Small and medium enterprises in Poland and old EU countries : in search of modernity measure

(1)

Small and medium enterprises in Poland and old EU countries:

in search of modernity measure

Tadeusz Borkowski, Aleksander Marcinkowski*

Keywords: SME, entrepreneurship, modernity, innovation, sector’s dynamics Słowa kluczowe: przedsiębiorczość, nowoczesność, innowacje, dynamika sektora

Synopsis: The paper addresses the question of a comparative analysis of data concerning Polish SMEs aga- inst the background of SMEs properties in selected “old” EU member countries. The dimension of comparison is defi ned as “modernity”. Modernity index is constructed on the basis of the reinterpretation of existing empirical data by ascribing weights to characteristics reported in research on SMEs.

Introduction

The presented paper deals with modernity challenges concerning Polish SMEs in the context of European Union. Our aim is to propose a rough, synthetic “modernity index” which will enable us to illustrate the relative position of Polish SME sector against the background of cross-EU comparative data concerning the same sector.

The construction of the index is based on the analysis of existing research and not on our own empirical attempt – the research method applied is therefore a second- ary analysis of data. The underlying idea of our paper is based on the conviction that a growing number of studies on SMEs is not accompanied by efforts aiming at a comparative study of this sector in EU member countries.

The problem of innovation and modernity: in quest for criteria of comparison of SME in Western Europe and in Poland

Unless we assume a critical attitude towards various meanings attributed to the notions of “modernity” and “innovation activity” in the analyzed sector, just like in other spheres of economy, these notions will have signifi cance for marketing or prop- aganda rather than a topical discussion. It is obvious that there is no single measure of innovation activity [Borkowski, Marcinkowski, 2004, p. 198–199; S. Laestidius,

* Dr hab. Tadeusz Borkowski, prof. UJ, Jagiellonian University; dr Aleksander Marcinkowski, Ja- giellonian University.

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 23

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 23 2010-01-08 11:09:582010-01-08 11:09:58

Podstawowy czarny Podstawowy czarny

(2)

2005, p. 63–85], just like there is no single, common estimation of modernity. On the other hand, assessing a given product, sector of economy, or the entire economy of a given country has serious political, social, economic, fi nancial, or cultural consequences. Even if the opinion about the economy of a given country is false, it can become fossilised as a stereotype for many years. We mean, for instance, the infa- mous “polnische wirtschaft” stereotype.

The assessment of the modernity of economy may be strongly biased. This bias fi nds expression in the selection of criteria and their measurement. After all, one could legitimately claim that modernity denotes orientation on the maximization of profi t.

From an ethical point of view one can in turn assume that modernity is tantamount to maintenance of high ethical standards in business. We then speak of different aspects of modernity and we agree with the opinion that this notion is so rich in meaning that probably it is impossible to embrace it with one universal defi nition. Another risk connected with assessing modernity is a temptation to use single but easily measurable variables. To illustrate our statement let us take the effi ciency of workers to be the main criterion of SMEs modernity. Then it will appear that in many areas of the SMEs sector Poland is one of the most modern European countries. This thesis seems to be sup- ported by data on the effi ciency of Polish workers, which turned out to be higher than that of German workers [Gacki, 2005]. Such single, isolated criteria are frequently very misleading, especially if we were to use them to build wide generalizations and to estimate the state of whole segments of economy. However, when used prudently, they retain some cognitive value – being a source of information on lasting, declining or emerging distances between the economies of different countries.

In the present article we will refer to the category of “modernity” of enterprises in, as we hope, a disciplined manner, in order to present the situation of Polish SMEs sector against a wider European background. We have selected this notion for three reasons: fi rstly, Polish economy during twenty years of political transformation has shifted towards market economy, open to competition. It departed from the model of communist economy, which was only described as modern in the context of ideo- logical foundations of this political system by its enthusiasts. Changes in ownership, investment in fi rms, the exchange of a major part of technical infrastructure, the ap- pearance of new management functions in Polish fi rms (such as marketing, public relations, research and development, human resources management), creating an advanced business infrastructure (fi nancial, advisory, training and educational institu- tions) – all that marked the syndrome of modernization in Polish economy. Secondly, these transformations constituted a hurdle for SMEs in our country – they had to face the challenge of changing conditions of conducting business activity. Thirdly, we will use this notion so as to be able to somehow determine and denote areas of similarities and differences between SMEs in Poland and in Western Europe. To meet this last condition we assume that the measures of “modernity” of the SME sector should have three main characteristics: they should invoke a set of criteria, and not single, isolated measures, they should have an operational character (i.e. enable the measurement of empirical features), and lastly, they should have passed an empirical test (i.e. should have been used in research).

