Kravets O.V.

THE RESEARCH OF SMALL BUSINESSES DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN UKRAINE

The economy of developed countries is currently based on small and medium businesses, on the contrary, small and medium businesses are not considered as a driver for Ukrainian economy, their real contribution to GDP is nearly 14 percent. In Europe this indicator is higher by several times. In Denmark the entities of small businesses, for instance, produce annually 80 percent of domestic product, in Italy – 60 percent, and the average contribution of such enterprises to the economy of Western Europe is 63-67 percent [2]. Europe has fixed small businesses as an economic engine from the view of its nature. Multinational corporations concentrate on average, unified customer, while small businesses fill the gaps by selling products and providing services, when production is not profitable for big players. The most furious and uncompromising competitive selection occurs in the sphere of small businesses. Almost 80 percent of small enterprises operate during only a several years or less. The strongest and the most useful entities for society can survive in this competitive struggle.

So, on the one side, only small businesses are able to provide the country with that type of economy which it requires, on the other side, small businesses are most vulnerable and needs protection by means of the authorities [2].

The problem of small entrepreneurship in Ukraine is studied by numerous scholars, among them are Horynskiy M. [3], Lavrenchuk E., [5] Turchak V.V. [7], Varnaliy Z.S., Vynogradska A.M., Hanenko O.V.,
Zhalilo Ya. A., Nazarenko N.S. Tkachuk O.M., and others. The research aimed at utilizing integral index with a view to analyze subsystems was conducted by Kardash O.L. [4], Artyuhova L.V. Rushchenko N.M., Zinchenko T.V. [2], and others. However, the pressing issue about development trends of small businesses in a down economy requires for further research.

The aim of the study is to form an idea about up-to-date development trends of small businesses in Ukraine under crisis conditions from the perspective of integral estimation.

In order to form an idea about development trends of small businesses in Ukraine, it is necessary to utilize the methods of integral estimation based on normalizing statistical indicators, which are relevant to the core and character of small businesses from the standpoint of development, forming an integral indicator with acceptable region ranges from 0 to 1. The use of integral estimation methods gives an opportunity to find a development vector of small businesses’ structural components, to switch numerous statistical indicators to informative and aggregate integral indicator that characterizes certain development trend of small businesses in Ukraine.

Taking into consideration that small enterprises are a complex socio-economic system with a structural number of interrelated indicators, we consider stage hierarchical scheme to calculate an integral indicator of small businesses development in Ukraine [4, p. 264].

At the first stage, it is necessary to select performance indexes of small enterprises, divide it into positive and negative stimulators depending on the impact on integral indicator, and normalize selected indices.

At the second stage, general indicators should be calculated which characterize each subsystem of small businesses. For this purpose, it is required to group valid statistical indicators on the basis of corresponding directions and substantiate weighing coefficient for each direction.

At the third stage, we perform final calculations of integral indicator. We have formerly justified the level of influence in terms of each direction on development integral indicator of small businesses and take it into account during equation [4].

To assess the activity of small enterprises in Ukraine, we have chosen such indicators:

- Labour forces;

- Financial resources;

- Physical resources.

On the basis of data [1], above mentioned statistical indicators were
analysed and development trends of small businesses in Ukraine in the period of 2006-2014 were identified. We will consider the dynamics of statistical indicators with a view of labour forces in the context of small businesses in Ukraine for the last three years, see the table 1.

Table 1

The labour force allocation of small enterprises in Ukraine, yrs

Indicator	Notation	2012.	2013	2014
Number of employees in the small enterprise/th	x1	2051,3	2010,7	1675,9
Number of hired workers in the small enterprise/th	x2	1951,6	1891,8	1572
Economically active population of working age/th	x3	20393,5	20478,2	19035,2
Unemployed population of working age/th	x4	1656,6	1576,4	1847,1
Economically inactive population of working age/th	x5	7540,7	7552,2	7617,7
Population size by January 1/units	x6	45560251	45439822	42953889
Number of small enterprises/units	x7	344048	373809	324592
Need of employers for workers (at the year-end)/th	x8	48,6	47,5	35,3

According to the data of Table 1, we observe a persistent decrease of the indicator’s level (comparing with previous year) in small businesses in Ukraine:

- number of employees decreased on 2 percent in 2013 and 17 percent in 2014;

- number of hired workers decreased on 3 percent in 2013 and 17 percent in 2014;

- economically active population of working age decreased on 7 percent in 2014;

- population size decreased on 0.3 percent in 2013 and 5.5 percent in 2014;

- number of small enterprises decreased on 13 percent in 2014;

- need of employers for workers decreased on 2.3 percent in 2013 and 25.7 in 2014.

