EMCC European Monitoring Centre on Change

Hungary: ERM comparative analytical report on Public support instruments to support self-employment and job creation in one-person and micro enterprises

  • Observatory: EMCC
  • Topic:
  • Published on: 04 June 2012



About
Country:
Author:
Simon Dávid, Csókay Ákos
Institution:

Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.

This paper summarises the strategies, policy measures and programmes connected to self-employment and job creation in micro enterprises in the last decade with some highlighted good practices that can be interesting in other countries as well. As it is detailed below, the Hungarian policy makers paid not too much attention on this field, most measures and strategies connected to this field are concentrating on the reduction of unemployment (by enhancing entrepreneurship), enhancing the competitiveness of SME sector (the programmes include micro enterprises as well) or supporting job creation of SME sector (including micro enterprises in these cases as well). At the second part of this there is a detailed presentation of three programmes with heterogeneous background (old and new, state initiated and university initiated).

QUESTIONNAIRE

Part 1: Overall policy context

This section aims at giving a brief overview of the general development and status quo of the policy discussion and thereof resulting instruments, measures or initiatives in the field of fostering self-employment and job creation in one-person and micro enterprises (less than 10 employees). Focus is mainly on the developments during the last decade, that is before the global recession. In addition we are asking for your indication of change of policy focus since the recession.

1. General policy approach in the area of self-employment, one-person and micro enterprises at the national level


1.1. Has there been a policy focus/debate on the specific challenges facing entrepreneurship as tool for job creation before the global recession? If so, since when and for how long?


Table 1: Presence of policy focus/debate on entrepreneurship as facilitation for job creation before the crisis
 

Yes, continuously since xx? (Please indicate year)

Yes, on and off in the last 10 years

(Please indicate ‘X’ where it applies)

Yes, has been in focus, but since xx it is no longer part of the policy focus (Please indicate year)

No, it has never had policy focus before the recession

(Please indicate ‘X’ where it applies)

Self-employment  

X

   
Hiring the first employee      

X

Hiring additional employees/creating additional jobs in micro enterprises  

X

   


1.2. What is the main focus in policy documents or strategies in relation to public or social partner based support instruments for fostering self-employment or job creation in one-person and micro enterprises? (Please indicate ‘X’, multiple answers possible)


Table 2: Main focus in the policy documents or strategies
 

Entrepreneurship (Business development in general)

Job creation (Employment)

Growth (Competitiveness)

Others (please specify)

Self-employment  

X

   
Hiring the first employee

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Hiring additional employees/creating additional jobs in micro enterprises  

X

X

 

1.3. Please elaborate on the answer given above (with a focus on those developments aimed at employment creation and growth) and indicate if the financial recession has caused a change of focus:


Table 3: The policy content and significance of the financial recession

Self-employment


Elaboration of content (please describe and also indicate whether it is treated explicitly/implicitly)

Enhancing self-employment was and remained an important tool and goal of the employment policy for treating unemployment. The tools mentioned in policies and can be connected to self-employment were various, most of them were implicit, like incorporating business knowledge in secondary and tertiary education, simplifying to start a business, reducing administrative burdens, and only some of them direct measures. Self-employment was mentioned in the National Employment Action Plan 2004 directly only twice: in connection with gender equal opportunities programme and in connection with those employees whose employer forced them to become self-employed 'entrepreneurs' as the employer wanted to reduce the costs and no paying taxes after employees.

Change due to the financial recession

Please tick:

Yes:

No: x

If ‘Yes’, please elaborate:


Hiring the first employee Elaboration of content (please describe and also indicate whether it is treated explicitly/implicitly)

Hiring the first employee was not in the focus of the public policy in the last decade. Effects of other policies are contradictory. For example while reduction of tax burden on employment was an important issue in the policy papers of the last decade the implication of these policies resulted increase in tax burden for lower income.

