Corporate opinion about competition and cooperation in the examined enterprises
HILDA HURTA
Enterprises emerging from the crisis face significant uncertainty independent of their capitalisation. While looking for points of departure enterprises try to measure each other’s intentions. In my survey I strived to inquire about entrepreneurs’ assessment of their position and their attitude towards their partners considering the present stressful economic environment. The research’s results indicated that respondents are more optimistic than expected, their answers indicated that they don’t struggle for survival but strive to maintain their stability and realise a moderate growth. Most of the managers consider their enterprises competitive on the domestic market and financially profitable. From the government they nevertheless expect an increased protection of domestic actors. They consider Hungarians to be rather competitive, although competition is not spotless in the country. Nevertheless they judged their own attitude to be cooperative rather than competitive. They emphasised that clean partnership is important for a successful business but differences in income are not due to outstanding economic performance. They consider their companies flexible and stabile, prepared for the oncoming changes, yet they are not risk-taking, work with long term contracts and allow for rebates in favour of cooperation.
Keywords: economic situation, competitive, cooperative attitude
1. Introduction
Economic processes are defined by economics as relationships of competing partners, where market forces competition of market actors. Actors strive to implement their objectives by competing with each other; competition defines the allocation of wealth, production and distribution.
Results of applied psychology suggest that uneven allocation of resources can give ground to conflicts (Bakacsi 1996), which is considered a baseline characteristics of organisations and groups, conflict arises from the perceived incompatibility of individual goals (Smith–Mackie 2004). Individual solutions of conflict can come in many forms: conflict avoiding attitude, adaptation, competition (rivalry), cooperation or compromise. In the case of competition the individual follows his own goals and tries enforcing them even on the other parties’ expense. In this case, conflict is a game with victory as the only solution. Grzelak (1999) also considers the difference between interests arising from conflict resolution as the foundation of competition, where the focus is on individual interest based rivalry instead of cooperation along common interests.
Is the „homo oeconomus” obliged to compete when obeying his individual interests, or is he able to cooperate and share the earned benefits?
According to the Economic Research Company (GKI 2009) competitive market conditions declined and ethical behaviour of enterprises decayed in Hungary in the last years.
This includes willingness to pay taxes which reduced to a level experienced last time a decade ago, and the perception of strong corruption.
According to the ranking of Global Competitiveness Report (2010–2011) Hungary stepped forward to the 52nd position in 2010-11 from the 58th place in 2008–2009, Slovakia fell back from 47th to the 60th place, while Czech Republic and Slovenia advanced from 31st to 26th and from 37th to 45th respectively.
Intensity of competition is relatively strong in Hungary, according to a survey of GKI (2009) managers assessed is 5,5 on a 1–7 scale. Nevertheless this value is still behind the western countries, in the US the respective value was 6,3. As the real obstacle the regulation of competition was indicated by most respondents, who considered it more stringent than American or Japanese regulation. For example, the impact of regulations and rules on products was assessed on a scale of 1–10 as 7,3 in Hungary compared to the US value of 6,6.
If we consider cooperation as the second subject of our analysis, then the following results can be seen: adaptivity of the Hungarian market (its flexibility to react to market effects) is moderately flexibly according to the IMD (2011) report (5,67 on a maximum 10 scale), this value is lower than the Japanese or US value, but higher than Germany’s.
According to the IMD report the Hungarian corporate sector’s technical cooperation is favourable, but in relation to developed countries the value is mediocre as on the same scale (1–10) it is 2 points behind the scores of the US or Japan.
Attitudes are characteristic to everyone, as they define our relationship, behaviour and approach to our environment’s objects, persons and situations. Since attitude can not be seen, overheard or sensed, the only way to conclude it exists is from the behaviour of the observed person (Klein 2004).
According to the dictionary of foreign words and phrases (Bakos 1973) attitude is behaviour, conduct and manner or in other words a theoretical standpoint or attitude of mind.
In sociology – quoting the same source – it is habit, behaviour, or conduct in a given situation or for a given opinion.
