I understand that the existence of an innovation ecosystem that guarantees the knowledge flow, infrastructure and adequate legal security is essential.

I agree with the position regarding the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship of small and medium-sized enterprises for economic development. It is vital that such firms find fiscal facilities and no bureaucratic difficulty, given their resource constraints, they need to be able to focus entirely on the business.

The role of innovation and entrepreneurship of small and medium-sized enterprises in economic development is well known. For activating innovation and entrepreneurship of economic processes, we should create a motivating work environment.

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz ,learning from childhood, learning from the beginning, studying at school, studying on campus, but based on my observations, everything went half-hearted and unsustainable. lack of focus, there must be certain agencies that manage centrally and independently in a country. Regards.

Having practised all my working life in an entrepreneurial manner (both in large public-sector organisations and as a small business owner) And now studying the subject from a conceptual viewpoint - building on my 2006 PhD), I believe there are three conditions to be met:

1) There must, within the individual, be a predisposition to acting entrepreneurially;

2) There must be some priming activity (either, or both, internal or external); and

3) There must be some trigger to the entrepreneurial activity itself.

Once triggered there are other conditions that must subsist for entrepreneurial activity to be sustainable.

With regard to predisposition - this is as much psychological as anything else. Clearly every individual is unique, and may exhibit entrepreneurial-relevant attitudes and behaviours to a greater or lesser degree. Some of these might be identified and encouraged through education, others may be stifled by education.

Talk of education is rightly one of the priming factors also. If we want to encourage those with a predisposition to act entrepreneurially, then education, public policy, economic conditions, access to resources, etc., all play a part in priming the entrepreneurial environment.

With the triggering factor, it is back to the individual with a predisposition... Here we may look to motivational theory, Maslow's heirarchy of needs and others. Just because someone may have a predisposition, and has been primed through education and exists within an entrepreneurially-friendly environment, does not mean that individual will necessarily act entrepreneurially in a given situation.

On this basis, then, encouraging entrepreneurship for the good of society requires:

1) Instruments for identifying entrepreneurial predisposition. This should lead to tailored support to encourage desired behaviours.

2) An entrepreneurially-tuned environment including attention to policy, access to (tailored) education, access to resources (not limited to finance), etc

Whether the required activity can then be triggered requires greater understanding. It may, for example, require catalytic action - bringing together those that may trigger each other.

In my opinion, entrepreneurship is a spectral phenomenon. It can be nurtured, but it cannot be forced.

one of the strategy is to develop the conceptual competency among owners/managers. It will help the organization to innovate

I understand that the existence of an innovation ecosystem that guarantees the knowledge flow, infrastructure and adequate legal security is essential.

A realistic vision statement provided by the required resources and supported by an effective leadership will generate innovation and creativity in the organization.

Activating innovation requires that an environment that encourages recreative thinking, sustainability of the business idea. There is need to build a network of groups for synergy building and information sharing. There is also a need to mentor the entrepreneurial disposition of the individual so that he can muster motivation

From my research I noticed that SME's frequently have limited resources for spending time on innovations and strategic planning because they are fully absorbed in day-to-day activities. (see also for instance Wang et al., 2007).

Furthermore I understood in my research, that the decision making process is limited to a few people inside an SME (Owner and 1 or 2 managers).

Consequently, the innovation capability can be limited. Therefore, I would recommend to participate more organisational members in the innovation process. That could also help to strengthen inter-organisational trust and motivation. Research showed, that knowledge sharing (tacit knowledge) of organisational members is depended on trust. (e.g. Holste and Fields, 2010)

Literature:

Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of knowledge management, 14(1), 128-140.

