Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 68
Enero
Junio
2021
Recibido el 14/11/2020 Aceptado el 02/16/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 68 (Enero - Junio) 2021, 385-396
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3968.24
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia *
Anton V. Lebedev **
Mikhail A. Rozhkov ***
Natalia V. Berezina ****
Abstract
The aim of the research is to assess development of
entrepreneurship infrastructure of various countries according
to opinions of experts from these countries. The elements were:
knowledge and technology transfer infrastructure; commercial
and professional infrastructure; production and information
infrastructure; market infrastructure; institutions providing easy
access to existing markets; social and cultural infrastructure. The
research is based on methods of economic analysis, analogies,
generalizations, classication, system and structural approaches.
Information from the Global entrepreneurship monitoring project report
for 54 countries was used as input data. The estimation of the distribution
of indicator values on the effectiveness of the six main infrastructure
elements of business development reecting the opinions of experts from
these countries with the use of mathematic models of normal distribution.
During the study we determined the average indicator values characterizing
experts ‘ opinions on the effectiveness of each of the six key infrastructure
elements of business development on a scale of ten; the intervals of their
changes characteristic for the majority of countries were also considered.
New knowledge about the effectiveness of infrastructure elements of
business development in various countries has been obtained.
Keywords: enterprise infrastructure; economic policy; entrepreneurship;
small and medium-sized enterprises; global monitoring of
entrepreneurship.
* PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Economic analysis and state management, Ulyanovsk
State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8224-9031. Email:
pinkovetskaia@gmail.com
** PhD, Associate Professor, the Department of Foreign Languages, National Research Ogarev Mordovia
State University, Saransk, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1927-5595. Email:
toshaleb@mail.ru
** PhD, Associate Professor, the Department of Foreign Languages, National Research Ogarev Mordovia
State University, Saransk, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9001-5497. Email:
mikha-rozhkov@yandex.ru
**** PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Finance, Credit and Economic Security, Chuvash State
University, Cheboksary, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7320-3624. Email: bernav@
yandex.ru
386
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Anton V. Lebedev, Mikhail A. Rozhkov y Natalia V. Berezina
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
Evaluación de Infraestructura Empresarial en 2018
Resumen
El objetivo de la investigación es evaluar el desarrollo de la infraestructura
empresarial de varios países de acuerdo con las opiniones de expertos
internacionales. Los elementos en consideración fueron: infraestructura
de transferencia de conocimiento y tecnología; infraestructura comercial y
profesional; infraestructura de producción e información; infraestructura
de mercado; instituciones que faciliten el acceso a los mercados existentes;
infraestructura social y cultural. La investigación se basa en métodos de
análisis económico, analogías, generalizaciones, clasicación, enfoques
sistémicos y estructurales. Se utilizó como datos de entrada información
del informe del proyecto de seguimiento de la iniciativa empresarial
mundial para 54 países. La estimación de la distribución de los valores de
los indicadores sobre la efectividad de los seis principales elementos de
infraestructura del desarrollo empresarial reejando las opiniones de los
expertos de estos países con el uso de modelos matemáticos de distribución
normal. Durante el estudio, determinamos los valores promedio de
los indicadores que caracterizan las opiniones de los expertos sobre la
efectividad de cada uno de los seis elementos clave de la infraestructura del
desarrollo empresarial en una escala de diez; También se consideraron los
intervalos de sus cambios característicos de la mayoría de países.
Palabras clave: infraestructura empresarial; política económica;
emprendimiento; pequeñas y medianas empresas;
monitoreo global del emprendimiento.
Introduction
The development of entrepreneurship is based in most countries
on improving competitiveness (Pinkovetskaia et al., 2020), economic
growth (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006; Kiseleva et al., 2019), reducing
unemployment, evolving new markets, perfecting people life (Decker et al.,
2014; Simon-Moya et al., 2016; Pinkovetskaia et al., 2019). Therefore, one
of the most urgent problems solved at the state level in modern national
economies is the formation of effective infrastructure elements that ensure
the development of entrepreneurship. These infrastructure elements are a
set of interconnected objects that serve business activities. These include
organizations, enterprises, institutions, and other economic entities,
structures, and economic and social systems. Most governments, especially
those in developing countries, have made some effort and invested
resources in these infrastructure elements of enterprise development.
