Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Local government policy towards the financial instruments supporting entrepreneurship



Objective: The objective of the article is to determine the scope of the use of financial instruments to support entrepreneurship by communes in Poland.

Research Design & Methods: The article is a quantitative study. The source of data was a survey carried out among Polish Local Government Units (LGUs). In the article several methods were used: descriptive statistics methods, variable classification and grouping, Pearson’s chi-square coefficient, Cramer’s V coefficient and comparative analysis.

Findings: The research results indicate that LGUs conduct inefficient fiscal policies. LGUs do not measure the results of their policies and do not address their activities oriented on entrepreneurship support well. As a result, one in five of the surveyed units was exposed to negative budgetary effects because of the policy on the tax on means of transport and more than every fourth one in relation to the real estate tax.

Implications & Recommendations: LGUs should diagnose local economic conditions in terms of individual needs and choose instruments that match the unique conditions of the local environment. LGUs should also pay more attention to measuring the effects of their activities in order to stop ineffective activities and reorient associated financial streams.

Contribution & Value Added: Due to the scope, multifacetedness and uniqueness of the collected data, the article is a significant added value in terms of recognizing the scope and diversity of LGUs’ use of financial instruments to stimulate entrepreneurship in Poland. The undertaken topic related to the widespread problems with LGU financing is an important contribution to the discussion on strengthening the effectiveness of the financial policy of Polish LGUs.


Research article


Entrepreneurship support instruments, LGUs development


H10, H30, L26


Revised: X Month 20XX



entrepreneurship support instruments, financial support, local government units, local policy

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Jacek Rodzinka

PhD in economics (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 2005), Master of Economics (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, 1999). His research interests include: entrepreneurship, local and regional development, clusters, social security.

Correspondence to: PhD Jacek Rodzinka, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Faculty of Management, Institute for Financial Research and Analyses, ul. Sucharskiego 2, 35-225 Rzeszow, Poland, e-mail:



  1. Amorós, J.E., Poblete, C., & Mandakovic, V. (2019). R&D transfer, policy and innovative ambitious entrepre-neurship: evidence from Latin American countries. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1396-1415.
  2. Arauzo‐Carod, J.M., & Teruel‐Carrizosa, M. (2005). An urban approach to firm entry: The effect of urban size. Growth and Change, 36(4), 508-528.
  3. Barej, E. (2011). Znaczenie wydatków majątkowych w budowaniu konkurencyjności miast (na przykładzie wybranych miast województwa zachodniopomorskiego). Folia Pomeranae Universitatis Technologiae Stetinensis. Oeconomica, 65, 7-16.
  4. Bartlett, W., Malekovic, S., & Monastiriotis, V. (Eds.). (2013). Decentralization and local development in South East Europe. Springer.
  5. Bayoumi, T. (1991). The Determinants and Efficiency of Local Authority Spending in England. IMF Working Paper No. 91/9, 1-30.
  6. Braziewicz-Kumor, O., & Bury, P. (2011). Dochodowe instrumenty wspierania przedsiębiorczości stosowane przez samorządy gminne w województwie świętokrzyskim w latach 2004-2010. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej w Poznaniu, (38), 31-41.
  7. Bruce, D., Glass, E.A., & Harris, M.C. (2019). On the effectiveness of state tax and expenditure policies to encourage entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(4), 523-548.
  8. Bykov, S.S., & Zimmermann, H. (2018). Tax expenditure as a problem in intergovernmental relations. Journal of Tax Reform, 4(1), 27-44.
  9. Capkova, S. (2005). The Changing State of Local Government Summary and Conclusion. In S. Capkova (Ed.), Local Government and Economic Development (pp. 191-211). Budapest: Open Society Institute.
  10. Cheshire, P.C., & Gordon, I.R. (1998). Territorial competition: some lessons for policy. The Annals of Regional Science, 32(3), 321-346.
  11. Chmielewska, B., Gospodarowicz, M., Ślązak, E., & Wasilewski, A. (2011). Instrumenty polityki regionalnej i strukturalnej wspierające rozwój przedsiębiorczości na obszarach wiejskich. Warszawa: Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki żywnościowej – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, 47-101.
  12. Cullen, J.B., & Gordon, R. (2006). Tax reform and entrepreneurial activity. Tax Policy and the Economy, 20, 41-71.
  13. Curran, J. (2000). What is small business policy in the UK for? Evaluation and assessing small business poli-cies. International Small Business Journal, 18(3), 36-50.
  14. Damianova, A., Tzvetkovska, M., & Ivanov, S. (2005). The Role of Local Government in Local Economic Devel-opment. Bulgaria. Local Government and Economic Development. Budapest, Open Society Institute, 21-46.
  15. Dębski, J. (2003). Lokalne bieguny wzrostu w Polsce (według budżetów gmin i przedsiębiorczości prywatnej). Studies of the Industrial Geography Commission of the Polish Geographical Society, 5, 31-58.
  16. Dziuba, J. (2016). Zróżnicowanie fiskalnych skutków polityki podatkowej jednostek samorządu terytorialne-go. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, Sectio H Oeconomia, 50(1), 351-360.
  17. Easson, A., & Zolt, E.M. (2002). Tax incentives. World Bank Institute.
  18. Filipiak, B.Z. (2016). Skutki udzielania ulg, umorzeń i zwolnień przez organy podatkowe gmin. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, 83(5), 177-187.
  19. Gabe, T.M. (2001). The effects of local taxes and spending on business startups. Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association in Chicago, Illinois, August 5 – 8, 2001.
  20. Gentry, W.M., & Hubbard, R.G. (2000). Tax policy and entrepreneurial entry. American Economic Review, 90(2), 283-287.
  21. Gurley-Calvez, T., & Bruce, D. (2013). Do tax rate cuts encourage entrepreneurial entry?. Journal of Entrepre-neurship and Public Policy, 2(2), 178-202.
  22. Holcombe, R.G., & Williams, D.W. (2009). Are there economies of scale in municipal government expendi-tures?. Public Finance and Management, 9(3), 416-438.
  23. Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Public policy toward entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 15(4), 283-291.
  24. Inglot-Brzęk, E., & Skica, T. (2017). Zróżnicowanie efektów stosowania instrumentów wsparcia przedsiębior-czości przez samorząd terytorialny z uwagi na kryterium kategorii rodzajowej gminy. Samorząd Terytori-alny, (6), 24-53.
  25. Klun, M. (2012). Tax expenditure analysis of Slovenian income taxes. Skrivena javna potrošnja: budućnost po-reznih izdataka. Zagreb: Institut za Javne Financije.
  26. Krichevskiy, D., & Snyder, T. (2015). U.S. State Government policies and entrepreneurship. Journal of Entre-preneurship and Public Policy, 4(1), 102-110.
  27. Lee, S.H., Lim, E.S., & Hwang, J. (2017). Do credit guarantees for small and medium enterprises mitigate the business cycle? Evidence from Korea. Empirical Economics, 52(4), 1367-1378.
  28. Morgenroth, E. (2010). Regional dimension of taxes and public expenditure in Ireland. Regional Studies, 44(6), 777-789.
  29. Pahwa, S., Bester, J., van Nieuwenhuyzen, H., Dawood, G., Pieterse, D., Kane, K., & Van Eden, R. (2006). Im-pact of municipal regulations on SMMEs. Development Policy Research Unit Working Paper 06/107.
  30. Parker, S.C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Pergelova, A., & Angulo-Ruiz, F. (2014). The impact of government financial support on the performance of new firms: the role of competitive advantage as an intermediate outcome. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(9-10), 663-705.
  32. Perska, A. (2014). Wydatki inwestycyjne jednostek samorządu terytorialnego jako instrument wspierania przedsiębiorczości. Przedsiębiorczość-Edukacja, 10, 285-294.
  33. Poniatowicz, M. (2015). Determinanty autonomii dochodowej samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, (404), 245-264.
  34. Porter, M.E., & Stern, S. (2001). Innovation: location matters. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 28.
  35. Prange, H. (2008). Explaining varieties of regional innovation policies in Europe. European Urban and Region-al Studies, 15(1), 39-52.
  36. Primo, D.M. (2010). The effect of initiatives on local government spending. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 22(1), 6-25.
  37. Prud’Homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 10(2), 201-220.
  38. Renski, H. (2008). New firm entry, survival, and growth in the United States: A comparison of urban, subur-ban, and rural areas. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 60-77.
  39. Riedel, N., Simmler, M., & Wittrock, C. (2020). Local fiscal policies and their impact on the number and spa-tial distribution of new firms. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 83, 103525.
  40. Shen, W., Yang, S.C.S., & Zanna, L.F. (2015). Government spending effects in low-income countries. IMF Working Paper 15/286.
  41. Solé-Ollé, A. (2006). Expenditure spillovers and fiscal interactions: Empirical evidence from local govern-ments in Spain. Journal of Urban Economics, 59(1), 32-53.
  42. Supporting entrepreneurship by communes. 2014-2017, Supreme Chamber of Control, Warsaw (2018). Re-trieved from,17395,vp,19964.pdf on February 18, 2020.
  43. Sutaria, V., & Hicks, D. (2002). The determinants of new firm formation dynamics. 42nd Congress of the Euro-pean Regional Science Association: “From Industry to Advanced Services - Perspectives of European Met-ropolitan Regions”, August 27th - 31st, 2002, Dortmund, Germany, European Regional Science Associa-tion (ERSA), Louvain-laNeuve.
  44. Swianiewicz, P., Neneman, J., & Łukomska, J. (2013). Koncepcja przekształceń podatku od nieruchomości. Finanse Komunalne, 7-8, 25-50.
  45. Thurik, A.R. (2008). Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Policy in Emerging Economies. ERIM Report Series Research in Management, (ERS-2008-060-ORG), 1-20.
  46. Todtling, F., & Wanzenbock, H. (2003). Regional differences in structural characteristics of startups. Entre-preneurship and Regional Development, 15(4), 351-370.
  47. Villela, L., Lemgruber, A., & Jorratt, M. (2010). Tax expenditure budgets concepts and challenges for imple-mentation, IDB Working Paper Series, No. IDBWP-131en, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Wash-ington, DC.
  48. Zarezankova-Potevska M. (2018). Most favorable financial instruments for entrepreneurship development. ERENET Profile, XIII(1), 42-51.


Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)