Wang, C., Walker, E., & Redmond, J. (2007). Explaining the lack of strategic planning in SMEs: The importance of owner motivation. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 12 (1), 1-16.

maybe the quantity of entrepreneurial firms and the performance of the start-up business

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG,

Everyone agrees that the activation of entrepreneurship and innovation is essential for improving economic growth. However, in certain economic conditions there are various possibilities to support and develop entrepreneurship and innovation. The main determinants of the possibilities of supporting and developing entrepreneurship and innovativeness include the state's state fianns and the effectiveness of the economic policy being pursued, of which one of the important elements may be the issue of supporting and developing entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition, the structure of the national economy and the phase of the economic cycle in which the economy is located can have a significant impact on shaping both the needs and opportunities in the field of supporting and developing entrepreneurship and innovation.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question: Which of the instruments supporting and developing entrepreneurship and innovation are, in your opinion, the most appropriate in the context of current economic conditions?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

One of the key determinants of supporting and developing entrepreneurship and innovation is the development and implementation of a good economic policy for the activation of the establishment and development of innovative startups.

Are financial issues the main barrier to the development of innovative startups?

Are limited sources of external financing and high fiscal costs the main barriers to the development of innovative startups? Are there other equally important barriers to development?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Creating an entrepreneurial- friendly environment (laws and regulations, less burreocracy) as external factor and creating entrepreneurial culture in companies as internal factor.

From entrepreneurial perspective, it requires strategic competencies in combination with analytical thinking. In reality, entrepreneurial dimensions are most influential aspects for entrepreneurship/business accomplishments. But undoubtedly, supportive regulations is another prime concern regarding the process.

Indeed, innovation and entrepreneurship are very differen domains.

See the attached article.

Best regards,

Marco

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Thank you very much for participating in the discussion, for valuable tips and new insights given to the above issues regarding the answer to the question: What are the most effective instruments for activating innovation and entrepreneurship of economic processes?

Currently, due to the development of the Covid-19 Coronavirus pandemic and the forecasted recession of the global economy in 2020, the implementation of anti-crisis, interventionist monetary and budgetary policy in many countries begins according to the concept of "Helicopter Money" by Milton Friedman. As part of interventionist anti-crisis programs, high-budget liquidity maintenance programs are launched in real sectors of the economy, primarily in enterprise sectors, mainly SME sectors. The cost will be an increase in inflation or an increase in public debt and budget deficit in central budgets of individual countries. When in a few weeks or in a few months the Coronavirus pandemic stops developing, there will be a need to activate entrepreneurship in individual economies, but in conditions of high public debt it will not be easy. The above discussion inspired me to formulate the following questions: How should entrepreneurship be activated in a situation of high public debt? What economic policy instruments should activated entrepreneurship be when the Coronavirus pandemic ends? Or maybe additional activation will not be needed?

Whether YES or NO, please explain your answer.

What is your opinion on this topic?

Please reply.

Thank you very much.

Best wishes.

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The question is a burning one. What is the reason why the United States spends US $ 2 trillion, despite being just in full employment and in a climate of economic growth? In crises, the government's role is crucial, efforts cannot be measured, such expenditures are never inflationary.

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Thank you very much for participating in the discussion, for valuable tips and new insights on the above issues regarding the issues of entrepreneurship activation and innovation. In the context of the above discussion, I ask the following question: Is building and improving risk management systems for entrepreneurship decline and economic downturn an important factor in entrepreneurship activation and innovation programs that are part of pro-development socio-economic policy? If YES, how should the entrepreneurship risk management model be built?

