NAVIGATING ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY IN CEE

Eighth International Scientific Conference Contemporary Issues in Economics, Business and Management [EBM 2024], [pp. 187-196]

AUTHOR(S) / AUTOR(I): Ljubivoje Radonjić , Damjan Jolović , Nevena Veselinović

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/EBM24.187R

ABSTRACT / SAŽETAK:

The research examines the impact of institutional quality on entrepreneurship and patenting activity in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, utilizing the Economic Freedom indicators from the Fraser Institute. We hypothesize that higher institutional quality, characterized by limited government intervention, an effective legal system and property rights, capital market and trade institutions, and regulatory framework positively influence entrepreneurial endeavors and patenting outcomes. Strong institutions facilitate access to resources, reduce bureaucratic barriers, and foster an environment conducive to innovative behavior. Employing a panel regression, the paper examines the relationship between various institutions and entrepreneurial and innovation performance in the CEE countries. The results reveal a significant positive correlation between higher levels of economic freedom and increased rates of entrepreneurship and the production of patents. However, the impact of institutional quality is greater in determining entrepreneurship than innovation activities. The findings underscore the importance of institutions in shaping economic development in the CEE region and highlight the need for policy reforms to enhance institutional frameworks to support entrepreneurship better and stimulate patenting activity. Overall, the research contributes to understanding how institutional quality affects economic outcomes, emphasizing the vital role of economic freedom as a driver of innovation and entrepreneurship.

KEYWORDS / KLJUČNE REČI:

Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Institutional Quality, CEE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / PROJEKAT:

This research is funded by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation, Republic of Serbia, GRANTS: Agreement No. 451-03-66/2024-03/200378.

REFERENCES / LITERATURA:

  • Aidis, R. (2005). Institutional barriers to small-and medium-sized enterprise operations in transition countries. Small business economics, 25, 305-317. doi:10.1007/s11187- 003-6463-7
  • Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. M. (2012). Size matters: Entrepreneurial entry and government. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 119–139. doi:10.1007/s11187-010- 9299-y
  • AlMalki, H. A., & Durugbo, C. M. (2022). Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: Towards a multi-level management model. Management Review Quarterly. doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00259-8
  • Bai, J., Choi, S. H., & Liao, Y. (2020). Feasible generalized least squares for panel data with cross-sectional and serial correlations. Empirical Economics. doi:10.1007/s00181- 020-01977-2
  • Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (2003). Law and finance: Why does legal origin matter? Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4), 653–675. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2003.08.001
  • Boudreaux, C. J., Jha, A., & Escaleras, M. (2021). Weathering the storm: How foreign aid and  institutions  affect  entrepreneurship  activity  following  natural disasters. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 104225872110021. doi:10.1177/10422587211002185
  • Braunerhjelm, P., Andersson, M., Blind, K., & Eklund, J. E. (2023). Handbook of Innovation and Regulation: Introductory chapter. In Handbook of innovation and regulation (pp. 1–20). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781800884472.00005
  • Chowdhury, F., Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2018). Institutions and entrepreneurship quality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 51–81. doi:10.1177/1042258718780431
  • De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel-Data Models. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 6(4), 482–496. doi:10.1177/1536867×0600600403
  • Dolfsma, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Innovation systems as patent networks: The Netherlands, India and nanotech. Innovation, 13(3), 311–326. doi:10.5172/impp.2011.13.3.311
  • European Commission. (n.d.). Enterprise births, by NACE Rev. 2 activity [tin00170]. Eurostat. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tin00170 custom_13414937/default/table?lang=en
  • Fraser Institute. (n.d.). Economic freedom of the world: Annual report. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom
  • Harraf, A., Ghura, H., Hamdan, A., & Li, X. (2020). Formal institutions and the development of entrepreneurial activity – the contingent role of corruption in emerging economies. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, ahead-of-print (ahead-of- print). doi:10.1108/jepp-06-2020-0033
  • Jurlin, K., & Čučković, N. (2010). Comparative analysis of the quality of European institutions 2003-2009: convergence or divergence?. financial Theory and Practice, 34(1), 71-98.
  • Karlsson, C., & Warda, P. (2014). Entrepreneurship and innovation networks. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 393–398. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9542-z
  • Krammer, S. M. S. (2009). Drivers of national innovation in transition: Evidence from a panel of Eastern European countries. Research Policy, 38(5), 845–860. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.022
  • Krammer, S. M. S. (2017). Greasing the wheels of change: Bribery, institutions, and new product introductions in emerging markets. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1889– 1926. doi:10.1177/0149206317736588
  • Li, T. (2017). Entrepreneurship and environments: Start-ups, growth aspirations, and exit (Doctoral dissertation). University of Essex.
  • Lubacha-Sember, J., & Godlewska, M. (2018). The role of local formal and informal institutions in microfirms’ development: Evidence from Poland. Economics & Sociology, 11(3), 43–58. doi:10.14254/2071-789x.2018/11-3/3
  • Nyström, K. (2008). The institutions of economic freedom and entrepreneurship: Evidence from panel data. Public Choice, 136(3-4), 269–282. doi:10.1007/s11127-008-9295-9
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. doi:10.1002/jae.951
  • Poege, F., Harhoff, D., Gaessler, F., & Baruffaldi, S. (2019). Science quality and the value of inventions. Science Advances, 5(12), Article eaay7323. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay7323
  • Prokop, V., Stejskal, J., Klimova, V., & Zitek, V. (2021). The role of foreign technologies and R&D in innovation processes within catching-up CEE countries. Plos One, 16(4), Article e0250307. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250307
  • Taalbi, J. (2022). Innovation with and without patents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04102.
  • Tebaldi, E. (2005). Innovation and institutions: Examining the black box (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. Retrieved from https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/274
  • Tebaldi, E., & Elmslie, B. (2008, February). Do institutions impact innovation? [MPRA Paper No. 8757]. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8757/
  • Ugur, M. (2012, December). Governance, regulation, and innovation: Introducing new studies. [MPRA Paper No. 44151]. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/44151/
  • Werle, R. (2011, June). Institutional analysis of technical innovation: A review (SOI Discussion Paper 2011-04). Retrieved from http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/soz/oi/publikationen/
  • World Bank. (n.d.). World Development Indicators. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&country=ARE
  • Zádor, Z. (2019). Effect of the 2004 EU Accession on Patent Quality in the Central Eastern European Region. Central European University, Thesis.