Change due to the financial recession

Please tick:

Yes:

No: X

If ‘Yes’, please elaborate:


Hiring additional employees/creating additional jobs in micro enterprises


Elaboration of content (please describe and also indicate whether it is treated explicitly/implicitly)

Hiring additional employees was an important goal for employment policy of the last decade as the employment rate of Hungary was and is bellow the average of EU and even the neighbourhood countries.

Change due to the financial recession

Please tick:

Yes: x

No:

If ‘Yes’, please elaborate:

Due to the financial recession the focus of the policy change to preserving existing jobs rather creating additional jobs. This change can be measured by the changes in the usage of the different active tools of the employment policy (KSH, 2010). Since 2010 a reverse process started and current policy is more similar to the policy before the recession concentrating on creating new jobs instead of preserving old ones.

2. Disincentives for self-employment and job creation

The following two questions will investigate whether there has been a change in the political agenda which has forced new political initiatives that may result in disincentives for job creation and business development (e.g. considerations regarding public budget).


2.1 Have public measures (e.g. with the aim to increase public revenue or cut public spending) led to disincentives for self-employment or job creation in one-person or micro enterprises before the financial recession? (Please briefly describe the major developments/initiatives (max. 300 words)

A general picture can be drawn about business environment on the basis of the dimensions of the Doing Business Index of the World Bank, that collects year by year data since 2004. These data show that for starting business that is an important factor for micro enterprises and self-employment the situation became significantly better while most of the other dimensions such as getting credit, enforcing contracts or closing business remained on the same level between 2004 and 2008 (other dimensions of the index are not important for most of micro enterprises). In the dimension of taxation the total tax rate in the percentage of the profit showed some undulation in the given period. If we are looking into the details in the case of taxation it should be mentioned that the Hungarian tax system is changing in every year and so complex that even a micro enterprise with single employee needs for accountant service and the situation didn't change in the given period. Another problem in the similar field is that in 2006 the government legislated that the minimum of the social security contribution should be calculated after the double of the minimum wage (those enterprises that declared that they are not able to pay this amount are faced with a higher possibility of tax audit by the Authority) – this legislation affected more seriously the micro enterprises.


2.2 Have public measures (e.g. with the aim to increase public revenue or cut public spending) led to disincentives for self-employment or job creation in one-person or micro enterprises as a result of the financial recession? (Please describe – max. 300 words)

After 2008 until now two distinct effects should be differentiated due to governmental policy changes. In spring of 2009 a new government formed in Hungary in which part of the ministers were expert rather than politician. In 2010, after the regular election, a new government had been introduced with a massive (more than 66%) support in the Parliament. In this way the economic polity changed twice after the recession started.

The overall picture based on the Doing Business Index didn't change a lot in the last three years (2009-2011). The total tax rate (in percentage of the profit) increased from 56.2% to 57.5% in 2009 and remained in the similar level in 2010 but reduced to 53.3% in 2011 which is the lowest level since 2004. The reason for the elevation of the total tax rate was the increased indebtedness of the state and the pressure on the government to reduce the deficit of the budget in a very short time when the reduction of the expenditures was possible only in a limited measure (there was not enough time for structural reforms). After 2011 the total tax rate declined but the effective personal income tax rate grew for earning under the average especially for those who don't have children. This latter change in tax system affected more seriously micro enterprises than others because the earnings in the cases of the employees of micro enterprises are lower than in other enterprises.

3. Representation of/lobbying for self-employed and micro enterprises


Are self-employed and micro enterprises in your national context explicitly or implicitly (e.g. entrepreneurs or SMEs in general) represented by the following types of organisations (e.g. for lobbying, defending their interest etc.)?