Business associations, universities and public organizations also play an
essential function in this.
387
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 385-396
1. Literature review
The relevance of the problem of creating and functioning of various
types of infrastructure elements in modern national economies is reected
in scientic publications. Business entities generate a great part to the
economic sector of their countries through the commercialization of research
and development. Therefore, one of the most essential items of business at
present is the transfer of knowledge and technology. Researcher Sung (2002)
in his work considered the features of the process of innovation transfer in
modern conditions. He suggested that there are four stages of knowledge
and technologies transfer: their creation, exchange, implementation in
the context of specic enterprises, and commercialization of innovations.
In the article of Gunsel (2015) using the example of 33 Turkish rms, the
effectiveness of information exchange and transfer of advanced technologies
in developing countries is considered. Dickerhof (2010) drew attention to
the need for huge expenditures on the development of technologies and
equipment in the eld of microsystem technology. Therefore, the opening
rms in this industry requires corporations to share their technologies and
applied achievements along with their knowledge.
Due to the small number of their teams, entrepreneurs are forced to
outsource a number of functions. This includes such functions as accounting
and reporting, legal and information and consulting services. Professional
consultants are needed not only to help start and manage new businesses,
but also to connect entrepreneurs with experts and support systems. This
conclusion follows from the article by sh. Robinson and Stubberud (2014)
and a research document of the World Bank (InfoDev, 2010).
The work of Obokoh and Goldman (2016) emphasizes the need to
provide reliable infrastructure as a key factor in business sphere of countries.
This study, based on an analysis of the situation in Nigeria, shows that
the lack of production infrastructure negatively affects the performance
of entrepreneurs who have to bear high costs for self-sufciency in
electricity and road rehabilitation on their own. The role of advanced
information technologies in the activities of enterprises, including small
ones, is signicant. This is shown in article of Gare and Melin (2011), which
examines communication and data transmission systems available in
various countries and used by entrepreneurs. Calderon and Servеn (2004)
conducted a practical assessment of the inuence of industrial sector on
increase for 100 countries in the period from 1960 to 2000.
The features of small and medium enterprises in rapidly expanding
regional markets of South, East and South-East Asia are considered by
Vandenberg et al. (2016). This monograph shows the effectiveness of free
and open markets where no business entity has the right to set prices, were
changes in demand cause changes in supply and vice versa. A study by
Kemp at al. (2003) discovers that exists 37 limits that can avoid rms from
388
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Anton V. Lebedev, Mikhail A. Rozhkov y Natalia V. Berezina
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
getting in the market, hindering the controversial process. Issues such as
the size of barriers, their stability, and methods of measuring barriers are
considered. The paper by Panayotis (2010) demonstrates that easy market
entry increases supply, lowers prices, and intensies innovation. This paper
describes the 13 most important sources of regulatory barriers and assesses
their role.
The results of research by Alvarez et al. (2011) and Gaganis et al. (2018)
show that informal factors, namely norms in culture and social spheres,
also the public image of businessmen have a signicant impact on the
development of entrepreneurship in the European Union.
2. Methodology
As a review of previous research shows, the main infrastructure elements
that ensure the development of entrepreneurship in modern countries are:
- knowledge and technology transfer infrastructure.
- commercial and professional infrastructure.
- production and information infrastructure.
- market infrastructure.
- institutions that provide easy access to existing markets.
- social and cultural infrastructure.
The aim of our research was to assess the effectiveness of the main
infrastructure elements of business development in various countries,
according to experts from these countries. At the same time, the tasks
of identifying countries with high and low levels of effectiveness of each
of the main elements, as well as the medium indicators of the analyzed
values and their intervals of change, typical for most of the countries under
consideration, were solved.
