IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mon/ceddtr/115.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Le dynamisme des micro, petites et moyennes entreprises (MPME). Une étude empirique de 500 unités dans l’Etat de Rio de Janeiro (Brésil)

Author

Listed:
  • François Combarnous

    (GED, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

  • Yves-André Fauré

    (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Instituto de Economia (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro), IFReDE-GRES, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

Abstract

Cette étude se propose d’explorer les caractéristiques et les facteurs de dynamisme de micro, petites et moyennes entreprises (MPME) de quatre villes de l’intérieur de l’Etat de Rio de Janeiro au Brésil. Les modifications intervenues ces dernières années dans les conditions de la production et des échanges, tant au plan des activités nationales qu’au plan du commerce international ont investi les entreprises d’une responsabilité accrue dans la poursuite des processus de croissance et de développement, souvent au prix d’un reflux des initiatives publiques. La question se pose de savoir si le tissu des innombrables petites unités qui composent un peu partout dans le monde l’essentiel de l’univers entrepreneurial – particulièrement dans les pays du Sud (97% des entreprises au Brésil) – est susceptible de contribuer au succès de ces réorientations. Sous quelles conditions peuvent-elles à la fois participer à ces mouvements et en tirer partie ? Les données traitées portent sur 500 entreprises de taille modeste regroupées successivement en huit types d’activité puis en deux grands secteurs (secondaire et tertiaire). La notion de dynamisme, explicitement revisitée à l’occasion de l’étude, fait référence aux processus dans lesquels sont engagées les unités, plus qu’aux résultats auxquels elles parviennent. Elle se caractérise de fait par son aspect multidimensionnel. Le recours au modèle de classification ascendante hiérarchique permet de distinguer nettement au sein de l’échantillon les entreprises qualifiées de dynamiques, sur la base de 31 critères constitutifs de cet état. Un modèle économétrique à choix discret permet ensuite d’identifier les variables susceptibles d’être à l’origine de ce dynamisme. Si quelques facteurs favorisent la vitalité des entreprises quel que soit leur secteur d’appartenance (taille, utilisation de services extérieurs, participation à un organisme professionnel), d’autres sont propres à chaque secteur. Des spécificités sectorielles apparaissent également dans l’étude des relations entre le dynamisme des entreprises, leur taille et les éventuels appuis qu’elles obtiennent auprès d’un dispositif ou d’un programme. Les liens entre le dynamisme des unités, leurs modes de financement, leur contexte institutionnel et les difficultés qu’elles rencontrent sont enfin explorés. This study proposes to explore the characteristics and factors of micro and small enterprises dynamism in four cities of the State of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. The recent modifications regarding local as international production and exchanges conditions invested enterprises with an increased responsibility for the continuation of growth and development process, often at the expense of a decline in public initiatives. The question arises of knowing if the broad magnitudes of micro and small enterprises – particularly in developing countries (97% of brazilian enterprises) – is likely to contribute to the success of these reorientations. Under which conditions can they simultaneously take part in these movements and take advantage of it ? The observed data relate to 500 enterprises divided up into eight sectors gathered in two broadly-defined sectoral groupings. The concept of dynamism, explicitly revisited on that occasion, refers to the processes in which the units are committed, more than the results they achieve. Therefore, this concept is characterized by its multidimensional aspect. The implementation of hierarchical clustering makes it possible to clearly distinguish dynamic enterprises within our sample, on the basis of 31 criterion constitutive of this state. Then, a discrete choice model allows to identify the relevant variables in predicting dynamism. Some of them appears to be always significant, whatever the analyzed sector (size, use of external services, participation in a professional organization), but others are clearly sector-specific. Such sectoral specificities also appear in the study of the relations between enterprises dynamism, their size and the possible supports they obtain. The connections between units dynamism and their financing, institutional context and experienced difficulties are finally explored. (Full text in french)