Attitude is a capstone of socio-psychology, and recently economics also started to acknowledge its influence and studies its role in behavioural economics. Behavioural economics was formulated because economics (mostly due to Kahneman) started to apply psychological methods and approaches. Developing strongly in the 90’s behavioural economics combines therefore elements of economics and psychology, studies the reasons of economic behaviours and decisions because a decision maker is not simply a logically behaving algorithmised robot, but social, cultural and emotional factors also influence him.
We can have more precise results if we consider the additional motivations found in economic processes (Hámori 1998).
In a concise manner attitude is „an opinion strongly infiltrated by judgement which directs one’s behaviour” (Pléh–Boross 2006).
According to Hámori (2003) behavioural economics has stronger ties with psychology than with economics, since it examines why individuals don’t act rationally and follow the principles of utility maximisation.
Economics can be considered more or less a young discipline, and behavioural economics is even younger. Observation of attitude and cogitation can be considered to be still in the cradle, although many called the attention on this significant factor. Among others Román (2007), Szerb (2008) and Chikán–Czakó (2009) who claimed that competitivity and business success or handicap frequently stem from individually determined factors.
2. Material and methods
A pre-survey was conducted in March, 2011 as a trial phase. This survey included 87 questions and consisted of 7 larger blocks. Respondents had to indicate their opinion on a scale of four degrees. This means that answers represented subjective opinions. The total number of answered questionnaires was 198, distribution by size is shown in Figure 1.
O respond answers seen in
C distribu over 51 34,7% w highest school a
Fu resembl distribu the emp the wei proporti
Out of the e dents were s came from
Figure 2.
Fig
Source:
oncerning ution shows
years and were mid-e
qualificatio and 14,9% h ull represen led a simila ution of dom ployees, the ighting on ion of empl
Fi
Source: Own
enterprises located in m the remain
gure 2. Are
Own construc
the sex of that the m 16,6% was executives a on was univ had more th ntativity wa ar picture to mestic enterp erefore repr
this basis loyees (Figu
igure 1. Sur
n construction
86,7% was the Central ning six reg
a of activity
ction
f responden majority (63, s under 35 y and 28% of
ersity/colleg han one degr
as not an o o the Centr prises. I con resentative f and thus o ure 3).
rveyed enter
s commerci al-Hungarian
gions. The b
y of the ente
nts, 61,5%
,2%) was b years. The f the respon ge degree in grees.
objective, b ral Statistic nsider the m
for all the e obtain a re
rprises by s
ial, and 13 n region, an breakdown b
erprises in t
was male between 36 share of ex ndents were n 42,3% of but it has to
al Office’s managerial a
employees.
epresentativ ize
,3% non-pr nd the rem by their are
he sample (
and 38,5%
and 50 yea xecutive ma e ordinary s the cases, 4 o be noted
(KSH 2009 attitude to d
It is well f e sample w
rofit, 79,3%
maining 20%
ea of activit
(%)
% female. T ars old, 20, anagers was staff membe 42,8% repor that the re 9) statistics define the at founded to with respec
% of the
% of the y can be
The age ,2% was s 37,3%, er. Their rted high esponses s on size ttitude of
perform ct to the
St question the initi
A statistic the vari values justifica
St associat that ran relation Negativ indicate If then the its value
Fr variable Fo the near extreme display Fo In for clas differen Differen
I u of varia variance the Gam
Figure
tatistical an nnaires and ial steps, to Associative
al significan iables were
were not ation of an a trength of tion test, wh nges betwee nship betwee ve sign sho es a probabl f two nomin e Cramer’s V
e can range rom multiva es.
or grouping rest neighb e cases, the the results, or grouping n the formul ssification.
nces betwee nces are stat used post h ation was te
es were iden mes-Howel t
e 3. Share o
Source: Ow
nalysis was recording t present the links betw nce of links independen larger tha associative l
correlation hich is a sy en -1 and en the two ows a relati
ly lower val nal or mixe V was appl
between 0 ariate statis g variables I
our and Wa Ward meth and the res g observed u
lation of gro For this on en the grou
tistically sig hoc tests to
ested with ntical betwe test was app
f employee
wn constructio
performed the answers frequencies ween qualit
s was tested nt; the nullh n 5%. Re link.