Surveys of experts in various countries are devoted to studying the
features of entrepreneurship in modern national economies, the results of
which are combined in a General report on the Global entrepreneurship
monitor project (2019). Our research based on the data of discussing report
for 2018, reecting the opinions of experts on the effectiveness of the
main infrastructure elements of business development. For each country,
the monitoring process identied the views of at least 36 highly qualied
experts. Experts assessed the level of efciency of the six infrastructure
elements of entrepreneurship mentioned above on a ten-point scale. A
value equal to 1 corresponded to a very low level of efciency, while a value
equal to 10 corresponded to a very high level. The average indicators for
389
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 385-396
experts living in each country are presented in table 11 of the above report
on the Global enterprise monitoring project.
This report provides data for 54 countries. It contains the opinions of
experts from 21 European countries, 14 Asian countries, 11 Latin American
countries, 6 African countries and 2 North American countries. Mentioned
countries are distributed by income level as follows: 32 states have high
incomes, 14 countries have medium incomes, and 8 countries have low
incomes.
In the course of our research, we considered indicators that characterize
the opinions of experts on the effectiveness of each of the six infrastructure
elements of business development in all 54 countries.
Three hypotheses (H) were checked in the process of our study:
- H1 - at the moment, there are great contrasts in the indicators that
characterize the effectiveness of infrastructure elements of business
development in the countries under consideration.
- H2 - stage in the income of population is not inuence on maximum
and minimum size of six indicators.
- H3 - territorial position of countries is not inuence on maximum
and minimum size of six indicators.
The checking of such hypothesis was made with mathematical modeling
practical information on the base of density indicators of the countries
(Pinkovetskaia, 2015). Elaborated models were consumed for establishment
of parameters for approximating the practical data. During elaborating the
mathematical models, we applied the practical information provided in
table 11 of the Global enterprise monitoring.
3. Results
As indicated above, the assessment (on a ten-point scale) of the
distribution of indicators that characterize expert opinions was based on the
development of appropriate models that approximate the initial empirical
data. The developed economic and mathematical models describing the
patterns of regional distribution of performance indicators of the above six
infrastructure elements of business development in 54 countries have the
following form:
390
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Anton V. Lebedev, Mikhail A. Rozhkov y Natalia V. Berezina
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
- knowledge and technology transfer infrastructure
; (1)
- for commercial and professional infrastructure
; (2)
- on production and information infrastructure
; (3)
- by market infrastructure
; (4)
- for institutions that provide easy access to existing markets
; (5)
- on social and cultural infrastructure
. (6)
391
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 385-396
Econometric analysis using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Pearson, and
Shapiro-Wilk checks demonstrated good quality level models (1)-(6).
4. Discussion
Applying the mathematical models (1)-(6), we achieved that were
revealed indicator values that describes the opinions of experts on the
effectiveness of implementation of each of the six areas of public policy in
different countries (table). The medium values are in columns 2 and 3 of
this table describes the intervals of change in the indicator values for most
(68%) countries.
Infrastructure elements of business development
Medium
values
Typical for
most countries
1 2 3
1. Knowledge and technology transfer
infrastructure
4.39 3.43-5.35
2. Commercial and professional
infrastructure
5.46 4.68-6.24
3. Production and information
infrastructure
7.04 5.99-8.,09
4. Market infrastructure 5.77 4.73-6,81
5. Institutions that provide easy access to existing
markets
4.71 3.89-5.53
6. Social and cultural infrastructure 5.39 4.26-6.52
Table. Values of indicators that characterize the opinions of experts
(on a ten-point scale)
Note: Achieved by the authors
According to the data from the table, experts from 54 countries
considered that the highest level of development was characteristic of
production and information infrastructure. The corresponding average
value of the indicator on a ten-point scale exceeded 7. Average values from 5
to 6 units occurred in 2018 for such elements of the business infrastructure
as market, commercial and professional infrastructure, as well as social
and cultural infrastructure. The least developed elements in 2018 were, on
average, institutions that provide easy access to existing markets, as well as
knowledge and technology transfer infrastructure.
