Trasition Effects on the Development of 
Dynamic Entrepreneurship - The Case of 
Serbia 
Edvard Jakopin, Sonja Tontić 
  
"We are in the midst of a quiet revolution when creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit in 
people win in the entire world. I believe their impact on the 21st century will be equal or 
greater to that of the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th century. The so-called E-
generation (entrepreneurial generation) will replace the ancient, dinosaur type of capitalism“ 
Jeffry Timmons (1999) 
  
Introduction 
Propulsive enterprises present the backbone of future development of any economy. The 
drivers of development are most propulsive enterprises (gazelles), i.e. small and medium-
sized enterprises that make use of their resources in a market environment most efficiently; 
they raise employment continually and improve their balance positions. Global processes 
bring to the fore the speed of gazelles’ response to market signals and, accordingly, the speed 
of making business decisions (“think global, act local”). Dynamic entrepreneurs are 
entrepreneurs with features such as: creativity and originality, long-term orientation to the 
market and buyers, morality and business culture, the ambition for long-lasting success and 
capital profit, the ability to predict risk and adjust, and pronounced problem-solving 
orientation. 
Some of the most important achievements of Serbia’s transition economy are a faster 
development of the sector of small and medium-sized enterprises and entrepreneurship and its 
evolution into a relevant segment of economy. In 2010 the entrepreneurial sector accounted 
for 99.8% of the total number of enterprises, which was around 320,000; the entrepreneurial 
sector accounted for 45% of the structure of overall employment, total exports and total 
investments, 2/3 of total turnover, 56% of newly created value (GVA) in economy, and 
around 33% of GDP of the Republic. 
However, recession tide hit the entrepreneurial sector in the entire territory of SEE hardest 
and underscored the need to accelerate and complete transition reforms. Stimulating the 
development of dynamic entrepreneurship and gazelles is a development chance of Serbia. 
Primary tasks are to continually create a stimulating environment and resolve key problems of 
development of enterprises in the stage of growth and development. It takes special 
stimulation of dynamic entrepreneurship as it leads to high growth. 
  
1. How Recession Impacts on Economic Growth of SEE 
Transition Economies 
In 2012 the global economy is in the danger zone again. As different from 2009, this time the 
heart of the problem lies in the euro area. Economic growth of many developed European 
economies is hampered by immense public deficits and debts, heightening tensions on the 
market, intensifying financial turbulences and ever weaker trust in the financial system, which 
all has an impact on investment and consumption and calls for urgent fiscal consolidation 
actions that burden domestic demand and export activities. 
Growth of domestic demand lags behind growth of GDP of most developed economies in 
Europe. External demand is in decline throughout most of Europe and probably will continue 
to develop in line with global slowdown. Global financial markets are contaminated by 
expanding debt crises that originate from European countries. Therefore the global economy 
is moving toward the part of low economic growth. 
The European Union is the largest economy in the world (with GDP of more than 16 billion 
dollars), larger than both the American and the Chinese. However, the problem is of structural 
nature – namely, 77% of GDP is accounted for by services and only 20% by industry. In 
addition, recession blows are caused by the problem of deficit of the balance of payment 
current account that is deteriorating by day due to ever greater trade deficit. The EU has a 
huge trade deficit with China, a consequence of the EU’s strategy to turn to the economy of 
knowledge and to export knowledge, the strategy that failed to bear fruit and, moreover, 
meant the loss of industry(1). 
Within the EU a group of economies is practically out of recession, owing to a substantial 
growth of manufacturing industry (Denmark, Germany, Poland, The Netherlands, Sweden, 
and Switzerland), the second group is in a deep debt crisis (Greece, Ireland, and Portugal), 
while in the third group of countries in 2011 growth was lower than average growth before 
the crisis. Some of these economies face problems of rising market instability and rising 
liabilities (Italy and Spain). 
The economic recovery from effects of the global crisis in 2008/2009 in SEE countries started 
in 2010 and continued into early 2011 (Figure 1). 
 