n between ymmetric m 1. Values variables. V ionship of lue for the o ed (nominal ied. Cramer and 1, a val tical tests I I used hiera ard’s varian hod maxim ulting graph units the K-m
oups I consi ne-way ana
up average gnificant if identify gr the Levene een groups plied.
es in the resp
on based on K
with SPSS s labels wer
s of the answ tative varia d by chi-squ
hypothesis efusal of th
two ordina measure of a close to an Values close opposite d other variab l and ordin r's V is a m lue closer to
applied clu archical clu nce method mises in-clus
h allowed m means clust idered the d alysis of va
s by the e the p value roups with s e-method to
then the Tu
pective ente
KSH (2009)
(Székelyi–B re given. De
wers to the ables were uare (χ2) tes
was refuse he nullhyp al variables association
n absolute e to zero in direction, a
le.
nal) variable easure of as o 1 indicate uster analys ustering, as d. The first ster similari me to identif tering was u deviation of ariance (AN empirical si s are not lar significantly o identify th urkey and Sc
erprise size
Barna 2002 escriptive st
respective q examined st. The nullh
d if the em pothesis me
s was teste between tw value of 1 ndicate little
higher valu es were tes ssociation b s stronger r sis to group
agglomerat methods is ity. Dendog fy and name used.
f the group a NOVA) was
ignificance rger than 5%
y deviating he proper p
cheffe test w classes
2). After co tatistics was questions.
by crosst hypothesis mpirical sign
eant the s ed by the wo ordinal v 1 indicate e or no relat lue of one sted for cor based on chi relationship
observed u tion method s perfect to grams were
e the group average as t s used. I te values (p
%.
averages. A post hoc tes
was used, o
oding the s used in abs, the
was that nificance tatistical Gamma variables a strong tionship.
variable rrelation, i-square, .
units and ds I used indicate e used to
s.
the basis ested the
values).
Analysis st. If the
therwise
Th activity disagree N sample basis).
In the resu Th enable a deductib associat sector, valuable consequ 3. Resu The em size. Fo (Figure Fig
S
En
„compe positive En (p=0,00 to an inc
C innovati product who al importa of the im
Si establish market
hroughout t or expres ement while Number of a
size but th n the essay’
ults for bette he present a reasonabl bility of co te a differen and it shou e time with uences and r ults
mpirical sam or the comp
4).
gure 4. Asse
Source: Own c
nterprises i etitive” (75
e) and „read nterprise s 01). Compet
creasing ex ompetitiven ion (p=0,00 t developme so found i ant. The rem
mportance o ize of the hment of th
gap comin
the questio ss their opi
e ’3’ and ’4 answers to b
e number o s quantitati er understan study is a p e reduction onclusions.
nt meaning uld also be
h filling ou results of th
mple is repr prehension o
essment of t
construction
indicated u
% was po dy for challe
ize was p titiveness w tent, large e ness of a 04), acquire ent. Typical innovation, maining com
of innovatio enterprise he firm: mic ng from on
ns of the q inion on a
’ indicated be evaluated of possible
ve assessm nding (Exce pre-survey o n of size and Clearly it with a term highlighted ut a questi his study.
resentative of their bus
the competi
unexpectedl sitive), „fin enges” (63%
roven to b was indicate
enterprises t firm also ement of for
lly only tho foreign m mpanies mig on.
also gave cro and sma n an own i
questionnair a four-degr
agreement.
d were diff answers wa ment section el was used
of a future d to test the can be the m than an ex
d that an e ionnaire. T
concerning siness attitu
itiveness an responders
S
ly high va nancially s
% was positi be a stron ed in micro to an overw
correlated reign marke
se firms dec market acqu
ght lack co e a statistic
all enterpris idea or a b
re, the resp ree scale. V ferent by qu
as consider charts and for this purp
large scale e clarity and e case that xecutive man executive ca The followin
the numbe ude I first a
nd financial s
Source: Own c
alues for th uccessful d ive) qualitie ng distinctiv
-size enterp whelming ex d significan
ets (p=0,016 clared them uirement an ompetitivene cally reliab ses were fo business pl
pondents ha Values ’1’
uestions, the ed as 100%
figures we pose).
