The National Export Strategy 2010-2014, a realistic alternative for the attenuation of the crisis effects

The Romanian economy is passing an economic recession period induced both by the persistence of the global financial crisis and the alarming evolution of the budget deficit and the consequences of the austerity measures upon the economic environment. In the actual conditions, Romania’s external creditors ascertain and impose certain limits for the budget expenses, necessary for a financially stable economy. The imposed limitation or self-limitation of the expenses for a 6 months sacrifice period, that could reach one year or longer, does not guarantee the economic re-bounce when the measurements for the strategic attenuation of the crisis, for the creation of a sustainable and competitive economy, are inexistent. Certain long term strategic aspects to which the external creditors, especially the IMF do not pay enough attention, but that can assure the sustainability and competitiveness belong to the internal component of the business environment and climate, to the ways to fight corruption, bureaucracy, tax evasion or they assure legislative predictability in order to support a transparent and competitive environment and the development of a new managerial culture. Others belong to the manner in which we will manage to assure national solidarity through justice, social or medical assistance or the influence of the politic aspect on the economy, on the administration in the other spheres of the social and economic life. These depend mostly on how the political sphere will manage to reform itself. Others belong to the educational reformation and the growth of the educational services suppliers’ capacity or to the research to sustain the companies’ competitiveness.

DIGITALIZATION, DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT OF NEW BUSINESS MODELS - WAYS TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES. USH PROBUSINESS, WALACHIA HUB AND DUAL-USE CLUSTER STUDY CASE

Dual use technologies, which means technologies used for both military and civil applications, are evolving in the context of digitalization.            Even in pre-digital era, at the dawns of the technological progress of mankind, the use of technologies was ambivalent, both for warfare and civil wellbeing. Now however, we assist to a fast blending of dual use and digital processes which is changing the landscape of the business models. We name this new process interaction as Dual-use Digital Blending (DDB).            This paper is investigating the trends of evolution of this blended dual use-digital transformation technologies and their impact on the new geo-economic and geopolitical confrontations, on the trade flows and economic balance of power. We look at the new emerging business models triggered by the          DDB and the managerial challenges this will require especially for innovative start-ups and SMEs. Finally, we argue that university led innovation ecosystem, like the study case presented, may offer knowledge hubs for managers, organized in clusters in order to be better prepared for the described DDB process

Bio economy and entrepreneurial ecosystem patterns Case study for Romania - USH ProBusiness

This paper is investigating various patterns of entrepreneurial relations and engagements  that may help the shift to bio economy  and the ways they can facilitate entrepreneurial understanding and access to markets and business opportunities in this field. It also investigate the role of universities and cluster in transfer of knowledge towards bio economy and possibilities of interaction making a case study on USH ProBusiness in Romania. Main conclusion of the paper is that participation of  entrepreneurs, especially SME but also large companies in active  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EE)   plays an essential role in transposing bio economy  from strategy to action but some regions may be well advanced  and other lagging behind. High trust and large EE in terms of networking are better fit to accelerate the knowledge and innovation process and universities may play a major role in this direction, as important catalyst

IMPACT OF DIGITALIZATION IN MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS IN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE. WAYS TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES. USH PRO BUSINESS, INTER -BIO, WALLACHIA HUB STUDY CASE

AbstractDigital technologies are used in an increasingly in everyday life, in any aspects of human activities. Pandemics like Corona Virus imposed stricter rules for health and people, most probably, will prefer to be safer with organic products. Even before the crises, organic agriculture especially was on the path to digitalization. Now we realize better that Digitally Conducted Organic Agri-food (DCOA) solutions will emerge even faster. This paper is investigating the trends of evolution of digital transformation in organic agri-food industry and their impact on trade flows with food products. We look at the new emerging business models triggered by the DCOA solutions and the managerial challenges this will require especially for innovative start ups, farmers and SMEs in agri-food sector. Finally, we argue that university led innovation ecosystem, like the study case presented, may offer knowledge hubs for farmers, processors and sector branch organizations in the organic sector

European Union and Big Four’s Position Towards the 16+1 Cooperation Platform

The aim of the present paper is to investigate the position towards the 16+1 framework from the standpoint of the EU as an entity and also the four largest EU countries in terms of GDP, namely Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy. The Big Four are the main recipients of Chinese FDI and are also the most active European exporters to China, while CEE concentrates only a small share of the EU-Chinese trade and investment flows. However, the Big Four are apprehensive with regard to China’s rising competitiveness through national reform policies (such as China 2025 Program) but also via acquisition of high-tech companies. In the competition with a stronger China, these countries and especially Germany consider that the Chinese presence in CEE, alongside the proposed investment projects in infrastructure, including harbours, represent a threat to their established positions in this region and their companies will lose market shares and big infrastructure contracts. Seen from another perspective, in the literature the new framework is considered as a lobby platform, intended to influence the EU decisions through CEE players, which is incompatible with the strategic Sino-EU partnership. As a matter of fact, the EU foreign policy is incoherent in major aspects, including EU-China relation as well. Therefore our investigation focuses on three main aspects. First, we explain how the lack of harmonization between the Big Four and the other EU member states is influencing EU policy towards China. Conferring the Big Four observer status at the 16+1 summits might mitigate tensions. Second we investigate whether the Big Four detain the supremacy in the EU to the detriment of the EU periphery. Third, we underline that the EU needs a common vision towards the Eurasian cooperation, as it includes a new element: the Belt and Road Initiative. One cannot support the BRI by criticizing the 16+1, as the latter is considered by the Chinese authorities a significant component of the BRI. In conclusion, if the CEE countries become a bridge or a wall in the Chinese-EU relations depends only on the ability of all actors to have a balanced relationship with each other

