- Observatory: EMCC
- Published on: 13 May 2013
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.
Public and policy debate on SMEs has been traditionally very much present in Slovenia. It is concentrated on the promotion of entrepreneurship and not on the restructuring of SMEs. Slovenia has a number of SME specific policy instruments. Also, other policy instruments not meant specifically for SMEs are to a great proportion allocated to SMEs. The financial crisis and economic recession has brought about considerable changes in the structure of policy instruments. These instruments have not been specifically targeted at restructuring in general or even individual types of restructuring, but their implicit contents make them very much SME restructuring instruments.
Part 1: Overall policy context
1.1. Has there been public or policy debate on the specific challenges for SMEs and/or their employees in restructuring before the global recession of 2008/09? Please specify, for example:• If so, since when (e.g. up to 3 years before, 3-10 years before, longer), at which level (national, regional, sectoral, all of them) and in which form (‘real’ policy debate mirrored in policy documents or rather public debate mirrored in media, or both)?• Which policy areas (for example, SME policy, entrepreneurship policy, employment policy, social policy, regional policy etc.) were involved? Particularly: Does SME policy specifically deal with restructuring? Does ‘restructuring policy’ specifically deal with SME issues?• Did the public and policy discussions deal with restructuring as such or were specific types or phases of restructuring covered?• Which were the issues/contents that have been discussed? Which specific characteristics of SMEs in restructuring were considered in this context? Was the specific case of SMEs as subcontractors a topic for discussions?• Did the discussions rather deal with the enterprise perspective or with the employee perspective or both?
Public and especially policy debate on SMEs has been very much present in Slovenia all since the beginning of transition. The debate rather deals with the enterprise perspective and has been far predominantly going on within the issue of how to promote entrepreneurship, establishing and operating of new firms which by definition are small firms. The debate has been motivated by the view that SMEs represent the most dynamic part of the enterprise sector with considerable potential for job creation.
The issues of SMEs and entrepreneurship, which are as a rule treated as synomyns in the policy documents, have been incorporated in all the main Slovenian strategic policy documents, that is (i) in the Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia for Accession to the European Union from 1998, under the heading ‘Facilitating and stimulating small and medium sized enterprises', (ii) in Slovenia's Development Strategy from 2005 under the headings of ‘to develop new models of financing the development of SMEs’ and ‘to develop entrepreurship friendly supporting environment and entrepreneurship culture’, (iii) in The Framework of Economic and Social Reforms for Increasing the Welfare in Slovenia from 2005 under the heading ‘Promoting entrepreneurship and competitiveness of compnaies’ with the following measures:
- to set up a system of support for companies (one-stop-shop, e-one-stop-shop, EU-one-stop-shop);
- promotion of a supportive environment for entrepreneurship and a business culture;
- setting up a formal education process for entrepreneurship at all levels of education;
- to support specialisation, vocational, professional and graduate education of employees in SMEs,
- setting up mixed venture capital funds (state + investors) which would be financed from Slovenian Enterprise Fund;
- providing start-up and seed capital for companies-beginners located in incubators (favourable credits, guarantees and leasing for companies through Slovenian Enterprise Fund).
Public and policy discussions in Slovenia have traditionally been quite intensive as far as enterprise restructuring is concerned. However, there has never been any specific discussion related specifically to SMEs’ restructuring, neither the restructuring policy specifically deals with SMEs.
Discussions on enterprise restructuring have not dealt with individual types or phases of restructuring. As far as SMEs are concerned, the issues of promoting entrepreneurship, establishing and operating of new firms have been in the forefront. For enterprises in general, lately the issues such as how to help enterprises to survive, to go over difficult times, to help them to become again viable actors on the market have been the most important. The problem of possible job losses has always been one of the main motivations behind; except in the early transition period when job losses were as a rule resolved by mass early retirement.
At the beginning of transition and within the mass privatisation scheme, the issue of enterprise restructuring was tackled via the operations of the Slovenian Development Corporation which took into its portfolio most of those Slovenian firms being in trouble but beleived to have some perspective. Another specific scheme was established for the resrructuring of the Slovenian steelworks industry. Later on, during the EU accession process, two specific restructuring schemes have been put in operation, that is for textile and garment industry, and for leather and shoe industry. After that and all until the outbreak of global economic and financila crisis, the issue of enterprise restructuring has been specifically handled by state aids for rescuing and restructuring of enterprises in difficulties. Other instruments of economic policy, especially those for employment and training, have also been used for these purposes.