research. I d consistenc
as an aca nager work an not spen
ng sections
er of emplo assess their
state of ent
construction
he question despite the es.
ve factor i prises to a l xtent respect
ntly with t 6), and app mselves com nd new pro
ess due to t ble (p=0,00 unded typic an. Medium
ad to evalu and ’2’ i erefore not
% (as the pr ere used to i Its objective cy of quest ademic rese king in the c nd too muc s present th
oyees by en economic
terprises by
ns inquirin crisis” (64 in competi lesser exten
tively.
the import pearance wit mpletely com
oduct deve the non-rec 00) hint ab
cally for co m enterpris
ate their ndicated the total rojection illustrate e was to ions and earcher I corporate ch of his
he main
nterprise situation
the
ng about 4% was itiveness nt, SMEs tance of
th a new mpetitive elopment cognition bout the overing a
ses were
typically chain.
C conside conserv growth
Th on the c markets mainten reported strong strategie
Th cycle cu compan and pro profitab competi
y sourced oncerning s red his firm ving market
target. Only Fig
S
he strategie corporate li s, or as Adi nance of th d moderate
growth tar es were rece
he sample j urve and co nies in their ofitable. Com
ble by their itive, „adole
out, and la strategy, the m to be st
positions, a y 3% denied gure 5. Defin
Source: Own c
es of the firm fe-cycle cur izes (1992) heir market growth tar rgets were
ently started Fig
.
Court- ship
Infanc Com Ad
Source:
justified a ompetitivity
„settled do mpanies sho
r managers escents” we
arge enterpr e overall im truggling fo and another d their comp nition of str
construction
ms has a st rve (p=0,00 ) put it, in positions rgets typica
typically a d firms in th ure 6. Orga
.
21
.
4.
3.
cy me along!
dolescence Adulthood
Own constru
strong stati (p=0,02) o wn” phase t owing signs s, „come a ere classified
rises were mage is also or survival,
r 43% repor panies havin rategical dir
tatistically s 00). Those w
their „arist typically in ally placed
associated he stage of i anizational l
Stability 6
.
5.
7uction based on
tistical corre or financial
typically in s of „aristoc along” phas
d rather as p
daughters o more posi , 43% aime
rted of a co ng any strat rectives by t
significant r who are stru tocratic per
ndicated „a themselves with a „m infanthood life cycle m
.
1 8
.
9
.
Aristocracy
Early bureaucr
Bur
n Adizes (199
elation betw profitability ndicated thei cracy” were se compani profitable b
or member itive than ex ed at prese
rporate (sm tegy (Figure the respond
relationship uggling for riod”. Those adult age”.
s in the „ad mature” pha (Figure 6).
odel
10
.
racy
eaucracy
Death
92)
ween the lo y (p=0,000)
ir companie e deemed le ies were m y the repson
rs of a com expected. On erving stabi maller or lar
e 5).
dents
p with their r survival ar e who targ Companie dolescent ag ase. Firms
ocation on ). Responde es to be com ess competi mostly indic
ndents.
mmercial nly 12%
ility and ger rate)
location re losing geted the es which ge”, and without
the life- ents with mpetitive itive and cated as
C projects aversion from „a characte that the the dec implem C enterpri taking r Lo sales as further partners
O large pa conditio should u should funds (9
Th to be co expecte that the strong e namely competi Th (58%) a not be a We will under th Fu answers coopera F
S
oncerning r s with less n. Compani adolescence eristic for th present cri clining secti ment a risky h
ompany siz ises take ris risky endeav
ow risk tak s 68% of the
85% revea s.
Opinions on art of even on expect s use every a
also prefer 96%) or sof he reason f ompetitive o
d governme e state shou enough to c that marke ition.
he majority and level of associated w l now take a hese conditi
undamental s given in ative (68%) Figure 7. C
Source: Own c
risk aversio risk, locatio ies in „infan e” also res he „come al isis made en ion of the higher marg ze and risk k, small and vours.
king is unde e responden aled that re state activi those respo tate or gov available m r in-country ft loans (89%
for this migh on home gro
ental suppor uld protect compete. T et is compet y of respond
f confidence with outstan a look what ions.
l attitude o the survey (Figure 7).
