ENTERPRISES
Key findings
Has enterprise policy successfully
stimulated economic activity?
stimulated economic activity?
Enterprise policy scores are weighted composites. A qualitative policy assessment [ 
] contributes one-half of this weighting, with six quantitative measures [ 
] each contributing an additional one-twelfth.
Scores and methodology
] contributes one-half of this weighting, with six quantitative measures [ ] each contributing an additional one-twelfth. Scores and methodology
EnterprisesKey findings: Enterprise policy
Each 
represents an individual country and is positioned on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (best). Position cursor over to see scores for individual countries.
Click country name in list or text for details.
represents an individual country and is positioned on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (best). Position cursor over to see scores for individual countries.Click country name in list or text for details.
Score distribution
8.8
1
8.3
2
7.6
3
7.3
4
7.3
7.1
6
6.9
7
6.7
8
Governments in the top group minimize bureaucratic hurdles, sometimes developing policy in tandem with labor and business groups.
The United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand foster entrepreneurship with light regulatory frameworks and low business costs. Australia has additionally focused on privatizing public-sector companies.
In the Netherlands, consultation between employers, trade unions and the government helps ensure economic stability.
Despite relatively higher taxes in Denmark and Finland, policymakers minimize regulation and red tape, encouraging investment and exports.
The United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand foster entrepreneurship with light regulatory frameworks and low business costs. Australia has additionally focused on privatizing public-sector companies.
In the Netherlands, consultation between employers, trade unions and the government helps ensure economic stability.
Despite relatively higher taxes in Denmark and Finland, policymakers minimize regulation and red tape, encouraging investment and exports.
6.5
9
6.5
6.4
11
6.4
6.3
13
6.2
14
6.2
5.8
16
5.8
5.6
18
5.6
5.5
20
Countries in the middle group typically have higher regulatory burdens or business costs. Some have difficulties attracting investment, or maintain protectionist policies.
Several of these governments (Germany, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Belgium (Flanders) and Slovakia) have seen strong investment flows despite relatively high levels of regulation and bureaucracy. Belgium's Wallonia region has more difficulties attracting capital.
Much business regulation is relatively light in Sweden, but labor-related costs are high
Government policies in some sectors are protectionist (Iceland, Switzerland) or interventionist (Japan), while oligopolistic businesses impede innovation in South Korea.
Though EU enlargement has benefited Austria and the Czech Republic, a lack of high-skilled employees has constrained investment.
Several of these governments (Germany, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Belgium (Flanders) and Slovakia) have seen strong investment flows despite relatively high levels of regulation and bureaucracy. Belgium's Wallonia region has more difficulties attracting capital.
Much business regulation is relatively light in Sweden, but labor-related costs are high
Government policies in some sectors are protectionist (Iceland, Switzerland) or interventionist (Japan), while oligopolistic businesses impede innovation in South Korea.
Though EU enlargement has benefited Austria and the Czech Republic, a lack of high-skilled employees has constrained investment.
4.5
21
4.5
4.4
23
4.4
3.9
25
3.8
26
3.4
27
3.3
28
3.2
29
2.9
30
Burdensome regulation and high costs characterize many of the countries in this group, while others show a disproportionate policy focus on large companies
In several, enterprise policy has served large multinational companies at the expense of smaller domestic firms (France, Hungary, Mexico).
Regulations and bureaucratic procedures are often complex and burdensome, creating high business costs (Spain, Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Poland). Mexico's regulatory environment has allowed oligopolistic markets to develop.
Portugal has substantially improved its competitive environment, but support for innovation remains a work in progress. Norway's regulatory touch is relatively light, but enterprise policy has been inconsistent.
In several, enterprise policy has served large multinational companies at the expense of smaller domestic firms (France, Hungary, Mexico).
Regulations and bureaucratic procedures are often complex and burdensome, creating high business costs (Spain, Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Poland). Mexico's regulatory environment has allowed oligopolistic markets to develop.
Portugal has substantially improved its competitive environment, but support for innovation remains a work in progress. Norway's regulatory touch is relatively light, but enterprise policy has been inconsistent.
Rationale
Successful enterprise policy is characterized by relatively high levels of financial input (foreign or domestic investment, and R&D investment) and low levels of reliable, predictable regulation.
By setting enterprise policy as a top priority, easing and attracting investment, and fostering entrepreneurship, some governments could increase their nations' economic potential.
Overregulation, policy incoherence and corruption remain the main disincentives to entrepreneurship.
Performance comparison
Use drop-down menus for selections. In all cases, higher scores reflect better performance.