Figure 1: Crisis impact on economic growth – GDP/pc 
  
However, since the second quarter of 2011 the economic situation has worsened and the 
recovery is brought into question due to turbulences in the euro area that create huge risks in 
SEE countries. The main risk for SEE countries lies in the fact that the crisis in the euro area 
might deepen and have an adverse effect on exports and capital flows given that humble 
growth in 2010 was realized mainly owing to the export of countries to the euro area. The 
crisis in the European banking sector and a considerable drop in the inflow of capital could 
strongly hit economies that are highly dependent on the import of capital, such as Serbia. 
Negative effects on the debt crisis in the euro area could be felt in SEE economies through: 
 Trade with the EU (and thus exports and economic growth) 
 Foreign direct investments (investors from the EU are the largest source of FDI) 
 The presence of foreign banks (almost all foreign banks are from the EU, whereby the 
weight of banks from Greece and Italy is most marked) 
 Remittances (euro-zone countries are a major source of remittances). 
  
2. Serbia’s Development Gap 
Economic growth and development in the previous decade had the aim of creating 
institutional and material prerequisites for a stable development. Given the ‘development gap’ 
that emerged in the last decade of the 20th century, an average growth rate of GDP achieved 
in 2001-2010 (of 3.7%) was not sufficient to help eliminate the lag – the development gap 
(Table 1). During the pre-crisis period (by 2008) the problem of an unfavourable structure of 
creation and usage of GDP had not been resolved as domestic demand had constantly been 
rising faster than output. 
Table 1: Macroeconomic transition balance 
 
 
The problem further caused a rising external trade deficit (a lower supply of goods designed 
for exports and higher demand for imported goods) and, consequently, the deficit of the 
balance of payments current account. Deficits were covered from the inflow of foreign capital 
(surplus in the financial section of the balance of payments). Over the past decade external 
debt of the country has been rising continually. 
The development ‘transition gap’ of Serbia is characterized by the following macroeconomic 
misbalances: 
 A high share of domestic consumption in GDP 
 An inadequate volume and an unfavourable structure of gross fixed capital formation, 
as well as the share in GDP (around 20%) 
 Rising budget deficit 
 High foreign trade deficit with an insufficient volume and an inadequate structure of 
exports, as well as an inadequate share in GDP (around 30%) 
 Constant deficit of the current account of the balance of payments 
 High share of public debt in GDP (around 45%) 
 A constant rise and a high share of external debt in GDP (73.6%). According to the 
World Bank’s methodology, the country is over-indebted if the share of external debt 
in GDP is larger than 80%. 
2.1. The gap: output – domestic demand 
The main characteristic of the structure of GDP usage is a high share of final consumption 
and an inadequate share of gross fixed capital formation. During the pre-crisis period final 
consumption was rising faster than economic growth and its share in GDP stood at as much as 
98%, while the share of investments was at about 20%, i.e. domestic demand surpassed total 
output by about 20% (Figure 2). High-level final consumption led to an increase in imports. 
 
Figure 2: Growth rates of GDP and domestic demand 
Due to an inadequate share of the export of goods and services in GDP (around 30%) external 
trade deficit rose, and so did deficit of the current account of the balance of payments. In the 
period of crisis a change to the relation between output and domestic demand occurred. In 
2010 investment consumption and export demand increased, while final consumption was still 
in the negative zone. Despite the recovery of investment activity, their share in GDP (19%) 
was still inadequate for a faster recovery of the country. 
2.2. Two key macroeconomic deficits 
The transition period is marked with a rising deficit of the consolidated balance of the state 
sector (the share of deficit in GDP in 2006 was 1.6% and in 2011 it was at 4.5%), which was 
financed through borrowing on the domestic and international capital market. Because of 
recession blows in 2009 we had the deepening of the deficit of the government sector induced 
by economic downturn (a drop in tax revenues), which was to some extent alleviated in the 
second half of 2010 (4.4%). Current public consumption was lower, which gave room for 
fiscal incentives, i.e. subsidies and ‘soft’ budget loans for the corporate sector and households. 
Throughout the entire transition period after 2001 the economy has been faced with external 
misbalance caused by rising external trade deficit that was financed through loans from 
abroad. The inflow of foreign direct investments was also partially funded through the rising 
deficit of the current balance. In 2009 deficit of the current account considerably decrease in 
comparison with the previous period due to a decrease in external trade deficit. The inflow of 
foreign direct investments significantly decreased in 2010 because of the economic crisis. A 
low level of the inflow of foreign direct investments led to deterioration of balance of 
payments developments given that their inflow partially covers the balance of payments 
current account deficit. 
  