1.2. Did the global economic and financial crisis of 2008/09 cause any change in focus of the above (for example, increased/decreased focus on SMEs and their employees in restructuring, change in policy areas or issues covered)?
The global economic and financial crisis has brought important changes in the issue of enterprises restructuring, that is the issue attracted increased attention and more accent has been given to employment preservation. Specific state aids for SMEs have increased importantly in absolute as well as in relative terms. Also, within most of the policy instrurments, SMEs seem to get very important shares of total resources. The attention given to the promotion of entrepreneurship and establishing of new enterprises has also increased.
The main novelties of enterpise restructuring policy brought about by the global economic and financial crisis has been the introduction of some policy measures within the Slovenian exit strategy 2010-2013. A special instrument for the reduction of the negative impact of the financial crisis and economic recession was intruduced, which put into operation a guarantee scheme for enterprises for credits and subsidisation of finalisation of investment projects, promotion of reemployment and of self-employment, which was concentrated on the resolution of employment rpoblems. Thus in 2009-2010, the structure of state aids changed considerably due to crisis. The resources for research and development, employment and training, as well as for specific SME related programmes increased their shares in total amount of state aids considerably.
There has also been an increased awareness of the importance of entrepreneurship and creation of new enterprises, mostly in the form of eliminating the administrative barriers for company creation. However, not much has been done in this front.
The most recent official policy documents of the government (Structural adjustments in 2010 and 2011, Competitiveness of the Slovenian economy: Analysis of the situation and measures for its improvements, National Reform Programme 2011-2012, National Reform Programme 2012-2013) repeat the above policy directions and introduce some new accents, that is(i) coordination of various existing financial mechanisms for improved financing of development programmes and SMEs, that is to improve access of SMEs to financial resources, (ii) to analyse the possibility of establishing an enterprise restructuring fund by banks, which acquired considerable equity shares in enterpises during the recession, multilateral institutions and other interested investors.
1.3. Are social partners or employers’ and employees’ organisations involved in public and policy debate on restructuring in SMEs?• If so, which (types of) organisations and at which levels?• What are their opinions, perspectives, recommendations?• Did they succeed in convincing governments or public authorities at various levels of their viewpoints?
Slovenia has two main employers’ organisations (Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia; Chamber of Craft and Small Business of Slovenia) as well as a number of trade unions which are quite powerfull. Trade unions concentrate their activities around the protection of employment and level of wages, while their substantive contribution as far as enterprise restructuring issues is concerned is more or less missing. The two chambers do represent constant presure groups attempting to push forward their views as far as enterprise restructuring is concerned. They concentrate on the elimination of administrative and other barriers to establishing and operating of enterprises. The Chamber of Craft and Small Businesses of Slovenia specifically deals with SMEs’ perspective.
The fact is that job protection measures, and not entrepreneurship promotion and enterprise restructuring measures, were the main response of the governemnt to the financial and economic crisis. Thus, one may say that trade unions were more successful in pushing forward their views on the necessary anti-crisis measures. Their power is importantly based on a possibility to put almost any unpopular policy measure on referendum voting, thus, threatening the government to block important decisions. This actually puts the government into a position to be forced to negotiate all the main economic policy issues with trade unions. Chambers are far from having such a powerful position.
Part 2: Support instruments
2.1. Please provide an overall assessment about how accessible and suitable public and social partner based restructuring support for companies in general are for SMEs or their employees.• Do SMEs and/or their employees generally have access to the available instruments and are these suitable for their specific needs in restructuring?• Are there specific (types of) instruments (for example, targeting specific types or phases of restructuring, offered at specific administrative levels) that are more/less accessible and suitable for SMEs and/or their employees that for larger firms? If so, why?
