Figure 4: <strong>SMEs</strong> Share of Employment <strong>and</strong> Value Added, 1989-98Source: World Bank (2002)Despite some early reforms by <strong>the</strong> post-communist countries <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early 1990s (EuropeanCommission (2002e)), <strong>the</strong>re are still significant structural barriers to SME development <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>transition economies as po<strong>in</strong>ted out by <strong>the</strong> European Commission <strong>in</strong> its 2003 Implementation Reporton <strong>the</strong> European Charter for Small Enterprises <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> C<strong>and</strong>idate Countries :Small enterprises <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> C<strong>and</strong>idate Countries rema<strong>in</strong> to a large extent underdeveloped. Newenterprises are ma<strong>in</strong>ly created <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> traditional service sectors <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re are only few <strong>in</strong>novativecompanies. The life cycle of companies is shorter than <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> methods of <strong>the</strong> economictransition towards an open economy have not always been favorable to new <strong>and</strong> small enterprises.European Commission (2003j, p.18)Thus, although EU accession offers <strong>SMEs</strong> new export opportunities, it will also br<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>creasedcompetition <strong>in</strong> domestic markets (see also Box 5). While <strong>the</strong> more str<strong>in</strong>gent quality <strong>and</strong> technicalst<strong>and</strong>ards, coupled with an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> number of players, should lead to generally morecompetitive companies <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Accession Countries <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> longer run, <strong>SMEs</strong> are currently at adisadvantage. The disproportionate effect (relative to larger enterprises) of compliance costs meansthat <strong>SMEs</strong> will have a more difficult time <strong>in</strong> capitaliz<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> opportunities afforded by market<strong>in</strong>tegration. Experience from Western Europe suggests that <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> market <strong>in</strong>tegration effects will36
e to <strong>the</strong> potential advantage of <strong>the</strong> strong <strong>and</strong> to <strong>the</strong> disadvantage of weaker <strong>SMEs</strong>. For example,firms that are already proactively managed, <strong>and</strong> with an exist<strong>in</strong>g presence <strong>in</strong> foreign markets, are <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> best position to take advantage of any new foreign market opportunities (Smallbone <strong>and</strong> Rogut,2003). For newer, or more regionally focused <strong>SMEs</strong>, market <strong>in</strong>tegration presents extreme challengesto growth <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ued existence.The countries <strong>in</strong> transition (CITs) are well aware of <strong>the</strong>se challenges, <strong>and</strong> have been tak<strong>in</strong>g longstrides <strong>in</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutional, legal <strong>and</strong> regulatory environment, reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istrativeburden, <strong>and</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess support programs to assist <strong>SMEs</strong>. 15 The B4 countries, <strong>in</strong> particular,have succeeded <strong>in</strong> support<strong>in</strong>g SME development <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir countries, <strong>and</strong> are reckoned among thosecountries that are mak<strong>in</strong>g rapid progress <strong>in</strong> this respect (see Table 10 below).Table 10: Classification of <strong>SMEs</strong> <strong>in</strong> Countries <strong>in</strong> TransitionCountries mak<strong>in</strong>g rapid progressCountries with <strong>in</strong>termediate stage oftransitionCountries mak<strong>in</strong>g slow progressCroatiaCzech RepublicEstoniaHungaryLatviaLithuaniaPol<strong>and</strong>SlovakiaSloveniaBulgariaKyrgyzstanRomaniaRussian FederationUzbekistanAlbaniaBosnia <strong>and</strong> Herzegov<strong>in</strong>aFYR MacedoniaMoldovaTajikistanTurkmenistanSource: UNECE (2003)At <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong> B4 countries have very different levels of performance of <strong>the</strong>ir SME sectors.The UNECE has attempted to measure <strong>the</strong> development <strong>and</strong> achievements of <strong>SMEs</strong> <strong>in</strong> CITs throughits Index of SME Development 16 (UNECE 2003). The Index illustrates <strong>the</strong> performance of <strong>SMEs</strong>relative to <strong>the</strong> overall economic performance <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se countries, as measured by per capita product (<strong>in</strong>USD). As Figure 5 illustrates, Slovenia <strong>and</strong> Hungary exhibit <strong>the</strong> best performance on this <strong>in</strong>dex, while<strong>the</strong> B4 countries exhibit varied