ENTERPRISES
SitemapKey findings
Does enterprise policy foster innovation, entrepreneurship and competitiveness?
Is private investment stimulated?
Is private investment stimulated?
Enterprises scores are weighted composites. One qualitative assessment contributes half of the weighting, with five quantitative measures contributing the other half.
Enterprises scores
Enterprises scores
EnterprisesKey findings: Enterprises
Criterion ranking are split into four groups. In the score distribution graphs, click on the bars to see individual countries’ scores.
Top group
1
8.0
2
7.2
3
7.1
4
7.0
5
6.9
6.9
6.9
8
6.6
Countries in this top group typically have light corporate regulation, making it easy for enterprises to form, close and operate. Governments actively encourage innovation and investment.
As in the SGI 2009, the USA is a standout leader in this criterion, with the financial crisis having had little effect on the fundamentals of its competitive, entrepreneurial economy. Denmark and New Zealand also have welcoming enterprise policy frameworks, though both struggle to create high-growth start-up companies.
Iceland, Australia and Canada have strongly encouraged innovation, though with middling success, while Switzerland competes through low corporate tax rates. In parallel with Iceland’s financial collapse have come sharply reduced interest rates.
As in the SGI 2009, the USA is a standout leader in this criterion, with the financial crisis having had little effect on the fundamentals of its competitive, entrepreneurial economy. Denmark and New Zealand also have welcoming enterprise policy frameworks, though both struggle to create high-growth start-up companies.
Iceland, Australia and Canada have strongly encouraged innovation, though with middling success, while Switzerland competes through low corporate tax rates. In parallel with Iceland’s financial collapse have come sharply reduced interest rates.
Upper middle group
9
6.2
10
6.1
6.1
12
6.0
6.0
14
5.9
5.9
16
5.8
5.8
5.8
Countries in this group have significant patterns of strength, but each show distinctive symptoms of individual weakness.
Luxembourg, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany all have relatively low corporate investment levels, with the effect of financial crisis serving as additional drag. By contrast, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Japan have maintained relatively high investment levels despite some specific declines.
Supporting innovation has been a policy priority in Sweden, but translation to new businesses is weak. The UK’s light-touch regulatory structure encourages activity, but R&D spending is low. Ireland’s low taxes have helped retain foreign firms despite the crisis.
Belgium’s high labor taxes and administrative complexity hampers small businesses, while Luxembourg’s attempts to reduce labor costs broke the traditional social-partner consensus.
Germany’s economy retains substantial bureaucracy, with venture capital needed to unlock a high innovation potential. The Netherlands is highly entrepreneurial, but with few new fast-growth firms, while Japan’s pro-business reforms have waned.
Luxembourg, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany all have relatively low corporate investment levels, with the effect of financial crisis serving as additional drag. By contrast, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Japan have maintained relatively high investment levels despite some specific declines.
Supporting innovation has been a policy priority in Sweden, but translation to new businesses is weak. The UK’s light-touch regulatory structure encourages activity, but R&D spending is low. Ireland’s low taxes have helped retain foreign firms despite the crisis.
Belgium’s high labor taxes and administrative complexity hampers small businesses, while Luxembourg’s attempts to reduce labor costs broke the traditional social-partner consensus.
Germany’s economy retains substantial bureaucracy, with venture capital needed to unlock a high innovation potential. The Netherlands is highly entrepreneurial, but with few new fast-growth firms, while Japan’s pro-business reforms have waned.
Lower middle group
19
5.6
20
5.5
21
5.3
22
5.0
23
4.9
24
4.8
4.8
In this group, governments have typically sought to encourage economic activity, but administrative inefficiencies remain substantial.
Despite individually attractive policies, Austria, South Korea, Poland, Mexico and Spain all are near the OECD’s bottom in terms of the assessed ease of doing business. Under the Tusk government Poland in particular has worked to streamline this process.
The economic crisis forced a reversal of a deregulatory and privatization trend in Austria. South Korea’s sweeping anti-crisis measures helped its large, oligopolistic export sector, but smaller businesses suffered.
Portugal’s government has made significant strides in streamlining corporate regulation, but remains a deeply uncompetitive economy. Competition between individual Mexican states is making the country as a whole more competitive.
France and Spain have each passed a myriad of unfocused pro-business measures, with uncertain or even complicating effect.
Despite individually attractive policies, Austria, South Korea, Poland, Mexico and Spain all are near the OECD’s bottom in terms of the assessed ease of doing business. Under the Tusk government Poland in particular has worked to streamline this process.
The economic crisis forced a reversal of a deregulatory and privatization trend in Austria. South Korea’s sweeping anti-crisis measures helped its large, oligopolistic export sector, but smaller businesses suffered.
Portugal’s government has made significant strides in streamlining corporate regulation, but remains a deeply uncompetitive economy. Competition between individual Mexican states is making the country as a whole more competitive.
France and Spain have each passed a myriad of unfocused pro-business measures, with uncertain or even complicating effect.
Bottom group
In this group, enterprise policy has often had positive sectoral effects, but substantial economic distortions or imbalances remain.
Hungarian and Slovakian policymakers have successfully attracted foreign investment, but have offered insufficient support for smaller domestic firms. Increased attention to mid-level businesses in Turkey has not yet rendered them competitive on world markets, but the general business environment has improved.
Despite strong macroeconomic policy-making, Chile remains highly bureaucratic, and efforts to encourage private-sector innovation have not resulted in significant behavioral change. Italy and Greece have deeply inefficient, complicated administrations, with cumbersome regulations and poor infrastructure.
Hungarian and Slovakian policymakers have successfully attracted foreign investment, but have offered insufficient support for smaller domestic firms. Increased attention to mid-level businesses in Turkey has not yet rendered them competitive on world markets, but the general business environment has improved.
Despite strong macroeconomic policy-making, Chile remains highly bureaucratic, and efforts to encourage private-sector innovation have not resulted in significant behavioral change. Italy and Greece have deeply inefficient, complicated administrations, with cumbersome regulations and poor infrastructure.