3. Degree of Development of Dynamic Entrepreneurship in 
Serbia 
The entrepreneurial sector in Serbia accounts for 99.8% of the number of enterprises, in the 
structure of economy employs 2/3 of employees, generates 2/3 of turnover and 56% of the 
newly created value; it accounts for 45% of exports and 1/3 of GDP (Tables 2 and 3). 
However, compared to large enterprises the entrepreneurial sector is less productive and less 
profitable (the profitability rate is 36.1% vs. 43.0% in large companies). Sector concentration 
of entrepreneurship is in manufacturing industry and trade, and the regional is in the capital. 
 
Despite a significant impact of the SMEE sector on overall economic development, main 
indicators of the doing business in 2010 by the size of enterprises suggest there are major 
development problems, most important ones being an unfavourable structure with an 
insufficient number and a low level of development of medium-sized enterprises that drive the 
sector development. 
Viewed by the size, in the structure of the entrepreneurial sector of SMEE micro enterprises 
are most numerous, while small and medium-sized enterprises dominate all the indicators of 
reference. However, in 2010 the number of medium-sized enterprises, which should take over 
the role of drivers of development of the entire sector, fell by 8.6%. 
3.1. How recession affects the entrepreneurial sector 
Recession effects (reduction of external and internal demand, investments, higher risks and 
costs of investment, as well as a fear of failure) adversely impacted on the doing business of 
economic entities. 
The healthy entrepreneurial dynamics of previous years is undermined (slower establishment, 
growth, and development, and faster closing), and so the number of shops fell and the number 
of enterprises is stagnating. Results of GEM research (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) into 
various aspects of the entrepreneurial activity in 2009 underline negative effects of the crisis 
on the entrepreneurial climate in Serbia – the number of start-ups as well as new 
entrepreneurs decreased, which heavily limited opportunities for the creation of new jobs and 
productivity growth. In the course of 2010 each month around 3,700 individuals established 
new business entities, much less than 5,000 individuals (an average number of people that set 
up businesses each month in 2007). The environment in Serbia in which entrepreneurship is to 
develop has worsened since the start of the economic crisis. Consumer demand declined and 
the loss of business trust has made an adverse impact on the availability of financial support; 
this put a serious limit to the opening of new and development of existing enterprises and 
shops. The rate of the opening of new enterprises has slowed down substantially. Namely, in 
2007 per each 6 newly established enterprises one was closed down, and per three newly 
opened shops two were closed. In 2010 the number of newly established and closed 
enterprises almost equaled, while the number of opened shops was by 10% lower than the 
number of closed. Prospects of newly established companies to survive on the market 
diminished, and so the share of companies that live through the first two years of operating 
went down from 92.0% (2007) to 90.6% (2010), while the rate of survival of shops fell from 
66.2% to 54.1%. At the same time, unemployment increased a lot, which leads to prolonged 
forced emigration, particularly of the young and educated. The global economic crisis has 
made an adverse impact both on economic entities in the early stage of operating and on 
already established companies – there are fewer business opportunities and it is more difficult 
to start a business. 
Moderate economic growth in 2010 did not help the improvement of business conditions of 
the entrepreneurial sector, nor the achievement of better business results (Table 4). 
 
