[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/cesisp/0279.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Entrerpreneurial Catch Up And New Industrial Competence Bloc Formation In The Baltic Sea Region

Author

Listed:
  • Eliasson, Gunnar

    (KTH and Entrepreneurship Forum)

  • Braunerhjelm, Pontus

    (KTH and Entrepreneurship Forum)

Abstract
Historically, the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) has been an institutionally homogeneous economy, integrated economically and culturally through the sea lanes of the Baltic. After WWII the BSR was broken up into a dual economy, consisting of a poor Soviet block of centrally planned economies, on the one hand, and the industrially advanced BSR economies Finland, Denmark, Germany and Sweden, on the other. 1990 saw the break up of the soviet political system. The liberated, but poor formerly planned economies were left to restore their institutions on their own to that of a market organization. 60 years of Soviet isolation had left the formerly planned BSR economies in an industrially backward state. Critical market functions did not exist, and corrupt institutions made normal business life impossible. Catch up with Western industrial economies therefore became a policy priority. During the 1970s also Western economies introduced elements of central planning in their industrial policy repertoires on the belief that it would improve economic performance. Policies to support “plans” by definition meant restrictions on entrepreneurial activity. By the Soviet break up, however, stagnation had also brought the need for entrepreneurship onto the policy agenda of Western nations. Obstacles to economic progress were gradually being dismantled. These shifts in policy attention in turn relate to the current discussion about globally increasing inequality. Are the economies of the world economy converging onto the same national standards of living, as was believed not long ago, or diverging. The industrial dynamics of the BSR pits those two hypotheses against each other. Will the previously centrally planned soviet economies of the BSR catch up with the living standards of the more market governed Western economies, or lag further behind? Perhaps some “mixed” Western economies with large and rigid public production of welfare services have got stuck with problems similar to those of the formerly planned economies? Do some formerly planned economies that have taken on a strong pro market policy agenda exhibit a superior catch up record to those that have not? The contrasting policy experiences among the BSR economies allow us to compare the catch up records in terms of policies chosen. The formerly planned Baltic economies, excepting Russia, were institutionally and industrially roughly on par with Denmark, Finland and Sweden before the Soviet occupation. The industrial backwardness of the formerly planned economies at the time they were liberated was therefore due to constraints on entrepreneurial initiatives, once imposed by the Soviet Union. So by definition there is a policy task of some magnitude to undo that heritage. More precisely asked, central planning in the formerly planned economies stifled entrepreneurial activities. Can the obstacles to catch-up in the transition economies through an entrepreneurially moved reallocation of resources then be overcome through centrally directed policy? If not, which is a key question of this paper, how can the diverse information and knowledge embodied in the agents of markets be mobilized for that task? Who knows best, the central policy maker, supported by his economic advisors, or the collective knowledge of all economic actors as intermediated through dynamically competitive product and factor markets. The historic developments in the BSR have therefore accidentally staged a unique economic policy experiment that allows us to distinguish between the relative roles in economic progress of improvements in local entrepreneurial environments (a policy task) and of individual entrepreneurial action. In carrying out that analysis we draw on the detailed statistical analysis in Braunerhjelm & Eliasson (2011). The Swedish evolutionary micro firm to macro model has provided a theoretical structure, both to support our reasoning on the catch-up dynamics, and to provide quantitative evidence for the empirical evaluation. Empirical research suggests that growth through entrepreneurial new firm formation is a slow process that may however suddenly and unexpectedly gain momentum. The import of new technology is the fast way to catch up. Both forms of innovation and entrepreneurship, however, benefit from the same positive entrepreneurial climate. On this we found that successful catch up among the formerly planned BSR economies still has a long way to go, and that political impatience in waiting for the dividends of economic liberalization to become available may have been destructive. Policy focus should therefore be set on the local entrepreneurial environments which are in great need of continued improvements to support both new firm formation for long run development, and to induce immediate FDI for the short term. More flexible labor markets will be required to support continued reallocation of resources from inefficient “soviet” installations to productive businesses of western quality. Significant remaining obstacles to trade and ownership transactions across BSR internal borders will have to be removed, so success in catch up should be expected to differ significantly among the BSR countries. We therefore propose a policy competition among those countries in improving their entrepreneurial environments to beat each other in catch-up performance. This policy competition is best enacted individually, without any delaying cooperation among the competing economies and, if individually enacted in a competitive spirit, will benefit both the winners and the entire BSR economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliasson, Gunnar & Braunerhjelm, Pontus, 2012. "Entrerpreneurial Catch Up And New Industrial Competence Bloc Formation In The Baltic Sea Region," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 279, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp279.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. W. Jorgenson & Z. Griliches, 1967. "The Explanation of Productivity Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 34(3), pages 249-283.
    2. Jones, Charles I & Williams, John C, 2000. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-85, March.
    3. Martin Andersson & Pontus Braunerhjelm & Per Thulin, 2012. "Creative destruction and productivity: entrepreneurship by type, sector and sequence," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 1(2), pages 125-146, October.
    4. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1998. "Law and Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(6), pages 1113-1155, December.