Table 4: Representation of self-employed and micro enterprises
 

Self-employed

Micro enterprises

Employers’ organisations

Yes, implicitly (HUNGARIAN ASSOCIATION OF CRAFTMEN'S CORPORATIONS – micro, small and medium enterprises; National Association of Entrepreneurs and Employers – any enterprise or self-employed entrepreneur; Agricultural Employers' Association – agricultural entrepreneurs (self-employed and micro enterprises over represented); and other general or economic branch specific organisations)

Yes, implicitly (HUNGARIAN ASSOCIATION OF CRAFTMEN'S CORPORATIONS – micro, small and medium enterprises; National Association of Entrepreneurs and Employers – any enterprise or self-employed entrepreneur; Agricultural Employers' Association – agricultural entrepreneurs (self-employed and micro enterprises over represented); and other general or economic branch specific organisations)

Employees’ organisation

No

No

Not-for-profit organisations

No

No

Others

No

No

Part 2: Identification and description of relevant recent support instruments

The following section asks for the identification of public or social partner based support instruments initiated during or after the recent economic crisis (that is, 2008 onwards). These measures might have, but must not necessarily have been triggered by the recession. Measures may also have been initiated earlier, but changed in order to adapt to the recession or other recent developments. Rather than a comprehensive list of all instruments available at national, regional or local level, the most important, most innovative, most interesting and most effective tools are to be described. Thereof, a selection of up to three ‘Good Practices’ to be described in more detail is to be made.

1. Selection of region(s) when total coverage of the entire regional and local level is too comprehensive

When providing the brief overview and the three ‘Good Practices’ in this section of the questionnaire, measures and instruments at national level have to be included. We would in addition ask you to include regional and local level initiatives where relevant. Nonetheless, a complete coverage of regional and local levels may not be possible for all countries (e.g. because of a high degree of decentralisation resulting in a wide range of respective measures characterised by considerably heterogeneity). At the same time, it can be assumed that for instruments targeting at supporting self-employment and the creation of employment in one-person and micro enterprises the local administrative level is of considerable importance. If so, such measures will be designed to fit to the local characteristics and needs, resulting in a wide variety of different approaches. In this case, one or few local areas or regions may be selected to be covered in this report. Details on the selection are given in table 5.


Table 5: Administrative level/region(s) covered for the following research (max. 50 words per region)

Administrative level relevant for the rest of the questionnaire

National level

If a specific regional/local are is selected, please provide the following information

Name of region

 
Motivation for selecting this region

.

Facts about the region e.g.

- Geographic location

- No. of inhabitants

- Business structure (sector, size)

- Labour market

- Specific characteristics if applicable

 

2. Brief overview of recent instruments to foster self-employment or job creation in one-person and micro enterprises


2.1. Please provide a brief description (max. 800 words) of public or social partner based instruments recently initiated (2008 onwards) to support self-employment and job creation in one-person or micro enterprises.

Measures covered by the European Employment Observatory Review on self-employment 2010, European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities are to be omitted to avoid duplication (see Part 3 of this questionnaire).


Table 6: List of recent instruments

Title

In national language and English

Interuniversitas Hallgatói Vállalkozói Klub és Spin-off Keltető [Interuniversitas Student Entrepreneurship Club and Spin-off Hatchery]

Aim/objective

Enhance entrepreneurial skills

Description of support

Complex (teaching, advising, fund raising )

Target group

University students who want to start an enterprise

Initiator and other actors involved

Initiator: Small Business Development Center (Corvinus University, Budapest), UPC Magyarország Kft., further sponsors

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

Started in 2008 based on previous programmes


Title

Simplification of tax system and accounting

Aim/objective

Simplification of tax system and accounting (the latter is for enterprises with low income)

Description of support

Simplified Yearly Reporting for Tax Authority

2 contribution base calculation instead of 5

Target group

All enterprises (contribution base changes), MSMEs (for which two of the next three criteria are true: balance sheet total under about € 2 million, turnover under about € 4 million, number of employees under 50)

Initiator and other actors involved

Government

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

Introduced in 2009 as continuation of simplification of administrative burdens for enterprises


Title

Changes in Széchenyi Credit Card Programme

Aim/objective

Widening MSMEs' possibilities to access credit

Description of support

Credit for investments, credit for own fund, credit for working capital, added to the previously available credit for liquidity. All credit is supported by the state with 2 percentage points and the half of the guarantee fee paid by the state also.

