, , ,

<<


 >>  ()
Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 21 | 22 ||

Donetsk National University ...

-- [ 23 ] --

, , . , ᒺ. ᒺ , . ᒺ, , .

³ , XX - , , , . , , , , , . , , 1980- , , , . 20-30 , 4-5 [8, . 79]. . .

. , . - , . : , , - .

, ( 10 ). CIS 2008 , 10-49 7 , 9, 16, 19, . 23 . 50-249 : 11 ( ) 29 (. ) [10]. .

. . , , , , , . , . - 40 . 12 [12, . 15]. , , . ϳ, , , , . ᒺ .

䳿 . , , , , , , . , () . . ³ 2010 . (˳ , 2000 .), . : , . 1986 :

, - 䳿 . , 䳿, , , . . , , , , , - , .

. , , . , , , . . , .

:

1. . : / . // .

2005. 6. . 28 - 32.

2. . . 㳿 / . // . 2004. 7-8. . 3 12.

3. . / . , . // . 2004. 2. . 86 -99.

4. . / . , . // . 2001. V. . 82 91.

5. . / . // . 2001.

7. . 59 70.

6. . / . // . 2007. 4. . 61 67.

7. . / . // . 2005. 7. . 45 47.

8. . ̳ : / ., . ;

[. . . , . , . .]. .: , 2002. 703 .

9. . / . , . , . // . 2003. 4 . 4 6.

10. . [ ]. : http:wwww.ukrstat.gov.ua.

11. - : : / [ . . .. .]. .: , 2009. 687 .

12. . (- ) / . // . 2005. 7. . 15 22.

13. . . / .. // . 2003. 1 . 23 33.

14. . . / . ;

[. . .. , .. , .. ]. .: , 1982 455 . ( ).

.

: , , , , :

.

: , , , , SUMMARY The problems of role of state administration are probed in forming and stimulation of innovative type of tconomic development and adjusting of market of innovative products in the process of market transformation.

Keywords: : innovative development of economy, public innovative policy, factors of suggestion of innovations, factors of demand of innovations, market of innovative products ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTITUDES IN THE CONTEXT OF POST-SOVIET TRANSFORMATION IN GEORGIA Natsvlishvili Ia, PhD, Associate Professor at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia, Visiting Scholar at George Washington University, Washington DC, USA Entrepreneurial activity plays an important role at a microeconomic level by offering innovative products and services at different markets. It has a significant effects at macroeconomic level of the economy by supporting employment and countrys economic development. The studies conducted in last three decades showed that entrepreneurship is the main driving force for the economic growth (Acs and others, 2004;

Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004;

Wennekers, 2006). Nowadays rich materials on features of entrepreneurial activity and peculiarities of attitude towards entrepreneurship in various countries are developed (Blanchflower and others 2001;

Wennekers, 2006). It has become obvious that there are considerable differences between entrepreneurial activity and individuals attitude towards entrepreneurship not only at a supra-national level between countries, but also differences exist across regions at a national level inside the particular country (Sternberg, 2000;

Parker, 2005;

Fritsch and Mueller, 2006;

Tamasy, 2006).

The large-scaled survey of populations attitude towards entrepreneurship in Georgia has not been carried out yet. A research, which would have covered the whole country, would have analyzed specific features of populations attitude towards entrepreneurship and would have compared the results both with other countries and across separate regions in Georgia, has not been conducted. The present work represents description of results of the research on populations attitude towards entrepreneurship conducted by the author in July-September 2010, in Tbilisi (Georgia) and analysis of empiric data derived from the survey.

Over the last two decades the transformational processes ongoing in the economy of Georgia and in its social system have obviously had a huge influence on formation of attitude of the population towards entrepreneurial activity. Are the difficulties and problems arisen during the current reformation processes in Georgia the cause of negative attitudes toward entrepreneurship? Do the transformation processes in Georgia cause absence of desire of becoming entrepreneur or on contrary? How deeply has the population realized the risks and dangers associated with entrepreneurship? What are the desires and expectations of the population concerning of becoming the entrepreneur? What are the expectations and self-employment perspectives over nearest future? In order to give the comprehensive answers on these questions it is necessary to conduct long-term and wide-scaled researches. Express survey of respondents in Tbilisi can be considered as one of the first steps of such research. Survey results enable to assess respondents attitudes towards entrepreneurship and to discuss main tendencies in Georgia on the basis of data analysis.