Competition
construction
n, 52% of t on on the li nthood” an strain them long” and „ nterpreneur corporate l gin project.
taking is a d large ente erlined by t nts reported ebates or p ity and inte ondents wh vernmental means to pro
y enterpren
%).
ht be that w ounds, on th
rt. It has to the domest his contrad titive and d dents consid e unsatisfac nding econo t is the attitu of Hungaria y indicated
n and cooper
the compan ife cycle cu nd „aristocra mselves from
„early burea rs more cau life cycle m also closely erprises try the respons d existence price-cuts a ervention ar ho described aid. Accord otect the do neurs in go while 75% o he global lev be mention tic enterpri dicts the fun distribution dered compe ctory (63%)
omic perfor ude towards ans will be
that Hung
ration in Hu
S
nies would r urve provid acy” refuse m overly r aucracy” sta utious, and a
might find y correlated
to avoid it, es concerni of long term are used to
re as follow d their com
ding to 92%
omestic ente overnmental
of the respo vel only 34%
ned that 42%
ses beyond ndamental r
of wealth i etition unfai ). Differenc
rmance acco s competitio assessed i garians were
ungary acco
Source: Own c
rather choos des a distinc high risk p isky projec ages. The re
at the same consider th
(p=0,036), microenterp ing compan m contracts incentivise ws. A strikin
panies to b
% of the re erprises aga l purchases ondents con
% was conf
% of the rep d the point rule of free is defined b ir (61%), co es in incom ording to 6 on and coop in the follo e competiti
ording to the
construction
se lower re ctive factor projects, co cts. Risk t eason for thi e time comp heir last ch , typically m rprises totall ny procurem s in these ar
e cooperati ing feature be in good f espondents t ainst foreign s (95%), ap
nsidered the fident. Yet t pondents an of them be e market ca by the effic ooperation i me and weal 62% of the a
peration in H owing secti
ive (79%)
e responder
turn rate r for risk ompanies
aking is is can be panies in hance to mid-size ly refuse ment and reas, and ion with
is that a financial the state ners and pplicable emselves they also nnounced ecoming apitalism ciency in
incorrect lth could answers.
Hungary ion. The
and not
s
To Figure 8 self-ima to coope
S
A positive desire t Based o informa Figu
S
Th image i differen general are non- of coop
Th themsel this wit expecta and the are still
In (Figure from re
o provide a 8. As the fi age of respo
erate is not Figure 8.
Source: Own c
As it was de e attitude. In o achieve v on this defin ation sharing
ure 9. Victo
Source: Own c
he level of is not so u nce between
perceived i -cooperativ erativity of his baffling lves are also
th the base ations. My o
necessary not eligible n the follow
10) The ch liability, m
an interestin gure demon ondents and
just greatly Competitiv
construction
efined in e n this case e victory prov nition and u
g here are a ory as a goa
construction
competitivi unambiguou n cooperativ image of co ve) as descri
f the respond g contradic
o actors of eline distor opinion is t endowmen e (for a coop wing I presen hart shows
anagerial sk
ng contrast t nstrates diff d their opini y different b ve spirit and
earlier resea executives c vides a stro utilising furt answers to tw al and inclin
ity of Hunga us when c veness and ooperativity
bed by the r dents thems ction is not the Hungar rtion of sel
that respond ts to compl perative bus nt the factor that the mo kills and eth
the self-asse ference on i ion about H between the d cooperativ
S
arch (Hámo consider co ong motivat thermore the
wo monitor nation to sha
S
arian firms considering informatio y of Hungar
respondents selves.
t easily res arian society lf-declaratio dents are aw ly with cha siness clima rs for profit ost emphasi hical behav
essment of in competit Hungarians.
two groups ve attitude a
Source: Own c
ori et al 20 ompetition a tion to do e e assumptio ring questio
are informa
Source: Own c
seems stabi inclination on sharing a
rian partner s is still con solved sinc y. In this ca on as respo ware of the allenges yet
ate).