Target group

It was available for MSMEs previously now it is available for self-employed 'őstermelő' (primary producers: special category in Hungary for a person produces agricultural good in a small amount stipulated by law)

Initiator and other actors involved

Government

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

Programme was started in 2002, last (above described) modification was in 2010 and 2011.


Title

Pályázat a mikro-, kis- és középvállalkozások munkahelyteremtő beruházásainak támogatására [Application for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises to support job creation]

Aim/objective

Supporting MSMEs' job creation

Description of support

Non-refundable support for investment in order to creating new jobs (intensity of support 10-50%, more support can be given to enterprises in disadvantaged and most disadvantaged regions and for creating jobs for unemployed person or ethnic roma person)

Target group

MSMEs

Initiator and other actors involved

Government

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

In 2011 (the measure was initiated in connection with the priorities of the new center-right government rather than due to the recession)


Title

Vállalati együttműködés és klaszterek támogatása [Support for cooperative ventures and clusters]

Aim/objective

Supporting cooperation among enterprises

Description of support

Non-refundable support for costs of cooperation, minimum own fund 20%

Target group

Enterprises (one of the aims specially for micro and small enterprises)

Initiator and other actors involved

Government

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

2011 (the measure was initiated in connection with the priorities of the new center-right government rather than due to the recession)


Title

Kombinált mikrohitel [Combined micro credit programme]

Aim/objective

Supporting credible micro enterprises that can not access credit on the market.

Description of support

Combination of non-refundable support and credit through micro financing entities (like enterprise development funds)

Target group

Micro enterprises

Initiator and other actors involved

Government (Micro financing entities)

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

Started in 2011 (the measure was initiated in connection with the priorities of the new center-right government rather than due to the recession)


Title

Vállalati tanácsadás pályázat [Corporate consultancy tender]

Aim/objective

Entrepreneurial knowledge development

Description of support

Non-refundable support (€ 1,5-2,5 million/region)

Target group

Consultancy enterprises (one per region)

Initiator and other actors involved

Government

Duration (please also indicate whether the measures has been initiated due to the recession)

Started in 2010 (the measure was initiated in connection with the priorities of the new center-right government rather than due to the recession)


2.2. In-depth description of ‘Good Practices’

Please choose up to three examples from the above list that can be considered as ‘Good Practice’ (e.g. because of their effectiveness, innovative character or beneficial cooperation among different stakeholders) and describe them in detail.


Table 7: Description of ‘Good Practice’ examples of recent support instruments
Example 1:

Name of the programme/instrument

Interuniversitas Hallgatói Vállalkozói Klub és Spin-off Keltető [Interuniversitas Student Entrepreneurship Club and Spin-off Hatchery]

Is the instrument explicitly addressing any of the following:

Self-employment

Hiring the first employee

Hiring additional employees/creating additional jobs in micro enterprises

Please ‘X’ and/or describe if relevant

X

   

Operational level

Local

Regional

National

Please ‘X’ and/or describe if relevant

X

   

Rationale/motivation for the instrument

(please describe)

The programme initiated on the basis of an entrepreneurship course of the Small Business Development Center of the Corvinus University (Budapest).

The programme is open for all university students but it is not likely that students outside Budapest would participate in the programme.

Purpose and aims for the instrument (please describe)

The goals of the programme are enhancing the entrepreneurial knowledge of university students and give the possibility to start their first enterprise with the advices of the experts of the programme and in this way enhance the entrepreneurial activity of young higher educated people.

Initiator
Please ‘X’      
Other stakeholders actively involved in implementation (please name them and describe their roles)

Successful entrepreneurs participated both in teaching and advising.

Target groups        
Please describe the target groups (sector, age, level of education, gender)

University students in Budapest.

