Hypothesis testing at regional level.

One can see a better preoccupation for obtaining financing for the West region. Also in that region there is a higher succesful rate. In the otgher regions the interieviewed entrepreneurs obtained fewer post-adherence funds than during the pre-adherence period. Thus in the South Muntenia region 20.9% applied for pre-adherence funds, 12.6% in the South-West region and 16.3% in the North- West. The same situation can be found with the post-adherence funds (see Table 12).

Table 12: Distribution on development regions: ratios of pre and post-adherence non-refundable financing opportunities

South-Muntenia South-West North-West West

pre- adherence funds post- adherence funds pre- adherence funds post- adherence funds pre- adherence funds post- adherence funds pre- adherence funds Post- adherence funds Yes, I got financing 14.8 12.8 7.9 6.1 10.7 10.4 16.9 19.8 Yes, but I have not got financing 6.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 5.6 4.2 6.1 3.2 I have not tried 79.1 82.1 87.5 89.2 83.7 85.5 77.0 77.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

The most pleased with the collaboration with the authorities in obtaining pre-adherence financing are the people from the North-West region while those from the South-West although they have not obtained financing do trust in authorities (see Table 13).

Table 13: Weight of those satisfied with the collaboration with APL after accessing pre-adherence funds (%)

Development region

Yes, I have got financing

Yes, but I have not obtained financing I have not tried South-Muntenia 72.0 73.5 54.6 South-West 68.2 92.3 54.1 North-West 80.6 36.8 47.9 West 76.6 58.8 58.9

Regarding the relationship with the business ownership associations, the people from the West are the most pleased (see Table 14).

Table 14 : Weight of those satisfied with the collaboration with business ownership associations after accessing pre-adherence funds (%)

Development region Yes, I have got financing

Yes, but I have not obtained financing I have not tried South-Muntenia 63.4 55.9 39.0 South-West 59.1 61.5 36.1 North-West 69.4 63.2 40.1 West 78.7 52.9 41.6

The relationship with the public central authorities is much more appreciated by the North- West respondents and the West region (see Table 15).

Table 15: Weight of the respondents satisfied with the collaboration with the public central authorities after accessing pre-adherence funds (%)

Development region

Yes, I have got financing

Yes, but I have not obtained financing

I have not tried

South-Muntenia 39.0 26.5 29.2

North-West 58.3 26.3 23.4

West 42.6 41.2 26.2

Satisfation degree of those who obtained European financing is higher in the West region with a relationship to APL and respondents from South-West are to a greater extent satisfied with APL collaboration (see Table 16).

Table 16 : Weight of respondents satisfied with APL collaboration after accessing post-adherence funds (%)

Development region

Yes, I have got financing

Yes, but I have not obtained financing I have not tried South-Muntenia 71.8 67.9 55.6 South-West 76.5 84.6 54.2 North-West 77.1 28.6 48.6 West 80.0 55.6 57.5

Satisfied with the business ownership associations collaboration is close to the values in the 4 regions, increased in the North-West. Less satisfied with the business associations collaboration are respondents from the West region on the segment of people who have not obtained financing (see Table 17).

Table 17 : Weight of satisfied respondents with businesses ownership collaboration after accessing post- adherence funds

Development region

Yes, I have got financing

Yes, but I have not obtained financing I have not tried South-Muntenia 70.4 50.0 39.1 South-West 70.6 60.2 35.3 North-West 74.3 50.0 40.6 West 72.7 44.4 42.5

Collaboration with public central authorities is much more appreciated in the North-West region by respondents who successfully accessed funds and in the South-West region respondents who wanted to get financing (see Table 18).

Table 18: Weight of satisfied respondents with the public central authorities collaboration after accessing post-adherence funds

Development region

Yes, I have got financing

Yes, but I have not obtained financing I have not tried South-Muntenia 42.3 35.7 28.4 South-West 35.3 38.5 30.5 North-West 54.3 21.4 24.3 West 49.1 33.3 24.8

In the North-West and West respondents are more pleased with APL, public central authorities and business association collaboration only if they access funding while South-West respondents give their credit even though they did not obtain financing. It is a pattern in the West part of the country and partly in the South.

We consider that the second hypothesis is true at the level of the four development regions included in the present study. Still the element that gives consistency to the hypothesis can be found especially in the West.

The more pertinent is the access to European funds, the higher the satisfaction regarding collaboration with the institutions involved in regional development.

3. Conclusions

A consistent economic activity of companies is an important element of regional development. In an economic environment where the loan is expensive, Romania has to take advantage of the financing opportunities provided by the European strucutral funds. Rural areas entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs face even bigger difficulties. Our study has tested two hypothesis:

a. the first deals with the relationship accessing information about business opportunities and satisfation with public locan and central authorities collaboration;

b. the second deals with the access to European financing and satisfaction with public local and central authorities collaboration.

The first hypothesis is valid and demonstrates that satisfaction degree with the institutions mentioned in the study is directly proportional to ensuring equal access to information sources both for the rural and urban areas.

The second hypothesis demonstrates that the relationship with the players involved in regional development are directly proportional to obtaining European money funding. The greatest expectations are from the part of public local authorities, then from the business ownership associations and finally central authorities. Thus the framework to solve economic problems is constituted through the joint effort of the local players. Brokendown on regions, entrepreneurs from the West part of the country (North-West and West development region) are more focused on the local relationships than those from the South. Explanations can be found in the cultural model and proximity of the decision makers that have an impact on the whole country. Unfortunately there is no growth in the interest of the entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs to get financing from European money. There are signs of change at the entrepreneurs from the West who accessed more pre- adherence non-refundable funds.

The present research, limited by its scope and number of people surveyed, represents a starting point in the study of the relationship between the business environment and institutions interested in regional development. The results obtained can constitute working hypothesis for research on larger samples applied to all development regions from Romania.

This work was supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62259, Project “ Applied social, human and political sciences. Postdoctoral training and postdoctoral fellowships in social, human and political scences” cofinanced by the European Social Fund within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007-2013.

4. References

 Braun, G.; Diensberg, C. (2007) Cultivating Entrepreneurial Regions- Cases and Studies from the Network Project ‘Baltic Entrepreneurship Partners’. Available at

http://www.bepart.info/fileadmin/user_upload/textfiles/2007_CP2_Publication/BEPART__C ultivating_Entr_Regions__June2007.pdf

 Gurau, C. (2009) Rural entrepreneurship in post-communist Romania, International Journal of Business and Globalization, 3(2), pp. 158-172

 Holley, J. (2005) Building a Regional Entrepreneurship Network: A Guide to Action. Available at http://www.networkweaving.com/june_files/HowToREN.pdf

 Nemirschi, N; Craciun, A. (2010) Entrepreneurship and tourism development in rural areas: case of Romania, Romanian Economic and Business Review, 5(1), pp. 138-143

 Pezzini, M. (2003) Cultivating regional development: main trends and policy challenges in OECD regions. Paris: OECD.

 Tamasy, C. (2006) Determinants of regional entrepreneurship dynamics in contemporary Germany: A conceptual and empirical analysis, Regional Studies, 40 (4), pp. 365-384  Tudor, M. (2008) Rural Entrepreneurship- Aggregation Factor or Local Stakeholders!?,

Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, V (1-2), pp. 68-75 Available at

ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/iag/iag_pdf/AERD0802_68-75.pdf

ASPECTS REGARDING MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOT DETERMING THE LINK