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 24

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 24 2010-01-08 11:09:582010-01-08 11:09:58

(3)

Features of SMEs in Poland and selected “old” EU member countries

In 2001 a report on SMEs in Poland and EU countries was published based on a questionnaire sent to 47950 companies in 19 countries. Returns exceeded 10%, the quoted data are based on the analysis of 5152 questionnaires returned by respond- ents [European poll..., 2001]. The study concentrated on problems of planning the future of the fi rm, conducting market analyses, export of products, involvement in e-commerce, opportunities and limitations of development of the sector in particular countries. We believe that by attributing certain weights to empirical frequencies obtained in this research, one can build an empirical picture of “modernity” of this sector in Europe for comparative and illustrative purposes. Let us repeat that this will be quite a rough construct, certainly “time sensitive” in the sense that similar research repeated in a different period would bring different results, however, it will present tendencies occurring in the SME sector in Europe in a synthetic manner.

Let us begin by presenting data concerning proportional participation of fi rms having plans for the nearest year. One can assume that fi rms which do not plan their own activity belong to the traditional economy. These data are presented in table 1.

Tab. 1. Kinds of SMEs plan for the nearest year and an average number of fi rms declaring plans Country Acquisition

of new markets

Taking over new

fi rms

Strategic alliances

Diversifying product line

Rationalisation of product line

Average number of fi rms declaring plans for next year

Rank*

Sweden 61 19 29 48 7 32,8 1

Finland 63 18 35 48 36 40 3

Denmark 56 21 35 47 3 32,4 1

Holland 67 25 38 56 18 40,8 4

Ireland 72 17 30 55 23 39,4 2

G. Britain 68 21 34 45 19 37,4 2

Poland 78 13 28 60 41 44 3

Greece 81 35 39 34 77 53,2 4

Germany 57 14 26 49 20 33,2 1

Belgium 48 19 25 40 28 32 1

Italy 66 15 31 42 32 37,2 2

France 67 26 25 52 30 40 2

Source: [The European poll..., 2001, p 37]; we quote data from the original table without the categories “sale of the fi rm” and “other” and with the omission of countries not being EU members.

*We credited ranks according to following criteria: the average number of fi rms declaring plans in the ana- lysed areas up to 35% – 1, above 35 up to 40% – 2, above 40% up to 45% – 3 above 45% – 4

Data presented in the table indicate that Polish fi rms belong to the most expan- sive ones – 78% of investigated companies declared having plans for acquiring new markets, as compared to the EU average of 64%. Only in Greece a greater number

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 25

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 25 2010-01-08 11:09:582010-01-08 11:09:58

(4)

of companies have similar plans. Polish and Greek SME are also leaders as regards intentions of diversifying product line and its rationalization. A distinctly smaller number of Swedish, German, Belgian and Dutch companies declare activity in these areas. However, we can assume that in Poland and Greece companies are still adapt- ing their offer to the demands of the market, as opposed to West European SMEs, which do not need to introduce changes consisting in rationalization of product line.

By and large, as regards aspects enumerated in the table, the profi le of plans of Pol- ish companies does not depart from West European “average” (perhaps with the exception of taking over new fi rms, though also in this respect some West European countries have a similar percentage of companies wishing to take over others), while the extraordinary involvement in acquisition of markets, diversifi cation and rationalization of product line place Polish SMEs among the most dynamic in Europe.

These data undoubtedly undermine common opinions and convictions concerning European entrepreneurship, according to which Polish SMEs with their traditional methods resemble a museum of economy rather than its modern image.