Funding        
Please describe the funding of the instrument/programme (national and European sources, budget available)

Programme is funded initially by UPC Magyaroszág Kft. (UPC Hungary Ltd.) in the current programme participating students have to bring a sponsor for their enterprises as cofinance.

Activities    
Please describe the activities of the programme or institutional initiative as detailed as possible

The main activities of the programme:

〉 Teaching entrepreneurial knowledge (based on interviews with successful entrepreneurs)

〉 Giving capital for applying start-up enterprises of the students in the form of subsidy

〉 Giving continuous advice for new entrepreneurs (more frequent than monthly)

〉 Organising Entrepreneurs Club for exchanging experiences among other participants and with invited lecturer.

〉 Organising conference where students with business plan can meet potential investors

Results (Effectiveness)      
Please describe the results e.g. number of beneficiaries, advised enterprises No clear data about the number of enterprises formed in the programme or students participated in it. The only known data is about the number of participants in 2010, that was around 50-60.
Challenges in order to reach the objectives e.g. for the organisation offering the instrument, the entrepreneurs (Please describe); and if available how these have been overcome

The main challenge of the programme was to collect the funds for supporting the starting enterprises. The solution for this problem was the involvement of the students into the process through the conference where they presented their businesses plans for potential donors.

The other problem that was mentioned in the evaluation paper was in connection with organising the Entrepreneurs Club events. In the first two events the participation rate was very low but it turned out that the cause was bad timing and not lack of interest among students (based on the evaluation questionnaire filled by the participating students). After more proper timing the Entrepreneurs Club became successful.

Assessments of the effectiveness e.g. investments made in order to reach the objectives of the programme (outcome vs. investment) (Please base this assessment on evaluations when possible)

As the evaluation paper write the usage of funds was proper and the programme reached its goal.

Outcomes (Efficiency)  
Increasing self-employment, growth and employment e.g. number of start-up and/or jobs created etc. (please describe, preferably based on evaluations, otherwise on experts’ assessment)

While no data available about the efficiency of the program, it seems to be an innovative initiative at least in Hungary and there is a paper discussing the programme (Csapó, 2010)

.

.

Please provide link to evaluation documents if possible
Example 2:

Name of the programme/instrument

Széchenyi Credit Card Programme

Is the instrument explicitly addressing any of the following:

Self-employment

Hiring the first employee

Hiring additional employees/creating additional jobs in micro enterprises

Please ‘X’ and/or describe if relevant

X

   

Operational level

Local

Regional

National

Please ‘X’ and/or describe if relevant

   

X

Rationale/motivation for the instrument

(please describe)

MSMEs especially after the global crisis are not able to access cheap credit that is important for both starting enterprises or keeping up their activity and competitiveness. Moreover, accessing credit is a long lasting and complicated process.

Purpose and aims for the instrument (please describe)

The goal of Széchenyi Credit Card programme was to provide easy access for cheap credit for micro and small enterprises. The current changes in the programme made it possible to use the credit not only for keeping up cash-flow but for investments, as working capital or as self fund in other support programmes.

Initiator
Please ‘X’    
Other stakeholders actively involved in implementation (please name them and describe their roles)

The implementers of the programme are commercial banks, they issued the card, that is a special credit card with which entrepreneurs can pay as a usual card but they are obliged to buy goods only for their enterprise.

Target groups        
Please describe the target groups (sector, age, level of education, gender)

The target groups of the programme are self-employed entrepreneurs, micro, small and medium enterprises from all over the country.

Funding        
Please describe the funding of the instrument/programme (national and European sources, budget available)

State budget

Activities    
Please describe the activities of the programme or institutional initiative as detailed as possible

Credit for investments, credit for own fund, credit for working capital, added to the previously available credit for liquidity. All credit is supported by the state with 2 percentage points and the half of the guarantee fee paid by the state also. Entrepreneurs got the credit with credit card.