The average value of the indicator for knowledge and technology
transfer infrastructure in 2018 was 4.39. The stage of this indicator more
big than the upper limit of the interval (from 5.52 to 6.41) given in column
3 of the table was observed in such countries as Japan, Qatar, Taiwan,
392
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Anton V. Lebedev, Mikhail A. Rozhkov y Natalia V. Berezina
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
Indonesia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Iran. These
countries are located in Asia (Qatar, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Iran)
and Europe (Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland). They showed
high (Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Qatar, Taiwan),
medium (Iran) and low (Indonesia) incomes. Here and further, data on
household income in 2018 were taken based on the data provided in the
report on the Global entrepreneurship monitoring. Values of this indicator
that are lower than the lower limit of the interval occurred in Mozambique,
Morocco, Egypt, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Sudan and Cyprus. These
countries are located in Asia (Saudi Arabia), Africa (Mozambique, Morocco,
Egypt, Angola, and Sudan) and Europe (Russia, Cyprus). They had high
(Saudi Arabia, Cyprus), medium (Russia) and low (Mozambique, Morocco,
Egypt, Angola, Sudan) incomes.
The medium value of the index for commercial and professional
infrastructure in the countries under review was 5.46. Maximum level of the
index (from 6.29 to 6.77) was in following countries Taiwan, Qatar, China,
Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Switzerland, the United States, Austria, Canada,
the Netherlands. These countries are located in Asia (Taiwan, Qatar, China,
Indonesia, and Iran), North America (Canada, USA) and Europe (Greece,
Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands). They had high (Taiwan, Qatar,
Canada, USA, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands), medium
(China, Iran) and low (Indonesia) incomes. Low values (from 4.62 to
3.89) were observed in Mozambique, Ireland, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Chile,
Panama and Peru. These countries are located in Latin America (Chile,
Panama, and Peru), Africa (Mozambique), Asia (Saudi Arabia) and Europe
(Cyprus, Ireland). They had high (Ireland, Cyprus, Panama, Chile, Saudi
Arabia), medium (Peru) and low (Mozambique) incomes.
The medium value of the index for the production and information
infrastructure of entrepreneurship in 54 countries was 7.04. Values of
this indicator above the upper limit of the range (from 8.09 to 9.03) were
observed in such countries as Chile, Japan, Colombia, Austria, Germany,
the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Taiwan. These countries are located in
Asia (Taiwan, Japan) Latin America (Chile, Colombia) and Europe (Austria,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland). These countries (except
Colombia) had high incomes. In Colombia and Indonesia, the income of
the population was at an average level. Values lower than the lower limit
of the range (from 5.99 to 4.37) were found in Lebanon, Angola, Puerto
Rico, Madagascar, Mozambique, Israel, Sudan, and Italy. These countries
are located in Latin America (Puerto Rico), Europe (Italy), Asia (Lebanon,
Israel), and Africa (Madagascar, Mozambique, Sudan, and Angola).
They had high (Puerto Rico, Italy, Israel), medium (Lebanon), and low
(Madagascar, Mozambique, Sudan, and Angola) incomes.
393
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 385-396
The medium value of the index describing the market infrastructure
and the effectiveness of state programs for business development in the
countries under review was 5.77 in 2018. Values of this indicator above the
upper limit of the range (6.81) were observed in such countries as Turkey,
Russia, Qatar, Indonesia, Iran, Colombia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, and
Sudan. Six countries are located in Asia (Indonesia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran,
Japan, and South Korea), two in Europe (Poland, Russia), one in Latin
America (Colombia) and Africa (Sudan). There are countries characterized
by high (Qatar, Japan, South Korea, Poland), medium (Turkey, values of
the indicator less than the lower limit of the interval (from 4.73 to 4.14).
Low indicators occurred in such countries as Uruguay, Luxembourg, India,
Panama, Croatia, Canada, Israel, and Peru. They are located in Europe
(Croatia, Luxembourg), Asia (India, Israel), North and Latin America
(Canada, Uruguay, Peru, Canada, Uruguay, and Panama). These countries
had high (Croatia, Luxembourg, Canada, Panama, Israel) and medium
(Uruguay, Peru,) and low (India) incomes.