Creating e-commerce strategies by SMEs is another aspect of planning. This issue is considered to be a distinct indicator of modernity of approach to the market and the company’s own future. Unfortunately, in this respect Polish companies va- stly differed from the European norm, as presented below (percentages inform about a fraction of SMEs having e-commerce strategy):

50% and more: Ireland, Great Britain, Austria,

40–49%: Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Denmark, Holland, 30–39%: Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Belgium, less than 29%: Italy, Poland [The European poll…, 2001, p. 17].

They seem to belong to another world, where the necessity of e-commerce is not perceived yet. The percentage of Irish, British or Austrian entrepreneurs that perceived the prospects of applying e-commerce was three times as high as in the case of Polish entrepreneurs. It is not connected, as one might believe, with lower accessibi- lity of the Internet, which is the fi rst explanation one tends to think of.

If we consider the comparative data concerning taking advantage of Internet banking, it will appear that Polish fi rms again belong to the European leaders (percentages inform about a fraction of SMEs using Internet banking):

80% and more: Finland, Holland, Austria, Belgium, 60–79%: Denmark, Spain, Germany, Poland,

40–59% : Luxembourg, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Great Britain, less than 39%: France, Greece [The European poll…, 2001, p. 19].

Polish SME companies take advantage of Internet banking as often as German ones, less frequently only than the leaders – Finnish, Dutch, Austrian and Belgian companies, and much more frequently than companies in France or Greece. In view of these facts the reluctance to use e-commerce seems to have other reasons than poor Internet infrastructure in our country. On the one hand it may refl ect the small popularity (or rather a slight acquaintance with) e-commerce as a modern form of business activity. On the other hand using e-commerce brings advantages mostly (though not only) in international contacts. Therefore, lack of language competence

– – – –

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 26

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 26 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(5)

could be a more serious reason for the reluctance to e-commerce than network defi ciencies.

The authors of the quoted research also took into account the question whether fi rms export their own products; export can be seen as an imperfect measure of the degree of “internationalization” of companies; percentages below inform about a fraction of SMEs exporting their products:

60% and more: Austria, Greece,

50–59%: Luxembourg, Belgium, Poland, Finland, Holland, Denmark, Ire- land, Italy,

40–49%: France, Sweden, Great Britain, Portugal, Germany, Spain [The Eu- ropean poll…, 2001, p. 30].

The percentage of exporting fi rms is the highest in Austria and Greece. Poland belongs to the second group of countries, with approximately 57% of SME exporting their own products. Polish SMEs export relatively more often than French, German, British, or Spanish SMEs. This factor makes sense in the context of the analyzed problems – exporting fi rms are more strongly engaged in global economy than the ones that do not export. Besides, if “globalization” is a mark of “modernity”, it could be as- sumed that companies involved in the global circulation of goods and services are also

“modern” – they seek new sales opportunities, plan their own development. Let us em- phasize that in the case of export we deal with the form of involvement that it is proper to call “active” (as distinct from the import of goods or services. Import also warrants participation in global economy, however, it is passive participation). On the other hand there exist “sharper” measures of internationalization of SME companies, such as the participation in joint ventures, possession of subsidiaries abroad, membership in for- malized and informal networks. Using this measure in the case of Polish SME would be diffi cult on account of the lack of systematic empirical data concerning this subject, whereas there are data on old EU countries [Internationalization of SMEs..., 2003].

And lastly – innovation. In 2001 there were approximately 7,6 patent applications per million inhabitants across the 10 acceding countries, compared to an average of 161 applications within the EU[SMEs in Europe, 2003, p. 59]. The average level of innovative activity, estimated on the basis of patent applications per million inhabitants, was thus among the “old fi fteen” over twenty times as high as in new member countries. This indicates a huge gap that exists in this respect between the “old” EU and new member countries. As to small and medium companies, “the proportion of enterprises with innovation activity is only available for a limited set of fi ve candidate countries: Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. Data cover the manufacturing sector, where there was a fairly wide range in innovation propensi- ties, rising from 13,7% of all manufacturing enterprises in Latvia to 31,9% in Slo- venia” [The European poll…, 2001, p. 59]. Slovenia was the main exception among the candidate countries, as it reported applications at a much higher level than the remaining countries – some 40,7 applications per million inhabitants. The second highest rate was recorded in Hungary, at half the level of Slovenia. The lowest patent application rates were recorded in Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania, where 3,0 or less patent applications were made, on average, for each million inhabitants.