The crisis and worsening of business conditions in the SMEE sector had a particularly severe 
effect on employment (around 58,000 employees were made jobless). The trend of rapid 
opening of new jobs of the period 2004-2008 when, owing to an improved business climate 
and incentives undertaken by the Government, the number of employees in the sector of 
SMEE increased by about 187,000, through which the adverse transition effect of a decrease 
in the number of jobs in large enterprises that was a part of the restructuring process was 
neutralized (164,000 employees), thus minimizing consequences that go hand in hand with 
the process of establishing an optimal level of the number of employees in privatized 
economic entities. Section and regional breakdown of entrepreneurship in recession has not 
changed much. 
However, the recession tide has led to a decrease in the value of output and an increase in 
liabilities of economic entities, which resulted in a weaker inclination for investment. In 2009 
the share of the SMEE sector in the structure of economic investment was at 52.6%, while the 
share o investment in GVA slightly rose to 33%, primarily owing to higher investments of 
small enterprises. The trend of declining investment efficiency continues, and it is manifested 
as an ever larger sum of investment needed to generate a unit of GVA increase. The 
comparative analysis of investment with neighbouring countries and EU-27 suggests a much 
lower level of these indicators in Serbia. 
Assessments are that small enterprises started to recover in 2010 by channeling their activities 
to other, less risky areas owing to a higher degree of flexibility. Because of slower adjustment 
to new conditions, medium-sized companies only in 2010 felt the real impact of the crisis, 
which had a key impact on overall realized results of the SMEE sector. As earnings in the 
SMEE sector account for almost 2/3 of GVA, enterprises do not have much left to improve 
and modernize the work process, without which there is no efficient adjustment. 
Poorer conditions for the doing business, primarily for borrowing, particularly hit the SMEE 
sector that, as in countries of the region, has become more indebted and dependant on external 
sources of funding. 
3.2. Comparative analysis of entrepreneurship development 
The comparative analysis of development of the SMEE sector in Serbia and EU countries 
suggests that by the share in the number of companies and employment, as well as by 
generated turnover and GVA, the sector of Serbian SMEE is at the level of the EU average. 
However, there is a huge lag of the Serbia’s SMEE sector in relation to the EU average if one 
analyzes turnover per employee, GVA per employee, and profit per employee. The 
comparative analysis of investment per employee and investment per enterprise in 
neighbouring countries and EU-27 suggests a considerably lower level of these indicators in 
Serbia, both for the SMEE sector and for overall economy. Investments per employee in the 
SMEE sector amount to EUR 3,400 (the EU average is EUR 7,400), and investments per 
enterprise amount to EUR 8,700 (EUR 33,400). 
The level of competitiveness of the entrepreneurial sector of Serbia significantly lags behind 
the European average and most transition economies. Qualitative indicators of the level of 
development of the entrepreneurial sector are lower in comparison with the EU average and 
most countries of reference (employment per enterprise, turnover, GVA, and profit per 
employee). An average rate of profitability is above the average, a consequence of a low 
starting basis and not of the expansion or a higher level of internationalization of this sector. 
A relative delay of Serbia in implementation of structural reforms leads to a high share of the 
SMEE sector in major indicators of the doing business of the economy. The global economic 
crisis only additionally deepened existing development problems, in the first place of large 
economic systems in restructuring. 
In comparison with 2009, the number of SMEE rose and business activity, profit, and the 
value of external trade increased moderately. A relatively small number of SMEE per 1,000 
citizens (43.3) was above the level of the EU average, but it was insufficient vis-à-vis the 
country’s needs (Table 5). Before the outburst of the global economic crisis the SMEE sector 
had been the most vital segment of the economy and a major generator of new jobs. Due to 
general deterioration of business conditions, there was a considerable decrease in the volume 
of employed labour and thus a relative improvement of business performances in relation to 
the number of employees. 
 