The medium value for the countries under review for institutions that
provide easy access to existing markets was 4.71. The highest values of the
indicator (from 5.60 to 6.67) took place in 2018 in such countries as Israel,
Greece, Luxembourg, Indonesia, Iran, the Netherlands, Qatar, Austria,
Taiwan. These countries are located in Asia (Taiwan, Israel, Indonesia, Iran,
Qatar) and Europe (Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria). They
had high (Taiwan, Israel, Qatar, the Netherlands, Greece, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Austria) and average (Iran) incomes. Values lower than
the lower limits of the range (from 3.73 to 3.30) were observed in seven
countries: Mozambique, Morocco, Cyprus, Madagascar, Russia, Sudan and
Panama. They are located in Latin America (Panama), Africa (Mozambique,
Morocco, Madagascar, and Sudan) and Europe (Russia, Cyprus). They had
high (Panama, Cyprus), medium (Russia) and low (Mozambique, Morocco,
Madagascar, Sudan) incomes.
The average value of the social and cultural infrastructure indicator for
54 countries was 5.30. Values above the upper limit of the interval (from 6,
69 to 8.08) was noted in countries such as Colombia, UAE, Netherlands,
Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, China, USA. These countries are located in Asia
(UAE, Iran, Lebanon, Qatar, and China), North and Latin America (USA,
Colombia) and Europe (Netherlands). They had high (USA, Netherlands,
Qatar, UAE), average (Iran, Lebanon, Colombia, China) incomes of the
population. Values lower than the lower limit of the interval (from 4.21
to 3.05) were found in Mozambique, Slovakia, Cyprus, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Uruguay, Italy, Japan, Slovenia and Madagascar. These countries are located
in Europe (Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Cyprus), Asia (Japan),
Latin America (Brazil, Uruguay) and Africa (Mozambique, Madagascar).
They had high (Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Japan), medium (Brazil,
Uruguay, Bulgaria) and low (Mozambique, Madagascar) incomes.
394
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Anton V. Lebedev, Mikhail A. Rozhkov y Natalia V. Berezina
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
Information demonstrated in column three of the table indicated
considerable contrast of the level six indexes by country. That is why
hypothesis 1 was afrmed. The analyzing of the roster of countries with
maximum and minimum level for the six indexes demonstrates that
relationship between territorial position and incomes of population in the
countries does not conrmed. So we can make outcome on conrming
hypotheses two and three.
Conclusion
The research has achieved its goal. Novelty and originality of our study
include:
- the medium level index and their intervals of change describing the
ten-point scale of experts’ opinions on the effectiveness of business
development infrastructure were determined for most countries.
- the countries with maximum and minimum values for six indexes
were calculated.
- it is demonstrated that the highest medium value for countries is
marked by an indicator that, according to experts, characterizes the
efciency of production and information infrastructure.
- it is proved that the lowest medium value for countries is typical
for such an indicator as the efciency of knowledge and technology
transfer infrastructure.
- it is shown that the values of each of the six indicators under
consideration are signicantly differentiated across 54 countries.
- relationship between maximum and minimum indexes values and
territorial position and incomes of population in the countries did
not conrmed.
The calculated mathematical models can be consumed in following
research. The revealed new information can be applied in the pedagogical
work of universities. Results of research are of interest for the state
management in the formation and realization of development of the
entrepreneurship.
Further research may be related to the study of the effectiveness
of the implementation of six elements of the enterprise development
infrastructure according to the Global entrepreneurship monitoring project
in the following years.
395
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 385-396
Bibliographic References
ALVAREZ, Claudia; URBANO, David; CODURAS, Alicia; RUIZ-NAVARRO,
Jose. 2011. “Environmental Conditions and Entrepreneurial Activity:
A Regional Comparison in Spain” In: Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 120-140.
CALDERON, Cesar; SERVЕN, Luis. 2004. The Effects of Infrastructure
Development on Growth and Income Distribution. Working Papers
Central Bank of Chile 270. Central Bank of Chile.
GAGANIS, Chrysovalantis; PASIOURAS, Fotios; VOULGARI, Fotini. 2018.
“Culture, business environment and SMEs’ protability: Evidence from
European Countries” In: Economic Modelling. Vol. 78, pp. 275-292.
GARE, Klas; MELIN, Ulf. 2011. “SMEs need formative infrastructure for
business transformation” In: Journal of Enterprise Information
Management. Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 520-533.
GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR 2018-2019. 2019. Bosma
N., Kelley D. and the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association
(GERA). 152 p. Available online. In: https://www.gemconsortium.org/
le/open?leId=50213. Consultation date: 05/03/2020.
