Search

The paper aims to perform an objective comparative analysis of the business climate for entrepreneurship development in European countries in 2021 and group them according to the quality of the business climate. The research uses thirteen criteria from the Global Entrepreneur)ship Monitor report and TOPSIS methodology combined with entropy to perform a comparative analysis of the business climate for entrepreneurship development in selected European economies in 2021. Usage of TOPSIS and entropy method based on the last available data enabled objective and the most accurate evaluation and ranking of countries, taking into account all observed criteria. According to the study, the ranking of European economies indicates that the Netherlands has the most favorable business climate for entrepreneurship development, considering all observed criteria, while Belarus is ranked in the last position. According to relative closeness to the ideal solution (Ci*), the four clusters of countries are derived. Besides the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, and Finland were also dedicated to the first cluster, indicating that these economies obtained the most favorable conditions for entrepreneurship development during the pandemic crisis. On the other hand, former command economies and Greece and Cyprus are placed in Cluster IV since they haven’t supported entrepreneurs with sufficient and appropriate economic policy and regulatory reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch planning system has been widely feted as a coordinated, 'plan-led' and evidence-informed system that has been successfully implemented, resulting in sensitive land management, an absence of urban sprawl and the protection of 'green areas'. However, at least since the 1970s, the reality has been somewhat different. This paper reviews Dutch planning history over the past fifty years to highlight in particular the challenge of implementation. The paper also reviews the current challenges facing Dutch planners and provides some international reflection from Dutch experiences for Irish planners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• There exists a relationship between flexibility and legal certainty but this is not per definition negatively correlated. • Both procedural and material certainty affect this relationship. • Land-use plans are central planning instruments wherein this relationship is put in practice and guides activities and societies. • A method is drafted to determine the amount of flexibility derived from a land-use plan for a specific planning system. • This method can determine the amount of flexibility for a large amount of land-use plans in an uniform matter. The trade-off between flexibility and legal certainty is inherent in every planning system. This trade-off is especially apparent within a land-use plan. Flexibility and legal certainty are often seen as communicating vessels: the demise of one leads to an increase in the other. Within land-use plans, however, the connection between the two is more subtle. For a land-use plan, the choice between being specific or open, and rigid or adaptable, determine the amount of flexibility. With these choices a land-use plan can increase its flexibility without decreasing legal certainty. Within reason the legal certainty can even benefit from more flexibility. However, current academic literature lacks a structured way to analyse flexibility contained within a land-use plan. Such a method is necessary for analysing and comparing different land-use plans. This paper will provide such a method and analyse thirteen different land-use plans in the Netherlands on their flexibility. It will show that a structured method can prove to be useful for analysing and comparing different land-use plans. The research provides insight into the complex balance between flexibility and legal certainty and presents an assessment tool which can be used for further academic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the mid-1920s to the early 1960s, Jan Tinbergen was actively engaged in discussions about Dutch economic policy. He was the first director of the Central Planning Bureau, from 1945 to 1955. It took quite some time and effort to find an effective role for this Bureau vis-à-vis the political decision makers in the REA, a subgroup of the Council of Ministers. Partly as a result of that, Tinbergen's direct influence on Dutch (macro)economic policy appears to have been rather small until 1950. In that year two new advisory bodies were established, the Social and Economic Council (SER) and the Central Economic Committee. Tinbergen was an influential member of both, which effectively raised his impact on economic policy. In the early fifties he played an important role in shaping the Dutch consensus economy. In addition, his indirect influence has been substantial, as the methods and tools that he developed gained widespread acceptance in the Netherlands and in many other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]