On the contrary, we have revealed the increase of such indicators (comparing with previous year) in small businesses in Ukraine:

- unemployed population of working age increased by 17 percent in

2014;

- economically inactive population of working age increased by 0.86

percent in 2014.

Hence, during 2014 a significant decrease of all labour force indicators was in focus, which results in small businesses development, and, on the contrary, an increase of indicators leads to decline of small businesses in Ukraine.

We will consider the dynamics of statistical indicators with a view of financial resources in the context of small businesses in Ukraine, see the table 2.

Table 2

The financial resources allocation of small enterprises in Ukraine, yrs

Indicator	Notation	2012	2013	2014
Payroll costs of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y1	58644,8	60266,5	54047
Financial results before tax by economic activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y2	-9254,0	-25057,9	-174493
Financial results before tax by industrial activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y3	-1536,2	-3430	-13114
Average monthly wage at the year-end/UAH	y4	3025	3265	3480
Small enterprises which made profit by economic activities before tax/mn of UAH	y5	39794,1	39640,9	49003,3
Small enterprises which absorbed losses by economic activities before tax/mn of UAH	y6	49048,1	64698,8	223496
Small enterprises which made profit by industrial activities before tax/mn of UAH	y7	3506,2	4051,1	4540
Small enterprises which absorbed losses by industrial activities before tax/mn of UAH	y8	5042,4	7481,1	17653
Software purchase costs of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y9	167,8	151,9	-
Net profit/loss by economic activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y10	-14748	-29421	-
Net profit/loss by industrial activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y11	6409	4612	-
Net profit by economic activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y12	35296	35748	-
Net loss by economic activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y13	50045	65169	-
Net profit by industrial activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y14	49377	46679	-
Net loss by industrial activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y15	42968	42066	-
Return on operating activities by economic activities of the small enterprise/%	y16	4,1	2,2	-
Return on operating activities by industrial activities of the small enterprise/%	y17	0,7	-1,7	-
Profitability of a small enterprise by economic activities/%	y18	-3,3	-6,2	-
Profitability of a small enterprise by industrial activities/%	y19	-6,9	-13,6	-
Fringe benefit expenses by economic activities/ mn of UAH	y20	15574	15738	-
Charge on payroll by economic activities of the small enterprise/mn of UAH	y21	43071	44529	-

In accordance with the Table 2, we observe a persistent decrease of the indicator’s level (comparing with previous year) in small businesses in Ukraine:

- payroll costs decreased on 10 percent in 2014;

- financial results before tax decreased by economic activities on 36.9

percent in 2013 and 14.4 percent in 2014, and by industrial activities on 44.8 percent in 2013 and 26 percent in 2014;

- software purchase costs in the small enterprise decreased on 9.5

percent in 2013;

- net profit/loss by economic activities decreased on 50 percent and by

industrial activities on 28 percent in 2013;

- return on operating activities by economic activities decreased on 46

percent and by industrial activities decreased on 242 percent in 2013;

- profitability of a small enterprise by economic activities decreased on

53 percent and by industrial activities on 50.7 percent in 2013;

On the contrary, we have revealed the increase of such indicators (comparing with previous year) in small businesses in Ukraine:

- average monthly wage at the year-end increased by 10.8 percent in 2013 and 10.6 percent in 2014;

- small enterprises which made profit before tax by economic activities increased by 23.6 percent in 2014 and by industrial activities – 15.5 percent in 2013 and 12 percent in 2014;

- fringe benefit expenses increased by 1 percent in 2013;

- charge on payroll increased by 3 percent in 2013.

Consequently, in 2014 we observed a significant slump of financial results before tax by economic and industrial activities, decrease of profitability ratios. At the time of 2013 net profit by economic activities has increased by 1.3 percent, on the other side, net loss has also increased by 30 percent. As for financial environment of industrial activities on the small enterprises, net profit increased by 5.86 percent, net loss increased by only 2 percent. The positive trend of average monthly wage indicators on the small enterprises, which made profit in 2014, can be associated with economic crisis and currency depreciation. The indicators of fringe benefit expenses and charge on payroll were characterized by slight increase in 2013.