In the context of the above questions, I would like to inspire discussion in the following words. Well, we already know from many analyzes that the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic causing Covid-19 disease on the global economy is large. In some countries, the level of economic growth dropped sharply in the months March - June 2020 and there was a high probability of potential recession of the national economy. Even if the pandemic would expire immediately, it was a period of significant recession characterized by a decrease in production, offered services (e.g. tourism, gastronomy, hospitality, etc.), consumption, investment in many branches and sectors of the economy, and an increase in unemployment, a decrease in income, and tax revenues in the financial system states can last for longer. Whether this period will be only a few months or rather a few quarters in individual countries is determined not only by the scale of development of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic, but also by many other secondary factors. These factors primarily include the different sectoral structure of the economies of individual countries. For example, in countries where tourism, hospitality, catering and other services related to tourism constitute a significant part of the national economy and generate a relatively large share of GDP, the crisis that is now beginning may be much deeper and longer lasting. How long the economic crisis will last is also determined mainly by several other factors, such as the significantly different state of state finances, public debt, budget deficit in the central budget of the state and local government units as well as in other aspects of the state public finance system. In addition, significant differences in the anti-crisis anti-pandemic and sanitary safety standards currently in use are also important. These standards are similar in many issues, but in specific issues there are significant differences, e.g. in the instruments used to limit the pandemic development rate, e.g. types of stores, services, production processes, etc., whose functioning has been temporarily disabled or replaced with remote customer service via the Internet in those economic and logistical processes where this is possible. In addition, it is also particularly important to diversify the financial scale and types of interventionist instruments used, anti-crisis socio-economic policy, including fiscal policy coordinated by the Ministry of Finance and monetary policy of central banking. All of the above-mentioned factors will significantly determine in the following months the issue of time differentiation of the duration of the economic crisis in individual countries in the future, so whether this crisis will last only a few months or several years. In view of the above, the anti-crisis interventionist instruments of socio-economic, budgetary, fiscal, monetary, etc. should significantly reduce the scale of the economic downturn by activating entrepreneurship and maintaining the continuity of operations of many business entities and institutions. However, the risk of entrepreneurial decline in individual countries is still more or less high. Therefore, there is a need to measure the risk of a decrease in entrepreneurship caused by the development of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic. It is therefore important to develop a universal, international model of the process of managing the risk of entrepreneurship decline and potential development of the economic downturn caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic. It is therefore necessary to develop a universal risk management model for the decline in entrepreneurship and the economic downturn by defining and describing factors related to individual stages of the risk management process, i.e. identifying specific types of risk, risk analysis, risk quantification, launching specific instruments to secure a given organization against risk materialization, etc.

In order for the developed model of managing the risk of entrepreneurship decline and economic downturn to be used in different countries, for the results of analyzes to be internationally comparable, it is necessary to develop a universal model based on determinants and risk factors occurring in different countries. Therefore, what is your opinion on the above issue. Please answer the following questions: Is building and improving risk management systems for a decline in entrepreneurship and an increase in the economic downturn an important factor in entrepreneurship activation and innovation programs that are part of pro-development socio-economic policy? If YES, how should the entrepreneurship risk management model be built?

Please reply,

Best wishes and I invite you to continue cooperation,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Due to the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, many economies are still in an economic crisis. Therefore, specific support instruments and public aid for enterprises are used in individual countries in order to activate entrepreneurship and counteract the economic downturn.

In view of the above, please answer the following question:

What are the currently used effective instruments for activating entrepreneurship and innovation during the current economic crisis caused by the Coronavirus pandemic?

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In recent years, the significant instruments used to activate innovation and entrepreneurship include the pro-development improvement of the fiscal policy and increasing expenditure from the state finance system on the creation of funds for systemic support for the development of innovative economic ventures initiated by startups and companies operating in the new technology sector. Liberalized monetary policy did not bring significant effects of improving innovation and entrepreneurship. The interest rates lowered by central banks to successive record low levels turned out to be useful as factors influencing the economic situation in capital markets, mainly in reducing the scale of the downturn in the securities markets and in maintaining the optimal level of commercial bank lending and liquidity in the interbank market. Indirectly, a soft monetary policy may help to activate innovation and entrepreneurship, but it is not a key factor generating economic development. Greater pro-development effects were achieved through appropriate improvement and adaptation to a specific socio-economic situation, national and international (e.g. in the European Union) interventionist, anti-crisis and pro-development socio-economic policies, including, in particular, budgetary, fiscal and sectoral policies.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Promoting and activating innovation in a sustainable manner can be done through the development of entrepreneurial ecosystem to provide a platform that is needed for new ventures to flourish