Suchergebnisse

A real challenge for the EU economy and society is to achieve both green and digital transitions in order to tackle the major economic, social and environmental issues faced by EU member states. In this context, digital entrepreneurship, which lies at the intersection of digital technologies and entrepreneurship, has recently benefited from increasing attention both in theoretical and empirical research and in strategic policies. Given these aspects, the aim of this article was to investigate the interrelationship between digital entrepreneurship and productive and innovative entrepreneurship and its impact on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in EU countries. The results of correlation and regression analysis revealed that digital entrepreneurship, which implies productive and innovative entrepreneurial activities, is positively influenced by the degree of a country's digitalization and, in turn, has a positive impact on the achievement of the SDGs (Total SDGs, SDG 8 and SDG 9). Furthermore, the findings of the principal component analysis and cluster analysis emphasize that there are differences and common features between EU countries in terms of the interrelationship between digital entrepreneurship, digitalization, economic development, national competitiveness and achievement of the SDGs. Therefore, specific measures should be implemented to boost digital entrepreneurship (especially in some central and eastern EU countries) so that this will be the key driver for sustainable development.

It is widely recognized that achieving highly productive employment is a serious challenge facing inclusive and sustainable development. In this context, the aim of this article was to highlight the main characteristics and mechanisms of productive employment, focusing on the interrelationships between productive employment, and inclusive and sustainable development in European Union countries, during the recent economic crisis and recovery period (2007&ndash ; 2016). The results of the correlation and regression analysis suggest that the high level of inclusive and sustainable development in some European Union countries can be mainly explained by high labor productivity, an efficient sectoral structure of employment, a low level of vulnerable and precarious employment, and low working poverty. Moreover, the results of the principal component analysis and cluster analysis show that there are common features and differences between the European Union member states in terms of their interrelationship between productive employment, and inclusive and sustainable development, which emphasizes the need to take specific actions to transform unproductive employment into productive employment, especially in southern countries and some central and eastern European countries, so that productive employment will be the driving force for development.

It is widely accepted that productive employment represents an essential element of inclusive economic growth, and it can be a driving force in reducing gaps between countries (especially experienced by productivity and income) in order for these to integrate into the European Union. The aim of the article is to highlight the process of integration from the perspective of productive employment and its main determinants, in Romania, in the period following accession to the EU and integration into the European economic structures, the 2007-2014 period respectively. The results of this paper highlight a low level of productive employment in Romania determined mainly by low labour productivity, low wages, high vulnerable employment, high and inefficient employment in agriculture and a low level of employment in knowledge-intensive activities. The existence of large gaps, in terms of productive employment and economic development, between Romania and the developed EU countries, as well as the existence of the highest in-work poverty risk in EU emphasizes the need to accelerate productivity growth, which requires a real structural transformation, a shift from low-productivity sectors to high-productivity sectors. However, it is very important that poor workers should significantly benefit from the gains in labour productivity. The findings of this study can be useful for policy makers in order to support the improvement of productive employment so that productive employment contributes efficiently to the real integration of Romania into the EU.

There has been a widely accepted belief that employment growth is fundamental in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. The existence of working poverty proves that even if employment growth still represents the best way to avoid poverty risk it is not always enough, actions being needed to create not only more jobs, but also better jobs. The aim of this paper is to highlight the main causes and mechanism of working poverty in the EU countries, in the recent economic crisis and recovery period (2007–2012), in order to identify some possible measures that need to be taken so that in-work poverty reduces. The comparative analysis shows that the phenomenon of working poverty has been growing in sixteen EU countries and the prevalence of in-work poverty varies significantly across these countries. The correlation and regression analysis results suggest that gaps in the national human and economic development can be explained by disparities in working poverty rate. Vulnerable and precarious employment represents an important factor behind the high level of working poverty from the EU countries in the analysed period. By taking into consideration the cumulative influence of multiple socio-economic variables, for the 2007–2012 period, results of principal components analysis and cluster analysis highlight that there are common features and differences between the EU Member States according to their working poverty, employment performances, efficiency of welfare state system and the level of human and economic development. The findings of this study can be useful for policy makers in order to reduce the phenomenon of working poverty. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.25.4.6339