The research topic of express-survey conducted by the author in July-September, 2010 was attitudes of Georgians toward entrepreneurship, its specific features, various aspects of entrepreneurial attitudes, future expectations of respondents, identification of attractive sectors for self-employment and entrepreneurial activity. The object of research were individuals and families (households) residing in various districts of Tbilisi. Of course, this object is not representative for whole Georgia, but one should consider that Tbilisi is Natsvlishvili Ia, :

the largest city in Georgia, where one third of the countrys population resides. Due to this reason moods and attitudes of Tbilisi residents should reflect main tendencies of Georgian population with adequate accuracy.

Research hypothesis was the following: due to successful reforms of last years negative attitudes toward entrepreneurship should have been less anticipated considering the high unemployment level in Georgia and difficulties arising from current economic transformation processes. Strong desire of self employment and huge expectations of engagement in entrepreneurship in the future should have been anticipated.

The method of the research was questionnaire by means of various types of non-random selection.

Particularly, so-called spontaneous selection and street selection types were used. Spontaneous selection is used in order to question people in the streets. In contrast to other methods it is simplest, cheapest and less representative. It is impossible to generalize the results of such survey for the whole population. Despite these imperfections, spontaneous selection is often used in social sciences that can be explained by its simplicity and convenience. (Tsuladze L. 2008;

page. 43-44). In case of applying Street Selection type, interviewers are questioning respondents in predefined locations (Zurabishvili T. and others. 2006;

pg. 105 106). Initial information has been gathered by the students of Economics and Business School of Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia. Students residing in Tbilisi surveyed their family members and the members of neighboring households in addition to families and individuals living in various districts of Tbilisi (See appendix 1 questionnaire). The subset of observations developed from such sampling strategy covers properties that are characteristic for whole population in Tbilisi. Respondents were Tbilisi residents of various age, education, gender, social status and incomes (see appendix 2 demographic data of the respondents). In total 1116 respondents were surveyed. The derived data has been processes by means of SPSS software.

The research results are impressing and emphasize peculiarities of attitudes toward entrepreneurship in Georgia on example of Tbilisi. Analysis of empiric data proves that 91.5% of respondents express willingness to be self-employed. 91.5% of the respondents answer positively to the question Would you like to be self-employed if you could??. Negatively responded only 6% of respondents. There is no data from 2.5% of respondents.

In contrast, Europeans remain far less keen on becoming an entrepreneur. Only 45% of respondents in the European Union express desire to be self-employed. In the USA 65% of respondents would like to be an entrepreneur. In China 71% of population wants to become an entrepreneur (Who want to be an entrepreneur?;

http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/14/who-want-to-be-an-entrepreneur/;

14/06 20:59 CET 2010;

last retrieved July 10, 2010).

Over the last years on the background of successful reforms in Georgia negative moods towards entrepreneurship are weak. On the background of high unemployment the desire of becoming self-employed is strong. Positive attitudes of the respondents in Tbilisi towards entrepreneurship indicates their self confidence, feeling of social and political stability, expectations of success of market oriented economic reforms.

Subject of special interest is data about current entrepreneurial activity of surveyed people. The answers of the respondents to the question - Are you currently an entrepreneur/self employed?- show that 81.8% of respondents do not run their own businesses. 10.0% were self-employed. 6.1% were running small or medium size enterprise and 1.4% were running large business. There is no data derived from 0.6% of respondents (see diagram #1). It is noteworthy to say that in European Union only 12% of respondents are engaged in entrepreneurial activity. In Japan the same indices are 15%, in the USA - 21% and 27% in China (Who want to be an entrepreneur?;

http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/14/who-want-to-be-an-entrepreneur/;

14/06 20:59 CET 2010;

last retrieved July 10, 2010).

Diagram #1. Current Entrepreneurial Activity of the Respondents: 1. self-employed;

2. entrepreneur in small and/or in medium size business;

3. entrepreneur in large business;

4. no;

0. missing data :

Significant part of Georgian respondents (48.4%) consider irregular incomes as a greatest fear associated with entrepreneurial activities. Bankruptcy is considered as a greatest fear by 39.6% of Georgian respondents. These indices in Georgia differ from that of Europe and other countries. Bankruptcy is considered as the primary fear of entrepreneurship in China - 56%. Bankruptcy is the greatest fear of entrepreneurship for Europeans too 49%. In the USA and in Japan, just like in Georgia, irregular incomes are on the first place among greatest fears connected with entrepreneurship. This opinion is shared by 46% of respondents in USA and 37% of respondents in Japan. (Who want to be an entrepreneur?;

http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/14/who-want-to-be-an-entrepreneur/;

14/06 20:59 CET 2010;

last retrieved July 10, 2010).