All restructuring related support measures in Slovenia are, in principle, equally accessible to all types of enterprises, including SMEs. From the restructuring point of view, the most important are (i) special instrument for the reduction of the negative impact of the financial crisis and economic recession, (ii) aid for rescuing and restructuring, (iii) aid for employment and training. In most of these instruments, SMEs receive the largest part of resources. Other instruments include programmes in the areas of promotion of reasearch and development and regional development, as well as activities of the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Entrepreneurship and Foreign Investments (JAPTI), such as a voucher system of training for entrepreneurs, support services to entrepreneurs in view of company registration procedures, consulting and mentoring in company founding, in later running of companies etc. (the so called general inition consulting – VEM one stop shop points), supporting the internationalisation of SMEs by providing information on export opportunities, training for doing business abroad etc. (http://www.japti.si/what-we-do).
Special instrument for the reduction of the negative impact of the financial crisis and economic recession. The scheme called ‘elimination of serious disturbances in the economy’ was composed of three measures: (i) guarantee scheme for Slovenian credit institutions (€ 220 million of state aids in 2009-2010), (ii) guarantee scheme for enterprises taking credits intended for financing their core activity, new and finalisation of already initiated investments, working assets and reprogramming of loans (less than € 0.4 million in 2009-2010), (iii) subsidisation of finalisation of investment projects, promotion of reemployment and of self-employment. The purpose was to preserve jobs, to prevent transfer of employees in open unemployment, and to promote self-employment in enterprises which would like to transfer part of their activity to previous employees becoming self-employed (€ 29.0 million in 2009-2010). Most of the enterprises that received resources under the second and the third instrument (the first instrument was intended to be for banks) were large enterprises. Thus, the special scheme for helping enterprises to overcome the crisis was meant for large enterprises, where potential job losses would have a broad negative impact.
State aids for rescuing and restructuring are a typical enterprise restructuring policy instrument; in 2009-2010, € 5.6 million was allocated for this purpose. The objective has been to cofinance the restructuring of viable enterprises in difficulties – by retaining viable production programmes, by retaining jobs and helping to establish long-term stability in these enterprises - to prevent broader social and economic problems in regions in which these enterprises operate. In 2009-2010, 18 enterprises received this kind of state aids; one large enterprise (€ 0.5 million), five medium sized enterprises (€ 3.4 million), seven small enterprises (€ 1.7 million), four micro enterprises (€ 0.1 million).
Promotion of employment. In 2009-2010, Slovenia allocated € 80.5 million of resources for employment, 37% in the form of state aids and 63% according to 'de minimis' rule. State aids were allocated as grants within the active employment policy. The main measures were: (i) promotion of new employment of persons not being employed for a long time; (ii) subsidisation of employment of more than ten persons, for persons that lost jobs due to bankruptcy; (iii) promotion of employment of young (less than 25 years) and of older (more than 50 years) unemployed persons. Almost 80% of all resources for these purposes were allocated to micro enterprises.
Subsidisation of employment according to 'de minimis' rule was € 25.6 million in 2009 and € 25.0 million in 2010. Most of these aids were allocated for the following purposes: (i) subsidies for self-employment (€ 34.3 million in 2009-2010), (ii) promotion of employment for shorter working time (€ 5.6 million), (iii) promotion of employment of persons being unemployed for a long time (€ 3 million), (iv) financial incentives for employers to employ handicapped persons (€ 3.8 million). Alltogether 9,654 recipients received these aids in both years, most of them were micro enterprises.
Existing analysis shows that prompotion of employment has not been very successful. The reason is that the allocation rules request a very short period of keeping the employee in working status (one year, two at most). The result is that most employees loose the jobs after the end of receiving subsidies. Thus, this subsidies have more an effect of social transfer than employment promotion. Also, allocation of economic recession related employment subsidies suffered from weak allocation criteria. In fact, any enterprise that asked for these subsidies got them, regardless of whether it was really hit by the recession or not.
Training of employees. Altogether state aids and 'de minimis' aids for training in 2009-2010 amounted to € 4.4 million. State aids in the amount of € 0.9 million were allocated within the Programme of measures for the promotion of entrepreneurship and competitiveness in 2007-2013 – training; of 400 recipients, 328 were micro and 55 small enterprises. Resources according to 'de minimis' rule amounted to € 3.5 million and were allocated for the following purposes: training and education of unemployed persons, training related to self-employment and opening of new jobs, training of entrepreneurs and other employees. Micro enterprises were the dominant recipients of these subsidies.