We will consider the dynamics of statistical indicators with a view of physical resources in the context of small businesses in Ukraine for the last three years, see the Table 3.

Table 3

The physical resources allocation of small enterprises in Ukraine, yrs

Indicator	Notation	2012	2013	2014
Sales volume of small enterprises by economic activities/mn of UAH	z1	672653	670258,5	694423,6
Number of consumer goods markets at the year-end, units	z2	2647	2609	2177
Number of retail stores (legal entities) at the year-end, th	z3	47,2	45,5	38,7
Number of retail merchandising units and petrol station (legal entities)/th	z4	15	14,3	11
Capital investment in tangible assets/mn of UAH	z5	36136	38115,1	-
Capital investment in intangible assets/mn of UAH	z6	678,7	652	-
Household incomes in Ukraine, mn of UAH	z7	374962	382124	396760
Personal consumption expenditures in Ukraine/mn of UAH	z8	306519	325117	322743

In accordance with the Table 3, we observe a persistent decrease of almost all the indicator’s level (comparing with previous year) in small businesses in Ukraine:

- sales volume decreased on 0.4 percent in 2013;

- number of consumer goods markets decreased on 1.5 percent in 2013 and 16.5 percent in 2014;

- number of retail stores decreased on 3.6 percent in 2013 and 15 percent in 2014;

- number of petrol stations decreased on 5 percent in 2013 and 23 percent in 2014;

- capital investment in intangible assets decreased on 4 percent in 2013.

We have observed the increase of such indicators (comparing with previous year) in small businesses in Ukraine:

- sales volume increased by 3.6 percent in 2014;

- capital investment in tangible assets increased by 5.4 percent in 2014;

- household incomes increased by 1.9 percent in 2013 and 3.8 percent in 2014.

It should be noted that during 2014 we have been observing a
significant slump of retail locations, including markets, stores, retail merchandising units, and petrol stations. A slight increase of household incomes in 2013-2014 and sales volume in 2014 are not considered as a driver for development of small enterprises in Ukraine. Devaluation of hryvna explains the boosting level of sales volume, in this linkage, the population prefers to overstock, in some degree, invest in goods.

Since, we have chosen the indicators of small enterprises performance that characterize diversified subsystems of enterprises performance from the perspective of small businesses and, consequently, indicators are viewed as non-homogeneous values with various number of dimensions, in order to make calculations of integral indicator, prenormalization becomes a required condition.

We perform the normalization of labour force and physical resources indicators and on the basis of this formula (1):

_{, (1)}

where:

- normalized indicator of labour force

- indicator value of labour force

- minimum indicator value of labour force

- maximum indicator value of labour force

We perform the normalization of financial resources on the basis of maximum indicator value. A maximum value is selected from a set of values, and then is divided by, the calculations are based on this formula:

_{, (2)}

_where:

_{- normalized indicator of financial resources}

_{- indicator value of financial resources}

_{- maximum indicator value of financial resources}

_{The second stage of our proposed evaluation integral indicator scheme of small businesses in Ukraine is connected with projecting general indicators. In this linkage, indicators are considered as non-homogeneous and have different influence forces on integral indicator, we have proposed to calculate each weighing coefficient within the block of indicators [4, p. 269].}

_{We suggest calculating weighing coefficient of small enterprises in the following order [4, p. 270]: 1 stage – to create correlation matrices; 2 stage – to calculate factor weights and eigenvalues; 3 stage – to calculate weights.}

_{At the first stage, we will make correlation matrix calculations of small enterprises in Ukraine by means of MS Excel and Statistica 6.0 – data processing system – using Correlation matrices. Off-diagonal matrix elements}

_{are represented by correlation coefficient which evaluate correlation ratios between indicators і that caused by common reasons of their variation [4, p. 270].}

_{Correlation matrices reveal the hierarchy of interrelations between indicators of small enterprises’ development within the each block of indicators (labour, physical, and financial), see Table 4-5.}

