Competing in the Single Market - SMEs and ... - Erhvervsstyrelsen

Figure 13: BEEPS Survey Responses on Enterprise Performance (dates since 1998)Percent that exported products or service(2002 BEEPS)Percent that exported to a new country(1999 BEEPS)PolandPolandLithuaniaLithuaniaLatviaSMEsLSEsLatviaSMEsLSEsEstoniaEstonia0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,00,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0Percent that increased exportsbetween 1998-2002Percent that successfully developed a major new product line(1999 BEEPS)PolandPolandLithuaniaLatviaSMEsLSEsLithuaniaLatviaSMEsLSEsEstoniaEstonia0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,00,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0Percent that introduced new technology which has changed the way themain product is produced(1999 BEEPS)Percent that agreed a new joint venture with a foreign partner(1999 BEEPS)PolandPolandLithuaniaLatviaSMEsLSEsLithuaniaLatviaSMEsLSEsEstoniaEstonia0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,00,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0 14,0 16,0Source: World Bank and EBRD BEEPS SurveyOf major concern for the longer-term vitality of most SMEs is the fact that they tend to be principallyengaged as small traders or retailers making thin margins on standard products. Thus, CandidateCountries still do not have, or are not yet sufficiently able to compete in, the kind of advanced servicessector common in the EU. Furthermore, very few SMEs are seriously engaged in manufacturingactivity involving innovative capital investment and new technology (European Commission (2002e,p.26)).According to the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), there are fewer innovative enterprises in theB4 than in Europe, on average. Whereas 45% of enterprises were innovative in European countries,the proportions in the B4 were much lower: 36% in Estonia, 19% in Latvia, 27% in Lithuania, and17% in Poland (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2003)). The data on the number of innovativeenterprises in these countries is even more discouraging for SMEs, where the propensity to innovateis even less (see Figure 14).50