GUNSEL, Ayşe. 2015. “Research on Effectiveness of Technology Transfer from
a Knowledge Based Perspective” In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences. Vol. 207, pp. 777-785.
DECKER, Ryan; HALTIWANGER, John; JARMIN, Ron; MIRANDA, Javier.
2014. “The Role of Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic
Dynamism” In: Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.
3-24.
DE CAROLIS, Donna Marie; SAPARITO, P. 2006. “Social capital, cognition,
and entrepreneurial opportunities: a theoretical framework” In:
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 41-56.
DICKERHOF, Markus. 2010. “A Cooperation Model and Demand-Oriented
ICT Infrastructure for SME Development and Production Networks
in the Field of Microsystem Technology. Svetan Ratchev” In: Precision
Assembly Technologies and Systems. Vol. 315, pp. 319-328.
INFODEV. 2010. Global Good Practice in Incubation Policy Development and
Implementation. The World Bank. Washington, DC. USA.
KEMP, Ron; MOSSELMAN, Marco; BLEES, Jasper; MAAS, Jeroen. 2003.
Barriers to Entry. Scales Research Reports H200301. EIM Business and
Policy Research. Zoetermeer.
396
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Anton V. Lebedev, Mikhail A. Rozhkov y Natalia V. Berezina
Assessment of Business Infrastructure in 2018
KISELEVA, Olga; LEBEDEV, Anton; PINKOVETSKAIA, Iuliia; ROJAS-
BAHAMÓN, Magda; ARBELÁEZ CAMPILLO, Diego. 2019.
“Specialization and concentration of small and medium enterprises
employees: Russian data” In: Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 8, No. 20, pp.
6-15. Available online. In: https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/
amazonia/article/view/59. Consultation date: 05/03/2020.
OBOKOH, Lawrence; GOLDMAN, Geoff. 2016. “Infrastructure deciency and
the performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises in Nigeria’s
Liberalised Economy. Acta Commercii” In: Independent Research
Journal in the Management Sciences. Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-10.
PANAYOTIS, Kotsios. 2010. Regulatory Barriers to Entry in Industrial Sectors.
MPRA Paper 27976. University Library of Munich. Munich, Germany.
PINKOVETSKAIA, Iuliia S. 2015. “Modeling of indicators of small and medium-
sized businesses in the regions using the density function of normal
distribution” In: Problems of territory development. Vol. 6, No. 80, pp.
93-107.
PINKOVETSKAIA, Iuliia; ARBELAEZ CAMPILLO, Diego Felipe; ROJAS-
BAHAMÓN, Magda Julissa; GROMOVA, Tatiana; NIKITINA, Irina.
2019. “Female entrepreneurship development in the Russian Federation”
In: Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 8, No. 18, pp. 111-118. Available online. In:
https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/287.
Consultation date: 05/03/2020.
PINKOVETSKAIA, Iuliia; LYUBOVTSEVA, E; ARBELÁEZ-CAMPILLO, Diego;
ROJAS-BAHAMÓN, Magda. 2020. “Small and medium enterprises in
Russia and other countries” In: Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 9, No. 25, pp.
99-106. Available online. In: https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/
amazonia/article/view/1034. Consultation date: 15/06/2020.
ROBINSON, Sherri; STUBBERUD, Hans Anton. 2014. “Business incubators:
What services do business owners really use?” In: International Journal
of Entrepreneurship. Vol. 18, pp 29-39.
SIMON-MOYA, Virginia; REVUELTO-TABOADA, Lorenzo; RIBEIRO-
SORIANO, Domingo. 2016. “Inuence of economic crisis on new
SME survival: reality or ction?” In: Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development. Vol. 28, No. 1-2, pp. 157-176.
SUNG, Tae Kyung. 2002. “Knowledge and technology transfer in technoparks
development” In: International Journal of Technology Policy and
Management. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 240-259.
VANDENBERG, Paul; CHANTAPACDEPONG, Pornpinun; YOSHINO,
Naoyuki. 2016. SMEs in Developing Asia New Approaches to Overcoming
Market Failures. Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo, Japan.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 68
