Mikael Stenkula

Entrepreneurship and Public Policy

Public policy is currently shifting from SME policy towards entrepreneurship policy, which supports entrepreneurship without directing attention to quantitative goals and specific firms or employment groups. The institutional framework set by public policy affects the prevalence and performance of both productive entrepreneurship and so-called high-impact entrepreneurship in turn. Although varying contexts and economic systems make prescribing a general panacea impossible, a number of relevant policy areas are identified and analyzed. Independent of environment, productive entrepreneurship should be rewarded and unproductive entrepreneurship should be discouraged. Successful ventures must also have the incentive to continue renewing themselves just as it must be easy to start and expand a business. In particular, we analyze regulatory entry and growth barriers, labor market regulation, liquidity constraints and tax policy at length.

Using self-employment as proxy for entrepreneurship: some empirical caveats

Self-employment is the most frequently used measure of entrepreneurship. However, its definition varies between countries, which makes comparisons difficult. We present an analysis of Swedish self-employment data and show that even within one country, the depicted development differs greatly depending on the source used. Unlike previous claims in cross-country studies, we find that there is no basis for categorising Sweden as having increased its self-employment rate more than others. This demonstrates a need to carefully specify the characteristics of the data, and their advantages and disadvantages, before drawing conclusions about the frequency of entrepreneurship in different countries.

Marginal taxation on labour income in Sweden from 1862 to 2010

This paper presents annual Swedish time series data on the top marginal tax wedge and marginal tax wedges on labour income for a low-, average- and high-income earner for the period 1862–2010. These data are unique in their consistency, thoroughness and timespan covered. We identify four distinct periods separated by major tax reforms. The tax system can be depicted as proportional, with low tax wedges until the Second World War. Next follows a period featuring increasing tax wedges. During the third period, starting with the 1971 tax reform and continuing throughout the 1980s, the efforts to redistribute income culminated and tax wedges peaked. The high-income earner started to pay the top marginal tax wedge which could be as high as almost 90%. The main explanations for this development are temporary crises leading to permanent tax increases, expansion of the public sector, distributional ambitions, increased local taxes, bracket-creep and the introduction of social security contributions paid by employers. The 1990–1991 tax reform represents the beginning of a new and still continuing period with decreasing marginal tax wedges.

Taxation of Real Estate in Sweden (1862–2013)

This paper examines the development and role of the real estate taxation in Sweden during the period between 1862 and 2010. Real estate has historically been taxed at both the local and state levels. The importance of real estate taxation in Sweden is nevertheless difficult to assess directly because of the limited availability of data and the specific construction of the local tax system after 1920. The real estate tax initially aimed to provide municipalities with a stable tax base; however, its importance in this respect has diminished over time. After the tax reform of 1990–1991 in Sweden, real estate was taxed exclusively at the national level, generating tax revenue of approximately one percent of GDP. Further, in 2008, part of the tax was transformed to a “local fee”.

Institutional Reform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship

It is imperative that the economies of the European Union become more entrepreneurial to promote innovation and economic growth. To achieve these goals, we propose a reform strategy with respect to (i) the rule of law and the protection of property rights; (ii) the tax system; (iii) regulations governing savings, capital and finance; (iv) the organization of labor markets and social insurance systems; (v) regulations governing goods and service markets; (vi) regulations governing bankruptcy and insolvency; (vii) RD (viii) human capital investments; and (ix) informal institutions. Overall, the proposed institutional changes move in a liberalizing direction; however, one-size-fits-all policy reforms aimed at freer markets will not necessarily be successful. Instead, a successful reform strategy must consider country differences that affect the viability of reform without abandoning the long-term goal of institutional liberalization to promote entrepreneurship, innovation and growth

Capital income taxation of Swedish households, 1862–2010

This study describes the evolution of capital income taxation, including corporate, dividend, interest, capital gains and wealth taxation, in Sweden between 1862 and 2010. To illustrate the evolution, we present annual time-series data on the marginal effective tax rates on capital income (METR) for a marginal investment financed with new share issues, retained earnings or debt. These data are unique in their consistency, thoroughness and time span. We identify four tax regimes separated by shifts in economic policy. The first regime stretches from 1862 until the Second World War. The METR is low, stable and does not exceed 5% until the First World War, when the METR begins to drift upwards and varies depending on the source of finance. The outbreak of the Second World War establishes the second regime, when the magnitude and variation of the METR sharply increase. The METR peaks during the third regime in the 1970s and 1980s and often exceeds 100%. The 1990–1991 tax reform represents the beginning of the fourth regime, which is characterised by lower and smaller variations in the METR. The METR varies between 15% and 40% at the end of this period.

Swedish Capital Income Taxation (1862–2013)

This paper describes the evolution of capital income taxation, including corporate, dividend, interest, capital gains and wealth taxation, in Sweden between 1862 and 2010. To illustrate the evolution, we present annual time-series data on the marginal effective tax rates on capital income (METR) for a marginal investment financed with new share issues, retained earnings or debt. Tax tables covering the period are presented. These data are unique in their consistency, thoroughness and time span covered. The METR is low, is stable and does not exceed five percent until World War I, when it starts to drift somewhat upward and vary depending on the source of finance. The outbreak of World War II starts a period when the magnitude and variation of the METR sharply increases. The METR peaks during the 1970s and 1980s and often exceeds 100 percent. The 1990–1991 tax reform and lower inflation reduce the magnitude and variation of the METR. The METR varies between 15 and 40 percent at the end of the examined period.

Swedish Taxation since 1862: An Introduction and Overview

Rulers, whether they are contemporary democratically elected governments or ancient despotic dictators, never lack objectives on which to spend money. However, until recently in human history, raising revenue was both problematic and expensive. Direct taxes, if they existed, were levied on part of the production of the land, and the otherwise untaxable poor citizens paid taxes in the form of labor. Another source of taxation was external manifestations of wealth, such as houses, windows, fountains, and other signs of affluence.1

Innovation, Entrepreneurship and the Complementary Skill Structure

This chapter provides a theoretical foundation to help identify the areas where the need for reform is the greatest. The theories of the experimentally organized economy and of entrepreneurial ecosystems are used to identify six competencies, in addition to that of the entrepreneur, that are necessary for ideas to be generated, identified, selected and commercialized. The competencies are those of inventors, professional managers, competent employees, venture capitalists, actors in secondary markets, and demanding customers. Importantly, no one is in charge of the ecosystem’s skill structure, which limits what can be achieved through top-down reform. We also draw on the varieties of capitalism literature, which identifies institutional complementarities as an important driver of the persistent institutional differences across polities. The existence of institutional complementarities implies that viable policy changes must be compatible with existing institutional patterns and that a specific change will have effects that extend throughout the institutional system. As such, they help explain both grid-locks and cascading changes.

Introduction: Europe’s Innovation Emergency

The European Union suffers from an innovation deficit, which must be remedied if the EU is to improve the quality of life of its citizens and remain competitive in the global marketplace. In order to do so, more productive entrepreneurship is required. We analyze how Europe’s institutional framework conditions could become more supportive of entrepreneurship and innovation, and outline a reform strategy to achieve this objective. To be viable, the strategy emphasizes the large cross-country differences across the union. Each EU member state has evolved its particular bundle of institutions, many of which are complementary to one another. If these complexities are not acknowledged, well-intended reforms may become unpredictable or even detrimental to entrepreneurship and economic development.