Policy instruments related to research and development also considerably increased in 2009-2010; state aids increased from € 21.1 million in 2008 to € 67 million in 2009 and to € 97.2 million in 2010. They were allocated according to five instruments: (i) within the programme of technological development grants were allocated in order to keep the existing level of R&D activities in enterprises and to retain high value added jobs; (ii) tax reliefs for R&D in the amount of 20% of investments in R&D; (iii) promotion of enterprises' involvement in EU research programmes and promotion of public-private partnerships in establishing of centres of excellence. Large enterprises received 32.6% of resources, small and medium-sized firms 43.6% of resources and micro enterprises received 23.8% of the resources.
Promotion of regional development. In 2009-2010, state aids for regional development in Slovenia amounted to € 176.2 million. The maximum amount of subsidies for investments of large enterprises in underdeveloped regions is 30% of eligible investment outlays, for medium sized enterprises the percentage is 40%, and for small enterprises 50%. Most of the resources were alloocated for the promotion of entrepreneurship and competitiveness (45.1% of all resources), followed by promotion of development of tourist capacities (32.7%) and promotion of foreign direct investment (13.4%). Of 854 enterprises that received resources for regional development in 2009-2010, 461 were micro enterprises followed by small enterprises.
2.2. Do there exist specific public or social partner based support instruments explicitly targeting at SMEs and/or their employees in restructuring? Please specify, for example:• If so, by whom are they offered (public vs. social partners/employers’/employees’ organisations) and at which administrative levels (national, regional)?• Are the activities of different support service providers coordinated? If so, how and how well does this work?• Which phases of restructuring do they target?• Which types of restructuring do they target?• Do they target SMEs in general, or specific size classes, sectors, regions, legal forms, roles (for example, as subcontractors) etc.? Do they target employees of SMEs in restructuring?• What type of support do they provide? What specific challenges for SMEs in restructuring do they address?• Is there some information about how well they are known among SMEs and their advisors and about how they are generally assessed by the SME sector? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Are there recommendations for improvement?
Slovenia does not have support instruments that would specifically target restructuring aspects of SMEs, it however does have specific policy instruments targeting SMEs. Resources for these policy instruments considerably increased during the ongoing economic recession. One may, thus, say that they are SME restructuring related. Existing analyses of the efficiency of resources allocated to specific SME instruments demonstrate that this is one of the most successful types of policy instruments, as they result in increasing employment, sales and productivity in recipient enterprises. Still, in Slovenia, resources allocated to specific SME policy instruments are relativly much lower that on average in other EU countries. Apart from that, allocation of resources is very fragmented, where most of the recipient SMEs receive almost symbolic amounts of resources (In 2009-2010, average resources according to 'de minimis' rules allocated to SMEs were only € 4,700 per enterprise). This reduces the potential impact of these policy measures. Resources for the support of SMEs are as a rule allocated by the government, that is at national level. Only some very symbolic resources have been allocated by local communities. The activties in support of SMEs are not coordinated at all. In fact, one may even say that Slovenia does not have a consistent policy of promoting entrepreneurship and SMEs.
In 2009-2010 support mechanisms for SMEs have been realised under two sets of mechanisms. The first set contains support classified as state aids and the second set is support allocated according to the ‘de minimis’ rule. In 2009-2010, the former was € 2.5 million and the latter € 34 million. 72% of state aids which were specifically allocated to SMEs went to micro enterprises.
In 2009-2010 specific state aids for SMEs were allocated for five purposes. The most important was the Programme of measures for the promotion of entrepreneurship and competitiveness in the period 2007-2013 - SMEs. The programme was composed of four measures: (i) voucher consulting for existing SMEs with the objective to assure location and price wise accessible consulting services for entrepreneurs; (ii) voucher training which assures access to various kinds of training at subsidised prices; (iii) promoting of R&D activities in SMEs in order to perform industrial research; (iv) promotion of technological investments, that is investments in production of high tech and innovative products and services. In 2009 and 2010 state aids for these purposes amounted to€ 1.9 million.