– – –

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 27

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 27 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(6)

As such, the data on innovation, where Slovenia was identifi ed as the candidate country with the highest propensity to innovate (irrespective of the size-class being studied), was reinforced by the data on patents, where Slovenia again reported fi g- ures that were more closely aligned to EU averages than to other candidate countries.

Otherwise, in the remaining candidate countries for which data are available, the use of patents and the proportion of enterprises with innovation activity were consider- ably lower than in the EU [The European poll…, 2001, p. 59].

As regards small fi rms, Poland is an outsider – the percentage of small manufac- turing fi rms which in the years 2000–2004 implemented product, process or organizational innovations amounted to 17%. Simultaneously, this percentage for EU was approximately 39%. As to medium-sized fi rms, the distance between old EU (60%

of these fi rms implemented innovations) and Poland (50% of innovative fi rms) is distinctly smaller [Żołnierski, 2005, p. 10].

SMEs in Europe: who is more modern?

Let us try to present the data demonstrated above in a synthetic form, which will allow us to picture the situation of Polish SMEs against the background of some countries “of the old” European Union. Our “modernity index” is the average of ranks attributed to a given country for the position in the partial indicators of having plans for next year, having e-commerce strategy, using Internet banking and exporting goods.

For a place in the highest fraction a country is granted 4 points, then respectively 3 points, 2 points and 1 point for belonging to the lowest fraction. This index will now be supplemented with data concerning innovation activity – in this case we will take into account the average index for national economy, because we do not have at our disposal detailed data on innovation activity in the SMEs sector in old and new countries of the EU. Ranks attributed to particular countries in table 1 will be then added to ranks calculated on the basis of position on three partial indicators and will serve as basis for calculating an average determining the “summary index”.

Tab. 2. The average index of innovation activity in selected EU countries Country Average level of country’s innovation activity Rank

Sweden 182 4

Finland 173 4

Denmark 135 3

Holland 133 3

Great Britain 120 3

Ireland 115 3

Germany 103 3

France 102 3

Belgium 98 2

Italy 86 2

Poland 47 1

Greece 42 1

Source: adapted from [L. Zienkowski, 2003, p. 21]; data on ranks: own materials.

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 28

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 28 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(7)

The synthetic “modernity index” for fi rms of the SMEs sector obtained in this way is presented in table 2:

Tab. 3. “Modernity index” of the SMEs sector in selected European countries Country Average of four partial indicators

(without innovativeness)

Summary index, including country’s innovativeness level

Sweden 1,75 2,2

Finland 3 3,2

Denmark 2,5 2,6

Holland 3,5 3,4

Ireland 2,75 2,8

Great Britain 2,5 2,6

Poland 2,5 2,2

Greece 3 2,6

Germany 2,25 2,4

Belgium 2,5 2,4

Italy 2 2

France 2 2,2

Source: own materials.

“The modernity index” of SMEs that includes the level of innovation activity pre-sents a less optimistic picture of this sector in Poland. A European leader of modernity of the sector appears to be Holland, with Finland and Ireland a little behind.

The second group of countries comprises Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Belgium and Germany (with the index ranging from 2,4 to 2,6). Poland, in spite of having a lower summary index, is not isolated and, apparently, fi nds itself in a respectable company. The lower position of France, Italy and especially Sweden comes as some- thing of a surprise. Swedish entrepreneurs operating in one of the most innovative economies in Europe, seldom declare any activity in seeking new markets and diversifi cation of product line. It is possible that Swedish data refl ect a “mature” SMEs sector which has reached an established, strong position on hitherto existing markets and draws advantage of it, without getting involved in risky search for new sales opportunities. A similar statement could surely apply to France and Italy.

