Main Article Content
Research background: Entrepreneurship issues in the transition economies have attracted growing attention from scholars in recent years. However, the debate over the value of entrepreneurship in reinforcing structural change is still incomplete. The need for a more thorough approach is noticeable, taking into account drivers which determine entrepreneurial activity in the transition economies. The findings may be useful for recognising opportunities and threats of the development of these economies.
Purpose of the article: This paper extends research on entrepreneurship in the transition economies by considering drivers of entrepreneurial activity. The aim of the paper is to investigate what drivers have their consequences for entrepreneurial activity in the Visegrad countries. As the Visegrad countries represent a unique context, because they faced a similar structure at the beginning of the transition process, a valuable insight can be gained by focusing on them.
Methods: Hypothesis development is based on the literature review. Fixed effects panel regression was employed for hypothesis testing. Panel data consists of 440 observations for the Visegrad countries for the 2004–2014 period. To control for autocorrelation and hetero-scedasticity, Durbin-Watson test and Wald statistic were used, respectively.
Findings & Value added: This paper contributes to the existing literature by pre-senting an analysis of drivers having their impact on entrepreneurial activity in the Visegrad countries. It provides new insights on understanding of the entrepreneur-ship issues in the transition economies. The main finding is that entrepreneurial activity in the Visegrad countries is determined significantly by the economy struc-ture and human capital. However, the signif-icance and the intensity of these effects are different. The findings may be interesting for policymakers in particular. Shifting from general entrepreneurship support towards a focus on promoting entrepreneurial behaviour among high-skilled workers should be considered. Fostering networking, collaboration and internalisation should be regarded for knowledge transfer and spillover enhancement.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Armington, C., & Acs, Z. C.( 2002). The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Regional Studies, 36(1). doi: 10.1080/00343400120099843.
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 23. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.006.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship and regional growth: an evolutionary interpretation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5). doi: 10.1007/s00191-004-0228-6.
Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8). doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.012.
Bartosiewicz, S. (Ed.) (1980). Metody ekonometryczne. Przykłady i zadania. Warszawa: PWE.
Benneworth, P. (2004). In what sense ‘regional development?’: entrepreneurship, underdevelopment and strong tradition in the periphery. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(6). doi: 10.1080/0898562042000249786.
Bosma, N., Van Stel, A., & Suddle, K. (2008). The geography of new firm formation: evidence from independent startups and new subsidiaries in the Netherlands. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2). doi: 10.1007/s11365-007-0058-8.
Bosma, N., & Schutjens, V. (2011). Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe. Annals of Regional Studies, 47(3). doi 10.1007/s00168-010-0375-7.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007. 00213.x.
Drejer, I., & Vinding, A.L. (2007). Searching near and far: determinants of innovative firms’ propensity to collaborate across geographical distance. Industry and Innovation, 14(3). doi: 10.1080/13662710701369205.
Dvouletý, O., & Mareš, J. (2016). Relationship between unemployment and entrepreneurial activity: evidence found among Visegrad countries. In Innovation Management, Entrepreneurship and Corporate Sustainability (IMECS 2016). Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze.
Erkut, B. (2016). Entrepreneurship and economic freedom: do objective and subjective data reflect the same tendencies? Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(3). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2016.040302.
Fabuš, M. 2017. Current development of business environment in Slovakia and Czech Republic. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(1). doi: 10.9770/jesi.2017.5.1(10).
Fritsch, M. (1997). New firms and regional employment change. Small Business Economics, 9(5). doi: 10.1023/A:1007942918390.
Fritsch, M., Bublitz, E., Sorgner, A., & Wyrwich, M. (2014). How much of a socialist legacy? The re-emergence of entrepreneurship in the East German transformation to a market economy. Small Business Economics, 43(2). doi: 10.1007/s11187-014-9544-x.
Fritsch, M. & Falck, O. (2007). New business formation by industry over space and time: a multidimensional analysis. Regional Studies, 41(2). doi: 10.1080/00343400600928301.
Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2016). The effect of entrepreneurship on economic development — an empirical analysis using regional entrepreneurship culture. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(1). doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbv049.
Gubik, A. S., & Wach, K. (Ed.) (2014). International entrepreneurship and corporate growth in Visegrad countries. Miskolc: University of Miskolc.
Gries, T., & Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation. Small Business Economics, 34(1). doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9192-8.
Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016). Drivers of women entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries: GEM evidence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.476.
Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship and the determinants of firm survival within regions: human capital, growth motivation and locational conditions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(3-4). doi: 10.1080/08985626.2016.1271830.
Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1). doi: 10.1007/ s11187-015-9643-3.
Ireland, R. D., Tihanyi, L., & Webb, J. W. (2008). A tale of two politico-economic systems: implications for entrepreneurship in Central and Eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00218.x
Ivanová, E. (2017). Barriers to the development of SMEs in the Slovak Republic. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(2), doi: 10.24136/oc.v8i2.16.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3). doi: 10.1086/261763.
Kshetri, N. (2009). Entrepreneurship in post-socialist economies: a typology and institutional contexts for market entrepreneurship. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(3). doi: 10.1007/s10843-009-0039-9.
Manolova, T. S., Eunni, R. V., & Gyoshev, B. S. (2008). Institutional environments for entrepreneurship: Evidence from emerging economies in Eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1/9). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00222.x.
McMillan, J., & Woodruff, C. (2002). The central role of entrepreneurs in transition economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3).
Pietrzak, M. B., Balcerzak, A. P., Gajdos, A., & Arendt, Ł.(2017a). Entrepreneurial environment at regional level: the case of Polish path towards sustainable socio-economic development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), doi: 10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(2).
Reynolds, P., Miller, B., & Maki, W. R. (1995). Explaining regional variation in business births and deaths: U.S. 1976–88. Small Business Economics, 7(5). doi: 10.1007/BF01302739.
Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2001). The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. Small Business Economics, 16(4), doi: 10.1023/A: 1011159216578.
Smallbone, D., Welter, F., Voytovich, A., & Egorov, I. (2010). Government and entrepreneurship in transition economies: the case of small firms in business services in Ukraine. Service Industries Journal, 30(5). doi: 10.1080/026420 60802253876.
Stoica, C. A. (2004). From good communists to even better capitalists? Entrepreneurial pathways in post-socialist Romania. East European Politics and Societies, 18(2). doi: 10.1177/0888325403259864.
Sukiassyan, G. (2007). Inequality and growth: what does the transition economy data say? Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(1). doi: 10.1016/j.jce. 2006.11.002.
Valliere, D., & Peterson, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship and economic growth: evidence from emerging and developed countries. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(5-6). doi: 10.1080/08985620802332723.
Van Stel, A., & Storey, D.J. (2004). Link between firm births and job creation: is there a Upas Tree effect? Regional Studies, 38(8). doi: 10.1080/003434 0042000280929.
Wąsowska, A. (2016). Who doesn't want to be an entrepreneur? The role of need for closure in forming entrepreneurial intention of Polish students. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(3). doi: 10.15678/EBER. 2016.040303.
Wyrwich, M. (2013). Can socioeconomic heritage produce a lost generation with regard to entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5). doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.09.001.
Zygmunt, A. (2017). Innovation activities of Polish firms. Multivariate analysis of the moderate innovator countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(4). doi: 10.24136/oc.v8i4.31.
Zygmunt, J. (2017). Enterprises’ development in peripheral regions: patterns and determinants. Problemy Zarządzania, 15(65). doi: 10.7172/1644-9584.65.14.