The system of causal connections between entrepreneurial activity and economic development

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 165, Issue 5-6, Pages: 4-7

Citation information:
Ponomarenko, V., & Gontareva, I. (2017). The system of causal connections between entrepreneurial activity and economic development. Economic Annals-XXI, 165(5-6), 4-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-01

Volodymir Ponomarenko
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9-A Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine
volodymyr.ponomarenko@hneu.net
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9702-8469

Irina Gontareva
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9-A Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine
Iryna.Gontareva@m.hneu.edu.ua
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2242-378X

The system of causal connections between entrepreneurial activity and economic development

Abstract. Introduction. Revealing, studying and applying the common factors of causal connections between changes of entrepreneurial activity and the level of states’ and regions’ socio-economic development form essential conditions for sustainable outcome. The complexity of analysing the above connections as well as synthesising well-grounded managerial decisions based on them are primarily embedded in the inhomogeneity of internal and external entrepreneurship environment. The purpose of the article is to define the peculiarities of the Ukrainian entrepreneurial activity causal field and provide comparative analysis with the other countries based at the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) methodology and findings (since it has not covered Ukraine). Methods. To meet the purpose, economic analysis of statistical data, synthesis and expert survey have been used.

Results. As the result of data processing, the actual pending status characteristics have been obtained forming the elements of the causal field of entrepreneurship. The GEM studies’ comparative analysis allows us forecasting such trends in Ukraine, as the growth of the number of micro-enterprises as well as entrepreneurs, engaged in self-employment. However, a certain part of entrepreneurial activity goes to «shadow»; the number of innovative enterprises will be cut down because of the reduction of both state and private funding; entrepreneurs are expected to reallocate their activities towards the business with fast funds turnover.

Conclusion. To modify the existing negative trends in Ukrainian business activity, in the system of causal connections should be strengthened the following sectors: start-up funding; support of business incubator for the businessmen-beginners; nationwide assessment and monitoring of causal connections of Ukrainian entrepreneurial activity using the GEM methodology; increase of educational programs for entrepreneurs supported by leading Ukrainian universities.

Keywords: Causal Field; Entrepreneurial Activity; Economic Development

JEL Classification: F63; L26; О11

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-01

References

1. Commission of the European Communities (2003, January 21). Green Paper Entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels.
   Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/entrepreneurship_europe.pdf
2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2002). OECD Small and Medium Enterprise Outlook 2002. Paris.
   Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/sme_outlook-2002-en
3. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (2008). The Global Entrepreneurship Index.
   Retrieved from http://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-development-index
4. Deakins, D., & Freel, M. (2012). Entrepreneurship and Small Firms (UK Higher Education Business Management). (6^th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Education / Europe, Middle East & Africa.
5. Davidsson, P. (2016). Researching Entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and Design. (2^nd ed.). International Studies in Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
6. Mackie, J. L. (1980). The Cement of the Universe. Oxford Scholarship Online, University College, Oxford.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198246420.001.0001
7. Kornai, J. (2011). Dynamism, Rivalry and the Surplus Economy: Two Essays on the Nature of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2016). Official web-site.
   Retrieved from http://www.gemconsortium.org
9. Reynolds, P. D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Research Innovator, Coordinator, and Disseminator. Small Business Economics, 24(4), 351-358.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-0690-z
10. Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its Impact on Entrepreneurship Research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143-248.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000033
11. Gontareva, I. V. (2016). Organizational capital in the complex evaluation the efficiency of functioning enterprise. Efektyvna ekonomika (Effitient Economy), 1.
    Retrieved from http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=4716 (in Ukr.)
12. Gontareva I. V. (2016). System characteristics of functionality of social and organizational capital of the enterprise. Russian Journal Of Management, 4(1), 22-28.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.12737/17898 (in Russ.)
13. The National Bank of Ukraine (2017). Business Expectations of Ukrainian Enterprises in the First Quarter of 2017.
    Retrieved from https://bank.gov.ua/doccatalog/document?id=46861377 (in Ukr.)
14. Schwab, K., & Sala-i-Martín, X. (2017). The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. World Economic Forum.
    Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf
15. OECD iLibrary (2017). Gross domestic product (GDP) (indicator).
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/dc2f7aec-en
16. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2017). Global Report 2016-2017.
    Retrieved from http://gemconsortium.org/report/49812

Received 3.06.2017