The Instruments of Stimulating Entrepreneurship by Local Government Units (Lgu’S)

Abstract

This article diagnoses the use of instruments supporting entrepreneurship by the Podkarpackie Province communes. The main research problem was formulated as follows: Do the instruments of supporting entrepreneurship used by self-government affect the development of economic initiatives in the area of the surveyed communes? We analyzed it in two areas. The first one focuses on the present state, analyzing the quality and directions of actions taken by commune authorities in supporting economic initiatives as well as their results. The second one attempts at pointing the solutions conducive to enterprise development and instruments ensuring their stimulation. The results of the conducted analyses allowed us to assess the effectiveness of the instruments supporting entrepreneurship used by local government units. The main conclusion derived from the research is that the use of fiscal instruments does not constitute the strongest factor in determining the location of economic activity. The use of tax forms of support dependant on the economic situation turns out to be much less important than the use of solutions such as improvement of infrastructure conditions, selection of areas for investment, lease of commune facilities for economic activities, creation of capital back-up comprised of loan funds, as well as implementation of organizational changes aiming at better efficiency of the office. ARTICLE INFO

Development of local and regional entrepreneurship – which institutions matter? Evidence from Poland

“…On the other hand, more attention, according to Wennekers and Thurik (1999), should be devoted to the local and regional level. Moreover, L.G.U.s which are closest to the entrepreneur should know best which actions/instruments will be most efficient in stimulating entrepreneurship in their environment (Wołowiec & Skica, 2013). Furthermore, opportunities created by formal institutions allow entrepreneurs to use the potential of the local institutional regime (Bruton & Ahlstrom, 2003).…”

“…Institutions matter for the development of entrepreneurship because they reduce uncertainty, information and transaction costs (Arrow, 1969;North, 1990;Williamson, 1979), or provide conditions for the development of economic activity and the stimulation of entrepreneurship (Baumol, Litan, & Schramm, 2009;North, 1990). Institutions also matter for regional and local development (Rodr ıguez-Pose, 2013), as well as for the development of regional and local entrepreneurship (Wołowiec & Skica, 2013). Furthermore, local government units (hereinafter L.G.U.s, understood as local and regional formal institutions) became responsible for the dynamic growth of local and regional entrepreneurial activity following the process of decentralisation that occurred in European countries (Skica, Bem, & Daszy nska-_ Zygadło, 2013).…”

Factors and Directions of Public Policy for Rural Development

“…Assessing the tools to support entrepreneurship, it should be noted that fiscal measures do not provide significant incentives, and the most effective measures are the development of infrastructure, benefits for utility payments, the creation of investment sites and increasing the availability of credit resources [17]. An increase in agricultural subsidies leads to an increase in employment, but this effect is not sustainable.…”

The impact of social participation on the efficiency of communal investment expenditure

“…higher number of kindergartens). Determining the effects of communal investment expenditures in this way is extremely relevant, because the new infrastructure that results from these expenditures is one of the main factors driving the development of a given territory (Wołowiec & Skica, 2013). To sum up, this article uses the approach outlined by Zimny (2008) to determine the effects of communal investment expenditures.…”