Results (Effectiveness)      
Please describe the results e.g. number of beneficiaries, advised enterprises

The number of participants in the programme was 1,725 in the starting year (2002) and the volume of credit was 1,523 billion Ft, in 2006 the number of participants was 21,480, the volume of credit was 120,786 billion Ft, in 2010 the number of participants grew to 127,000 and the volume of the credit 748 billion Ft. There are no data about the size of the participating enterprises and no data about the usage after the programme was widened (see above).

Challenges in order to reach the objectives e.g. for the organisation offering the instrument, the entrepreneurs (Please describe); and if available how these have been overcome

.

No information available

.

Assessments of the effectiveness e.g. investments made in order to reach the objectives of the programme (outcome vs. investment) (Please base this assessment on evaluations when possible)

There are no analysis about the effectiveness of the programme, but the high number of participants shows that the programme reached its goal.

.

.

Outcomes (Efficiency)  
Increasing self-employment, growth and employment e.g. number of start-up and/or jobs created etc. (please describe, preferably based on evaluations, otherwise on experts’ assessment)

While there are no data available about the efficiency of The large number of participants in the measure shows that the measure might be an effective tool for helping MSMEs, and because the measure started 9 years ago there are enough data (at least about participation and extent of provided loan). .

.

.

Please provide link to evaluation documents if possible

Some available documents that contain information about the results of the programme:

A KIS- ÉS KÖZÉPVÁLLALKOZÁSOK HELYZETE 2008 [The sittuation of small and medium enterprises in 2008 ]. Ministry of National Development and Economy

www.nfgm.gov.hu/data/cms2009046/kkvk_helyzete2008.pdf

MAGYAR MIKRO-, KIS-ÉS KÖZÉPVÁLLALKOZÁSOK HELYZETE

ÉS FINANSZÍROZÁSI STRATÉGIÁJA [The situation and financing strategies of micro, small and medium enterprises in Hungary]. Presentation, Krisán László, Ka-Vosz Zrt. http://www.ujratervezes2010.hu/files/KL.pdf

Example 3:

Name of the programme/instrument

Kombinált mikrohitel [Combined micro credit programme]

Is the instrument explicitly addressing any of the following:

Self-employment

Hiring the first employee

Hiring additional employees/creating additional jobs in micro enterprises

Please ‘X’ and/or describe if relevant

X

   

Operational level

Local

Regional

National

Please ‘X’ and/or describe if relevant

   

X

Rationale/motivation for the instrument

(please describe)

Many micro enterprises are not able to get credit on the market or the price of the credit is not affordable for them. Many of these micro enterprises are not able to participate in calls for applications as well because they can not ensure the necessary own fund.

Purpose and aims for the instrument (please describe)

The goal of the programme is providing funds for micro enterprises in a simple process, combining sources from EU funds and EU supported credit (the latter for a part of the own fund).

Initiator
Please ‘X’      
Other stakeholders actively involved in implementation (please name them and describe their roles)

Apart from the state micro financing organisations are participating in the programme. Their role is intermediating the process.

Target groups        
Please describe the target groups (sector, age, level of education, gender)

Micro enterprises.

Funding        
Please describe the funding of the instrument/programme (national and European sources, budget available)

EU funds in a form of non-refundable support and supported credit.

Activities    
Please describe the activities of the programme or institutional initiative as detailed as possible

In the frame of the measure micro enterprises (as it is defined in Commission Regulation 800/2008) may apply for maximum 45% non-refundable support and maximum 60% refundable support (in the form of state supported credit) with at least 10% contribution of the applicant (own fund). The support can be use for buying new assets, IT hardware and software, infrastructure or real estate.

Results (Effectiveness)      
Please describe the results e.g. number of beneficiaries, advised enterprises

.

.

Data not available yet.

Challenges in order to reach the objectives e.g. for the organisation offering the instrument, the entrepreneurs (Please describe); and if available how these have been overcome

.