Table 4

Correlation matrix of labour force

	x1	x2	x3	x4	x5	x6	x7	x8
x1	1,00	1,00	0,89	-0,43	0,35	0,98	0,71	0,92
x2	1,00	1,00	0,88	-0,41	0,31	0,98	0,68	0,93
x3	0,89	0,88	1,00	-0,79	-0,05	0,96	0,84	0,66
x4	-0,43	-0,41	-0,79	1,00	0,53	-0,59	-0,75	-0,09
x5	0,35	0,31	-0,05	0,53	1,00	0,18	0,06	0,59
x6	0,98	0,98	0,96	-0,59	0,18	1,00	0,78	0,84
x7	0,71	0,68	0,84	-0,75	0,06	0,78	1,00	0,57
x8	0,92	0,93	0,66	-0,09	0,59	0,84	0,57	1,00

The calculated correlation coefficients of labour force indicators highlight the interconnection between the number of employees and hired workers, economically active population of working age, the population of Ukraine, the need of employees for workers. On the contrary, inverse correlation is a distinctive feature of such indicators as economically active and unemployed population of working age, unemployed population of working age, and the number of small enterprises.

Table 5

Correlation matrix of physical resources

	z1	z2	z3	z4	z5	z6	z7	z8
z1	1,00	-0,96	-0,86	-0,93	-0,07	-0,62	-0,03	0,00
z2	-0,96	1,00	0,92	0,95	0,00	0,59	0,09	0,04
z3	-0,86	0,92	1,00	0,86	0,14	0,79	0,26	0,24
z4	-0,93	0,95	0,86	1,00	0,27	0,46	0,28	0,23
z5	-0,07	0,00	0,14	0,27	1,00	0,03	0,87	0,87
z6	-0,62	0,59	0,79	0,46	0,03	1,00	0,02	0,05
z7	-0,03	0,09	0,26	0,28	0,87	0,02	1,00	1,00
z8	0,00	0,04	0,24	0,23	0,87	0,05	1,00	1,00

Calculated correlation coefficients of physical resources indicators highlight an inverse correlation between sales volumes and number of consumer goods markets, number of retail stores. Furthermore, a close direct relationship mark number of consumer goods markets and number of retail stores, merchandising retail units, and petrol stations. On the other side, household incomes and personal consumption expenditures are characterized by a strong direct relationship.

Correlation matrix of financial resources contain 21 columns and 21 rows, that is enough bulky. Calculated correlation coefficients of financial resources indicators have revealed a close direct relationship between payroll costs and monthly average wage, fringe benefit expenses, charge on payroll; financial results before tax and net profit, profitability of all small enterprises;

small enterprises which made profit and fringe benefit expenses, and charge

on payroll.

On the second stage, we will calculate factor weights and eigenvalues _{by means of MS Excel and Statistica 6.0 – data processing system – using Correlation matrices.}

In order to select the most influential factor, we will utilize scree plot to apply Cattel’s criteria. The plot represented below (Fig. 1) was added by curve segments that connect close eigenvalues to clarify the criteria. Hence, Cattel stated that from the view of Monte Carlo technique, there is a point where the decrease of eigenvalues becomes slower and after that the level of other eigenvalues shows only a random noise. This point is corresponding to factor 3 in the plot represented below (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Scree plot

As a result of calculations made by data processing system – Statistica 6.0 on the basis of initial data, 3 factors were identified that fully explain the variability of initial data characterizes the small enterpsies development level in Ukraine (Table 6).

Table 6

Statistical characteristics of principal components

Factors	Eigenvalues	Portion of total dispersion, %	Cumulative eigenvalue	Cumulative dispersion, %
factor 1	25,30511	68,39219	25,30511	68,3922
factor 2	9,17850	24,80675	34,48361	93,1989
factor 3	2,51639	6,80106	37,00000	100,0000