Financial incentives for foreign direct investment – SMEs are based on the Decree on financial incentives for foreign direct investment and were allocated for consulting services. The objective was to retain existing successful foreign investment enterprises or to attract new ones. In 2009-2010 only € 22,900 was allocated for this purpose. This refers to attract new foreign investors in SMEs in Slovenia and to existing foreign-owned SMEs planning expansion.
The objective of the regional scheme of state aids for SMEs has been reduction of entry costs to investors, whose investment is supposed to have favourable effects on the improvement of the relative position of less developed areas in terms of economic development, employment and quality of life. These resources have been allocated to start up investments in assets and to transfer of technology via the acquisition of patents, licenses, know-how and non-patented technical knowledge. In 2009, altogether € 0.5 million was allocated for these purposes.
In 2009-2010 € 34 million of resources were allocated to SMEs according to 'de minimis' rule. The resources were allocated for 19 different purposes, the most important being: (i) Programme of measures for the promotion of entrepreneurship and competitiveness in the period 2007-2013 (€ 23.3 million), (ii) increasing the quality of life in the countryside and diversification of economy at that level (€ 4.6 million), (iii) quality upgrading and promotion of tourism (€ 1.7 million), (iv) subsidies to the corporate sector (€ 0,2 million), (v) promotion of development and establishing of SMEs (€ 0.1 million). Apart from that, local communities allocated € 3.4 million for SMEs related instruments in 2009-2010.
Apart from that, within the promotion of R&D in enterprises a specific programme for the promotion of technological development projects in SMEs has been created in 2009 according to 'de minimis' rule. The objective was to help SMEs in the field of R&D in the situation of the economic recession. Thus, in 2009, € 19.7 million of grants were alocated to 185 recipients. In 2010, this instrument was not active any more.
Part 3: Good Practice
- Name of the instrument in national language and English: Spodbujanje tujih neposrednih investicij – Dodelitev spodbud za začetne investicije; FDI Cofinancing Grant Scheme,
- Justification for selecting this measure as Good Practice: A detailed analysis of the instrument confirms its positive results, especially as far as the creation of jobs is concerned.
- Date of launch of the instrument and end date (if applicable): Regular annual public tenders for applications since 2001. The last call was for 2010-2011.
- Initiator/administrator (organisation): JAPTI - Javna agencija Republike Slovenije za podjetništvo in tuje investicije (Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Entrepreneurship and Foreign Investments)
- Other involved actors and their roles: No other actors involved.
- Source of funding: Financial grants provided by the government.
- Target group/eligibility/coverage: Firms eligible for the grant are those incorporated in Slovenia with at least 10% foreign equity share and with investment projects in: (i) manufacturing with minimum € 1 million value of investment that will create at least 25 new jobs; (ii) internationally traded services sectors with minimum € 0.5 million value of investment that will create at least ten new jobs; and in (iii) R&D activity with minimum € 0.5 million value of investment that will create at least five new jobs in three years following the completion of investment.
- Phase of restructuring targeted: Management of restructuring.
- Type of restructuring targeted: Business expansion.
- Purpose/content/characteristics/description of services provided: The subject matter of the scheme is cofinancing of greenfield FDI by financial grants with the aim of lowering the cost threshold for new entries. Greenfield FDI is deemed to be the investment in tangible and/or intangible assets in a new enterprise, and in expansion of existing enterprise. The objective of the scheme is to attract FDI projects, which will: (i) create new jobs, in particular in the industries with higher value added; (ii) transfer knowledge and technology and promote cooperation with Slovenian research institutions and/or innovative enterprises; (iii) contribute to more balanced regional development; (iv) contribute to the increase in synergy effects of linking foreign investors with the Slovenian companies, mainly in the field of supplies for foreign investors and the exchange of knowledge and technology. Costs/expenses eligible for cofinancing include costs of tangible and intangible investments, and of creating new employments arising directly from the investment project. In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises costs of feasibility studies and consultancy services related to the investment are also eligible. The recipient of the grant must provide funding amounting to at least 25% of eligible costs of tangible and intangible investments from own sources or from external creditors. In evaluating grant applications, the following criteria are taken into account: position of foreign investor in the market, equity share of foreign investor in the enterprise in Slovenia, share of local suppliers and impact on productivity of other local enterprises that operate in the same industry, sustainable nature of the project, impact on R&D activity, impact on human capital, environmental impact for projects in the manufacturing sector / extent of international distribution of internationally traded service for projects in the service sectors and the number of markets where the service will be offered, impact on development for projects in underdeveloped regions, value of the project.
