Spatial Dimension of Czech Enterprise Support Policy: Where Are Public Expenditures Allocated?

Issue: 4/2018

Jana Novosáková

Newton College, Václavské náměstí 11, 110 00 Prague, Czechia

Jiří Koleňák

Newton College, Václavské náměstí 11, 110 00 Prague, Czechia

Jiří Novosák

Tomas Bata University, Faculty of Management and Economics, Mostní 5139, 76301 Zlín, Czechia; email:,

Oldřich Hájek

Tomas Bata University, Faculty of Management and Economics, Mostní 5139, 76301 Zlín, Czechia

The purpose of the present paper is to find whether the spatial distribution of enterprise support policy funds meet the spatial objectives stated in Czech strategic documents related to enterprise support policy. Are more funds allocated in lagging regions, and does enterprise support policy contribute more to the convergence objective, or are more funds allocated in core regions, and does enterprise support policy contribute more to the competitiveness objective? These questions are answered by evaluating the Structural (and Cohesion) Fund (SF) expenditures that were allocated on operations categorised as part of enterprise support policy (2007-2013). The dependent variable relates to 206 regions, and SF expenditures are calculated for every inhabitant of a region. Moreover, two types of SF operation are distinguished: (a) innovation-oriented operations; and (b) other enterprise support operations. Three explanatory variables are defined using Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and these components are understood as: (1) the social disadvantage of regions; (2) the innovation environment of regions; and (3) the quality of regional entrepreneurial environments. The asso-ciations between the dependent and explanatory variables are subsequently evaluated by methods of correlation and regression analysis. The findings provide some evidence for both the convergence and competitiveness objectives. Nevertheless, this evidence is rather limited due to a low spatial concentration of SF allocation, and the compensatory effect between the two thematic types of SF operations. Hence, while the quality of their innovation environment has a positive influence on regional SF allocation regardless of the thematic focus of SF operations, socially disadvantaged regions received more funds for SF operations which are not innovation-oriented. The capacity of potential beneficiaries to prepare and submit many project proposals for SF co-financing is the main reason for high or low SF allocation.

DOI: 10.2478/revecp-2018-0017
JEL: R58, R12, O22, O18
Keywords: the Czech Republic, regional disparities, enterprise support policy, cohesion policy

ACS, Z.J. et al. (2016). Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35-51. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-016-9712-2.

ACS, Z.J., SZERB, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28(2-3), 109-122. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-006-9012-3.

ARMINGTON, C., ACS, Z.J. (2002). The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Regional Studies. 36(1), 33-45. DOI: 10.1080/00343400120099843.

ARSHED, N., CARTER, S., MASON, C. (2014). The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: is policy formulation to blame? Small Business Economics, 43(3), 639-659. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-014-9554-8.

AUDRETSCH, D.B. (2015). The strategic management of place. In Audretsch, D.B, Link, A.N, Lindestein Walshok, M., The Oxford Handbook of Local Competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BARCA, F., MCCANN, P., RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place‐based versus place‐neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134-152. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x.

BENTLEY, G., PUGALIS, L. (2014). Shifting paradigms: people-centred models, active regional development, space-blind policies and place-based approaches. Local Economy, 29(4-5), 283-294. DOI: 10.1177/0269094214541355.

BISHOP, P. (2012). Knowledge, diversity and entrepreneurship: a spatial analysis of new firm formation in Great Britain. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 24(7-8), 641-660. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2011.617786.

BLAŽEK, J., MACEŠKOVÁ, M. (2010). Regional analysis of public capital expenditure: to which regions are public capital expenditure channelled – to “rich” or to “poor” ones? Regional Studies, 44(6), 679-696. DOI: 10.1080/00343400903002713.

BOLDRIN, M., CANOVA, F. (2001). Inequality and convergence in Europe’s regions: reconsidering European regional policies. Economic Policy, 16(32), 207-253. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0327.00074.

BOUVET, F., DALL‘ERBA, S. (2010). European regional structural funds: how large is the influence of politics on the allocation process? Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(3), 501-528. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02062.x.