The calculations results of factor weights are presented in the table. Table 7

Indicators’ factor weights of small enterprises development

Indicator	factor 1	factor 2	factor 3	Indicator	factor 1	factor 2	factor 3
x1	0,99311	0,110996	0,037575	y13	-0,86989	0,486995	-0,078283
x2	0,98503	-0,168426	-0,036780	y14	-0,25825	-0,851577	-0,456207
x3	-0,96413	0,206506	0,166754	y15	-0,94552	-0,205500	0,252527
x4	0,99112	-0,132413	-0,012385	y16	-0,15395	-0,983280	0,097254
x5	0,86553	0,500294	0,023761	y17	-0,32198	0,095501	-0,941919
x6	0,99663	0,032956	0,075136	y18	-0,12384	0,991815	-0,031088
x7	-0,38633	0,686732	-0,615749	y19	-0,59676	0,800553	-0,054736
x8	0,96147	0,041130	-0,271832	y20	-0,96028	-0,219602	0,172173
y1	-0,96520	-0,240368	0,103036	y21	-0,96575	-0,248385	0,075004
y2	-0,44484	0,889940	-0,100631	z1	-0,94879	-0,155603	0,274939
y3	-0,84782	0,527944	-0,049805	z2	0,99815	0,054230	-0,027315
y4	-0,99690	-0,048699	0,061855	z3	0,85373	-0,519777	-0,031369
y5	-0,89481	-0,446390	0,006604	z4	0,99919	0,040075	-0,004604
y6	-0,86097	0,502213	-0,080731	z5	-0,92222	-0,377865	-0,082005
y7	-0,91210	-0,140674	-0,385082	z6	-0,48690	-0,787597	-0,377645
y8	-0,91771	0,368253	-0,148973	z7	-0,97711	-0,209217	0,038568
y9	-0,65531	-0,752810	-0,062009	z8	-0,98639	-0,153522	0,058948
y10	-0,49744	0,861783	-0,099423	eigenvalues	25,30511	9,178497	2,516391
y11	0,57131	-0,557298	-0,602511	portion of dispersion, %	0,68392	0,248067	0,068011
y12	-0,92150	-0,388381	0,001803

We will continue to utilize calculated matrix of factor weights, eigenvalues, and portions of dispersion with a view to identify indicator weights of small enterprises development in Ukraine.

The calculation of weights will be performed in the following order [4, p. 274]:

1. We find maximum absolute value of factor weight in each row of factor weights matrix:

₍₃₎

where – number of column where contains maximum value.

2. We calculate products of factor weights and portions of dispersion

which it explains :

₍₄₎

where – table eigenvalues of factor values, – indicators number of small

3. We find addition of products in terms of all the factors:

₍₅₎

4. We calculate the weight of each indicators by the formula:

₍₆₎

In accordance with suggested method of weight calculations in terms of factor weight, it possible to draw a table (Table 8).

Table 8

Coefficient of factor weights

coefficient of labour force	0,255572
coefficient of financial resources	0,490128
coefficient of physical resources	0,2543

To calculate the indicators of small businesses development, we will apply additive convolution which for labour force is:

₍₇₎

We will make similar calculations of physical and financial resources [4, p. 275] (Table 9).

Table 9

Indicators’ calculated results of small enterprises development in Ukraine

Years	Indicator values of small business development in Ukraine
	Labour force	Financial resources	Physical resources
2006	0,214	0,124	0,141
2007	0,198	0,153	0,174
2008	0,169	0,251	0,209
2009	0,183	0,221	0,102
2010	0,165	0,244	0,102
2011	0,141	0,301	0,129
2012	0,125	0,343	0,136
2013	0,120	0,381	0,133
2014	0,032	0,241	0,067

Conducted analysis of small businesses development in Ukraine has demonstrated the decline of all significant indicators in 2014. Labour force indicators fell from 0.12 to 0.032 – the biggest drop. Generally, the lowering of labour force indicators was rooted in 2010, instead of this, we observed slight growth of financial resources indicators in 2011, on the contrary, these indicators dropped from 0.381 to 0.241 in 2014. The physical resources indicator has increased from 2011, but dropped significantly from 0.133 to 0.067 in 2014.

On the third stage during the assessment of small businesses development in Ukraine, we will calculate integral index of small enterprises development.

Since each of small businesses development indicators has a various influence force on integral index of small enterprises development, we will calculate weighing coefficient according to the previous justified methodical basis of weights calculations [4, p. 277].

The results of indicators calculations in integral index of small enterprises development are presented in the Table 10.

Table 10

The matrix of factor indicators of small businesses development in Ukraine

Indicators	Factors
	Фактор 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Labour force	0,167068	0,025121	-0,00619
Financial resources	-0,40277	0,004833	-0,01316
Physical resources	-0,03991	-0,05204	0,004178
The portion of dispersion	0,68392	0,248067	0,068011

Maximum absolute values of factor weight are equal to the first and second indicators amounted 93.9 percent of total dispersion. The first factor – 68.39 percent of total dispersion – includes physical and financial resources, their factor weights are equal to 0.167 and -0.402 respectively. The second factor explains 24.8 percent of total variation and loads on physical resources, factor weight equals to -0.052.