- Outcome of the instrument (e.g. number of beneficiaries, effects): In the period of 2000-2010, JAPTI altogether cofinanced 85 FDI projects valued € 412.1 million. The value of grants was € 36.9 million, that is 8.9% of the projects' total value. According to the agreements between JAPTI and recipient firms, these projects created altogether 6,630 new jobs. The analysis of subsidised firms exhibit above average performance indicators of, as well as realisation of JAPTI's evaluation criteria in allocating the grants.
- Strengths/success factors of the measure: The main objectives of JAPTI in allocating grants, that is, creation of new capacities, jobs in export-oriented activities, has been realised. Recipients increased sales, employment, exports, exports to sales ratio and value added.
- Weaknesses/bottlenecks of the measure: The 'quality' of this quantitative increase is more of a question; the data do not indicate any real breakthroughs in technological intensity, human resource development and productivity. Subsidised FDI projects technology- and skill-wise remain more or less at the level of average Slovenian firms.
- Was the instrument formally monitored/evaluated? If so, please specify (by whom, how, what were the finding and how were the findings used etc.): To assess the results of the instrument, JAPTI commissioned the analysis ‘Učinkovitost programa spodbujanja začetnih tujih neposrednih investicij v Sloveniji’ (Effectiveness of 'FDI co-financing grant scheme' in Slovenia) to the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana.
- Weblink: http://www.japti.si/index.php?t=razpisi&id=87; http://www.investslovenia.org/business-environment/incentives/financial-incentives/
- Information sources used for filling this section: Burger, A., A. Jaklič and M. Rojec. 2011. Učinkovitost programa spodbujanja začetnih tujih neposrednih investicij v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede; Burger, A., A. Jaklič and M. Rojec. 2012. Effectiveness of investment incentives: The case of Slovenian 'FDI Cofinancing Grant Scheme'. Forthcoming in Post-Communist Economies, 24(3).
The global economic and financial crisis has brought important changes in the issue of enterprise restructuring, that is the issue attracted increased attention and more accent has been given to employment preservation. Specific state aids for SMEs have increased importantly in absolute as well as in relative terms. Also, within most of the policy instrurments, SMEs seem to get very important shares of total resources. The attention given to the promotion of entrepreneurship and establishing of new enterprises has also increased. Although the Slovenian government devoted considerable resources in the form of specific anti-crisis state and 'de minimis' aids, this has not really helped in mitigating negative effects of the current economic recession. The reasons for that include:
First, Slovenia has no elaborated industrial policy which would define the development of promissing activities and the role the government in promoting and coordinating the development. Development issues are defined by various sectorial documents which are not in line with each other.
Second, allocation of state and 'de minimis' aids is left to various directorates and sectors within different ministries, and to parastatal agencies and funds, which all have their own policies and administrations of allocating aids. The consequence is poor coordination and high costs of allocating aids.
Third, regulations which are the basis for state aid allocation are very fragmented and often changed. This increases administrative costs not only to the state but also to the firms which apply for aids.
Fourth, distribution of state aids is charactersed by high concentration of aids on a relatively small number of large recipient firms which keep receiving the aids again and again, on the one hand, and small, often simbolic amounts of aids to a very high number of firms, on the other. The former indicates that aids may not be really allocated according to formal policy objectives but much too often in order to save some large (state-owned) firms which seem 'too big to fail'. The latter points to high administrative costs of aid allocation. Two obvious policy messages follow here: (i) the state should limit the number of consecutive aid allocation to the same firms, (ii) the state should eliminate allocation of aids below certain value because irationally small amounts of aids do not bring any benefits to firms and the national economy at large, and because this makes administrative costs unaccaptably high in relation to benefits.
Fifth, the state does not have any precursive evidence of aid allocation and does not monitor the effects of allocated aids by the way of using independent evaluators.