CACE, C., CACE, S., IOVA, C., NICOLAESCU, V. (2009). Absorption capacity of the structural funds. Integrating perspectives. Revista de cercetare şi intervenţie socială, 27, 7-28.

CAMAIONI, B. et al. (2013). How rural is the EU RDP? An analysis through spatial fund allocation. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 2(3), 277-300. DOI: 10.13128/BAE-13092.

CRESCENZI, R. (2009). Undermining the principle of concentration? European Union regional policy and the socio-economic disadvantage of European regions. Regional Studies, 43(1), 111-133. DOI: 10.1080/00343400801932276.

CRESCENZI, R., DE FILLIPIS, F., PIERANGELI, F. (2015) In tandem for cohesion? Synergies and conflicts between regional and agricultural policies of the European Union. Regional Studies, 49(4), 681-704. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2014.946401.

DELLMUTH, L.M., STOFFEL, M.F. (2012). Distributive politics and intergovernmental transfers: the local allocation of European Union structural funds. European Union Politics, 13(3), 413-433. DOI: 10.1177/1465116512440511.

DE PROPRIS, L. (2007). Reconciling cohesion and competitiveness through EU cluster policies? Policy Studies, 28(4), 327-345. DOI: 10.1080/01442870701640690.

DENNIS, W.J. (2011). Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 149-162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00319.x.

EC (2006a). Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. Official Journal of the European Union, L210, 25-78.

EC (2006b). Council Decision of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (2006/702/EC). Official Journal of the European Union, L291, 11-32.

EU (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Official Journal of the European Union, L347, 320-469.

EZCURRA, R., PASCUAL, P., RAPÚN, M. (2007). The dynamics of regional disparities in Central and Eastern Europe during transition. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1397-1421. DOI: 10.1080/09654310701550850.

FOREMAN-PECK, J., ZHOU, P. (2013). The strength and persistence of entrepreneurial cultures. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(1), 163-187. DOI: 10.1007/s00191-011-0239-z.

FOTOPOULOS, G. (2014). On the spatial stickiness of UK new firm formation rates. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 651-679. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbt011.

FRATESI, U. (2008). Regional policy from a supra-regional perspective. The Annals of Regional Science, 42(3), 681-703. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-007-0167-x.

GARRETSEN, H. et al. (2013). The future of regional policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(2), 179-186. DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rst013.

HÁJEK, O. et al. (2017). Absorpční kapacita strukturálních fondů (2007-2013): typologie českých mikroregionů [Absorption capacity of structural funds (2007-2013): typology of Czech microregions]. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics & Administration, 24(39), 28-38.

HENLEY, A. (2005). On regional growth convergence in Great Britain. Regional Studies, 39(9), 1245-1260. DOI: 10.1080/00343400500390123.

HENRY, C., HILL, F., LEITCH, C. (2003). Developing a coherent enterprise support policy: a new challenge for governments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(1), 3-19. DOI: 10.1068/c0220.

HUGGINS, R., WILLIAMS, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: The role and progression of policy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9-10), 907-932. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2011.577818.

JALIU, D., RADULESCU, C. (2013). Six years in managing structural funds in Romania. Lessons learned. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science, 9(38), 79-95.

JUREVIČIENĖ, D., PILECKAITĖ, J. (2013). The impact of EU structural fund support and problems of its absorption. Business, Management and Education, 11(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.3846/bme.2013.01.

KAUFMANN, A., WAGNER, P. (2005). EU regional policy and the stimulation of innovation: the role of the European Regional Development Fund in the Objective 1 Region Burgenland. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 581-599. DOI: 10.1080/09654310500107274.

KEMMERLING, A., BODENSTEIN, T. (2006). Partisan politics in regional redistribution. Do parties affect the distribution of EU structural funds across regions? European Union Politics, 7(3), 373-392. DOI: 10.1177/1465116506066264.

KLÍMOVÁ, V., ŽÍTEK, V. (2015). Inovační paradox v Česku: ekonomická teorie a politická realita [Innovation paradox in the Czech Republic: Economic theory and political reality]. Politická ekonomie, 63(2), 147-166. DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.994.