    5. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1977. "Competition and Market Processes in a Simulation Model of the Swedish Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(1), pages 277-281, February.
    6. Gunnar Eliasson & Clas Wihlborg, 2005. "On the macroeconomic effects of establishing tradability in weak property rights," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Elias Dinopoulos & Robert F. Lanzillotti (ed.), Entrepreneurships, the New Economy and Public Policy, pages 137-162, Springer.
    7. Eliasson, Gunnar & Johansson, Dan & Taymaz, Erol, 2004. "Simulating the New Economy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 289-314, September.
    8. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1991. "Modeling the experimentally organized economy : Complex dynamics in an empirical micro-macro model of endogenous economic growth," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-2), pages 153-182, July.
    9. Eliasson, Gunnar & Rybczynski, Tad & Wihlborg, Clas, 1993. "The Necessary Institutional Framework to Transform Formerly Planned Economies - with special emphasis on the institutions needed to stimulate foreign investment in the formerly planned economies," Working Paper Series 389, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised Apr 1994.
    10. Desai, Raj M. & Olofsgård, Anders, 2011. "The Costs of Political Influence: Firm-Level Evidence From Developing Countries," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 6(2), pages 137-178, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gunnar Eliasson, 2011. "Advanced purchasing, spillovers and innovative discovery," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 121-139, February.
    2. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1998. "From plan to markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 49-68, January.
    3. Carlsson , Bo, 2016. "Industrial Dynamics: A Review of the Literature 1990-2009," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/3, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    4. Luca Riccetti & Alberto Russo & Mauro Gallegati, 2015. "An agent based decentralized matching macroeconomic model," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 10(2), pages 305-332, October.
    5. Eliasson, Gunnar & Johansson, Dan & Taymaz, Erol, 2004. "Simulating the New Economy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 289-314, September.
    6. Gerard Ballot & Antoine Mandel & Annick Vignes, 2015. "Agent-based modeling and economic theory: where do we stand?," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 10(2), pages 199-220, October.
    7. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1991. "The Micro Frustrations of Privatizing Eastern Europe," Working Paper Series 306, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised Apr 1992.
    8. Eliasson, Gunnar, 2005. "The nature of economic change and management in a new knowledge based information economy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 428-456, October.
    9. Michael Neugart & Matteo G. Richiardi, 2012. "Agent-based models of the labor market," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 125, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    10. Eliasson, Gunnar & Eliasson, Åsa, 2004. "The Theory of the Firm and the Markets for Strategic Acquisitions," Ratio Working Papers 44, The Ratio Institute.
    11. Bo Carlsson & Gunnar Eliasson & Karolin Sjöö, 2018. "The Swedish industrial support program of the 1970s revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 805-835, September.
    12. Gunnar Eliasson, 2015. "The incomplete Schumpeter Stockholm School connection," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 45-56, January.
    13. Jinjing Li & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2013. "A survey of dynamic microsimulation models: uses, model structure and methodology," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 6(2), pages 3-55.
    14. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1993. "Endogenous Economic Growth through Selection," Working Paper Series 397, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised Aug 1994.
    15. Eliasson, Gunnar & Taymaz, Erol, 1992. "The Limits of Policy Making: An Analysis of the Consequences of Boundedly Rational Government Using the Swedish Micro-to-Macro Model (MOSES)," Working Paper Series 333, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    16. Eliasson, Gunnar, 2023. "Bringing markets back into economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 686-710.
    17. Eliasson, Gunnar, 2004. "Ignorant Actors in the Resource Rich World of the Knowledge Based Economy - On Rational Management in an Experimentally Organized Economy (EOE)," Ratio Working Papers 47, The Ratio Institute.
    18. Silva, Ester G. & Teixeira, Aurora A.C., 2008. "Surveying structural change: Seminal contributions and a bibliometric account," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 273-300, December.
    19. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1992. "The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of Economic Growth: An essay on the economics of institutions, competition and the capacity of the political system to cope with unexpected change," Working Paper Series 349, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    20. Gunnar Eliasson, 2018. "Why Complex, Data Demanding and Difficult to Estimate Agent Based Models? Lessons from a Decades Long Research Program," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 11(1), pages 4-60.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Central planning; Commercialization competence; Competence bloc; Dual economy; Entrepreneurship; Experimentally Organized Economy (EOE); Foreign Direct Investment (FDI); Policy experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L16 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics; Macroeconomic Industrial Structure
    • L52 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
    • M13 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - New Firms; Startups
    • N20 - Economic History - - Financial Markets and Institutions - - - General, International, or Comparative
    • N40 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation - - - General, International, or Comparative
    • O50 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - General
    • P21 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Planning, Coordination, and Reform
    • P51 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Comparative Economic Systems - - - Comparative Analysis of Economic Systems

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Vardan Hovsepyan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cekthse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.