Suggested Citation

  • François Combarnous & Yves-André Fauré, 2005. "Le dynamisme des micro, petites et moyennes entreprises (MPME). Une étude empirique de 500 unités dans l’Etat de Rio de Janeiro (Brésil)," Documents de travail 115, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
  • Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masahisa Fujita & Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561476, December.
    2. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
    3. François Combarnous & Pascal Labazée, 2002. "Entreprises et emploi en Côte d'Ivoire," Série de recherche 05, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
    4. E. Le Roch, 1988. "Dynamique des PME dans un monde en mutation," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 44(1), pages 89-96.
    5. Lucia Foster & John C. Haltiwanger & C. J. Krizan, 2001. "Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 303-372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Sanghoon Ahn, 2001. "Firm Dynamics and Productivity Growth: A Review of Micro Evidence from OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 297, OECD Publishing.
    7. Zimmermann, J-B, 1997. "Nomadisme et ancrage territorial : reperes methodologiques pour une approche renouvelee des relations firmes-territoires," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 97c04, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
    8. Sanghoon Ahn, 2002. "Competition, Innovation and Productivity Growth: A Review of Theory and Evidence," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 317, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jesse ERIOLA, 2020. "Dimension socioculturelle du profil des dirigeants et dynamisme des petites entreprises au Benin," Journal of Academic Finance, RED research unit, university of Gabes, Tunisia, vol. 11(2), pages 190-208, December.
    2. Jesse ERIOLA, 2020. "Dimension socioculturelle du profil des dirigeants et dynamisme des petites entreprises au Benin," Journal of Academic Finance, RED research unit, university of Gabes, Tunisia, vol. 11(2), pages 190-208, December.

    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. Sanghoon Ahn, 2010. "Does Exporting Raise Productivity? Evidence from Korean Microdata," Working Papers id:3302, eSocialSciences.
    2. Sanghoon Ahn, 2004. "Global Competition, Technology Spillovers and Firm Dynamics:," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 793, Econometric Society.
    3. Richard Dion & Robert Fay, 2008. "Understanding Productivity: A Review of Recent Technical Research," Discussion Papers 08-3, Bank of Canada.
    4. Raphael Bergoeing & Andrés Hernando & Andrea Repetto, 2003. "Idiosyncratic Productivity Shocks and Plant-Level Heterogeneity," Documentos de Trabajo 173, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    5. Anderton, Robert & Di Lupidio, Benedetta & Jarmulska, Barbara, 2020. "The impact of product market regulation on productivity through firm churning: Evidence from European countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 487-501.
    6. Giulio Bottazzi & Giovanni Dosi & Nadia Jacoby & Angelo Secchi & Federico Tamagni, 2010. "Corporate performances and market selection: some comparative evidence," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(6), pages 1953-1996, December.
    7. Daan Freeman & Leon Bettendorf & Harro van Heuvelen & Gerdien Meijerink, 2021. "The contribution of business dynamics to productivity growth in the Netherlands," CPB Discussion Paper 427, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. Nicolas Hérault, 2005. "Building and Linking a Microsimulation Model to a CGE Model : the South African Microsimulation Model," Documents de travail 114, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
    9. Schiantarelli, Fabio, 2005. "Product Market Regulation and Macroeconomic Performance: A Review of Cross Country Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 1791, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Eric Manes, 2009. "Pakistan's Investment Climate : Laying the Foundation for Growth, Volume 2. Annexes," World Bank Publications - Reports 12411, The World Bank Group.
    11. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Jiasu Lei & Xiaodan Yu, 2013. "Institutional Change and Productivity Growth in China's Manufacturing 1998-2007: the Microeconomics of Creative Restructuring," LEM Papers Series 2013/07, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Giovanni Dosi & Sébastien Lechevalier & Angelo Secchi, 2010. "Interfirm heterogeneity: nature, sources and consequences for industrial dynamics. An introduction," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00642680, HAL.
    14. Saso Polanec, 2004. "On the Evolution of Size and Productivity in Transition: Evidence from Slovenian Manufacturing Firms," LICOS Discussion Papers 15404, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    15. Baldwin, John R. Gu, Wulong, 2006. "Competition, Firm Turnover and Productivity Growth," Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series 2006042e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    16. Jeong-Dong Lee, 2009. "Industry Dynamics and Productivity Research," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200929, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Nov 2009.
    17. Grzegorz Go³êbiowski & Piotr Russel, 2015. "Business Dynamics In Poland In Comparison To Selected Countries," GUT FME Conference Publications, in: Blazej Prusak (ed.),ENTERPRISES IN UNSTABLE ECONOMY, chapter 14, pages 182-196, Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology.
    18. Paloma López-García & Sergio Puente & Ángel Luis Gómez, 2007. "Firm productivity dynamics in Spain," Working Papers 0739, Banco de España.
    19. Kim, Hyungtai & Ahn, Sanghoon & Ulfarsson, Gudmundur F., 2021. "Impacts of transportation and industrial complexes on establishment-level productivity growth in Korea," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-97.
    20. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2016. "Health Care Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the US Health Care Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2110-2144, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • O54 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Latin America; Caribbean

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mon:ceddtr:115. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.