We have multiplied maximum factor weight of each indicator by factor value which explains it, and we have products: 0,114; 0,275; 0,013. A portion of products and their additions give an opportunity to calculate weighing coefficient of indicators [4, p. 278]:

- labour force - 0,284;

- financial resources – 0,684;

- physical resources – 0,032.

As a result of calculations, financial resources are characterized

by the highest weight, physical resources – by the lowest weight.

Taking into consideration all the calculated values of indicators of small enterprises development in a view of weighing coefficients and utilized additive convolution, we have calculated integral index of small businesses development in Ukraine. The dynamics of small businesses’ integral indicator in Ukraine during 2006-2014 is represented in the Figure 2.

Fig. 2. The dynamics of integral index of small businesses development in Ukraine during 2006-2014.

The dynamics analysis of small businesses development in Ukraine indicates that during 2006-2008 there was a tendency to increase by the level of 0.23. On the contrary, 2008-2009 is characterized by the decline to 0.21 due to the influence of global economic crisis and crisis transmission on Ukraine. However, in 2010 the level of small enterprises development has been improved, integral indicators was stage-by-stage increasing by -0.30 in 2013. The integral indicator of small businesses development dropped to 0.18 in 2014 that almost equals to the level of 2007 caused by economic and political challenges in Ukraine (anti-terrorist operation, erosion of purchasing power, exchange rate fluctuations, and increased level of tax burden) that essentially hinder the small business development in Ukraine.

Generally, integral indicator’s level of small businesses development in Ukraine (permissible value is from 0 to 1) demonstrates a low level of development as during the analyzed period the indicator was showing the dynamics from 0.15 to 0.30, it is only a third of the possible values.

Conclusions. The study showed the level of small business development in Ukraine analyzed by means of statistical indicators that are corresponding to such directions of enterprise operation as financial resources, physical resources, and labour force. For the purpose of identifying the overall development trend of small businesses, we have calculated integral indicator through justification for statistical indicators of selected directions, further normalization of all the directions, justification for weighing coefficients of each direction, and additive convolution, as a result.

On the one side, we have revealed that development indicator of physical resources demonstrates development trend from 0.141 in 2006 to 0.209 in 2008 and from 0.102 in 2009 to 0.133 in 2013, at the same time, in 2014 this indicator reached 0.067. On the other side, the development indicator of labour force showed a constant downtrend from 0.214 in 2006 to 0.032 in 2014. The development indicator’s level of financial resources indicated an upward trend during the analyzed period, with the exception of 2008-2009 and 2014, in particular from 0.124 in 2006 to 0.251 in 2008 and from 0.221 in 2009 to 0.381 in 2013, during the 2014 this indicator dropped to the mark of 0.241 (the level of 2010). The integral indicator calculations of small businesses demonstrated downtrend in period of economic crisis and the indicator is now within the range of 0.15 and 0.30 that signals about the low level of small businesses development in Ukraine.

References

1. http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/

2. Артюхова Л.В., Рущенко Н.М., Зінченко Т.В. Узагальнені критерії якості в задачах багатокритеріальної оптимізації / [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу: http://dspace.nuft.edu.ua/jspui/handle/123456789/11795

3. Горынский М. Малый бизнес в Украине — тревожные перспективы / [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу: http://intercredit.com.ua/39/article6299

4. Кардаш О.Л. Науково-методичні засади вдосконалення оцінки продовольчої безпеки України / О.Л.Кардаш // Моделювання та інформаційні технології в економіці : Монографія / За заг. ред. В. М. Соловйова. – Черкаси, 2014. – С. 263-280

5. Лавренчук Е.  Обличчям до малого бізнесу / [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу: http://news.finance.ua/ua/news/~/273161

6. Національна економіка:підручник / П. В. Круш, С. О. Тульчинська, М. В. Шашина та ін.; за ред. П. В. Круша. - 2-ге вид. - К. : Каравела, 2008. - 428 с.

7. Турчак В. В. Сучасний стан, проблеми та перспективи розвитку малого бізнесу в Україні / В. В. Турчак // Молодий вчений. - 2013. - № 1(01). - С. 39-44. - Режим доступу: http://nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/molv_2013_1(01)__9.pdf

8. http://www.statosphere.ru/blog/108-statfactor.html