrieved 7.2.2013, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/
enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/pdf/do-
smes-create-more-and-better-jobs_en.pdf
8. Europe’s 500, GrowthPlus, Retrieved 16.2.2013, fromhttp://www.
europes500.eu/index.html
9. European Commission (2011). SME`s Access to Finance Survey. December
2011.
10. EUROSTAT, DG Enterprise and Industry and national statistic offices
11. Gabe, T. M. (2000). Economic Development Incentive and Enterprise
Growth (Firm Learning). The Ohio State University, ProQuest, Digital
dissertations.
12. Garnsey, E. (1998). A Theory of the Early Growth of the Firm. New York:
Oxford University Press.
13. Garnsey, E. (2002). The growth of new ventures: analysis after Penrose, in
Pitelis, C. (Ed.): The growth of the firm: the legacy of Edith Penrose,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.101-125
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
89
14. Global Entrepreneurship Development Index, Retrieved 27.2.2013, fromhttp://www.thegedi.org
15. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston:
MA, Harvard Business School Press.
16. Hayek, F.A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society, American Economic
Review, 35: pp. 519-530.
17. Hennessy, Ph. (2012). A Framework of Knowledge Management For
Higher Education Business Incubation, in Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice, Vol. 13, No. 1. Limerick Institute of Technology,
Tipperary, Ireland. Retrieved 27.2.2013, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/
enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/pdf/do-
smes-create-more-and-better-jobs_en.pdf
18. Itami, H. & Numagami ,T. (1992). Dynamic interaction between strategy
and technology, in Strategic management Journal, 13, pp. 119-135.
19. Jakopin, E. & Bajec, J. (2012). Structural transformations – a development
imperative, in Ekonomika preduze?a, 1-2: pp. 79-93.
20. Jakopin, E. & Tonti?, S. (2012). Transition Effects on the Development of
Dynamic Entrepreneurship - The Case of Serbia, in Revija Mednarodno
inovativno poslovanje. Letnik 4 (2012), #2 (ISSN 1855-6175)
21. Jakopin, E. (2003). Srpske gazele. Beograd: Republi?ki zavod za razvoj.
22. Jakopin, E. (2008). Srpske gazele. Beograd: Republi?ki zavod za razvoj.
23. Kor, Y. Y. & Mahoney, J. T. (2000) Penrose‘s resource-based approach:
The process and product of research creativity, Journal of Management
Studies, 37(1): pp. 109-139.
24. Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T. & Michael, S. C. (2005). Resources,
Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Perceptions. Retrieved 30.11.2012, fromhttp://www.business.uiuc.edu/Working_Papers/papers/05?0120.pdf
25. Mahoney, J.T. (1995) The management of resources and the resource of
management, in Journal of Business Research, 33: pp. 91–101.
26. Martin, R. & Martin, D. (2010). The Risk Takers: 16 Women and Men Who
Built Great Businesses Share Their Entrepreneurial Strategies For Success.
Philadelphia: Vanguard Press
27. Mei-Pochtler, A. (1999). Strategies for Growth, Edinburgh: Europe's 500.
28. Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts (MEC Croatia) (2013).
Entrepreneurship Development Strategy 2013.-2020 (draft). Retrieved
6.3.2013 from,http://www.minpo.hr/UserDocsImages/STRATEGIJA
RAZVOJA%20PODUZETNI%C5%A0TVA_PRVI%20NACRT_06%2003
%202013_javna%20rasprava.pdf
29. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation,
in Organisation Science, 5 (1): pp. 14-37.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
90
30. OECD (2012). SME Policy Index: Western Balkans and Turkey 2012 –
Progress in the Implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.oecd.org/daf/psd/smepolicyindexwestern
balkansandturkey2012.htm
31. Penrose, E.T., (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
32. Porter, M. E. (1996). What Is Strategy, in Harvard Business Review,
November- December, pp. 59-79.
33. Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the
corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), pp. 79–91.
34. Pšeni?ny, V. (2002). [Pogoji in možnosti za dinami?no podjetništvo v
Sloveniji], Conditions and Opportunities for Dynamic Entrepreneurship in
Slovenia. Unpublished doctoral Thesis, Ljubljana: Faculty of Economics.
35. Pšeni?ny, V. (2008). 5000 hitro rasto?ih podjetij je ustvarilo velik del rasti.
Ljubljana, in Dnevnik, special edition, Gazela.
36. Pšeni?ny, V. (2009). A Longitudinal Comparison of the Growth Factors of
Slovenian fast growing enterprises, Economic and Business Review, 11 (4),
pp. 265–283
37. Pšeni?ny, V., Ma?ek, A., Vidovi?, D., Novak, R., (2012). [Podjetja z
visokim potencialom rasti 2012. Poro?ilo o raziskavi, 1. in 2. Faza], in High
Growth Potential Firms 2012. Research Report, 1
st
and 2
nd
Phase, Maribor:
DOBA Faculty.
38. Roure, J. (1999). Europe's Most Dynamic Entrepreneurs: The 1998 Job
Creators. Brussels: Europe's 500, p. 10
39. SIB (2013). Slovene Industry Policy, Ministry of Economic Development
and Technology of Republic Slovenia.
40. Stenholm, P. & Toivonen, J. (2009). The attributes of firm growth – why
and why not a firm does grow, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
29 (13) pp. 2-9
41. Sveiby, K.E. (2001). A knowledge- based theory of the firm to guide in
strategy formulation, in Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2 (4), pp. 344-358.
42. Szerb, L., Aidis, R. & Ács, Z. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship in Hungary in
the 2006-2010 time period. MEB 2012, 10th International Conference,
Budapest (June 1-2, 2012).
43. Šoši?, V. (2012). Poduzetništvo u Hrvatskoj: Gdje su najslabije karike? in
3. Zagreba?ki ekonomski forum 2012. Zagreb: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Retrieved 30.11.2012, fromhttp://www.fes.hr/E-books/pdf/ZEF3_web.pdf.
44. Vidovi?, D. (2011) AJPES Processing – Database of Annual Reports for
the Years 2006 through 2010. Maribor: The Ministry of the Economy of the
Republic of Slovenia
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
91
45. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the Firm, in Strategic
Management Journal, 5 (2), April–June, pp. 171–180.
46. Williamson, O. (1996). The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford University
Press.
47. Winkelen, V. & McKenzie, J. (2011). Knowledge Works. New York: Wiley
& Sons.
48. World Bank Group (2013). Doing Business 2013: Smarter Regulations for
Small and Medium-Size Enterprises. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9615-5. License: Creative Commons Attribution
CC BY 3.0
49. World Economic Forum (2012). Global Competitiveness Report 2012/2013.
Geneva: World Economic Forum retrieved 15.5.2014, fromhttp://www3.
weforum.orgdocs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf

DINAMI?NO PODUZETNIŠTVO – GENERATOR ODRŽIVOG
EKONOMSKOG RASTA I KONKURENTNOSTI

Sažetak

Brzorastu?a poduze?a (gazele) su glavni kreatori novih poslova, rasta prihoda i
dinami?nog, konkurentnog gospodarstva. Ovaj rad analizira: (a) uvjete za dinami?no
poduzetništvo u Hrvatskoj, Crnoj Gori, Srbiji i Sloveniji te (b) nedavne studije
dinami?nog poduzetništva (poduze?a – gazela) u navedenim državama. S obzirom da
autori kreiraju novo istraživanje gazela (na temelju iste metodologije i kriterija izbora),
koje ?e se simultano provesti u sve ?etiri države tijekom 2014. godine, tre?a sadržajna
odrednica ovog rada je i (c) rasprava o navedenoj inicijativi i njezinim po?etnim
rezultatima. Stalni rast dinami?nih poduze?a/gazela i njihov pove?ani udjel u
gospodarstvu je nezaobilazan analiti?ki instrument za predvi?anje budu?eg
gospodarskog rasta. Kako bi se definirao pozitivno, podržavaju?e okruženje za
dinami?no i održivo poduzetništvo, autori analiziraju institucionalnu i regulatornu
okolinu, razinu znanja poduzetnika, pristup financiranju, poticaje za uvo?enje
suvremene tehnologije/inovacije/internacionalizacije, itd. Autori su, tako?er, pratili
trendove kretanja indeksa razvoja poduzetništva, poduzetni?ke aktivnosti i
konkurentnosti za sve ?etiri zemlje. S obzirom da je integralni pilot projekt ve?
implementiran u Sloveniji 2011. godine, pri ?emu se došlo do nekoliko zaklju?aka,
autori su analizirali temeljne karakteristike brzorastu?ih poduze?a i razlike izme?u
?imbenika rasta, koje su djelovale na rastu?a slovenska poduze?a te usporedila
odgovaraju?e rezultate u sve ?etiri države. Me?u ?imbenicima koji djeluju na rast, u
Sloveniji su kao najkriti?niji pokazali: zapreke u okruženju te sustavi menadžmenta i
financiranja, zbog ?ega su navedeni ?imbenici posebno prou?eni i u ostalim trima
državama. Nadalje, stope rasta dinami?nih poduze?a se uspore?uju s drugim europskim
državama, na temelju ?ega se može zaklju?iti koliko je vremena gazelama iz
jugoisto?ne Europe potrebno da dosegnu zaostatak za sli?nim stranim poduze?ima.
Management, Vol. 19, 2014, 1, pp. 61-92
V. Pšeni?ny, E. Jakopin, Z. Vuk?evi?, G. ?ori?: Dynamic entrepreneurship – generator of…
92
Najvažniji rezultati istraživanja i njegovog djelovanja na razli?ite zemlje služe kao
temelj za preporuke, kojima ?e se bolje djelovati na fenomene dinami?nog
poduzetništva, održivog rasta i pove?anja konkurentnosti.

doc_377539591.pdf