tability whi ised factors viour to inn
the respond tivity is neg
On the othe s but of oppo among the r
construction
007) compe as a constan everything t on that coop ns (Figure 9 ation among
construction
ile with a va n to cooper attitudes wa rs (68% stat ntradicting t ce the subj ase it is ins ondents wan e proper an
the conditi ch were ind s are the so- ovative cap
ders is prese gligible betw er hand, wil
osite sign.
responders
etitive attitu nt challenge
to overcom perativeness
9).
g the respon
value over 7 erate. Altho
as around 3 ates that Hu
the reported ects of the sufficient to ant to comp nd desirable
ions in our dicated as im
-called soft pabilities. T
ented on ween the llingness
ude is a e and the me rivals.
s implies
nders
0%. The ough the
30% the ungarians
d attitude e survey o explain
ply with e attitude
country mportant t factors, These are
followe new pro and lobb
Th resembl distingu objectiv importa three el loose gr necessa
Th coopera show an variable other w
d by the so oducts to th bying as les Figure 10
Sourc
he cluster a lance to an uished. The ve (capitalis ant. That is, lements: lo
rounds or “ ary, yet they
he attitude o ation and co ny similari es along the as a risk-av
o-called hard he market. A ss important
0. Importan
ce: Own cons
analysis su ny other v first includ sation, techn
they work bbying, for
“moorland”
y are very ris of the Hung ompetition.
ity with oth e original as voiding coop
d-factors lik At the end t factors, an nce of some
struction
ggests that ariables. Fo des those wh nology) bot
along „fair reign marke
”. For their sky and don garians stoo
Among th her variable ssumptions, perative gro
ke capital f of the line nd corruptio factors from
„developm or the rem who from the th the subje business pr et presence implement n’t guarante od in the foc he personal
es. Two clu one was a oup (Figure
funds, appli we can fin on which is n
m the aspec
ment of coo maining var
e aspect of ective (ethic rinciples”. T e, and corru tation a lot ee success.
cus of my an characteris usters coul
pragmatic a 11).
ed technolo d the entry not conside ct of busines
operation” d riables two business su cs, fairness, The other cl uption. The of money nalysis, wit stics, the „i
d be fitted and compet
ogy, introdu y to foreign ered importa ss success
does not sh clusters c uccess find , reliability luster conta ese factors and extra th special re indecisive”
d to the res titive group
uction of markets ant.
how any could be both the ) factors ains only I called effort is egards to
doesn’t st of the , and the
Th The pos strength 2009). A due to clashes, is in mo 4. Conc As the o definite conside general actors.
would Compan limiting
Ev actual v Hungari although and coo
Su with the computa
S
he results f stponing of hening gray According t the suspens , than to the oral crisis, H clusions
outlined res ly be consi red fair. Th
it can be s Developme be necessa nies under t g growth and
ven if we values, still ian situatio h they mak operation if ummarising e challenges
ability and
Figure
Source: Own c
from the qu f necessary y and black
to Kolodko’
sion of nec e global eco Hungarians’
sults show r idered posit hose who p stated that l ent of coop ary these d the present d improvem consider th l we find a n and how ke up the ec
firms would g the results
s, but the si improveme
e 11. Attitud
construction
uestionnaire reforms, c k economy
’s (2010) in cessary stru onomical cri attitude ha
respondents tive. A nega
erform und lack of con peration, ris days to me
conditions ment of com hat self-surv an enormou
they assess conomy. A p d perceive e s, the execu ituation in o
nt of coope
de of Hunga
e’s data are corruption,
are all lim nsight many uctural refo
isis. In the o as to be chan
s deemed th ative sign i der the aver nfidence add
sk sharing eet the cha
unfortunate mpetitivity.
veying alw us distance
sed their ow positive ben each other a utives know our country eration is co
arian entrep
also suppo deterioratin miting facto players los rms and to opinion of B nged if we w
heir situation s that comp rage don’t p ds extra co and commo allenges of ely don’t da ays gives m
between h wn attitude nefit could accordingly w which qua
y is still not onsidered a r
reneurs
orted by the ng competit ors for the st their inert o the overem
Bogsch et al want to be c
n better than petition and pay attentio sts to the b on innovati f the econo
are to under more positi
ow respond of coopera come from .