The above observations bring to mind ideas developed within the framework of “population ecology of organizations” and the possibility of employing them in a description of the situation of the SMEs sector in national economy. According to these models it is believed that the organization (the fi rm) goes through several stages of life. The stages usually listed are the start-up stage, growth, development and decline of the organization[J. Freeman, 1982]. Each of the stages has its own specifi city, for example in the start-up phase a very strong enterprising orientation appears, with an intensive search for new possibilities of market activity but also a comparatively weak formalization of activities within the fi rm. The dominant features are spontaneity, lack of strictly defi ned norms and sometimes lack of unam- biguous organizational structure, based on rigid labor division. Gradually, as the organization continues to exist, these initially distinctive features disappear. Instead,

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 29

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 29 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(8)

there appears a growing institutionalization of various areas of activity, and fi nally – unless forces counteracting the petrifaction of standards of operation are activated – the fi rm loses its ability to adapt to changes in the environment and enters the decline stage of its life cycle. Let us consider the consequences of applying this way of thinking to the situation of the whole SMEs sector – let us assume that SMEs as a sector goes through similar stages of life cycle. One of the consequences of this assumption would be quite alarming: the disappearance, in a large number of fi rms, of the orientation to searching for market chances, the exploitation of advantages arising from the established market position would suggest that the sector might be reaching the phase of fossilization and decline. We do not want to take on the part of prophets of doom – however, if our reasoning is even partly correct, it would be better to calmly consider possible manners of reviving the sector which has reached an advanced phase of its life cycle, than to be outraged at the content of the forecasts.

Final remarks

The above considerations lead to a certain refl ection of a more general nature.

Namely, it seems that modernity of the SMEs sector in the expanded EU proceeds along two axes – in older member countries the axis of modernity is undoubtedly an innovative character of national economy, with a signifi cant participation of SMEs.

In new member countries (or at least in Poland) modernity can appear in response to intensive exploration of market opportunities, also on foreign markets, in the pro- cess of defi ning the line of production or services and ever better adaptation to the needs of customers, in considerably more aggressive ways of attracting customers. It is diffi cult to resist the impression that SMEs in both old and new EU countries have a potential that their counterparts may need. However, fi rst of all, attention should be directed at these companies and these countries which our index indicates as

“most modern” (Holland, Ireland, Finland). These are countries in which companies retained market dynamism measured with great activity in the area of planning.

Moreover, they are innovative and operate in innovative economies. Juxtaposing the SMEs sector in Poland with these particular countries shows the actual distance that has to be covered in order to approach the European standards of modernity of the sector.

Bibliography

1. Borkowski T., Marcinkowski A., (2004). Społeczno-psychologiczne uwarunkowania wprowadzania in- nowacji w przedsiębiorstwie [in:] E. Okoń-Horodyńska (ed.), Rola nauki polskiej we wzroście innowacyj- ności gospodarki, Wydawnictwo PTE, Warszawa.

2. Borkowski T., Marcinkowski A., (2004), O wielowymiarowym rozumieniu innowacji, proinnowacyjnych organizacjach i proinnowacyjnym myśleniu [in:] J. Skalik J. (ed.), Zmiana warunkiem sukcesu. Zmiana a innowacja organizacyjna, Akademia Ekonomiczna we Wrocławiu 2004.

3. Freeman J., (1982), Organizational life cycles and natural selection process [in:] B.M. Staw, L.L. Cum- mings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, Ct.

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 30

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 30 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(9)

4. Internationalization of SMEs, (2003), Observatory of European SMEs, Enterprise Publications, no 4.

5. Laestidius S., (2005), Innovation – On the development of a concept and its relvance in the knowledge economy [in:] H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, D. Jacobson, S. Laestidius (eds.), Low tech innovation in the knowled- ge economy, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Mein, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, N. York, Oxford, Wien.

6. SMEs in Europe. Candidate countries, (2003), Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Commu- nities, Luxembourg.

7. SMEs in focus. Main results from the 2002 Observatory of European SMEs, (2002), Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

8. The European poll of small and medium fi rms, (2001), Grant Thornton, PARP, Warsaw.

9. Von Schuttenbach L., (2000), Sektor małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw w Republice Federalnej Niemiec, Polska Fundacja Promocji i Rozwoju Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorstw, Warszawa.

10. Zienkowski L., (2003), Czy polska polityka makroekonomiczna zawiera paradygmat wzrostu innowa- cyjności gospodarki? [in:] E. Okoń-Horodyńska (ed.), Rola nauki we wzroście innowacyjności polskiej gospodarki. Conference materials, Krakow.

11. Żołnierski A., (2005), Potencjał innowacyjnych polskich małych i średniej wielkości przedsiębiorstw, PARP, Warszawa.

