Modeling of small and medium enterprises activities taking into consideration the entrepreneurial capital of a region

Abstract

There is an urgent need for accelerated development of small and medium enterprises in the context of transformation of Russian economy. The development of business sector of regional economies of Russia puts forward the most acute problem of the definition of reserves of its sustainable increase. The aim of the study is to assess the three-factor production functions that describe the dependence of the turnover of small and medium enterprises on wages of employees, investments in fixed capital and the level of development of entrepreneurial capital in a region. The indicator characterizing the level of development of the enterprise capital of a region – the number of employees of large enterprises located in a corresponding region has been suggested. The study is based on empirical spatial data characterizing the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the number of employees of large enterprises. Official statistical information has been used for continuous monitoring of business activity in 80 regions of Russia for 2015. The novelty of the study is to consider the impact of existing business capital on the turnover of small and medium enterprises. The study has allowed to determine the factors influencing the turnover of these enterprises located in all regions of the Russian Federation, to justify the high quality of approximation of the initial data by three-factor production functions, to prove that there is a significant potential for saturation of the economy of the Russian regions with goods, works and services of small and medium businesses. It has been proved that the accumulated entrepreneurial capital in the regions of the Russian Federation has a significant impact on the turnover of small and medium enterprises. It has been shown that the number of workers employed at large enterprises of a corresponding region can be used for its assessment. The developed production functions are effective management tools that allow us to assess the level of investment in fixed capital and labor resources of small and medium enterprises operating in the regions of Russia. The results of the study, namely new knowledge and tools for assessing the production activities of small and medium enterprises, are of scientific and practical importance. They can be used in studies of the entrepreneurial sector of the regional economy, monitoring the efficiency of the use of resources and entrepreneurial capital, substantiation of plans and programs for the development of small and medium businesses. Further research will be related to the development of similar functions in Russian industries and municipalities.

Keywords

three-factor production function, economy of scale, turnover of small and medium enterprises, investments in fixed capital, wage, regions of Russia, entrepreneurial capital, efficiency of resource use

For citation

Pinkovetskaia I.S. Modeling of small and medium enterprises activities taking into consideration the entrepreneurial capital of a region. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2019, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 110–124. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2019-1-110-124