More than half of the Georgian respondents (51,4%) hope to start business activity within nearest years. The answers to the question - Do you see the feasibility of becoming an entrepreneur in next years? were the following: yes, I will be self-employed 25.6%;

yes, I will become an entrepreneur in small or medium size business 20.8%;

yes will start doing large business 5%;

no, not feasible 46.1%;

there is no data from 2.5% of respondents.

The answers to the question - Do you think that you will become an entrepreneur/ self-employed in next five years? reviles Georgians preferences towards self-employment and strong positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship. It is worthy to note that in total 82.6% respondents prefer to be self-employed. Only 13.9% of respondents prefer to be employed by other organizations/persons. There is no data from 3.5% of respondents. Diagram below shows the preferences towards self-employment.

It might seem paradoxical that despite big desire to be self-employed, the significant part of the respondents prefers to be employed in the public sector rather than in private sector. Respondents were asked to answer the question Where would you prefer to work if you were able to choose: 1. in public sector;

2.

in private sector. 55.7% of respondents prefer to be employed in the public sector and 41.2% of the respondents prefer to be employed in private sector. The data is missing from 3.1% of respondents. Such paradoxical situation might be explained by fact that irregular incomes are considered as the biggest fears of entrepreneurship and correspondingly that of private business. From this point of view, one can assume that employment in public sector is considered by the Georgian respondents as a guaranty of stable incomes.

The subject of special interest is the respondents answers to the question If you were able to choose which industry would you prefer for starting your own business?. Respondents answers to the this question are the following: agriculture - 5.4%;

industry - 5.2%;

trade/commerce - 11.6%;

construction - 3.0%;

transportation- 2.1%;

communication - 2.7%;

fuel and energy sector- 0.7%;

tourism and resort/recreation services 14.7%;

finance, banking and insurance services - 15.3%;

real estate operations (mortgage :

business) - 2.2%;

healthcare - 9.5%;

education, culture and leisure - 19.5%;

hotels and restaurants, food services - 3.8%;

other services - 3.6%;

missing data 0.8% (see diagram #2). It might seem surprising but the majority of the respondents (19.5%) considers that education, culture and leisure is the most desirable sector for entrepreneurship. In top five most desired sectors of entrepreneurship were finance, banking and insurance services (15.3%);

tourism and resort/recreation services (14.7%);

trade/commerce (11.6%);

healthcare 9.5%.

Diagram #2. Preferred Industries for Entrepreneurship: 1. agriculture;

2. industry;

3. commerce/trade;

4.

construction;

5. transportation;

6. communication;

7. fuel and energy sector;

8. tourism and resort/recreation services;

9. finance, banking and insurance services;

10. real estate operations (mortgage business);

11.

healthcare;

12. education, culture and leisure;

13. hotels and restaurants, food services;

14. other;

0. missing data.

Therefore, we can assume that analysis of empiric data derived from the survey proves the hypothesis of the research. On the background of successful reforms in recent years in Georgia negative attitude towards entrepreneurship is weak. On the background of high unemployment desire to be self-employed is quite high.

Expectations of starting a business in the future is strong also. The majority of respondents (48%) consider unstable incomes as the greatest fear associated with entrepreneurship. 51.4% of respondents expect that they will become an entrepreneur in nearest 5 years. Positive attitudes of respondents in Tbilisi towards entrepreneurship indicates their self-confidence, feeling of social and political stability, expectation of success of market oriented economic reforms.

Appendix 1. Questionnaire The aim of the present questionnaire is to study attitudes toward entrepreneurial activity in Georgia. The survey is conducted by Ia Natsvlishvili, associate professor at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Please, read the questions attentively and chose and circle only one acceptable answer from the supposed answers.

1. Are you currently an entrepreneur/self employed?

1. yes, I am self-employed :

2. yes, I am entrepreneur in small and/or in medium size business 3. yes, I am entrepreneur in large business 4. no 2. Would you like to be self-employed if you could?

1. yes 2. no 3. What is the greatest fears for the entrepreneurship?

1. bankruptcy 2. uncertain income 3. others (please specify) 4. Do you think that you will become an entrepreneur/ self-employed in next five years?

1. yes, I will be self-employed 2. yes, I will be entrepreneur in small and/or in medium size business 3. yes, I will be entrepreneur in large business 4. no 5. If you were able to choose what would you prefer:

1. to be self-employed 2. to be an employee hired by other organization/individual 6. If you were able to choose what would you prefer:

1. to work in public sector 2. to work in private sector 7. If you were able to choose which industry would you prefer for starting your own business?