KRUGMAN, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483-499. DOI: 10.1086/261763.

MILIO, S. (2007). Can administrative capacity explain differences in regional performances? Evidence from structural funds implementation in Southern Italy. Regional Studies, 41(4), 429-442. DOI: 10.1080/00343400601120213.

MIT CR (2006). Koncepce rozvoje malého a středního podnikání na období 2007-2013 [Strategy of SME Development for the period 2007-2013]. Prague: Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic.

MIT CR (2012). Koncepce podpory malých a středních podnikatelů na období let 2014-2020 [Strategy of SME Development for the period 2014-2020]. Prague: Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic.

MRD CR (2006). Strategie regionálního rozvoje České republiky na roky 2007-2013 [Strategy of Regional Development of the Czech Republic for the Years 2007-2013]. Prague: Ministry of Regional Development of the Czech Republic.

MRD CR (2007). Národní strategický referenční rámec ČR 2007-2013 [National Strategic Reference Framework of the Czech Republic 2007-2013]. Prague: Ministry of Regional Development of the Czech Republic.

MRD CR (2014). Dohoda o partnerství pro programové období 2014-2020 [Partnership Agreement for the Programming Period 2014-2020]. Prague: Ministry of Regional Development of the Czech Republic.

MoE CR (2010). Strategický rámec udržitelného rozvoje ČR [Strategic Framework of Sustainable Development of the Czech Republic]. Prague: Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic.

NIJKAMP, P. (2009). Regional development as self-organized converging growth. In Kochendörfer-Lucius, G., Pleskovic, B., Spatial Disparities and Development Policy. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World, Bank.

NOVOSÁK, J., et al. (2015). Territorial cohesion and the geography of EU cohesion policy funding in the Czech Republic. Transformation in Business & Economics, 14(3C), 419-432.

NOVOSÁK, J., et al. (2017a). Structural funding and intrastate regional disparities in post-communist countries. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 13(51), 53-69. DOI: 10.24193/tras.51E.4.

NOVOSÁK, J., et al. (2017b). Enterprise support policy and territorial cohesion: the Czech Republic (2007-2013). Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 9(2), 141-157.

POPESCU, A.S. (2015). The absorption capacity of European funds – concepts. Annals-Economy Series, 18(3), 119-125.

QIAN, H., ACS, Z.J., STOUGH, R.R. (2013). Regional systems of entrepreneurship: the nexus of human capital, knowledge and new firm formation. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 559-587. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbs009.

ROMER, P.M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037. DOI: 10.1086/261420.

SCHRAFF, D. (2014). Buying turnout or rewarding loyalists? Electoral mobilization and EU structural funding in the German Länder. European Union Politics, 15(2), 277-288. DOI: 10.1177/1465116513509308.

SMALLBONE, D., BALDOCK, R., NORTH, D. (2003). Policy support for small firms in rural areas: the English experience. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(6), 825-841.

SOLOW, R.M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94. DOI 10.2307/1884513.

STILLWELL, J. et al. (2010). Spatial and social disparities. In Stillwell, J. et al., Spatial and Social Disparities. Understanding Population. Berlin: Springer.

STOREY, D.J. (2008). Entrepreneurship and SME Policy. Warwick: Warwick Business School.

TAMÁSY, C., LE HERON, R. (2008). The geography of firm formation in New Zealand. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 99(1), 37-52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2008.00438.x.

TOSUN, J. (2014). Absorption of regional funds: a comparative analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 371-387. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12088.

VEGA, A., CHIASSON, M. (2015). Towards a comprehensive framework for the evaluation of small and medium enterprise policy. Evaluation, 21(3), 359-375. DOI: 10.1177/1356389015593357.

WOKOUN, R. (2007). Regionální a strukturální politika (politika soudržnosti) Evropské unie v programovém období 2007-2013 [Regional and structural policy (cohesion policy) of the European Union in the programming period 2007-2013]. Urbanismus a územní rozvoj, 10(1), 3-7.

WU, J., GOPINATH, M. (2008). What causes spatial variations in economic development in the United States? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(2), 392-408. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01126.x.