References

1. Brock W.A., Evans D. Small business economics. Small Business Economics, 1989, vol. 1, iss. 1, pp. 7–20.
2. Wennekers S., Uhlaner L., Thurik R. Entrepreneurship and its conditions: A macro perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2002, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25–64.
3. Feldman M., Lanahan L., Miller J. Inadvertent infrastructure and regional entrepreneurship policy. In book: Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development. M. Fritsch (Ed.). Cheltenham, Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar, 2011, pp. 216–251.
4. Mirjam van Praag C., Versloot P.H. What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 2007, no. 29 (4), pp. 351–382. doi: 10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x.
5. Chepurenko A.Yu. Politika sodeystviya predprinimatel’stvu i podderzhki MSP v postsotsialisticheskikh stranakh: Sovmeshchaya universal’nye kontseptsii s natsional’noy spetsifikoy [Combining Universal Concepts with National Specifics: SME Support Policy]. Public Administration Issues, 2017, no. 1, pp. 7–30. (In Russian).
6. Decker R., Haltiwanger J., Jarmin R., Miranda J. The role of entrepreneurship in US job creation and economic dynamism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2014, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3–24. doi: 10.1257/jep.28.3.3.
7. Razvitie malogo i srednego predprinimatel'stva. Zarubezhnyi opyt [Development of small and medium entrepreneurship. Foreign experience]. Moscow, MSP Bank Publ. 2015. 21 p. (In Russian).
8. Cobb C.W., Douglas P.H. A ttheory of production. The American Economic Review, 1928, no. 18, pp. 139–165.
9. Douglas P.H. Are there laws of production? The American Economic Review, 1948, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–41.
10. Durand D. Some thoughts on marginal productivity with special reference to Professor Douglas' analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 1937, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 740–758.
11. Bohórquez V., Esteves J. Analyzing SMEs size as a moderator of ERP impact in SMEs productivity. Communications of the IIMA, 2008, vol. 8, iss. 3, pp. 67–80.
12. Husain S., Islam M.S. A test for the Cobb Douglas production function in manufacturing sector: The case of Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Economics Research, 2016, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 149–154. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20160505.13.
13. Sage A.P., Rouse W.B. Economic systems analysis and assessment: Cost, value, and competition in information and knowledge intensive systems, organizations, and enterprises. New York, John Wiley and Sons. 2011. 404 p.
14. Khatun T., Afroze S. Relationship between real GDP and labour and capital by applying the Cobb-Douglas production function: A comparative analysis among selected Asian countries. Journal of Business Studies. 2016, vol. XXXVII, no. 1, pp. 113–129.
15. Batool S., Zulfiqar S. Analyzing the input output relationship of small and medium enterprises in Pakistan: An econometric approach. International Journal of Business and Economic Development, 2013, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 66–73.
16. Pin'kovetskaya Iu.S. Faktory, vliyayushchie na oborot malykh i srednikh predpriyatii: otsenka po dannym regionov Rossii [Factors influencing small and medium enterprises turnover: Evaluation of Russian regional data]. Ars Administrandi (Iskusstvo upravleniya) [Ars Administrandy], 2018, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 199–216. doi: 10.17072/2218-9173-2018-1-199-216. (In Russian).
17. Pin'kovetskaya Iu.S. Modeli ob"emov proizvodstva sovokupnostei malykh i srednikh predpriyatii v sub"ektakh Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Models output sets of small and medium enterprises in the subjects of the Russian Federation]. Mir novoi ekonomiki [The World of New Economy], 2016, no. 2, pp. 113–118. (In Russian).
18. Romer P.M. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1986, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1002–1037.
19. Hofstede G., Noorderhaven N.G., Thurik A.R., Wennekers A.R.M., Uhlaner L., Wildeman R.E. Culture's role in entrepreneurship. In book: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Culture: The Interaction between technology, progress and economic growth. Ulijn J., Brown T. (Eds). Brookfield, UK, Edward Elgar, 2002. 220 p.
20. Acs Z.J., Audretsch D.B. Handbook of entrepreneourship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publ., 2003. 678 p.
21. Minniti M. Entrepreneurial alertness and asymmetric information in a spin-glass model. Journal of Business Venturing, 2004, vol. 19, iss. 5, pp. 637–658.
22. Audretsch D., Keilbach M. Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies, 2004, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 949–959.
23. Audretsch D., Bönte W., Keilbach M. Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 2008, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 687–698.
24. Chang E.P.C., Chrisman J.J., Kellermanns F.W. The relationship between prior and subsequent new venture creation in the United States: A county level analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 2011, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 200–211.
25. Bhagavatula S., Elfring T., van Tilburgc A., van de Bunta G. How social and human capital influence opportunity recognition and resource mobilization in India's handloom industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2010, vol. 25, iss. 3, pp. 245–265.
26. Chang E.P.C., Misra K., Memili E. Expanding the notion of entrepreneurship capital in American counties: A panel data analysis of 2002–2007. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 2012, September, vol. 17, iss. 3, pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1142/S108494671250015X.
27. Demartini P., Paoloni P. Defining the entrepreneurial capital construct. Chinese Business Review, 2014, November, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 668–680. doi: 10.17265/1537-1506/2014.11.002.
28. Acs Z., Astebro T., Audretsch D., Robinson D. Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: A call to arms. Small Business Economics, 2016, vol. 47, iss. 1, pp. 35–51.
29. Audretsch D.B. Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. 1995. 220 p.
30. Böente W., Heblich S., Jarosch M. Concept and measurement of regional entrepreneurship capital. Working Paper IAREG, 2008. 21 p.
31. Sternberg R., Rocha H.O. Why entrepreneurship is a regional event: Theoretical arguments, empirical evidence, and policy consequences. In book: Entrepreneurship: The engine of growth. Rice M.P., Habbershon T.G. (Eds.). Westport/CT, London, Praeger, 2007, vol. 3, pp. 215–238.
32. Pin'kovetskaya Iu.S. Modelirovanie deyatel'nosti sovokupnostei malykh i srednikh predpriyatii s ispol'zovaniem proizvodstvennykh funktsii [Modeling of activity of small and medium enterprises with the use of production functions]. Chelovek. Obshchestvo. Inklyuziya [Human. Society. Inclusion], 2017, no. 2 (30), pp. 92–100.
33. Harris R.J. A primer of multivariate statistics. New York, Academic Press. 1985. 546 p.

Show full text