Evaluation of the business environment quality through the perception of business as part of the ongoing reform of the state supervisory oversight reform

Purpose: the current research aims to study the influence of the subjective perception of control and supervisory activities by regional business on the business environment quality as part of the ongoing state control and supervisory activities reform. The article has solved the following tasks: key factors determining the quality of the business environment and the perception by entrepreneurs of the state economic policy have determined; entrepreneurs' perception of the state activity in reforming state control (supervision) in the Tver region has assessed; main problems arising during the implementation of state control (supervision) measures have identified ); ways have proposed t for their elimination.

Methods: study based on systematization and analysis of the results of sociological polls to assess the impact of state and municipal control (supervision) on business, which conducted in Tver region for three years (from 2016 to 2018) and covered more than three hundred heads of small, medium and large enterprises of all municipalities of the region. Content analysis of the regulatory framework and economic and statistical evaluation of the results of sociological surveys carried out; tabular and graphical data visualization methods applied.

Results: despite the implementation of the reform and the reduction in the number of inspections in Tver region, an analysis of the results of a survey of entrepreneurs indicates a contradictory situation in the administrative conditions of the business environment. There is no reduction in the administrative burden on business in the subjective perception of entrepreneurs. At the same time, the firm orientation of inspectors for the collection of fines and the fiscal orientation of inspections remains.

Conclusions and Relevance: conceptual approach to the implementation of the ongoing reform of state control and supervision activities involves the identification and elimination of administrative barriers with the active participation of the business community. Entrepreneurs do not feel the reduction of administrative burden on business according to their subjective perception. The perception of control and supervisory measures by business representatives determines the quality of the business environment, which has a significant impact on the motivation and performance of business entities. There is no change in the fundamental model for the implementation of state control and supervisory activities according to the business community. 

1. Castaño M.S., Méndez M.T., Galindo M.A. The effect of public policies on entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69(11):5280–5285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.125 (in Eng.)

2. Autio E., Rannikko H. Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? Research Policy. 2016; 45(1):42–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.002 (in Eng.)

3. Sanchez de Pablo J.D., Peña Garcia Pardo I., Hernandez Perlines F. Influence factors of trust building in cooperation agreements. Journal of Business Research. 2014; 67(5):710–714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.032 (in Eng.)

4. Khalid S., Ali T. An integrated perspective of social exchange theory and transaction cost approach on the antecedents of trust in international joint ventures. International Business Review. 2017; 26(3):491–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.10.008 (in Eng.)

5. Ge J., Stanley L.J., Eddleston K., Kellermanns F.W. Institutional deterioration and entrepreneurial investment: The role of political connections. Journal of Business Venturing. 2017; 32(4):405–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.04.002 (in Eng.)

6. Salman D.M. What is the role of public policies to robust international entrepreneurial activities on economic growth? Evidence from cross countries study. Future Business Journal. 2016; 2(1):1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2016.02.001 (In Eng.)

7. Tambovtsev V.L. Does industrial policy need theoretical justifications? Voprosy ekonomiki = Questions of economics. 2017; 5:29–44 (in Russ.).

8. Laplume А.О., Pathak S., Xavier-Oliveira E. The politics of intellectual property rights regimes: An empirical study of new technology use in entrepreneurship. Technovation. 2014; 34(12):807–816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.006 (In Eng.)

9. Ranasinghe A. Property rights, extortion and the misallocation of talent. European Economic Review. 2017; 98:86–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.06.010 (In Eng.)

10. Dickel P., Graeff P. Entrepreneurs' propensity for corruption: A vignette-based factorial survey. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 89:77–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.036 (In Eng.)

11. Stroe S., Parida V., Wincent J. Effectuation or causation: An fsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial passion, risk perception, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 89:265–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.035 (In Eng.)

12. Hernando de Soto. The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World. New York: Harper and Row. 1989. 271 p. (In Eng.)

13. Beynon M.J., Jones P., Pickernell D. Entrepreneurial climate and self-perceptions about entrepreneurship: a country comparison using fsQCA with dual outcomes. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 89:418–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.014 (in Eng.)

14. Bondarenko I.V. Changing the institutional conditions for the development of entrepreneurship in the context of the reform of control and supervisory activities. Ekonomika Sibiri v usloviyakh global'nykh vyzovov XXI veka = Economy of Siberia in the context of global challenges of the XXI century. Collection of articles. Novosibirsk, 2018. pp. 31–39 (in Russ.)

15. Nikonov Yu.Sh. Improving the system of principles of state control (supervision) in the context of the reform of control and supervisory activities. Original'nyye issledovaniya = Original Studies. 2018; 8(4):26–33 (in Russ.)

16. Krasyukova N.L. Analysis of the existing system of legal and methodological foundations for the implementation of risk-oriented approaches in the activities of control and supervisory bodies. Ekonomika i predprinimatel'stvo = Economy and Entrepreneurship. 2016; 76(11-3):140– 143 (in Russ.)

17. Kozlachkov V.I., Ershov A.V., Yagodka E.A., Bogatov A.A. Current Issues of Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Activities of Supervisory Bodies of the Emercom of Russia. Yezhegodnaya mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-tekhnicheskaya konferentsiya Sistemy bezopasnosti = Annual International Scientific and Technical Conference of the Security System. 2017; 26:377–380 (in Russ.)

18. Grunina D.K. Control and supervisory activities as a factor in increasing the business activity of tax authorities. Ekonomika. Nalogi = Economy. Taxes. Law. 2018; 11(3):131–139 (in Russ.)

19. Ganus A.A. Reform of the supervisory activities of state power in Russia and the assessment of its effectiveness. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskoy yuridicheskoy akademii = Bulletin of the St. Petersburg Law Academy. 2018; 40(3):15–19 (in Russ.)

20. Levonenkova T.A. State and municipal control (supervision): the search for effective solutions. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law. 2014; 9:140–149 (in Russ.)

21. Usmanova D.R. Some problems of development of a risk-based approach in control and supervisory activities. Aktual'nyye problemy administrativnogo i administrativno-protsessual'nogo prava = Actual problems of administrative and administrative procedural law. Collection of articles based on the materials of the annual All-Russian scientific-practical conference, 2018. pp. 174–176 (in Russ.)

22. Umanskaya V.P. Modernization of the system of control and supervisory activities in the Russian Federation. Aktual'nyye problemy administrativnogo i administrativno-protsessual'nogo prava = Actual problems of administrative and administrative procedural law. Collection of articles based on the materials of the annual All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference, 2018. pp. 40–45 (in Russ.)

23. Komov V.E., Kabalinsky A.I. The rationale for improving the effectiveness of control and supervisory activities at the regional level. Izvestiya Tul'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = News of Tula State University. Economic and legal sciences. 2017; 1–1:159–164 (in Russ.)

24. Vakhrameeva L.N. Prosecutor's Supervision and Control and Supervisory Activities of State Bodies: Some Theoretical Aspects and Legislative Problems. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika = Legal Science and Practice. 2018; 14(1):45–51 (in Russ.)

25. Scherbakov M.G. Double standards of legal regulation of control and supervisory activities. Nauka i obrazovaniye: problemy, idei, innovatsii = Science and education: problems, ideas, innovations. 2018; 5(2):102–107 (in Russ.)

26. Barsukova V.N. Implementation of the principles of the organization and activities of the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation in civil proceedings. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess = Arbitration and civil procedure. 2013; 3:57–60 (in Russ.)