performance. Among <strong>the</strong> B4, Pol<strong>and</strong> ranks highest (3 rd ), followed byLatvia (4 th ), Estonia (6 th ) <strong>and</strong> Lithuania (9 th ).15One programme that should be mentioned here is <strong>the</strong> United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)-<strong>in</strong>itiated Programme for <strong>the</strong>Development of <strong>SMEs</strong> <strong>in</strong> countries <strong>in</strong> transition (CITs), started <strong>in</strong> 1995. This programme has <strong>the</strong> goal of promot<strong>in</strong>g policy <strong>and</strong> regulatory reforms to create anenabl<strong>in</strong>g environment for <strong>the</strong> development of entrepreneurship <strong>and</strong> creation of <strong>SMEs</strong>, <strong>and</strong> support <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>and</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of formal <strong>in</strong>stitutions thatprovide bus<strong>in</strong>ess development <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ancial <strong>in</strong>stitutions on a susta<strong>in</strong>able basis (UNECE 2003).16The Index for SME Development is a complex economic <strong>in</strong>dicator that <strong>in</strong>corporates <strong>the</strong> share of <strong>the</strong> whole SME-sector <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall performance of <strong>the</strong>national economy based on three economic parameters: (i) <strong>the</strong> share of private ownership, (ii) <strong>the</strong> share of <strong>SMEs</strong> <strong>in</strong> GDP, <strong>and</strong> (iii) <strong>the</strong> share of <strong>the</strong> labourforce of <strong>SMEs</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> total labour force of a country. In advanced emerg<strong>in</strong>g market economies, <strong>the</strong> Index of SME Development amounts to USD 500-2200per capita. The countries with <strong>in</strong>termediate stages of development have less than USD 500 per capita, <strong>and</strong> less developed countries <strong>in</strong> transition have less thanUSD 100 per capita.37
- Page 1 and 2: Sylvia Schwaag SergerEmily HanssonC
- Page 4 and 5: About the International Organisatio
- Page 7: PREFACEAccession to the Single Mark
- Page 10 and 11: enterprise development. There are n
- Page 12 and 13: BOXESBox 1: The ‘Knowledge-Based
- Page 15 and 16: INTRODUCTIONAfter more than 10 year
- Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER 1: FROM STABILISATION TO IN
- Page 19: increased competitive pressure as B
- Page 22 and 23: Box 2: On Innovation and Innovation
- Page 24 and 25: Table 5: GDP Growth 1995-2003 in Se
- Page 26 and 27: Table 7: Relative Strengths and Wea
- Page 28 and 29: Box 3: The Indicator ProblemExistin
- Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 2:BALTIC SMEs - AGENTS OF F
- Page 33 and 34: Table 9: Average Annual Growth of S
- Page 35 and 36: Box 4: Overview of Selected Multina
- Page 37: The Role of SMEs in Transitional Ec
- Page 41 and 42: A common measurement of business ac
- Page 43 and 44: Figure 8: Labour Productivity per P
- Page 45 and 46: Figure 10: Employment in Med/Hi-tec
- Page 47 and 48: Summing up, there are fewer economi
- Page 49 and 50: Overall, SMEs tend to lack the fina
- Page 51 and 52: Figure 12: Enterprises with Innovat
- Page 53 and 54: Figure 14: Proportion of Enterprise
- Page 55 and 56: Table 14: Barriers to Innovation fo
- Page 57 and 58: Some interesting examples of cluste
- Page 59 and 60: CHAPTER 3:POLICIES PROMOTING SMEs A
- Page 61 and 62: National governments themselves wil
- Page 63 and 64: Institutional StructureIn all of th
- Page 65 and 66: EU countries (innovation relay cent
- Page 67 and 68: LITHUANIAAgency/OrganisationLithuan
- Page 69 and 70: From the private sector, the chambe
- Page 71 and 72: On the whole, the B4 have relativel
- Page 73 and 74: LITHUANIAProgramme/Policy DocumentI
- Page 75 and 76: Table 19: B4 National Rankings of A
- Page 77 and 78: Box 11: Structural Funds to the Can
- Page 79 and 80: Box 12: On SMEs and FinancingIt doe
- Page 81 and 82: examples of evaluations of national
- Page 83 and 84: CHAPTER 4:CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDA
- Page 85 and 86: General challengesBased on our own
- Page 87 and 88: the above-mentioned channels. 27 On
- Page 89 and 90:
the EU average and particularly wit
- Page 91 and 92:
RecommendationsBased on the challen
- Page 93 and 94:
CHAPTER 5:A VISION OF A NORDIC-BALT
- Page 95 and 96:
addition, they are the most advance
- Page 97 and 98:
countries. One such sign is the rap
- Page 99 and 100:
CONCLUSIONSEU accession will not re
- Page 101 and 102:
REFERENCESAlfonso, Antonio, Ludger
- Page 103 and 104:
European Commission (2003f), Compre
- Page 105 and 106:
Eurostat (2004a), SMEs in the Candi
- Page 107 and 108:
Statistical Office of Estonia (2004
- Page 109 and 110:
APPENDIX I:Agenda for Working Group
- Page 111 and 112:
DAY 2:POLICY SOLUTIONS9:30-10:30 In
- Page 113 and 114:
APPENDIX II:Participants in the IKE
- Page 115 and 116:
APPENDIX III:Conclusions from the I
- Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX IV:Summary of the Panel se
- Page 119 and 120:
Regarding the role of policymaking,
- Page 121 and 122:
APPENDIX V:Description of Field Stu
- Page 123 and 124:
Mr. Miroslaw MarekMr. Talis Millers
- Page 126:
IKED - International Organisation f