Дополните предложения данными словами.
Entrepreneurship; training; overpriced; free trade; overtime; unemployment; criteria; operating expenses; account for; monetary policy; no-deal
1. is the process of designing, launching and running a new business, which is often initially a small business.
1. I never buy clothes in that boutique. Everything is so expensive, and the quality isn’t high – I think the clothes are really .
2. My firm hopes to do more business abroad, so plans to introduce language for all the staff.
3. Officially, she works thirty-five hours a week but sometimes with she does as many as fifty.
4. People are worried about the rise in .
5. is a very good idea in principle, but in practice we need protectionism to help domestic manufacturers to survive.
6. What are the for applicants?
7. Although different businesses have different costs associated with them, the main of most businesses include rent, phone and utilities, equipment.
8. High-tech companies 32% of the total value of the payrolls in the area. 9. He said the Fed would tighten .
10. A ___Brexit means the UK would leave the EU immediately on 31 October 2019, and there would be no agreements in place about what the relationship between the UK and the EU will be like in future.
France produces fewer start-ups than the average developed nation, and has historically had a higher rate of unemployment. Critics are quick to blame both on its generous welfare state. But in 2001, the nation’s policymakers were able to boost entrepreneurship, according to a recent paper. And they did it by making welfare policies even more generous.
Unemployment insurance had been a substantial deterrent to entrepreneurship in France, because individuals without jobs ceased to be eligible for it if they founded a business. So the French Ministry of Labor enacted a series of reforms which allowed founders to continue to draw unemployment benefits during the first three years of their business, subject to some restrictions, and to remain eligible for such benefits if the business subsequently failed.
The reforms appeared to have an almost immediate effect: the rate of new firms created rose by 25%. But researchers at MIT, Berkeley, and HEC Paris set out to determine whether the increase was actually caused by the policy change. They wondered whether some of the change could have had to do with the state of the economy, or whether the quality of the new businesses was lower as a result. They found that at least a large part of the increase was directly a result of the policy, and that the new businesses seemed at least as productive and sustainable as older ones. Moreover, they estimate that the change boosted the nation’s economy by €350 million per year, at a cost of only €100 million annually.
To measure all this, the researchers broke up the data (from 1999 to 2005) by industry. The idea was that it would be comparatively easier for the unemployed to start a business in an industry where small firms are already prevalent. (Starting a business in an industry made up of larger firms would require more capital than was provided by unemployment insurance.) If the increase in entrepreneurship was really caused by the reforms, it ought to be more dramatic in industries with more small firms. And that’s just what they found.
They used the same approach to measure the quality of the businesses. Start-ups founded after the reforms in industries with more small firms — the ones more likely to have been the direct result of the reforms — were just as likely to stay in business, to grow, and to hire as those in industries with more large firms. The entrepreneurs were equally as well-educated in both groups as well. Perhaps most importantly, the new firms were more productive and paid higher wages than the average incumbent.
“Our most conservative estimates suggest that about 12,000 additional firms are created every year thanks to the reform,” the authors conclude.
There is a narrow lesson here, and a broad one. The narrow one for policymakers is that welfare programs can in fact distort entrepreneurial incentives, but dismembering those programs isn’t the only or best option. This is consistent with previous research, which found that expanding government-sponsored health insurance encouraged more people to start businesses. And that leads to the broader lesson.
Because entrepreneurs inevitably take risks, we tend to think that people who aren’t comfortable with large amounts of risk wouldn’t make good entrepreneurs. The data doesn’t support that view. Research from the UK has shown that in fact, entrepreneurs are more cautious than the general population. “Higher risk-taking increases the propensity to launch a business, but does not correlate with greater start-up success,” wrote Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor at University College London, in a previous HBR article, citing a meta-analysis of several studies. “In fact, conscientious and prudent founders tend to do significantly better.” And in France’s case, the entrepreneurs who were enticed to start something once the financial risks were lessened were just as qualified and successful as those already in the game.
In that sense, this research is an argument about what entrepreneurship is and isn’t, and who’s qualified to do it. Entrepreneurs will always take some risks, particularly with their time and reputations. But starting a business is about more than that, and it shouldn’t include being forced to go broke in the process.
надеюсь правильно.