Electronic document

1. Gacki G., Polacy wydajniejsi od Niemców, [on line], www.pit.egospodarka.pl/7576, [18.02.2005].

Małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa w Polsce i krajach UE:

w poszukiwaniu miernika nowoczesności

Streszczenie

W niniejszym artykule podjęta została kwestia nowoczesności polskiego sektora MSP. Ocena nowoczesności ma niewątpliwie silne skażenie subiektywne. Wyraża się ono w doborze kryteriów i ich pomiarze. Jak w przypadku wielu innych pojęć używanych we współczesnych naukach społecznych, posłużenie się pojęciem nowo- czesności sektora zakładać musi znajomość teorii, na której opiera się lub do której odsyła defi nicja pojęcia. Można przecież zasadnie uznać, że nowoczesność oznacza orientację na maksymalizację zysku. Z pozycji etycznych można z kolei uznać, iż nowoczesność to podtrzymywanie wysokich standardów etycznych w biznesie.

Mówi się wówczas o różnych aspektach nowoczesności i godzimy się z poglądem, iż jest to pojęcie tak bogate treściowo, iż prawdopodobnie niemożliwe do objęcia jedną uniwersalną defi nicją. Pamiętanie o tych ograniczeniach eliminuje możliwość popełnienia błędu zastosowania pojęcia poza granicami wyznaczonymi mu przez treść defi nicji.

W niniejszym artykule odwołania do kategorii nowoczesności przedsiębiorstw pomagają w przedstawieniu sytuacji polskiego sektora MSP na szerszym, europejskim tle porównawczym. Pojęcie to wybrano z trzech powodów: po pierwsze, cała gospodarka polska w toku kilkunastu lat ustrojowej transformacji przebyła drogę w kierunku gospodarki rynkowej i otwartej na konkurencję. Odeszła od mode- lu ekonomii komunistycznej, którą jedynie w kontekście założeń ideologicznych tego ustroju jego entuzjaści nazywali nowoczesną. Zmiany własnościowe, inwesty- cje w przedsiębiorstwach, wymiana znacznej części tzw. technicznego uzbrojenia pracy, pojawienie się nowych funkcji zarządzania w polskich fi rmach (takich jak

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 31

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 31 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(10)

marketing, public relations, badania i rozwój, zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi), bu- dowanie rozwiniętej infrastruktury biznesu (instytucje fi nansowe, doradztwa, szko- leniowe i edukacyjne) – wszystko to oznaczało syndrom zmian modernizacyjnych w polskiej gospodarce. Po drugie, przemiany te oznaczały ciężką próbę dla MSP w naszym kraju – musiały one sprostać wyzwaniu ewoluujących warunków prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej. Sektor ten, o czym pisaliśmy wyżej, adaptował się do nowego, rynkowego i konkurencyjnego otoczenia, zmieniając się w charakte- rystyczny sposób – kierunek tej ewolucji (od „dzikiego zachodu” do „europeizacji”) można bez większego ryzyka nazwać „modernizacją”. Po trzecie, pojęcie to wyko- rzystano, by móc oznaczyć i nazwać obszary podobieństw i różnic między MSP w Polsce i Europie Zachodniej.

Podstawowym wymogiem, który wiąże się z użyciem pojęcia „nowoczesność”, jest nadanie mu treści empirycznej. Jednak każdorazowa taka próba wiąże się z pewnym warunkiem: treść empiryczna będzie uboższa od teoretycznej. Pojęcia teoretyczne w naukach społecznych zawierają zawsze pewien „naddatek sensu”

w stosunku do korelatów empirycznych. Zwiększając precyzję opisu rzeczywisto- ści, można zgubić część treściowego bogactwa. Przyjmujemy zatem, że miary „no- woczesności” sektora MSP powinny spełniać trzy podstawowe warunki: 1) odwo- ływać się do zestawu kryteriów, nie zaś do pojedynczych, oderwanych wymiarów, 2) mieć charakter operacyjny, tzn. umożliwiać pomiar cech empirycznych i 3) mieć za sobą test empiryczny, tzn. powinny być użyte w badaniach, stwierdzona empiryczna przydatność wskaźników chroni bowiem przed pokusą „mnożenia bytów ponad ustaloną potrzebę”. W rozważaniach nawiązywano do badań zrealizowanych w 2001 r. przez agencję Grant Thornton oraz Polską Agencję Rozwoju Przedsię- biorczości. Ich problematyka koncentrowała się na zagadnieniach planowania przy- szłości fi rmy, prowadzenia analiz rynku, eksportu własnych wyrobów, zaangażowa- nia w e-commerce, szans i ograniczeń rozwoju sektora w poszczególnych krajach.