3.3. Sustainability of Serbian gazelles 
Even in the most developed economies gazelles account for not more than five per cent in the 
total number of enterprises. As early as in the 1970s Professor David Birch (the author of the 
very term gazelles) while studying the boom of the Silicone valley concluded that only three 
per cent of enterprises (most dynamic ones – gazelles) would survive and continue to develop. 
Conclusions entitled Europe's 500 indicate new trends of dynamic entrepreneurship and state 
that their sustainability is based on a clear entrepreneurial vision and an innovative approach. 
“The entrepreneurial generation of the day is creative, innovative, and strives to be true to its 
environment…it is very different from the capitalists of the 19th and mid 20th century we 
know of. Entrepreneurs create and in the first place bring to life new technologies, new 
products, new industrial branches; they generate new value and new jobs.” (Timmons, A. 
Jeffry) Recession impacts have clearly showed what the economic role of entrepreneurship is. 
Most jobs are, namely, created in the companies that employ up to twenty people. Small and 
medium-sized enterprises were the fastest rising enterprises in the 1990s, they created more 
jobs than large enterprises lost, and they realized the highest increase in revenues and profit. 
In transition countries there is a great mistrust of dynamic entrepreneurs (that many American 
authors dub heroes). In these countries some twenty years ago it was dangerous and illegal to 
talk about entrepreneurship and profit. Therefore it takes some time to change the attitude to 
entrepreneurship as a whole and for the state to initiate permanent building of a favorable 
climate for dynamic entrepreneurship. Stimulation of entrepreneurship development in Serbia 
is one of the development focal points and a priority strategic objective of overall 
development of the country. Intensive development of modern entrepreneurship in Serbia 
started in 2001 as part of structural reforms but global recession heavily undermined transition 
results. Still, nowadays the entrepreneurial sector employs around 2/3 of economy, generates 
56% of value added, 45% of exports, and accounts for 1/3 in GDP of the Republic. 
Although we still cannot say that dynamic entrepreneurship in Serbia is in line with European 
standards when it comes to economic robustness, innovativeness or competitiveness, if we 
modify criteria to some extent, we could identify enterprises that deserve the epithet of 
dynamic enterprises and most dynamic enterprises – gazelles. In keeping with modified 
“Europe`s 500” criteria of the European Commission, in 2010 in Serbia there were 538 
dynamic enterprises and 54 most dynamic ones – gazelles. The research into dynamic 
entrepreneurship shows that in 2008 the number of dynamic enterprises increased 2.5 times 
(from 237 in 1998-2002 to 532 in 2003-2007) and that the number of their employees doubled 
(from 12,473 to 22,167), while in the period 2006-2010 in 538 dynamic enterprises there were 
about 47,000 employees. 
The main characteristics of 54 Serbian gazelles in 2010 were (Figure 3): 
 A constant increase in employment – in 2003-2010 gazelles created about 10,000 new 
jobs; 
 The impact of Serbian gazelles on overall economic developments is still marginal – 
54 Serbian gazelles in 2010 accounted for: 1.2% of the number of employees, 1.5% of 
total revenues, 1.3% of income, and they had at their disposal 0.5% of capital; 
 A more dynamic real rise in major indicators that that of economic developments: 
capital rose 5.8 times (by 17% in economy), total revenues rose 4.4 times (by 50% in 
economy), and income 4.3 times (by 2.2 times in economy); 
 Section breakdown indicates that gazelles are concentrated in Trade (24) and 
Manufacturing industry (12); 
 Pronounced regional concentration – 23 gazelles are registered in the territory of 
Belgrade, mostly in the service sector. 
 
