The Impact of Economic Growth on the Dynamics of Enterprises: Empirical Evidence for Slovenia's Non-agricultural Sector

• Authors: Dijana Močnik
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this paper was to test the hypothesized U-shaped relationship between economic development and dynamics of enterprises. The dynamics of enterprises is influenced by the achieved economic development. This paper first analyzed the association between the regional gross value added (GVA) growth rate and different measures of enterprises dynamics from Slovenian data from 2000 to 2005. Our graphical analyses indicated that 1) the rate of gross entry and GVA growth rate were linearly and negatively associated; 2) the association between the rate of gross exit and GVA growth rate is best represented by the downward U-shape function (Ç); and 3) a U-shaped association exists between the rate of net entry and GVA growth rate. The size of the impact was estimated using the regression analysis between the net entries as dependent variable and GVA growth as independent variable that showed the best fit. According to the results, 1) economic growth significantly impacts net entries; 2) the hypothesized U-shaped relationship between net entries and economic growth was confirmed as the Slovenian net entries decrease until the GVA growth rate reaches 10% yet increase when the growth in GVA is higher than 10%; and 3) a ‘natural rate’ of entrepreneurship is to some extent governed by ‘laws’ related to the economic growth rate. The results further indicate that the average net entry rate should be increased by 0.787 units (%) as a result of a region's specific environmental factors. This research confirms the theoretical assumptions that have previously been sparsely tested empirically and even rarely supported by results. Therefore, our results represent a contribution to the robustness of the theoretical as well as empirical clarification of the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development.

Keywords

EN

dynamics of enterprises; firm entries; firm exits; net entries; economic growth; regression analysis

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Organizacija
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 154-162

Dates

published

2010-07-01

online

2010-09-03

Contributors

author

Dijana Močnik

• Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Smetanova 17, 2000 Maribor; Slovenia

References

• Acs, Z. & Armington, C. (2002). Economic Growth and Entrepreneurial Activity, Center for Economic Studies, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington D. C.
• Acs, Z. J. & Audretsch, D. B. & Evans, D. S. (1994). Why Does the Self-Employment Rate Vary across Countries and over Time?, Discussion Paper No. 871, CEPR, London.
• Audretsch, D. B. & Fritsch, M. (1994). The geography of firm births in Germany, Regional Studies, 28(4): 359-366. DOI: 10.1080/00343409412331348326.[Crossref]
• Audretsch, D. B. & Thurik, R. (2001). What is new about the new economy: sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 267-315.[Crossref]
• Audretsch, D. B. & Thurik, R. (2004). A model of the entrepreneurial economy, Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, available from
• Baldwin, J. R. & Gorecki, P. K. (1991). Firm entry and exit in the Canadian manufacturing sector: 1970-1982. Canadian Journal of Economics, 24(2): 302-323, available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/135625.
• Blanchflower, D. G. (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries, Labor Economics, 7: 471-505.[Crossref]
• Blau, D. (1987). A time series analysis of self-employment in the United States, Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1): 26-60, available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1831972.
• Bygrave, W. & Hofer, C. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2): 13-22.
• Callejón, M. & Segarra, A. (1999). Business dynamics and efficiency in industries and regions: the case of Spain, Small Business Economics, 13: 253-271. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008015317323[Crossref]
• Carree, M. van Stel, A., Thurik, R. & Wennekers, S. (2002). Economic development and business ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-1996, Small Business Economics, 19(3): 281-290.
• Dejardin, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: An Obvious Conjunction?, CREW, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.
• Fritsch, M. (1992). Regional differences in new firm formation: evidence from West Germany, Regional Studies, 26(3): 233-241. DOI: 10.1080/00343409212331346931.[Crossref]
• Garofoli, G. (1994). New firm formation and regional development: the Italian case, Regional Studies, 28(4): 381-393, DOI: 10.1080/00343409412331348346.[Crossref]
• Guesnier, B. (1994). Regional variation in new firm formation in France, Regional Studies, 28(4): 347-358. DOI: 10.1080/00343409412331348316[Crossref]
• Gujarati, D. (2004). Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass.
• Henderson, J. (2002). Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 87(3): 45-70.
• Highfield, R. & Smiley, R. (1987). New business starts and economic activity: an empirical investigation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1): 51-66.[Crossref]
• Jackson, L. F. (1984). Hierarchic demand and the engle curve for variety, Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(1): 8-15.[WoS][Crossref]
• Kihlstrom, R. E. & Laffont, J. J. (1979). A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion, Journal of Political Economy, 87(4): 719-748, DOI: 10.1086/260790.[Crossref]
• Kreft, S. F. & Sobel, R. S. (2005). Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, Cato Journal, 25(3): 595-616. available from http://www.be.wvu.edu/phd_economics/pdf/03-02.pdf (10.5.2010).
• Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.
• Minniti, M. (1999). Entrepreneurial activity and economic growth, Global Business and Economics Review, 1, 1 (June): 31-42, DOI: 10.1504/GBER.1999.006134.[Crossref]
• Noorderhaven, N., van Stel, A., Thurik, R. & Wennekers, S. (2005). Uncertainty avoidance and the rate of business ownership across 22 OECD countries, 1976-2000, Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2005-15, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group, available from
• Reynolds, P. D., Hay, M. & Camp, S. M. (1999). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Kansas City, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Missouri.
• Reynolds, P., Storey, D. & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates, Regional Studies, 28(4): 443-346, DOI: 10.1080/00343409412331348386.[Crossref]
• Russell, R. (1997). The impact of national culture on the emergence of entrepreneurship, available from
• SURS. available from (
• Sutaria, V. & Hicks, D. A. (2004). New firm formation: dynamics and determinants, The Annals of Regional Science, 38(2): 241-262. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-004-0194-9.[Crossref]
• Syrquin, M. (1988). Patterns of Structural Change. Handbook of Development Economics. Volume I. Edited by Chenery, H. & Srinivasan, T. N. Amsterdam: North Holland: 203-273.
• Wennekers, S. (2006). Entrepreneurship at the country level: economic and non-economic determinants, available from
• Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, R. & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development, Small Business Economics, 24(3): 293-309. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-005-1994-8.[WoS][Crossref]
• World Bank. World Development Indicators. Available from (
• Zacharakis, A. L., Bygrave, W. D. & Shepherd, D. A. (2000). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: National Entrepreneurship Assessment: United States of America. Kansas City, Missouri: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10051-010-0015-0