European Union and Big Four’s Position Towards the 16+1 Cooperation Platform

The aim of the present paper is to investigate the position towards the 16+1 framework from the standpoint of the EU as an entity and also the four largest EU countries in terms of GDP, namely Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy. The Big Four are the main recipients of Chinese FDI and are also the most active European exporters to China, while CEE concentrates only a small share of the EU-Chinese trade and investment flows. However, the Big Four are apprehensive with regard to China’s rising competitiveness through national reform policies (such as China 2025 Program) but also via acquisition of high-tech companies. In the competition with a stronger China, these countries and especially Germany consider that the Chinese presence in CEE, alongside the proposed investment projects in infrastructure, including harbours, represent a threat to their established positions in this region and their companies will lose market shares and big infrastructure contracts. Seen from another perspective, in the literature the new framework is considered as a lobby platform, intended to influence the EU decisions through CEE players, which is incompatible with the strategic Sino-EU partnership. As a matter of fact, the EU foreign policy is incoherent in major aspects, including EU-China relation as well. Therefore our investigation focuses on three main aspects. First, we explain how the lack of harmonization between the Big Four and the other EU member states is influencing EU policy towards China. Conferring the Big Four observer status at the 16+1 summits might mitigate tensions. Second we investigate whether the Big Four detain the supremacy in the EU to the detriment of the EU periphery. Third, we underline that the EU needs a common vision towards the Eurasian cooperation, as it includes a new element: the Belt and Road Initiative. One cannot support the BRI by criticizing the 16+1, as the latter is considered by the Chinese authorities a significant component of the BRI. In conclusion, if the CEE countries become a bridge or a wall in the Chinese-EU relations depends only on the ability of all actors to have a balanced relationship with each other

Romanian Attitudes and Perceptions towards the 16+1 Cooperation Platform

The aim of this paper is to analyze Romanian citizens’ attitudes and perceptions towards the 16+1 framework, their determinants and effects. The influencing factors are correlated with the general perception of China and its image, while the effects are seen from the perspectives of the engagement and level of participation in joint initiatives. Recent literature underscores that although this platform offers a range of opportunities in each of the nine pillars of sectoral cooperation, Romania has adopted a passive attitude as regards large-scale projects developed with Chinese partners. Beyond EU specific technical barriers to such projects, the Romanian attitudes towards the 16+1 strongly affected cooperation intensity with China. Positions towards this initiative (opinions from general public, elites, politicians and experts) are identified through three main channels: mass media research, individual interviews and focus groups. The quantitative analysis, combined with qualitative research, emphasizes that in spite of the recognition by some groups of the potential benefits offered by the cooperation in the 16+1 format, reluctance remains. This is not due to China’s assets-liabilities balance or the lack of capacity to understand China, but on both insufficient information on 16+1 and political inertia

Bio economy and entrepreneurial ecosystem patterns Case study for Romania - USH ProBusiness

This paper is investigating various patterns of entrepreneurial relations and engagements  that may help the shift to bio economy  and the ways they can facilitate entrepreneurial understanding and access to markets and business opportunities in this field. It also investigate the role of universities and cluster in transfer of knowledge towards bio economy and possibilities of interaction making a case study on USH ProBusiness in Romania. Main conclusion of the paper is that participation of  entrepreneurs, especially SME but also large companies in active  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EE)   plays an essential role in transposing bio economy  from strategy to action but some regions may be well advanced  and other lagging behind. High trust and large EE in terms of networking are better fit to accelerate the knowledge and innovation process and universities may play a major role in this direction, as important catalyst

Design – key element of creative industries in Romania and its role in Romanian export

Creative industries are now considered a solution for sustainable development. EU 2020 strategy is considering these industries crucial for the future industrial policy of EU. In recent years, while some European countries or even  regions and cities, such as the UK, Scandinavian countries cities like  Barcelona, Tallinn, Copenhagen or Amsterdam to name a few, have been good at tapping into the extraordinary potential of the cultural and creative sectors as a way to promote socioeconomic development and progressively developed ad hoc strategies, others are only just starting. Present papers is aiming at evaluating potential of these industries in Romania, with focus on design, and their possible place in the future export development of the country. Where strategies have emerged, they tend to focus on the strengthening of these sectors and not yet on stimulating partnerships and spill-overs with other sectors.

Knowledge transfer between universities and smes and regional development. The role of the clusters as communities of practice

The Exchange of knowledge between universities and SMEs became a source of sustainable competitive advantages. The innovation capacity of SMEs is under pressure for various reasons since knowledge management is more costly and innovation readiness more difficult to be achieved. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) became in this context critical players in the knowledge-based economy to interact with small companies. The traditional functions of universities are the generation of knowledge (research) and its transmission (teaching) are reconsidered in order to better serve the managers