1. agriculture 2. industry 3. commerce/trade 4. construction 5. transportation 6. communication 7. fuel and energy sector 8. tourism, resort/recreation service 9. finance, banking and insurance services 10. real estate operations (mortgage business) 11. healthcare 12. education, culture and leisure 13. hotels and restaurants, food services 14. other services (please specify) 8. Age:

1. 15- 2. 25- 3. 45- 4. 65 and more 9. Gender 1. female 2. male 10. Education 1. secondary school 2. tertiary education 3. higher education 11. Monthly personal income 1. less than 150 Gel 2. 150-550 Gel 3. 550-2000 Gel 4. More than 2000 Gel 12. Affiliation 1. temporary unemployed :

2. employee in a private organization/individual 3. employee in a public organization 4. self-employed 5. an entrepreneur in a small/medium size business 6. an entrepreneur in a large business Appendix 2. Respondents Demographic Data 1. Age Age Range Percentage 1. 15-25 36.9% 1. 25-45 34.9% 2. 45-65 24.8% 3. 65 and more 2.3% 4. Missing data 1.2 % 2. Gender Gender Percentage 1. Female 73. 2. Male 25.9% 3. Missing Data 0.9% 3. Education Education Level Percentage 4. Secondary School 23.0% 5. Tertiary Education 17.0% 6. Higher Education 59.0% 7. Missing Data 0.9% 4. Monthly Personal Income Monthly Personal Income Percentage (Exchange Rate: 1 USD 1. GEL) 1. less than 150 GEL 34.8% 2. 150-550 GEL 40.1% 3. 550-2000 GEL 15.6% 4. More than 2000 GEL 2.9% 5. Missing Data 6.7% 5. Affiliation Affiliation Percentage Temporary unemployed 46.5% Employee in a private 19.7% organization/individual Employee in a public organization 14.8% Self-employed 11.2% An entrepreneur in a 4.1% small/medium size business An entrepreneur in a large 0.6% business Missing Data 3.0% REFERENCES 1. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2003). The Missing Link: The Knowledge Filter and Endogenous Growth. Center for Business and Policy Studies, Stockholm, Sweden;

:

2. Audretsch, D. B. and M. Keilbach (2004), Entrepreneurship Capital and Economic Performance, Regional Studies 38(8), 949960;

3. Bosma, N.S., A.J. Van Stel, K. Suddle (2006), The Geography of New Firm Formation:

Evidence from Independent Start-ups and New Subsidiaries in the Netherlands, EIM Research Report;

4. Bosma Niels, Mapping Entrepreneurial Activity and Entrepreneurial Attitudes in European Regions.

www.supdeco-montpellier.com/fileadmin/cerom/img/iecer/Bosma.pdf ;

last retrieved November 10, 5. Blanchflower, D.G., A. Oswald and A. Stutzer (2001), Latent Entrepreneurship across Nations, European Economic Review 45, pp. 680-691;

6. Fritsch, M. & Mueller, P. (2006). The evolution of regional entrepreneurship and growth regimes. In Fritsch, M. & Schmude, J. (2006), Entrepreneurship in the region. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 14. New York: Springer Science;

7. Mohd Noor, Mohd Shariff, Mohammad Basir Saud;

An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship on Students at Institution of Higher Learning in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Management April, 2009 page 129-135;

8. Parker S. C. (2005) Explaining regional variations in entrepreneurship as multiple equilibria, Journal of Regional Science 45, pp. 829850;

9. Tamsy, C. (2006) Determinants of Regional Entrepreneurship Dynamics in Contemporary Germany: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis, Regional Studies 40(4), p364-384;

10. Tsuladze, L. (2008), Quantitative Research Methods in Social Sciences (in Georgian language), Tbilisi, Georgia;

11. Wennekers, A.R.M. (2006). Entrepreneurship at country level;

Economic and non-economic determinants. ERIM Ph.D. Series Research in Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam;

12. Zurabishvili, Tamar and Zurabishvili, Tinatit (2006), Methods of Social Research, Quantitative Methods(in Georgian language). Tbilisi, Georgia;

13. Who want to be an entrepreneur?;

http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/14/who-want-to-be-an entrepreneur/ 14/06 20:59 CET 2010;

last retrieved July 10, 糿. - 2010 . ϳ 糿 . .

