Search results

About 10 years ago the Singapore Government realized that entrepreneurial spirit was lacking in its general population. These conclusions were confirmed by an empirical survey, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), an annual assessment of the national level of entrepreneurial activity. The paternalistic and authoritative approach of the government contributed to the general population’s averseness to participating in riskoriented ventures.

Removing impediments to entrepreneurship is a key challenge for the government and the business sector if the island republic is to maintain its national competitiveness. This article explores the various initiatives taken by the government to stimulate risk-taking and attempts to ascertain if the various measures can be used as key factors to strengthen the inherent cultural values that stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit.The observations can serve as a useful tool for academics and managers in recognizing the cultural traits that influence and help foster entrepreneurial tendencies.

The aim of this paper is to appreciate the difficulties faced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in a small open economy such as Singapore where there is very little margin for comfort.

The approach is analytical and statistical. Comparing key ratios over time to reinforce the findings is done.

SMEs in Singapore are price‐takers in the product markets and they are also price‐takers in the input markets. When there is substantial increase in costs, SMEs will be in trouble as they cannot pass the increased costs to the buyers of their products and services.

The implication is that only the government can help SMEs. With more information, the government can be convinced that SMEs can play a big role in the economy.

The paper shows that government and the SMEs' association can find ways to help SMEs.

This article discusses how Singapore does,which has gone beyond old age and certain traditional aspects, in terms of providing social security for its people. While there are no unemployment insurance benefits because of the economic philosophy of the paternalistic government which believes that maintaining a bouyant economy is the best “insurance”, there are many other unique schemes under the Central Provident Fund (CPF) which try to assure socio‐economic welfare. From housing, the CPF schemes have extended to medical, tertiary education and asset enhancement of CPF members. Inter‐generational provisions are also encouraged which strengthen the family as a very crucial social unit. The government hopes on one hand to give the people some self‐determination and self‐destiny of their choice in social security matters. On the other, it does have many means of ensuring that people make the “right” choices. With budget surpluses, the government has also been able to “top‐up” CPF members’ saving in a few ways. All in all, despite the economic inefficiency one may criticise of enforced saving, for the political economy in Singapore, the CPF mechanism appears to have served its purposes. However, some rethinking especially in terms of privatising more schemes may be wanted by the people in time.