Przypisanie wagi do częstości empirycznych uzyskanych w tych badaniach pozwala zbudować dla celów porównawczych i ilustracyjnych empiryczny obraz nowoczes- ności sektora. Tak określony wskaźnik nowoczesności stanowi średnią rang przy- pisanych danemu krajowi za pozycję jego MSP w przywołanych wyżej wymiarach problematyki badawczej. Wskaźnik ten uzupełniono o dane dotyczące innowacyj- ności – w tym przypadku wzięto pod uwagę średni wskaźnik dla całej gospodarki narodowej, gdyż nadal brakuje rzetelnych i reprezentatywnych danych na temat innowacyjności sektora MSP w starych i nowych krajach UE. Rangi przypisane poszczególnym krajom pozwoliły na wyliczenie średniej stanowiącej tym razem wskaźnik sumaryczny nowoczesności.

Europejskim liderem nowoczesności sektora okazuje się Holandia (3,4), niewiele ustępują jej Finlandia (3,2) i Irlandia (2,8). Druga grupę krajów stanowią Dania, Wielka Brytania, Grecja, Belgia i Niemcy (wartości wskaźnika od 2,4 do 2,6). Pol- ska, choć odznacza się niższą wartością sumarycznego wskaźnika (2,2), nie zajmuje pozycji autsajdera. Polskie MSP znajdują się w fazie skutecznego uczenia się rynku i reguł działania w nowej gospodarce, co odzwierciedla ich stosunkowo wysoka pozycja na skali rynkowej aktywności. Niestety, niska wrażliwość naszych małych

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 32

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 32 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59

(11)

i średnich fi rm na perspektywy e-commerce, mało innowacyjne otoczenie gospo- darki narodowej i niewielka własna aktywność przedsiębiorstw w zakresie innowacji, wreszcie problem korupcji i inne właściwości polskiego życia społecznego i gospodarczego, lokują nasze MSP bliżej tradycyjnej formy przedsiębiorstwa.

Na tle przedstawionych uwag rysuje się pewna refl eksja ogólniejszej natury.

Wydaje się mianowicie, że nowoczesność sektora MSP w powiększonej UE buduje się wokół dwóch osi – w starszych krajach członkowskich osią nowoczesności jest niewątpliwie innowacyjność gospodarki narodowej, ze znaczącym w tej innowacyj- ności udziałem MSP. W nowych krajach członkowskich (a przynajmniej w Polsce) nowoczesność może się pojawiać pod wpływem intensywnych poszukiwań rynko- wej szansy, także na rynkach zagranicznych, w procesie defi niowania asortymentu produkcji lub usług i coraz lepszego dostosowanego do potrzeb klienteli, w znacznie bardziej agresywnym zabieganiu o klienta. Trudno oprzeć się wrażeniu, iż MSP w starych i nowych krajach UE mają potencjał, którego mogą od siebie wzajemnie potrzebować. Przede wszystkim jednak uwaga powinna być skierowana na te fi rmy i te kraje, które nasz wskaźnik portretuje jako „najbardziej nowoczesne” (Holandia, Irlandia, Finlandia). Są to bowiem kraje, w których fi rmy zachowały rynkowy dyna- mizm mierzony dużą aktywnością w sferze planowania, a ponadto są innowacyjne i działają w innowacyjnych gospodarkach. Porównanie sektora MSP w Polsce z ty- mi zwłaszcza krajami ilustruje rzeczywisty dystans, jaki trzeba pokonać, by zbliżyć się do europejskich standardów nowoczesności sektora.

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 33

WZ_1_09_k2.indd 33 2010-01-08 11:09:592010-01-08 11:09:59