Figure 3: Significance of dynamic entrepreneurship 
  
3.4. Barriers to entrepreneurship development 
Key problems that stand in the way of entrepreneurship development in Serbia are: 
 incomplete institutional setting and regulations – major problems lie in the domain of 
high total fiscal liabilities; unfair treatment in public procurement processes; a failure 
to address to issue of monopoly; problematic claiming of liabilities; red tape and an 
inadequate taxation system; complicated and costly administrative procedures, 
particularly when it comes to the issuing of licences; resolving property and legal 
issues, etc.; 
 o inadequate knowledge and skills of entrepreneurs and their employees – a dearth of 
staff with particular skills as well as insufficient expert training of the management to 
resolve strategic and/or operative problems with the view to maintaining continuity of 
operations; 
 o inadequate incentives for improving capacities for managing development of 
intellectual property in enterprises, including ownership rights – trainings, seminars 
and lectures, direct subsidies and grants, specialization in intellectual property 
protection on the international market; 
 o unfavourable conditions for funding and inadequate forms and volume of financial 
support – what dominates are banks that offer expensive loans and short terms of loan 
repayment. Something that is lacking are developed micro-credit institutions on the 
national and regional level, but also other financial instruments designed to suit true 
financial needs of SMEE and their economic strength; 
 o undeveloped programme-based access to funds – cooperation with private investors 
such as business angels; programmes of loans or loan guarantees; mezzanine loans to 
provide capital for innovative SMEE; capitalization of the funds of venture capital; tax 
incentives, etc. 
 o poor liaison with large enterprises, and, consequently, an untapped chance for 
dynamic development of the SMEE sector as a partner (supplier, subcontractor) of 
large business systems, i.e. insufficient exploitation of advantages offered by the 
SMEE sector in relation to large enterprises in some production segments that require 
flexibility and a speedy technical and technological/market adjustment; 
 o inadequate incentives for introducing modern technologies, innovations, standards, 
quality control, etc.; 
 o insufficient stimulus for internationalization and a lack of information on markets; 
 o poor promotion of development of skills in enterprises – management skills, 
research and development skills and skills related to realizing exports by providing 
relevant trainings (by granting funds for private services and/or by directly providing 
trainings by means of training centres and other infrastructure). 
  