Data not available yet.

Assessments of the effectiveness e.g. investments made in order to reach the objectives of the programme (outcome vs. investment) (Please base this assessment on evaluations when possible)

.

Date not available yet.

Outcomes (Efficiency)  
Increasing self-employment, growth and employment e.g. number of start-up and/or jobs created etc. (please describe, preferably based on evaluations, otherwise on experts’ assessment)

While data are not available yet, lack of own fund is one of the most significant problem in the cases of micro and small enterprises when they apply for EU funds and this measure can be an important step forward solving this problem that can enhance the employment among these enterprises.

Please provide link to evaluation documents if possible

Documentation is available here:

http://ujszechenyiterv.gov.hu/doc/2639

Part 3: Annex: Update on recent self-employment study

The recent European Employment Observatory Review on self-employment 2010, European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities provides insight into support instruments for self-employment. To avoid duplication of this information, we ask you as National Correspondent to omit these measures already covered in your research (Part 2 of this questionnaire), and only update or add any additional details or measures that exceed the information already provided in this report.


Table 8: Additional information on specific instruments to the EEO national report on self-employment:

Title of the instrument

 
Additional information

.


Table 9: Please add any other comments to the EEO national report on self-employment:

.

Table 10: Please indicate ‘X’ if you have no additional information to the EEO national report on self-employment:

Please indicate ‘X’ if you have no additional information to provide

X

Commentary

Two short comments need to be added. As it is already mentioned above in the last 3 years since the global crisis had been started there were three different governments in Hungary among them two supported by left and liberal coalition (2002-2010)and the third (current) a center-right supported government with more than 66% support in the Parliament by single party. The current government articulates its came into power as a kind of revolution. Due to this, the current government tries to create a completely new economic policy. Therefore, the policy of the current government at least as much reflects to the effects of the crisis as they oppose the programmes and initiatives of the previous two governments.

The other thing to be mentioned is that both economic policies concentrate on SMEs and job creation, but the process of becoming entrepreneur has a very low stress, and almost nothing on hiring the first employee. In the light of these most of the examples for instruments mentioned in this paper are not focusing only affecting the micro enterprises. The social partners are organised by sectors rather than size of enterprises, but most of the members in most of the employers' organisations are micro enterprises or in some of them self-employed entrepreneurs. On the contrary employees of micro enterprises have no advocacy at all.

Simon Dávid, Csókay Ákos, Solution4.org Bt

Sources:

Csapó, Krisztián (2010)

: Vállalkozásoktatás korszerű hazai kísérletei

a Budapesti Corvinus Egyetemen [Experiments in teaching entrepreneurship in a modern way in Corvinus University, Budapest]. Vállalkozás és Innováció 4. évfolyam, 1. szám Internet: http://www.vallalkozasesinnovacio.hu/application/editorial/27/04Csapo.pdf

Ease of Doing Business in Hungary, World Bank, 2011. Internet: http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/hungary

Nemzeti Cselekvés Terv a Társadalmi Összetartozásért [National Action Plan for Social Inclusion], Társadalmi Kirekesztés Elleni Bizottság, 2004. július

Nemzeti Foglalkoztatási Akcióterv 2004[National Action Plan on Employment 2004]. A Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya, 2004

KSH (2010): A válság hatása a munkaerő-piacra [Effect of the crisis on the workforce market]. KSH, 2010. április Internet: http://portal.ksh.hu/pls/ksh/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/pdf/valsagmunkaeropiacra.pdf

Új Széchenyi-terv [New Széchenyi Plan]. Magyarország Kormánya, 2011. január Internet:http://ujszechenyiterv.gov.hu/download/32589/USZT_beliv_HU_vegl.pdf

Válságkezelés és bizalomerősítés [Crisis management and confidence-building]. A Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya, 2009. április Internet:http://www.kormanyszovivo.hu/media/retreive_file/22066?lang=hu



Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Add new comment