Measuring entrepreneurship and optimizing entrepreneurship policy efforts in the European Union
Loading...
Date
2016
Authors
Páger, Balázs
Szerb, László
Komlósi, Éva
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
In this article we provide a brief review of how entrepreneurship policies have evolved and which implied conceptions of entrepreneurship underlie attempts to measure the phenomenon. We propose that a major shortcoming in policy thinking is the insufficient recognition that entrepreneurship, at a country level, is a systemic phenomenon and should be approached as such. To address this gap, we propose the concept of National Systems of Entrepreneurship (NSE) that recognizes the systemic nature of country-level entrepreneurship, and also recognizes that, although embedded in a country-level context, entrepreneurial processes are fundamentally driven by individuals. We then explain how the Global Entrepreneurship Index methodology is designed to profile National Systems of Entrepreneurship. We apply the Penalty for Bottleneck (PFB)methodology to examine the entrepreneurial performance of the European Union (EU). Comparing the EU and US entrepreneurship scores, Europe is seemingly lagging behind the US. According to the GEI scores, the EU countries reveal considerable differences in their entrepreneurial performance. Moreover, in EU member countries even larger differences over the 14 pillars of entrepreneurship prevail. In addition to highlighting bottleneck factors, the index also provides rough indications of how much a country should seek to alleviate a given bottleneck. While there are numerous ways to improve entrepreneurship in the EU and its member states, we analyze only one simple situation. An important implication of the analysis is that uniform policy does not work, and the EU member states should apply different policy mixes to achieve the same improvement in the GEI points.
Description
Keywords
vállalkozások - Európai Unió , vállalkozások , vállalkozáspolitika
Citation
CESIFO DICE Report 14: (3) pp. 8-23. (2016)