Conclusion 
Development of entrepreneurship in Serbia is directly dependant on the animation of entire 
economic activity that can be achieved by applying a new model of growth based on export 
demand, a rise in employment, investment, a decline in public consumption, strengthening of 
the industrial sector in parallel with the development of the sector of services, etc. The central 
focus should be on measures and activities for stimulating the development of dynamic 
entrepreneurship: 
 Establishment of a comprehensive incentive system and addressing key development 
problems of enterprises in the stage of growth and development, based on practices of 
highly developed economies of the OECD and the EU that deliberate special actions 
as part of the process of building a system for stimulating the development of dynamic 
enterprises and gazelles. In EU states this is a part of a wider process of 
implementation of the Lisbon strategy for providing growth and employment and 
creating the entrepreneurial, knowledge-based society. 
 A shift from the policy of support for the entire sector of SMEE (by improving the 
business environment for stimulating the opening of as many new entrepreneurial 
companies as possible) to the policy of stimulating dynamic entrepreneurship that is 
dedicated to the creation of an environment conducive to growth of entrepreneurial 
companies and the one that will encourage gifted people with a clear vision of the 
future to start their own business. 
 An altered way of funding (public sources of funds, various forms of grants, subsidies, 
and soft loans), relying on the combination of public and private sources, namely loans 
for research and development and grants for innovations, funding provided by 
business angels, engagement of venture capital, and the issuing of securities. 
 A change to the structure of services delivered by institutions for the non-financial 
support, and that from basic (standard) counseling for setting up a business, business 
planning, and the doing business of small companies, to counseling based on 
experience in risky funding, strategic planning, support for the inclusion into supply 
chains of large companies, internationalization, and growth and development of 
enterprises. 
 The advantage in ensuring access to resources of dynamic entrepreneurship which 
enable high growth. 
Regulatory reforms that target not only the removal of barriers for the establishment of new 
companies but also for the creation of favourable conditions for the growth of dynamic 
enterprises are to be developed. Apart from the lowering of VAT for small companies, it is 
essential for collection of tax revenues to be brought in line with conditions for the change to 
the company size and to provide a neutral distribution of shares. The earlier approach was to 
find opportunities to prevent the loss and bankruptcy, while at the moment losses and 
bankruptcy are accepted as a natural part of the market mechanism. Still, other ways to reduce 
their economic and social cost are being devised (i.e. by providing the ‘second chance’). 
Even before the outburst of the global economic tsunami in 2008 in Paris the then European 
Commissioner for Science and Research, Janez Potocnik stressed that ‘entrepreneurship is the 
DNA of the European economy, the basis for our future growth and progress… Why is that 
so? Because in Europe the growth and progress must rest on knowledge and entrepreneurs are 
most competent to turn knowledge into growth... by converting clear ideas into commercial 
success, by turning research into award.“ 
References 
 Aghion,P., Harmgart, H., Weisshaar, N. (2010), “Fostering growth in CEE countries: a 
country-tailored approach to growth policy”, EBRD, Working Paper No 118. 
 Blanchower, D., Oswald A. (1998), “What makes an entrepreneur?" Journal of Labor 
Economics, 16, 26-60. 
 Delgado, M., Porter, M., Stern, S. (2010), “Clusters and Entrepreneurship”, Journal of 
Economic Geography 10:4, 495-518. 
 European Commission. (2011), European Competitiveness Report 2011, DG for 
Enterprise and Industry. Brussels. 
 EBRD. (2011), Transition Report 2011. 
 Ghani, E., Kerr, W., O' Connell, S. (2011), “Promoting Entrepreneurship, Growth, and 
Job Creation”, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 
 Glas, M., Pšeničny, V. (2000), Podjetništvo – izziv za 21. stoletje. Ljubljana: Gea 
College. 
 International Monetary Fund. (2011), The World Economic Outlook: Slowing growth, 
rising risks, Washington DC. 
 Jakopin, E. (2007), "Strategic Directions of Development of Serbiа – Results, 
Mechanisms, Risks", Faculty of Economics, Beograd. 
 Jakopin, E., Bajec J. (2012), “Structural transformations - a development imperative”, 
Ekonomika preduzeca, 1-2: 63-78. 
 Jakopin, E. (2010), "Transition Balance of Serbian Economy", Ekonomika preduzeća, 
5-6: 219-229 
 Kumar, B., Raghuram R., Zingales, L. (1999), “What Determines Firm Size?,” 
Working Paper No. 7208, National Bureau of Economic Research. 
 инистарство финансија. (2011), Извештај о развоју Србије 2010, Београд. 
 Porter, M. (2008), “The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy”, Harvard 
Business Review, 25-39. 
 Quadrini, V. (2009), “Entrepreneurship in macroeconomics”, Annals of Finance, 5, 
295-311. 
 Schoonhoven, C., Romanelli E. (2001), The Entrepreneurship Dynamic, Stanford 
University Press. 
 Vereshchagina, G., Hopenhayn, H. (2009), “Risk taking by entrepreneurs," American 
Economic Review, 99, 1808-1830. 
 Weiss, L. (2009), Podjetništvo. Ljubljana: Impletum. 
 World Bank. (2011), Doing Business 2012, Washington DC. 
 World Economic Forum. (2011), The Global Competitiveness Report 2011/2012, New 
York, Oxford University Press. 
  
____________________________________________________ 
(1) Jože Mencinger, former Minister of Economy of Slovenia, November 2011, Belgrade 
  
O avtorjih 
dr. Edvard Jakopin, Ministry of Finance, Republic of Serbia. E-mail: edvard@yubc.net 
mag. Sonja Tontić, Ministry of Finance, Republic of Serbia. E-mail: 
sonja.tontic@mfin.gov.rs