IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bas/econst/y2001i1p132-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Innovative Activity of the Companies (After the Model of Pleven, Lovech, Veliko Tarnovo and Gabrovo Districts)

Author

Listed:
  • Rumen Lazarov

Abstract

This study analyses the innovative activity of the companies in the industrial economic sector after the model of Pleven, Lovech, Veliko Tarnovo and Gabrovo districts. An assessment has been accomplished of the innovative activity of the companies grouped by size ( number of employees ), type of ownership and mechanism of its obtaining and rates of export intensity. On the basis of the formed summarized assessment of the innovative activity of the companies some basic dependencies have been deduced about their innovative activity in the period of the market economy transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Rumen Lazarov, 2001. "The Innovative Activity of the Companies (After the Model of Pleven, Lovech, Veliko Tarnovo and Gabrovo Districts)," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 132-158.
    • Handle: RePEc:bas:econst:y:2001:i:1:p:132-158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=a99ec7a6-93ff-46e8-bfd3-37c67309d82d&articleid=405df015-10f3-4f94-b070-9bb2a751d045#a405df015-10f3-4f94-b070-9bb2a751d045
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitko Dimitrov, 1999. "Economic Structures and Firm Performance in Bulgaria," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 100-122.
    2. Grosfeld, Irena & Nivet, Jean-François, 1997. "Wage and Investment Behaviour in Transition: Evidence from a Polish Panel Data Set," CEPR Discussion Papers 1726, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Nellis, J., 1999. "Time to Rethink Privatization in Transition Economies?," Papers 38, World Bank - International Finance Corporation.
    4. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    5. Barberis, Nicholas & Maxim Boycko & Andrei Shleifer & Natalia Tsukanova, 1996. "How Does Privatization Work? Evidence from the Russian Shops," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 764-790, August.
    6. J.S. Earle & S. Estrin, 1996. "Privatization Versus Competition: Changing Enterprise Behavior in Russia," Working Papers wp96049, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    7. Kikeri, Sunita & Nellis, John & Shirley, Mary, 1994. "Privatization: Lessons from Market Economies," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 9(2), pages 241-272, July.
    8. Konings, Jozef, 1997. "Competition and Firm Performance in Transition Economies: Evidence from Firm Level Surveys in Slovenia, Hungary and Romania," CEPR Discussion Papers 1770, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116, December.
    10. Earle, John S & Estrin, Saul, 1997. "After Voucher Privatization: The Structure of Corporate Ownership in Russian Manufacturing Industry," CEPR Discussion Papers 1736, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yurii Perevalov & Ilya Gimadii & Vladimir Dobrodei, 2000. "Does Privatisation Improve Performance of Industrial Enterprises? Empirical Evidence from Russia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 337-363.
    2. Barbara Blaszczyk & Iraj Hashi & Alexander Radygin & Richard Woodward, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Ownership Structure in the Transition: The Current State of Knowledge and Where to Go from Here," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0264, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Dobrodey Vladimir & Gimadi Ilya & Perevalov Yuri, 2001. "The Impact of Privatisation on the Performance of Medium and Large Industrial Enterprises," EERC Working Paper Series 2k/01e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    4. Brown, J David & Earle, John, 2001. "Privatization, Competition and Reform Strategies: Theory and Evidence from Russian Enterprise Panel Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 2758, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Andreyeva Tatiana, 2003. "Company Performance in Ukraine: What Governs its Success," EERC Working Paper Series 03-01e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    6. Yu, Wusheng & Jensen, Trine Vig, 2003. "Trade Preferences, WTO Negotiations and the LDCs: the case of the "Everything But Arms" Initiative," Conference papers 331124, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Estrin, Saul, 2007. "How transition paths differ: Enterprise performance in Russia and China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 374-392, March.
    8. Simeon Djankov & Stijn Claessens, 1997. "Enterprise Performance and Managers' Profiles," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 115, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    9. Schnytzer, Adi & Andreyeva, Tatiana, 2002. "Company performance in Ukraine: is this a market economy?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 83-98, June.
    10. Irina Akimova & Gerhard Schwödiauer, 1999. "Restructuring of Ukrainian Enterprises after Privatization: Does Ownership Structure Matter?," Industrial Organization 9903003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Sumon Bhaumik & Saul Estrin, 2003. "Why Transition Paths Differ: Russian and Chinese Enterprise Performance Compared," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 525, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    12. Alan Bevan & Saul Estrin & Mark E. Schaffer, 1999. "Determinants of Enterprise Performance during Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 9903, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    13. Tatahi, Motasam & Heshmati, Almas, 2009. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms in Sweden," IZA Discussion Papers 3953, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Saul Estrin & Jozef Konings & Zbigniew Zolkiewski & Manuela Angelucci, 2001. "The Effect of Ownership and Competitive Pressure on Firm Performance in Transition Countries. Micro Evidence from Bulgaria, Romania and Poland," LICOS Discussion Papers 10401, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    15. Polterovich, Victor, 2000. "Employment- wage decisions in the insider-owned firm," BOFIT Discussion Papers 1/2000, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    16. Helena Hannula, 2001. "Restructuring of the Estonian economy and the role of FDIs in it," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, in: Urmas Varblane (ed.), Foreign Direct Investments in the Estonian Economy, edition 1, volume 9, chapter 3, pages 91-174, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    17. Ornella Tarola, 2010. "Public Utilities: Privatization without Regulation," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 4(1), pages 062-078, March.
    18. Paul Walker, 2016. "From complete to incomplete (contracts): A survey of the mainstream approach to the theory of privatisation," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 212-229, August.
    19. Claessens,Constantijn A.*Djankov, Simeon, 1998. "Politicians and firms in seven central and eastern European countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1954, The World Bank.
    20. Jan Hanousek & Ev??en Ko?enda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance After Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-652, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bas:econst:y:2001:i:1:p:132-158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Diana Dimitrova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ikbasbg.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.