Matija Rojec, Organisational and Human Resources Research Centre (OHRRC), University of Ljubljana
- Burger, A., A. Jaklič and M. Rojec. 2011. Učinkovitost programa spodbujanja začetnih tujih neposrednih investicij v Sloveniji (Efficiency of the programme for the promotion of greenfield foreign direct investment in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
- Burger, A., A. Jaklič and M. Rojec. 2012. Effectiveness of investment incentives: The case of Slovenian 'FDI Co-financing Grant Scheme'. Forthcoming in Post-Communist Economies, 24(3).
- Government of the Republic Slovenia. 1998. Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia for Accession to the European Union: Economic and Social part. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development.
- Government of the Republic of Slovenia. 2005. The Framework of Economic and Social Reforms for Increasing the Welfare in Slovenia. Ljubljana. http://www.svrez.gov.si/fileadmin/svez.gov.si/pageuploads/docs/Razvojni_dokumenti/Brosura_Okrvir_reform_ANG.pdf
- Javna agencija Republike Slovenije za podjetništvo in tuje investicije (Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Entrepreneurship and Foreign Investments). 2010. Javni razpis za spodbujanje tujih neposrednih investicij v republiki Sloveniji v letih 2010 in 2011 št. JR 4/2010-446 (Public tender for the promotion of foreign direct investment in Slovenia in 2010 and 2011). Ljubljana: JAPTI. http://www.japti.si/index.php?t=razpisi&id=87
- Murn, A. 2012. Pregled državnih pomoči in pomoči »de minimis« v letih 2009 in 2010, ki so bile v funkciji protikriznih ukrepov slovenske vlade (Overview of state aids and ‘de minimis’ aids in 2009 and 2011 allocated within the anti-crisis measures of the Slovenian govenment). Ljubljana: Urad RS za makroekonomske analize in razvoj.
- Rojec, M., Murn, A., Burger, A., Jaklič, A. 2008. Kako do večje učinkovitosti javnofinančnih sredstev za povečanje konkurenčnosti gospodarstva. Analiza učinkovitosti državnih pomoči in predlogi za njeno izboljšanje (How to achieve higher efficiency of fiscal resources for increasing competitiveness of the economy. Analysis of the efficiency of state aids and proposals for its improvement). Poročilo CRP št. V5-0201. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
- Služba Vlade Republike Slovenije za razvoj in evropske zadeve. 2011. Strukturne prilagoditve v letih 2010 in 2011(Structural adjustments in 1010 and 2011). Ljubljana. http://www.svrez.gov.si/fileadmin/svez.gov.si/pageuploads/docs/strukturne_prilagoditve/Strukturne_prilagoditve_v_letih_2010_in_2011.pdf
- Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2010. Slovenska izhodna strategija 2010–2013 (Slovenian exist strategy 2010-2013). Ljubljana. http://www.svrez.gov.si/en/highlights/exit_from_the_crisis/slovenian_exit_strategy_20102013/
- Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2012. Nacionalni reformni program 2012-2013 (National Reform Programme 2012-2013). Ljubljana. http://www.mf.gov.si/fileadmin/mf.gov.si/pageuploads/sporocila/NRP_cistopis.pdf
- Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2011. Nacionalni reformni program 2011-2012 (National Reform Programme 2011-2012). Ljubljana. http://www.svrez.gov.si/fileadmin/svez.gov.si/pageuploads/docs/Razvojni_dokumenti/CIST_NOV_NRP_2_18_4.pdf
- Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2011. Konkurenčnost slovenskega gospodarstva: Pregled stanja in ukrepi za izboljšanje (Competitiveness of the Slovenian Economy: Overview of the existing situation and proposals for improvement). Ljubljana. http://data.si/userfiles/data.si/dokumenti/Pdf%20dokumenti%20za%20objavo%20(listine,%20zakoni,%20uredbe%20ipd)/Konkuren%C4%8Dnost%20slovenskega%20gospodarstva%20-%20pregled%20stanja%20in%20ukrepi%20za%20izbolj%C5%A1anje.pdf
- Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2005. Strategija razvoja Slovenije (Development Strategy of Slovenia). Ljubljana. http://www.arrs.gov.si/en/agencija/inc/ssd-new.pdf