: , , , . - 2010 . . . : , , , SUMMARY Article highlights the peculiarities of entrepreneurial attitudes in Georgia. According the results of empirical research conducted by author in July-September, 2010 91.5% of Georgian respondents would like to be self employed. In contrast, Europeans remain far less keen on becoming an entrepreneur. Several factors explain why people prefer to remain employees. Nations differ according their concerns and fears of becoming the entrepreneur.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Entrepreneurship, Self-employment, Small and Medium Business :

TENDENCIES OF FOREIGN TRADE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN CONDITIONS OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS Putkaradze Ramaz, doctor of Economics, Associated Professor of the Faculty of Economics and Business, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Today, the European Union is one of the most powerful trade-economic and financial centers throughout the world, with taking the leading positions in the global business and economy. The EU is an important exporter and importer. By volumes of export of goods and services, the EU is No.1 in the world (only Germany, it considered separately, is the world No.2 exporter, while during 2003-2008 it was the world No. exporter).

The EU takes an important place in the international trade. In 2009, the volume of export of goods from the EU made 1094 mlrd. EUR, while import 1199 mlrd. EUR, i.e. the volume of export reduced by 16,5% and the import by 23,4%, if compare with the data of the previous year. In addition to the above, the negative trade balance of the EU reduced to 105 mlrd. EUR, and the goods turnover to 2293,5 mlrd. EUR.

The official data of Eurostat show how considerably the global economic crisis affected the volume of the EUs foreign trade. Besides, in 2009, the volume of GDP of the EU reduced by 4%, in comparison with the previous year.

Table 1. Foreign Trade of the EU during 2003- (MIO EUR) Annual Annual Trade Year Import growth, Export growth, Balance turnover % % 2003 935 270 869 236 -66 034 1 804 2004 1 027 522 9,9 952 954 9,6 -74 568 1 980 2005 1 179 569 14,8 1 052 720 10,5 -126 849 2 232 2006 1 351 745 14,6 1 159 276 10,1 -192 469 2 511 2007 1 426 008 5,5 1 236 919 7,0 -189 089 2 662 2008 1 552 115 8,8 1 309 205 5,8 -242 910 2 861 2009 1 199 288 -23.4 1 094 229 -16.5 -105 059 2 293 In 2009, by import of goods, among the largest trade partners of the EU were: China (17,9%), USA (13,3%), Russia (9,6%), Switzerland (6,1%), Norway (5,7%), Japan (4,7%), Turkey (3%), South Korea(2,7%), Brazil (2,1%), and India (2,1%), while by Export, the largest trade partners of the EU were: USA (18,7%), Switzerland (8,1%), China (7,5%), Russia (6%), Turkey (4%), Norway (3,4%), Japan (3,3%), India (2,5%), UAE (2,3) and Canada (2%).

On the current stage, the EU, USA, China and Japan take the leading positions in the worldwide trade, economy, and business. Among the foreign factors of development, the foreign trade and the direct foreign investments from the EU as well as from the USA are the most important. The USA and the EU have become the major strategic partners and competitors of each other in the fields of trade and investments since 1970s. At the same time, they are the major partners of almost all countries, in the fields of trade and investments. Noteworthy, that a daily volume of trade turnover between the parties, exceed 1 mlrd. EUR In 2008, the EU-USA trade turnover made 436 mlrd EUR, while in 2009 364mlrd EUR. During 2000 2009, the export of the EU-origin goods in the USA increased from 238mlrd. EUR to 304 mlrd. EUR, while the import from the USA to the EU in the same period, decreased from 206 mlrd EUR to 159 mlrd. The trade deficit is a characterizing tendency for the USA economy (the USA trade deficit is several times higher than the one of the EU). During 2000-2006, the positive trade balance of the EU with the USA increased from 32 mlrd. EUR up to 94 mlrd EUR, but thereafter it decreased and in 2008 made 63 mlrd EUR, and in 2009 45 mlrd EUR. If in 2000 about 28% of the export of Goods was directed to the USA market, in 2008 it decreased to 19%, and in 2009 to 17,8%. Similarly, the import of good from the USA to the EU decreased from 21% to 13,3%, during 2000- Putkaradze Ramaz, :

The USA is the important market for the EU-origin goods. In 2009, the export from the EU to USA made 1, while to the second largest trade partner Switzerland, it dame only 8,%. Beginning from 2006, china has become the No.1 largest trade partner of the EU in import, with substituting the USA. The volume of import of the EU goods in china amount to 17,9% Table 2. The Largest Trade Partners of the EU in 2009:


By Import By Export Country MIO EUR % Country MIO EUR % No No Total 1 199 288 100 Total 1 094 229 1 China 214749 17.9 1 USA 204468 18. 2 USA 159534 13.3 2 Switzerland 88292 8. 3 Russia 115280 9.6 3 China 81481 7. 4 Switzerland 73754 6.1 4 Russia 65481 5 Norway 68652 5.7 5 Turkey 43780 6 Japan 55843 4.7 6 Norway 37515 3. 7 Turkey 36086 3.0 7 Japan 35947 3. 8 South Korea 32075 2.7 8 India 27486 2. 9 Brazil 25678 2.1 9 UAE 25032 2. 10 India 25387 2.1 10 Canada 22429 83 Georgia 483 0.0 77 Georgia 875 0. Beginning from 2009, china has become the world No.1 exporter, with 9,6% share in the exports, and No.2 importer after the USA, with 8% of all imports. During the last several years, a share of China in the trade relations of the EU has increased considerably. China is now No.1 importer of the EU goods and No. exporter. China is proved to be the most progressively developing trade-and-economic market and the important player together with the EU, in the global trade. Thus, China is one of the important challenges for the EU in its global trade-and-economic relations. The trade relations between the EU and China has increased significantly, during the last years. At present China is considered as the second largest trade partner of the EU, after the USA. One of the preconditions of increase of Chinas export, is the o called open economics and the liberal trade policy pursued by the EU. This, in its turn, plays a promoting role for the social-and-economic development of China.

Table 3. EU-USA trade Relations (mlrd. EUR) EU EU share in Share in Trade Trade Year Import Export Import, Export, turnover balance % % 2004 159.4 15.5 235.5 24.7 394.9 76. 2005 163.5 13.9 252.7 24.0 416.2 89. 2006 175.2 13.0 269.0 23.2 444.2 93. 2007 181.5 12.6 261.3 21.0 442.8 79. 2008 186.4 12.0 249.4 19.0 435.8 63. 2009 159.5 13.3 204.5 18.7 364 China is a sole country, with which the EU has the largest negative trade balance. In 2009, the export of the EU-origin goods to China made 81,6 mlrd. EUR while the import from China to the EU 214,7 mlrd.

EUR, i.e. the index of overlap of the import by the export, was about 38% For our country, development of the civilized and equal trade relations with the foreign trade partners and integrations, that should be based upon the principles of the International Law, is one of the important priorities. There are more than 200 states in the world and, nobody can find even one, which has not the trade-and-economic, political, cultural, and/or other types of relations with others. The inter-state relations :

are developing and expanding day-by-day. Non of the countries can ensure its sustainable economic development without the foreign trade-and-economic ties, which are the most important preconditions for the economic growth.

The worldwide economic crisis has influenced considerably on the Georgia-EU trade relations Respectively, Georgias foreign trade turnover has decreased in comparison with he previous years indicators Table 4. Georgia-EU Trade Relations during 2003- (1000 USD) Annual Annual Trade Year Import growth, Export growth, Balance turnover % % 2003 409,406 81,590 -327,816 490, 2004 657,248 60.5 128,204 57.1 -529,044 785, 2005 740,323 12.6 216,756 69.1 -523,567 957, 2006 1,104,127 49.1 225,354 4.0 -878,774 1,329, 2007 1,538,905 39.4 268,530 19.2 -1,270,375 1,807, 2008 1,665,324 8.2 335,198 24.8 -1,330,126 2,000, 2009 1,309,200 -25.5 237,600 -29.1 -1,071,600 1,546, In 2009, Georgias trade turnover with the EU Member States, similarly as its total foreign trade turnover, decreased considerably, that is conditioned mainly by the worldwide economic crisis. In 2009, Georgias foreign trade turnover made 5513,3 MIO USD that was by 29,3% less than the previous years indicator. Of this, export dame 1135,0 MIO USD (by 24,1% less), while import 4378,3 MIO USD (by 30,6% les). In 2009, Georgias negative trade balance made 3243,4 MIO USD (by 32,5% less) In 2009, the foreign trade turnover of Georgia with 27 EU States made 1546,9 MIO USD, i.e. by 26% lower to compare with the relevant indicator of the previous year. Of which, 237,6 MIO USD is the exports share (by 29,% less) and 1309,2 MIO USD is the imports share (by 25,5% less). A total share of the EU States in Georgias foreign trade turnover makes 28,1%, of which 20,9% comes on exports, 29,9% on imports, and 33,0% - on the trade deficit.