alities are n appropriate righteous ex
e relevant li tive conditi developme tia, but this mphasised l (2011) the competitive
n expected, d cooperatio on to innov budget of e ion to redu omic envir rtake such ive results dents descr ation and re m mutual con
necessary to e. Ethical b xpectation.
iterature.
ions, the ent (GKI
is rather political e country
.
this can on is not ation. In conomic uce costs
ronment.
ventures than the ribed the eliability
nfidence o comply behavior,
References
Adizes, I. 1992: Vállalatok életciklusai: Hogyan és miért növekednek és halnak meg vállalatok, és mi az ezzel kapcsolatos teendő? HVG kiadó, Budapest, ISBN 963 7525 05, pp. 1–350.
Bakacsi Gy. 1996: Szervezeti magatartás és vezetés. Közgazdasági és Jogi Kiadó, Budapest Bakos F. 1973: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára. Akadémiai kiadó, Budapest
Bogsch E. – Bojár G. – Chikán A. – Czakó E. – Lévai B. – Szepesi B. 2011: Melyek a magyar versenyképesség tíz éven belül befolyásolható tényezői? Kerekasztal beszélgetés, Budapest 11.03.06. http://mindentudas.hu/kerekasztalok/item/2676-versenyképesség- kerekasztal.html
Chikán A. – Czakó E. 2009. Versenyben a világgal, Vállalataink versenyképessége az új évezred küszöbén. Akadémiai kiadó, Budapest, pp. 1–401.
GCR 2010–2011: The Global Competitiveness Report, WEF.
GKI 2009: Versenyképességi évkönyv. Budapest, http://www.gki.hu/sites/default/files/users/admin/gki_versenykepessegi_2009.pdf
Grzelak, J. 1999: Konfliktus és kooperáció. In Hewston, M. – Strobe, W. – Codol, J. P. – Stephenson, G. M.: Szociálpszichológia. Közgazdasági és Jogi Kiadó, Budapest pp.
313–339.
Hámori B. 1998: Érzelemgazdaságtan, A közgazdaságtani elemzés kiterjesztése. Kossuth kiadó, Budapest, p. 221.
Hámori B. 2003. Kísérletek és kilátások Daniel Kahneman. Közgazdasági Szemle, L, szeptember, pp. 779–799.
Hámori B. – Szabó K. – Derecskei A. – Hurta H. – Tóth L. 2007: Versengő és kooperatív magatartás az átalakuló gazdaságban. Közgazdasági Szemle, LIV, június, pp. 579–601.
IMD 2011: The world competitiveness scoreboard 2011.
http://www.imd.org/research/publications/wcy/upload/scoreboard.pdf
Klein S. 2004: Vezetés– és szervezetpszichológia. Edge 2000 kft, Budapest, ISBN 963 202 838 4, pp. 1–736.
Kolodko, G. W. 2010: Two decades of greatpostsocialist transformation – and what next?
Acta Oeconomica, 60, 4, pp. 361–373.
KSH 2009: SBA fact sheet Hungary. Statisztikai tükör, KSH, 109, p. 1.
Pléh Cs. – Boross O. (szerk.) 2006: Bevezetés a pszichológiába. Budapest, Osiris Kiadó, ISBN: 9633894786 http://kognitiv-pszi.elte.hu/bevezetes.pdf
Román Z. 2007: A vállalkozás a magyar gazdaságban – nemzetközi tükörben. Köz-Gazdaság, 2, pp. 67–84.
Smith, E. R. – Mackie, D. M. 2004: Szociálpszichológia. Osiris kiadó, Budapest
Székelyi M. – Barna I. 2002: Túlélőkészlet az SPSS-hez, Többváltozós elemzési technikákról társadalomkutatók számára. Typotex Kiadó ISBN 963 9326 42 9, pp. 1–453.
Szerb L. 2008: A hazai kis- és középvállalkozások fejlődését és növekedését befolyásoló tényezők a 2000-es évek közepén. Vállalkozás & Innováció, 2, 2, II. negyedév pp.1–35.