In 2009, the largest trade partners of Georgia in exports, were: Turkey, Azerbaijan, Canada, Armenia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, USA, Italy, Germany, Russia. The share of the above listed countries makes 76,6% of all exports. As to the imports, the major partners were: Turkey, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Germany, Russia, USA, China, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania. The share of these countries in the total import makes 67,8%.

Georgia takes 77th position among the EU exporter countries, 83rd position - among the EU importer countries, and 81st position by the trade turnover. According to the Eurostat data, 33,6% of exports, 28,2% of imports and 29,4% of the trade turnover of Georgia fall on the EU.

Thus, the multi-sided processes of development are being carried out in the EU. But, owing to the worldwide economic crisis, the economic indicators of its member states and of the EU in general, have reduced considerably. However, one thing is obvious: there is no reason to talk about weakening the EU role in the international trade-and-economic relations and in the international community, as a hole. Moreover, this role like the number of the EU Member States, will be gradually but increased.

REFERENCES 1. R. Putkaradze, Georgia-EU Trade-and-economic Relations: Problems nd Perspectives. Tbilisi, Universal, 2. Der EU-Binnenmarkt: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit / Berthold Busch. Kln : div, Dt. Inst.-Verl.. 2009.

3. Deutschland und Europa : die Europisierung des politischen Systems / Timm Beichelt. Wiesbaden :

VS, Verl. fr Sozialwiss.. 2009.

4. Die europische Integration : eine Idee wird Wirklichkeit / Heinrich Neisser. Innsbruck : IUP, Innsbruck Univ. Press. 2008.

5. Die Europische Union : Europarecht und Politik / Bieber/Epiney/Haag. Baden-Baden : Nomos. 2009.

6. Die Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik der EU / Uwe Puetter. Wien : Facultas.wuv. 2009.

7. Eine Whrung fr ein Europa. Der Weg zum Euro. Europische Kommission, Luxemburg, 2007. S. 8.

8. Europa : Herkunft und Gegenwart / Dietmar Scholz. 2., berarb. Aufl.. Berlin ;

Mnster : Lit. 2008.

:

9. Europa von A bis Z : Taschenbuch der europischen Integration / [IEP, Institut fr Europische Politik]. Werner Weidenfeld und Wolfgang Wessels (Hg.). 2007.

10. Europa von A bis Z : Taschenbuch der europischen Integration / Bpb, Bundeszentrale fr Politische Bildung.Werner Weidenfeld/Wolfgang Wessels (Hrsg.). Bonn : Bpb. 2009.


11. Europische Union : Diese digitale Schulbuchmodul zeichnet die groen Entwicklungslinien des europischen Integrationsprozesses von den Europischen Gemeinschaften (EG) bis zur Europischen Union (EU) und deren politisch-konomischen Hintergrnde nach. Mnchen : Park Krner. 2009.

12. Finanzmarktintegration in Europa : Implikationen fr Stabilitt und Wachstum in sozialen Marktwirtschaften / von Martin Keim. Stuttgart : Lucius & Lucius. 2009.

13. Ich Wegweiser durch den Lissabon-Vertrag. Europische Kommission. Luxemburg, 2009.

14. Kleine Geschichte der Europischen Union : von der Europaidee bis zur Gegenwart / Jrgen Mittag.

Mnster : Aschendorff. 2008.

15. Neues grosses Europa Handbuch. Annerose und Jrg-Rdiger Sieck (Hrsg.). Compact Verlag,, Europische Integration: Texte und Unterrichtsbeispiele / Zentrum Polis, Politik Lernen in der Schule ;

Bm:uk. [Magdalena Kurz ;

Seda Hamitoglu]. Wien : Ed. Polis. 2009.

16. Vertrag von Nizza. Thomas Lufer (Hrsg.) Bundeszentrale fr politische Bildung. Europa Union Verlag, Bonn, 2002.

17. Von Rom nach Amsterdam : die Metamorphosen des Geschlechts in der Europischen Union / Theresa Wobbe ;

Ingrid Biermann. Wiesbaden : VS, Verl. fr Sozialwiss.. 2009.

18. Wie funktioniert Europa?. Braunschweig : Westermann. 2008.

19. Zehn Jahre Euro [Elektronische Ressource] : Erfahrungen, Erfolge und Herausforderungen / Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft (Hrsg.). Kln : div, Dt. Inst.-Verl. 2008.

20. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/index_de.htm 21. http://ec.europa.eu/euro/index_en.html 22. http://europa.eu/abc/history/1990-1999/1997/index_de.htm#top 23. http://europa.eu/abc/history/foundingfathers/schuman/index_de.htm 24. http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/anthem/index_de.htm 25. http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_de.htm 26. http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_de.htm 27. http://www.ecb.int/euro/changeover/estonia/html/index.de.html 28. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ , - .

- . 2009 , 1094 . , - 1199 . , , 16.5%, - 23.4%. .

: , , , , , , , , - . .

2009 , 1094 . , 1199 .

, , 16.5%, 23.4%. .

: , , , , , , , SUMMARY Today, the European Union is one of the most powerful trade-economic and financial centers throughout the world, with taking the leading positions in the global business and economy. The EU is an important exporter and importer of he good and services Keywords: European union, China, the financial center, global trade export, import, an economic crisis, Georgia / CONTENT .. .. ֲ ʲ ϲ .., .. ..

.. ֲ ˲ Ͳ: , в . .

.., Բֲ ʲ ̲Ͳ ֲ ϲȪ .. в òί ˲ ̲Ͳֲ̲ .. - .. в òί ̲ί ֲ ..

. ., Ͳ ˲ ֲ . . ϲȪ ò ² ò ˲ В ..

Ҳ Բֲ ϲ ..

ר - ..

.. .. , ..

- ..

..

.. .. -̲ . . - ² в Ͳί ò˲ -Ͳ Ͳ ί ̲ί ..

ֲ òͲ , Ѳ ٲ .. .. ֲ ֲ Ѳ ֲ̲ ί .., Ͳ ̲ ֲ .. .. ..

( ) .. Ͳ ϲ ֲ ϲ ̲вͲ .., .., Ͳ ֲ̲ ., ²Ͳ ֲ ̲ ̲ί ֲ .

̲Ͳ ί ˲ : ˲˲ ..

ֲͲ? в ղͲ ֲ .. ² ò ֲ ϲ Ҳ IJ ̲ ..

ʲ .., ֲ ’ .. ..

.., ò Ͳֲ .. вֲ : ..

ֲί Ҳ ֲ ² ̲ ..

˲ .. - : .. ֲ ֲ ̲ ֲ -òͲ Բί ֲ ..

̲ .., ϲ ̲ί ϲȪ ò Ѳ ˲ֲ .. ֲ Ҳ ̺ .. Ѳ ʲ ϲ ̲ .. : ̳ .. ί ˲ òί ֲ .. ֲ Ҳ ֲ˲ֲ ̲ί IJҲ .., ֲ Ͳ Ҳ ò .. .. .., : , .. .. ̲ -Ͳ ֲ ̲ί Dz .. -̲ί ..

.. ²ί Բί .. ..

..

ֲ ˲ ò ֲ-в ..

ϲ ² IJͲ ..

ֲί ˲ ̲ .. ֲ Ͳ в - ֲ IJ ..

Ͳ , ̲ު .. ѳ .., Ͳ ֲ Ѳ . ϲȪ : в ²ί ˲ ϲȪ: ² ..

²Ͳ Ҳ ˲ֲ ̲ Ͳ ² ..

ò в ( IJ ̲ί Dz) òֲ в ̲Ͳֲ̲ ֲ ʲ . .

ò˲ ò .. .., ֲͲ ò - ̲в ʳ .. .., в Ҫ ʳ .. ..

Ҳ IJ ֲ ..

˲ʲ ί ..

.. : .., .. .. Ҳ ί Ѳ IJ ..

ί Ҳ .., Ͳ Ͳ ί ղί ²ί .. ̲ί 2008-2010 ʲ .. ֲ ֲί ̲: Natsvlishvili Ia ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTITUDES IN THE CONTEXT OF POST-SOVIET TRANSFORMATION IN GEORGIA TENDENCIES OF FOREIGN TRADE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN CONDITIONS OF THE GLOBAL Putkaradze R.

ECONOMIC CRISIS ' : : . . . : , 2011. .1. 464 .

339.9..339.727.22.. 58+268. , , , - , , , .

, , , ' .

, () , ', , -, , , , , .

, , , , - 2020 , 㳿 , 㳿 2015 㳿 2020 .

.

: .. : .. ̺, .. , , ϳ 10.01.2011 60x84/16. .

. . . . 41,7 300 . _ , 83001, . , . ,

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 21 | 22 ||
 
 >>  ()





 
<<     |    
2013 www.libed.ru - -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .