Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized The World Bank Group BEEPS At-A-Glance Armenia December 21 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Contents Introduction... 1 1. Obstacles to Current Operations... 2 2. Unofficial Payments and Corruption... 3. Crime... 6. Regulations and Red Tape... 7. Customs and Cross Border Trade... 8 6. Taxation... 9 7. Labor and Workforce Development... 1 8. Firm Financing... 11 9. Legal and Judicial Issues... 13 1. Infrastructure... 1 11. Innovation... 1 12. Specific Government-Business Interactions... 16 13. State capture ( & )... 18 Sample Summary... 19 Annex I Obstacles to Current Operations, Summary... 2 Annex II Methodological Notes... 23
Introduction BEEPS The EBRD-World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) is a joint initiative of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank. The BEEPS has been carried out in five rounds: in 1999, 22,, 28, and 212/13 (the latest BEEPS in Russian Federation was conducted in 211/12) and covers virtually all of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, as well as Turkey. The BEEPS covers a broad range of issues about the business environment, and this note presents some simple indicators for key areas. The Instrument There were some changes in the 212/ questionnaire that made it slightly different from 28 mostly due to the addition of new questions. While some questions were modified in terms of wording or response options, this BEEPS at-a- Glance covers questions that are comparable across periods. The Annex provides additional information on methods of calculation, comparability of indicators and specific differences, if any. Sampling Methodology and Weights The sampling methodology is the same in 28 and. The BEEPS sample for Armenia includes 36 firms. To account for the differences in the distribution of the different sectors between the 28 and samples, in this report all frequencies and means reported in this document are weighted. The weighting variable in both data sets is named wmedian. Sample Sizes for Indicators For a number of indicators, the number of firms that responded to a question is smaller than the overall country sample size. In most cases, the difference is attributable to preceding filter questions. Questions for which the smaller number of respondents is due to filtering are marked with a superscript indicator ( 1 ) in Annex II. Other questions have a smaller number of respondents due to the survey instrument, e.g. manufacturing or service modules. Sample sizes for each indicator are located in the Annex. Data Notes This note focuses exclusively on the Main BEEPS questionnaires for 28 and 212/13 and presents weighted averages over all firms with non-missing data. See the Annex for descriptions and definitions of the regional and sub-regional comparators. Regional and sub-regional averages of the appropriate country-level estimates for 28 are included for comparison purposes. The statistical significance of the differences in all country level estimates is reported in Appendix II. Raw data is available at http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/nada/inde x.php/catalog Authors This note was prepared by Gregory Kisunko (TTL, Sr. Public Sector Specialist, ESCP) and Branco Ponomariov (Consultant, ECSP). Citation Please refer to the data in all uses as the EBRD- World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS). Standard practice is to use this lengthy citation the first time the BEEPS is referenced in the document and the shorthand BEEPS thereafter. Disclaimer The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this note are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Armenia 1
1. Obstacles to Current Operations 1.1: Obstacles to Current Operations Percentage of firms indicating issues are not a problem 28 Arm CAU Tax rates Corruption 1 21 3 Arm CAU Tax rates Corruption 1 18 63 Electricity 1 Electricity 8 Skills and education of workers 8 Skills and education of workers 79 Access to finance 3 Access to finance 3 Crime, theft and disorder 8 Crime, theft and disorder 91 Tax administration 38 Tax administration 38 Telecommunications 39 Telecommunications 79 Courts 66 Courts 9 Access to land 6 Access to land 6 Business, licensing and permits 6 Business, licensing and permits 83 Transport 1 Transport 6 Labor regulations 9 Labor regulations 88 Customs and trade regulations 3 Customs and trade regulations 7 Practices of informal economy competitors 3 Practices of informal economy competitors 79 Political instability 17 Political instability 9 Armenia 2
1. Obstacles to Current Operations contd. 1.2: Ranking of Problems 28 and Relative rank of problems measured by the mean score. The most severe problem ranks number 1, the least 16. Rank in 28 Rank in Tax rates 2 1 Corruption 6 Electricity 11 11 Skills and education of workers 12 1 Access to finance 2 Crime, theft and disorder 1 1 Tax administration 8 3 Telecommunications 9 13 Courts 1 16 Access to land 13 7 Business licensing and permits 16 12 Transport 7 8 Labor regulations 1 1 Customs and trade regulations 6 Practices of informal economy competitors 3 9 Political instability 1 Armenia 3
2. Unofficial Payments and Corruption 2.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Corruption Percentage of firms indicating corruption is not a problem 2.2: Bribe Frequency Percentage of firms saying unofficial payments are frequent 1 63 79 3 36 33 28 3 1 28 18 1 13 3 9 2.3a: Bribe Tax: Reports of Unofficial Payments Percentage of firms reporting unofficial payments 1 12 16 16 3 2 28 16 2.3b: Bribe Tax - All Firms Bribes as percentage of annual sales 1 8 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 28 2.3c: Bribe Tax - Firms Reporting Payments Bribes as percentage of annual sales 3 2 1 36 1 3 8 28 2.: Unofficial Payments: Taxes Percentage of firms stating bribery is frequent in dealing with taxes 3 2 1 2 9 13 9 6 28 2.: Unofficial Payments: Customs Percentage of firms stating bribery is frequent in dealing with customs/ imports 3 2 1 1 9 12 7 7 28 2.6: Unofficial Payments: Courts Percentage of firms stating bribery is frequent in dealing with courts 3 2 1 11 6 7 6 3 28 Armenia
2. Unofficial Payments and Corruption contd. 2.7: Participation in Government Procurement Percentage of firms that attempted to secure government contracts 1 28 2.8: Unofficial Payments: Government Contracts - All Firms Percentage of contract value typically paid to secure a government contract 2 1 1 28 2 21 19 17 1 18 2 2 1 1 2.9: Unofficial Payments: Government Contracts Firms reporting payments Percentage of contract value typically paid to secure a government contract 2 1 1 9 1 7 7 1 1 28 Armenia
3. Crime 3.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Crime Percentage of firms indicating crime is not a problem 1 91 93 8 7 39 7 28 3.2: Payments for Security Percentage of firms that pay for security, e.g. equipment, personnel, or professional security services 1 9 62 6 8 28 3.3a: Security Costs - All Firms Percentage of annual sales used for security payments 1 8 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 28 3.3b: Security Costs - Firms Making Payments Percentage of annual sales used for security payments 1 8 6 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 28 3.: Losses as a Consequence of Crime Percentage of firms that suffered from losses as a result of theft, robbery, vandalism or arson over the previous 12 months 1 11 11 2 2 28 1 3.a: Losses as a Consequence of Crime: Percentage of Annual Sales - All Firms Estimated losses due to theft, robbery, vandalism or arson 3 2 1 1 1 28 3.b: Losses as a Consequence of Crime: Percentage of Annual Sales - Firms Experiencing Losses Estimated losses due to theft, robbery, vandalism or arson 1 1 8 7 28 Armenia 6
. Regulations and Red Tape.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Business Licensing Percentage of firms indicating business licensing and permits are not a problem 1 6 83 9 88 28.2a: Time Tax: Distribution of Firms Percentage of firms that spent no time, % or less, or more than % of senior management's time dealing with public officials or public services.2b: Time Tax - All Firms Percentage of senior management's time spent dealing with public officials or public services.2c: Time Tax - Firms Spending Time Percentage of senior management's time spent dealing with public officials or public services 1% % 1 12 6 9 31 13 1 1 28 1 28 % % % 66 72 18 17 Arm 8 6 Arm 13 CAU 8 CAU 13 8 > <= No Time 62 9 2 26 13 13 1 12 13 7 16 17 16 11 12 17 Armenia 7
. Customs and Cross Border Trade.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Customs Regulations Percentage of firms indicating customs regulations are not a problem 1 3 7 8 7 9 72 28.2: Unofficial Payments: Customs Percentage of firms stating that bribery is frequent in dealing with customs/imports 3 28 2 1 1 9 12 7 7.3a: Direct Exports: Distribution of Firms Percentage of firms that had no sales, % or less, or more than % of annual sales from exports 1% % 8 1 82 2 1 3 6 93 9 96 6 6 12 12 82 82.3b: Direct Exports - All Firms Percentage of total sales coming from direct exports 8 7 3 1 7 28.3c: Direct Exports - Firms with Sales from Exports Percentage of total sales coming from direct exports 6 3 1 37 32 28 % Arm 8 Arm 13 CAU 8 CAU 13 8 > <= No exports 13 Armenia 8
6. Taxation 6.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Tax Rates Percentage of firms indicating tax rates are not a problem 1 21 2 18 1 18 28 3 6.2: Obstacles to Current Operations: Tax Administration Percentage of firms indicating tax admnistration is not a problem 1 38 38 6 33 28 6.3: Unofficial Payments: Taxes Percentage of firms stating bribery is frequent in dealing with taxes 3 2 1 2 9 13 9 6 28 6.: Tax Inspections Percent of firms visited by tax officials in the last year 1 79 77 68 62 8 28 6.a: Frequency of Tax Inspections All firms Average number of times firms were inspected by tax officials in the last year 1 8 28 6.b: Frequency of Tax Inspections Inspected firms Average number of times firms were inspected by tax officials in the last year 1 8 28 6 6 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 Armenia 9
7. Labor and Workforce Development 7.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Labor Regulations Percentage of firms indicating labor regulations are not a problem 1 9 88 9 67 69 7.2: Obstacles to Current Operations: Skills and Education of Workers Percentage of firms indicating skills and education of available workers is not a problem 1 79 8 8 8 3 28 6 28 7.3: Professionalism of Labor Percentage of employees that have a university degree or higher 1 9 61 6 2 2 28 29 7.: Provision of Formal Training Percentage of firms offering training for employees Arm CAU Permanent Employees 28 1 18 3 3 7.: Percent of Employees Trained Percentage of employees participating in training Arm CAU Production 28 Non-Production 28 1 23 36 33 22 27 Permanent Employees 1 1 3 Production Non-production 3 6 3 2 68 62 Armenia 1
8. Firm Financing 8.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Access to Finance Percentage of firms indicating access to finance is not a problem 1 3 33 37 33 3 28 9 8.2: Adequacy of Firm Finances Percentage of firms stating they did not apply for a loan because it was not needed 1 76 6 68 69 67 71 28 8.3: Purchasing on Credit Percentage of businesses purchasing input materials paid for on credit 1 1 39 38 63 6 28 8.a: Purchases Made on Credit - All Firms Percentage of purchases of input materials paid for on credit, for all firms 1 18 21 17 17 28 39 8.b: Purchases Made on Credit - Firms Purchasing on Credit Percentage of purchases of input materials paid for on credit 1 8 61 28 7 8.a: Credit Extensions to Clients: Distribution of Firms Percentage of firms that had no sales on credit, % or less, or more than % of annual sales made on credit 1% % % % % 23 33 3 Arm 8 13 18 3 31 3 1 Arm 13 CAU 8 9 3 6 CAU 13 6 27 27 8 33 32 3 13 8.b: Credit Extensions to Clients - All Firms Percentage of sales to customers sold on credit 1 3 21 2 16 9 28 38 8.c: Credit Extensions to Clients - Firms Extending Credit Percentage of sales to customers sold on credit 1 3 9 39 6 28 6 > <= No sales Armenia 11
8. Firm Financing contd. 8.6: Sources of Firm Financing Percentage of firm financing coming from sources other than internal funds or retained earnings 28 Arm CAU Banks: private and stateowned 22 21 23 Arm CAU Banks: private and stateowned 1 1 1 Non-bank financial institutions / Other 3 2 3 Non-bank financial institutions / Other 3 7 Trade credit from suppliers or customers 3 3 Trade credit from suppliers or customers 1 1 8.7: Loan Applications Percentage of firms indicating the following options as the main reason the firm did not apply for a loan 28 Application procedures too complex 6 6 Application procedures too complex 9 18 Unfavorable interest rates 13 1 1 Unfavorable interest rates 13 16 16 Collateral reqs too high 7 Collateral reqs too high 1 1 3 Did not think it would be approved Arm CAU Other 1 1 1 6 Did not think it would be approved Arm CAU Other 1 1 Armenia 12
9. Legal and Judicial Issues 9.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Courts Percentage of firms indicating courts are not a problem 1 9 97 66 63 6 79 28 9.2: Use of Courts Percentage of firms that have been to court in the past three years 1 22 19 18 11 26 28 2 9.3: Fairness and Impartiality of Courts Percentage of firms indicating that court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted 1 3 3 6 1 39 28 1 9.: Expeditiousness of courts Percentage of firms indicating that court system is quick 1 3 3 3 67 28 3 9.: Ability to enforce court decisions Percentage of firms indicating that court system is able to enforce its decisions 9.6: Unofficial Payments: Courts Percentage of firms stating bribery is frequent in dealing with courts 1 69 67 9 7 6 28 2 1 1 11 6 7 3 6 28 Armenia 13
1. Infrastructure 1.1: Obstacles to Current Operations: Electricity Percentage of firms indicating electricity is not a problem 1 8 73 1 2 6 1.2: Obstacles to Current Operations: Telecommunications Percentage of firms indicating telecommunications is not a problem 1 39 79 81 7 1.3: Obstacles to Current Operations: Transport Percentage of firms indicating transport is nota problem 1 1 6 7 1 66 28 28 28 1.: Experienced Power Outages Percentage of firms experiencing power outages over the last 12 months 1 1 38 32 3 28 39 1.a: Sales Lost due to Power Outages - All Firms Losses due to power outages as a percent of total annual sales 1 1 1 1 2 1 28 1.b: Sales Lost due to Power Outages - Firms Experiencing Losses Losses due to power outages as a percent of total annual sales 2 1 1 3 2 6 28 1.6 Use of Email Communication Percentage of firms using email to communicate with clients or suppliers 1 81 89 76 73 8 28 Armenia 1
11. Innovation 11.1: New Product/Service Development Percentage of firms that have developed new products or services in the past three years 1 28 63 6 1 13 7 11.2: Research and Development Activities Percentage of firms that have spent funds on research and development in the past three years 1 28 23 22 1 9 3 3 Armenia 1
12. Specific Government-Business Interactions 12.1: New Electrical Connection Percentage of firms that applied in the last two years 1 28 12.1a: Electrical Connection Wait Time Average number of days 12 9 28 12.1b: Electrical Connection - Bribes Percentage of firms indicating that an informal payment was expected 1 28 1 12 13 2 6 1 6 3 8 3 16 12 6 13 1 1 11 12.2: New Water Connection Percentage of firms that applied in the last two years 1 28 12.2a: Water Connection Wait Time Average number of days 12 9 28 12.2b: Water Connection - Bribes Percentage of firms indicating informal payment was expected 1 28 8 1 8 2 6 3 32 26 1 13 13 9 8 7 7 12.3: Construction Permits Percentage of firms that applied in the last two years 1 1 16 18 9 6 28 1 12.3a: Construction Permit Wait Time Average number of days 2 16 12 8 26 39 21 23 78 28 79 12.3b: Construction Permit - Bribes Percentage of firms indicating an informal payment was expected 1 19 21 21 1 17 28 Armenia 16
12. Specific Government-Business Interactions contd. 12.: Tax Inspections Percentage of firms indicating they were inspected 1 79 77 68 62 8 28 12.a: Number of Inspections / Meetings with Tax Officials Average number for the last year 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 28 12.b: Tax Inspections Bribes Percentage of firms indicating an informal payment was expected 1 12 13 9 28 8 12.: Import License Percentage of firms that applied in the last two years 1 28 12.a: Import License Wait Time Average number of days 1 28 12.b: Import License Bribes Percentage of firms indicating an informal gift was expected 1 28 9 1 8 7 7 9 1 8 7 7 6 8 1 1 7 12.6: Operating License Percentage of firms that applied in the last two years 1 28 12.6a: Operating License Wait Time Average number of days 12 9 28 12.6b: Operating License Bribes Percentage of firms indicating an informal gift was expected 1 28 23 17 22 1 1 1 6 3 3 27 26 2 17 13 11 11 9 1 9 Armenia 17
13. State capture ( & ) 13.1a: Private payments/gifts or other benefits to parliamentarians to gain advantages Percentage of respondents indicating gifts/payments have "no impact" 1 62 9 78 79 79 77 13.1b: Private payments/gifts or other benefits to parliamentarians to gain advantages Percentage of respondents indicating gifts/payments have "moderate", "major", or "decisive" impact 1 21 11 9 11 13 13.2a: Private payments/gifts or other benefits to government officials to gain advantages Percentage of respondents indicating gifts/payments have "no impact" 1 6 6 73 77 77 77 13.2b: Private payments/gifts or other benefits to government officials to gain advantages Percentage of respondents indicating gifts/payments have "moderate", "major", or "decisive" impact 1 22 27 1 11 12 1 13.3a: Private payments/gifts or other benefits to local government officials to gain advantages Percentage of respondents indicating gifts/payments have "no impact" 1 9 8 77 78 13.3b: Private payments/gifts or other benefits to local government officials to gain advantages Percentage of respondents indicating gifts/payments have "moderate", "major", or "decisive" impact 1 23 27 12 1 1 1 Armenia 18
Sample Summary Unweighted distribution of firms: 28 Industry Sample composition (Armenia) Industry Sample composition (Armenia) Transport 7% Other Services % Construction 8% Transport 6% Other Services % Construction 7% Hotels & Restaurants 9% Hotels & Restaurants 1% Wholesale & Retail 1% Manufacturing 31% Wholesale & Retail 2% Manufacturing 31% 28 Industry Sample composition () Industry Sample composition () Transport % Other Services 1% Construction 9% Hotels & Restaurants % Transport % Other Services 2% Construction 9% Hotels & Restaurants % Wholesale & Retail 36% Manufacturi ng % Wholesale & Retail % Manufacturing % Sector 28 Sample Description Sample Description Construction Construction Construction Hotels/Rest Hotels and restaurants Hotels and restaurants Manufacturing Manufacturing Food, Textiles, Garments, Plastics and rubber, Chemicals, Non-metallic mineral products, Basic metals, Metal fabrication, Machinery and equipment, Electronics, Other manufacturing W&R Wholesale and retail trade Wholesale, Retail Transport Transport, storage and communication Transport, storage and communication Other Svc Other services Information technology Armenia 19
Annex I Obstacles to Current Operations, Summary AI.1: Obstacles to Current Operations Percentage of firms indicating issues are a moderate, major, or very severe obstacle to doing business 28 Arm CAU Tax rates Corruption 1 7 Arm CAU Tax rates Corruption 1 73 27 Electricity 1 Electricity 13 Skills and education of workers 39 Skills and education of workers 16 Access to finance 8 Access to finance 3 Crime, theft and disorder 3 Crime, theft and disorder Tax administration 9 Tax administration Telecommunications 1 Telecommunications 1 Courts Courts Access to land 31 Access to land 3 Business, licensing and permits 16 Business, licensing and permits 13 Transport 7 Transport 26 Labor regulations Labor regulations 8 Customs and trade regulations 7 Customs and trade regulations 36 Practices of informal economy competitors 8 Practices of informal economy competitors 1 Political instability Political instability Armenia 2
Annex I Obstacles to Current Operations contd. AI.2a: Obstacles to Current Operations 28: Response Distributions Percentage of firms indicating each response option ("no obstacle", "minor obstacle", "moderate obstacle", "major obstacle", "very severe obstacle") 28 Tax Rates Courts Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 21 1 31 23 1 Arm 66 1 9 6 9 CAU 2 1 31 2 11 CAU 63 13 13 6 18 16 26 1 6 17 16 12 9 Corruption Access to Land Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 3 1 16 17 22 Arm 6 1 12 9 CAU 36 1 22 1 13 CAU 1 7 1 2 9 33 1 18 17 17 11 12 12 1 Electricity Business Licensing and Permits Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 1 18 16 12 13 Arm 6 2 1 2 CAU 2 1 11 18 13 CAU 9 17 16 6 2 1 11 17 19 21 18 1 6 Skills and Education of Labor Transport Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 8 13 16 1 9 Arm 1 12 21 13 13 CAU 8 1 16 1 7 CAU 12 16 11 7 3 16 2 19 11 1 16 1 1 8 Access to finance Labor Regulations Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 3 12 21 12 Arm 9 1 18 CAU 33 1 23 23 7 CAU 67 1 13 1 33 19 2 16 9 21 19 7 3 Crime, Theft, and Disorder Customs and Trade Regulations Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 8 8 12 17 1 Arm 3 9 21 11 16 CAU 7 13 1 18 8 CAU 7 12 16 8 7 39 17 16 1 12 9 1 13 8 Tax Administration Practices of informal economy competitors Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 38 13 28 1 11 Arm 3 9 17 2 21 CAU 18 22 9 6 CAU 39 13 1 2 13 33 22 2 13 8 3 17 2 1 13 Telecommunications Political instability Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 39 2 1 1 13 Arm 17 8 22 2 29 CAU 16 11 13 7 CAU 37 11 1 21 16 1 13 11 12 29 1 2 18 18 Armenia 21
Annex I Obstacles to Current Operations contd. AI.2b: Obstacles to Current Operations : Response Distributions Percentage of firms indicating each response option ("no obstacle", "minor obstacle", "moderate obstacle", "major obstacle", "very severe obstacle") Tax Rates Courts Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 18 9 3 2 13 Arm 9 1 3 CAU 1 12 2 17 6 CAU 97 1 1 1 3 1 26 19 1 79 7 8 2 Corruption Access to Land Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 63 1 1 8 6 Arm 6 1 3 1 CAU 79 8 6 2 CAU 73 8 1 3 1 3 12 1 11 9 8 8 3 Electricity Business Licensing and Permits Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 8 7 3 Arm 83 9 3 2 CAU 73 7 7 9 CAU 88 3 6 2 1 6 12 9 11 9 1 9 2 Skills and Education of Labor Transport Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 79 9 2 Arm 6 9 18 3 CAU 8 1 CAU 7 9 9 6 2 6 12 13 1 66 13 11 6 3 Access to finance Labor Regulations Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 3 62 1 16 9 Arm 88 7 1 1 CAU 37 32 1 1 6 CAU 9 2 3 1 9 18 17 11 6 69 1 11 2 Crime, Theft, and Disorder Customs and Trade Regulations Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 91 3 3 1 2 Arm 7 7 17 11 8 CAU 93 2 2 1 1 CAU 8 8 3 7 12 9 72 11 1 3 Tax Administration Practices of informal economy competitors Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 38 7 1 1 Arm 79 6 CAU 6 9 1 8 CAU 6 11 13 6 1 2 1 6 8 16 16 12 8 Telecommunications Political instability Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Obstacle: No Minor Moderate Major V. Severe Arm 79 11 7 2 1 Arm 9 11 21 13 7 CAU 81 7 6 2 CAU 6 9 12 1 9 7 1 8 7 6 12 17 13 11 Armenia 22
Annex II Methodological Notes The 28 and rounds of the BEEPS consisted of three parts: the Main BEEPS sample was drawn from a universe of eligible firms in manufacturing and retail/wholesale industries with five or more full time employees located in major urban centers. The Manufacturing Module refers to additional questions asked only of firms in the manufacturing sector. The Services Module refers to additional questions asked only of firms in the services sector. and sub-regional averages are computed from country level estimates, with each country having an equal weight. The table below presents the country composition of the region and the four sub-regions. The average () includes all 29 countries: Albania (Alb), Armenia (Arm), Azerbaijan (Aze), Belarus (Bel), Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Bulgaria (Bul), Croatia (Cro), Czech Republic (Cze), Estonia (Est), FYR Macedonia (Mac), Georgia (Geo), Hungary (Hun), Kazakhstan (Kaz), Kosovo (Kos), Kyrgyz Republic (Kyr), Latvia (Lat), Lithuania (Lit), Moldova (Mol), Montenegro (Mon), Poland (Pol), Romania (Rom), Russia (Rus), Serbia (Ser), Slovak Republic (Slk), Slovenia (Sln), Tajikistan (Taj), Turkey (Tur), Ukraine (Ukr), and Uzbekistan (Uzb). Caucasus (CAU) Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Central Asia (CAS) Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Uzbekistan Western Balkans (WBL) Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina FYR Macedonia Kosovo Montenegro Serbia Western FSU (WFS) Belarus Moldova Ukraine European Union (E11) Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia NOTE: Russia and Turkey are not included in any of sub-regions, while being included in the average. Croatia joined the EU in. However, for comparison purposes Croatia is included in the EU-11 sub-regional comparison in 28 as well, even though it was not yet an EU member at that time. Accordingly, Croatia is also not included in the WBL sub-regional estimate, even though it still belonged in this group of countries in 28. Missing values: The instrument for both years include coding for Don t Know (DK), Not Applicable (NA), and Refuse to Answer (REF). These responses were recoded into missing values before producing any of the estimates in this report. Changes in the survey instrument: There are minimal differences in some questions wording and response options across the two years. Such differences are explained in the notes to individual charts and are flagged in table AII as appropriate. Branching / filtering questions: For a number of indicators, the number of firms that responded to a question is smaller than the overall country sample size. In most cases, the difference is attributable to preceding filter questions. Questions for which the smaller number of respondents is due to filtering are marked with a superscript indicator (1). Survey module-specific questions: Other questions have a smaller number of respondents due to the survey instrument, e.g. manufacturing or service modules. If a question applies to different subset of firms based on BEEPS module, this is explicitly indicated in the corresponding note for each particular chart and also flagged in table AII.1 with a superscript indicator: ( a ) if the question applies only to the Service Module respondents and ( b ) if the question only applies to the Manufacturing Module respondents only. Armenia 23
Outlier observations The BEEPS survey contains some open-ended questions (e.g. percentage of time senior management spends on dealing with regulations, amounts as percentage of annual sales typically paid as bribes, or the result of crime, power outages; it also includes items asking how many days do firms typically wait to obtain various permits or state services). In the vast majority of cases respondents have provided plausible values, however there is a limited number of outlier observations with extremely high values (e.g. losing 1% of sales to crime or power outages, or being visited hundreds of times by tax officials). Although in some cases the scenarios reflected in such responses may be plausible, and the incidence of such observations is negligible, there is no practical way to verify with certainty, as well as to distinguish from possible data entry errors. Nevertheless, to avoid biasing the estimates, the following decision rules are used in this report to recode outlier values into missing values: Bribe tax (question J7.a & b) excludes observations reporting 1% or more of annual sales typically paid as bribes Kickback tax (question J6) excludes observations reporting 1% or more of government contract value typically paid as bribes Payments for security (question I2.a & b) excludes observations reporting 1% or more of annual sales paid for security Losses as a result of crime (question I.a & b) excludes observations reporting 1% or more of annual sales lost to crime Number of tax visits/meetings (question J) excludes observations reporting more than 36 visits/meetings (the maximum length of the time period the question refers to) Wait time for new electrical connection (question C), wait time for new water connection (question C13), wait time for new construction permit (question G3), wait time to obtain an import license (question J11), and wait time to obtain an operating license (question J1) all exclude observations reporting more than 73 days (the maximum length of the time period the question refers to) Rounding For legibility, all data labels in the charts are rounded to the nearest whole number. Users should be particularly aware of rounding when working with charts representing small subsets of firms or small absolute values (e.g. charts 2.3b, 2.3c, etc.) as in such cases the rounding error may obscure significant relative differences. Statistical significance Not all changes between the 28- estimates are statistically significant. Table AII.1 provides rudimentary assessment of whether the changes in the estimates between the two periods are statistically significant. The significance estimates are obtained by merging the 28 and the data sets and running a bivariate linear regression for every variable in the report, using the year binary variable as an independent variable coded 1 if the year is, and if 28. The means comparison is performed for the variables as operationalized in the BEEPS report, if different from the raw variable. For example, in table AII.1 compares the proportion of respondents answering that tax rates is not an obstacle across the two years as a vbinary variable, not the overall distribution of original responses ( point Likert scale). When rigorously assessing statistigal significance is of special concern, further analysis should be performed as appropriate, taking into account the different measurement scales (nominal, ordinal, interval), the sample sizes for the different variables, etc., and chosing specifically designed tests. Notes for individual charts Chart 1.1 28 and 211 used scale with five points including: no obstacle, minor obstacle, moderate obstacle, major obstacle and very severe obstacle as valid responses. The values in this chart represent the proportion of respondents indicating that an issue is no obstacle to current operations. The questions on telecommunications as an obstacle was only asked of the service sector respondents in 28, but of all sectors in. Armenia 2
Chart 1.2 The rankings of obstacles in both years are based on the mean score across all firms in each country for each indicator for the respective year. The response options ( no obstacle, minor obstacle, moderate obstacle, major obstacle, and very severe obstacle ) are coded with values, 1, 2, 3, and respectively in the data sets for both years. These values were averaged at the country level for each separate issue, whereas a higher mean indicates relatively greater severity of an issue. Thus, for each year, the most severe obstacle, or that with the highest mean score is ranked number 1, the least severe, or that with the lowest mean score is ranked 16. Chart 2.2 In both years, the respondents were asked to estimate how often is the statement It is common for firms in my line of business to have to pay some irregular additional payments or gifts to get things done with regard to customs, taxes, licenses, regulations, services etc. true on a 6 point Likert scale: never, seldom, sometimes, frequently, very and always. This chart represents the set of respondents answering any of the highest 3 options, e.g. frequent, very frequent, or always. In 28, option is labeled usually ; In it is very frequently. Chart 2.3 (a-c) Respondents in both years could indicate the cost of unofficial payments/bribes either as a percent of annual sales (question J7 (a)) or as an absolute amount (question J7 (b)). For those respondents who indicated a specific value (i.e. total cost of bribes), the percentage of annual sales was obtained by dividing the reported total cost of bribes by the firm s total annual sales (question D2, total firm sales for the preceding year). The resulting proportion of sales spent on bribes was then combined with the observations that had directly provided a percentage estimate, and the average percentages reported here are thus a composite of the two response options. To calculate the proportion of annual sales expended on bribes for all firms (Chart 2.3b), firms reporting no payments are recoded into firms spending % of annual sales on bribes (for these questions, J7 a &b, no actual recoding needed to be made as the codes for no payments were made are already set as ). To calculate the averages for firms reporting payments (Chart 2.3c), only observations reporting payments higher than are included. Chart 3.3 (a-b) Respondents in both years could indicate the cost of security payments either as a percent of annual sales (question I2 (a)) or as an absolute amount (question I2 (b)). For those respondents who indicated a specific value of security cost, the percentage of annual sales was obtained by dividing the reported total security costs by the firm s total annual sales (question D2, total firm sales for the preceding year). The resulting proportion of sales spent on security was then combined in a single variable with the observations that had directly provided a percentage estimate, and the average percentages reported here are thus a composite of the two response options. To calculate the average security payments as a percentage of annual sales for all firms (Chart 3.3a), respondents who had indicated that they have not paid for security (question I1) were recoded into firms spending % of their annual sales on security. To calculate the security costs as a percentage of annual sales for firms making security payments, the averages only for firms answering Yes to question I2 were computed. Chart 3. (a-b) Respondents in both years could indicate the estimated losses as a result of crime either as a percent of annual sales (question I (a)) or as an absolute amount (question I (b)). For those respondents who indicated a specific value, the percentage of annual sales was obtained by dividing the reported total losses as a result of crime by the firm s total annual sales (question D2, total firm sales for the preceding year). The resulting value of crime-related losses as a percentage of annual sales was then combined in a single variable with the observations that had directly provided a percentage estimate, and the average percentages reported here are thus a composite of the two response options. To calculate the losses of crime as percentage of annual sales for all firms (Chart 3.a), respondents who had indicated that they have not experienced any losses as a result of crime (question I3) were recoded into firms experiencing % losses as a result of crime. To calculate the losses as a consequence of crime as a percentage of annual sales for firms experiencing losses (Chart 3.b), the averages only for firms answering Yes to question I3 and reporting more than % in losses in question j were computed. Chart 7. The question regarding formal training provided to employees was only asked in the Manufacturing Module in 28, while in 211 the question is present in all modules. Chart 7. For both years the question is only asked in the Manufacturing Module. Armenia
Chart 8. The response options changed slightly across cycles on the question regarding sources of firm financing. In 28 and six response options were presented, but the composition of the response options has changed. Due to the structure of the question and multiple response options, the total value of the responses does not equal one hundred percent. The question focuses on sources of financing other than internal funds or retained earnings. In order to compare responses across cycles, some 28 response options were combined to match as closely as possible the responses. Specifically, Borrowing from Banks, private or state owned is provided as a single answer option in, while the 28 questionnaire lists private and state owned banks as separate answer options. Accordingly, to compute this variable in the 28 data set it is necessary to combine the responses to questions K (b) and K (c), while in the data set the variable values are stored in a single column (kbc). Similarly, borrowing from money lenders, friends and relatives, or bonds were provided as separate answer options in 28 and as a single answer option in. Chart 8.6 In, the survey question specifically and separately asks for financing coming from Non-bank financial institutions [ke] and Other (moneylenders, friends, relatives, bonds etc.) [khdj]. In 28, there is no separate response option for non-bank financial institutions, which is instead listed in Other (moneylenders, friends, relatives, non-banking financial institutions etc.) [khdej]. To make the comparison possible, the response options are merged into one by combining ke and khdj. Chart 8.7 The survey question provides 8 total response options: no need for a loan, complex application procedures, unfavorable interest rates, too nigh collateral requirements, insufficient size of loan or maturity, it is necessary to make informal payments, did not thin it would be approved, and other. For this chart, responses size of loan or maturity are insufficient and it is necessary to make informal payments are recoded into other. Charts 9.3-9. The response scale for the questions on the court system include response options: strongly disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree and strongly agree. Charts 9.3-9. represent the shares of respondents answering either tend to agree or strongly agree for each of the questions. Chart 1. (a-b) Respondents in both years could indicate the value of losses as a percent of annual sales or as an absolute amount. For those respondents who indicated a numeric value, the percentage of annual sales was obtained by dividing the reported losses due to power outages by the firm s total annual sales (question D2, total firm sales in preceding year). The resulting proportion of sales lost due to power outages was then combined in a single variable with the observations that had directly provided a percentage estimate, and the average percentages reported here are thus a composite of the two response options. To calculate the percentage of sales lost for all firms (Chart 1.a) all valid values including were used, and firms who did not experience power outages (i.e. answered No to question C6) were recoded into firms experiencing % losses. To calculate the average percentage of sales lost for firms experiencing losses (Chart 1.b), only non- values for firms who had experienced power outages were used. Chart 11.1 The question regarding new product/service development was modified slightly in its wording from 28 to. In 28, firms were asked if they introduced new products or services, whereas in they were asked if they introduced new or significantly improved products or services. Chart 11.2 In 28, firms were asked if they spent funds on research and development activities during the last financial year ; in they were asked the same question but the reference period given was during the last three years. Charts 12.1-12.6b The charts on the wait times to obtain different government services (12.1a, 12.2a, 12.3a, 12.a, 12.a, 12.6a) represent the summary estimates data after recoding outlier observations into missing (see the section Outlier observations above). The data summaries for all other charts in this section (i.e. service usage incidence and bribe request incidence) are reported without making any modification to the data. Chart 13 (a-b) The questions on state capture were not asked in 28, thus a comparison with the data is provided instead. To make the sample as comparable with the sample as possible, observations meeting the following criteria must Armenia 26
be excluded from the data: a) firms with less than employees, b) ISIC codes not included in the 28/13 samples, and c) 1% state-owned firms. The response options for this question are no impact, minor impact, moderate impact, major impact and decisive impact. Chart 13.a represents the proportion of firms reporting that unofficial payments/private gifts to the three types of government actors had no impact on their establishment. Chart 13.b represents the proportion of firms who answered moderate impact, major impact, or decisive impact. Chart AI.1 In 28 and 211, all questions pertaining to Obstacles to Current Operations used a -point Likert scale ( no obstacle, minor obstacle, moderate obstacle, major obstacle and very severe obstacle ). The data shown above is a sum of the responses indicating an individual issue as a moderate obstacle, major obstacle and very severe obstacle. The question regarding telecommunication as an obstacle was asked of all respondents in 211, but only of service sector respondents in 28. Variable Names, Survey Questions and Sample Sizes for Corresponding Charts The Survey Question column in table AII represents the question number as it appears on the actual survey protocol. In the majority of cases, the corresponding actual variable name in the data set is simply a modified version of the question label: lower case, and no dot. For example, the variable name in the data set corresponding to survey question E.3 ( Practices of Informal Economy Competitors [ ] is e3, while the variable name corresponding to question J.6a ( Over the last year, had your establishment attempted to secure [ ] is found in the data set as j6a. The survey question column presents the questions as they appear on the 212/13 surveys. If the matching question in the 28 is labeled differently, the 28 question is provided [in brackets] after the question. If a chart is based on a combination of questions (e.g. J.7, bribe tax, where respondents could indicate the amount of bribes usually paid either as a percentage of sales or as an absolute sum, recorded in two corresponding variables respectively), all letters signifying these response options are provided separated by comma (e.g. J.7a, b, rather than as J.7a and J.7b.) In some cases (e.g. K Sources of firms financing), a single variable is denoted through a combination of letters (e.g. hdej ). In these cases, there is no comma between the letters and they represent a direct match to the variable name in the data set (e.g., khdej ). Some variable names (but not the question numbers and labels) are prefixed with in the data set. All such question labels are prefixed with in the table below. If an estimate is based on a reduced sample due to preceding branching question, this is indicated in the table and in the notes with a superscript indicator ( 1 ). If a question applies only to one of the survey modules, this is also marked in the notes to the table. Armenia 27
AII.1 Sample sizes (valid n) and question numbers for the survey items Chart Chart Title 28 Survey 28- Question* change** [Total N] 38 39 id P value Sig. 1.1 Problems Doing Business - - Tax Rates 376 389 J.3a. *** Corruption 331 38 J.3f. *** Electricity 37 389 C.3a. *** Skills and education of workers 36 388 L.3b. *** Access to finance 36 39 K.3. *** Crime, theft and disorder 3 39 I.3. *** Tax administration 376 389 J.3b. *** Telecommunications a 13 389 C.3b. *** Courts 236 38 H.3. *** Access to land 299 31 G.3a. *** Business, licensing and permits 31 387 J.3c. *** Transport 371 38 D.3a. *** Labor regulations 366 39 L.3a. *** Customs and trade regulations 193 32 D.3b. *** Practices of informal economy competitors 39 386 E.3. *** Political instability 327 36 J.3e. *** 2.2 Bribe Frequency 39 33 Q.39. *** 2.3a Bribe Tax - Incidence 7 362 J.7a, b. *** 2.3b Bribe Tax - All firms 7 362 J.7a, b. *** 2.3c Bribe Tax - Firms reporting payments 77 1 J.7a, b. NS 2. Unofficial Payments: Taxes 32 339 Q.1c. *** 2. Unofficial Payments: Customs 31 33 Q.1a.36 NS 2.6 Unofficial Payments: Courts 317 332 Q.1b.18 NS 2.7 Participation in Government Procurement 3 379 J.6a. *** 2.8 Unofficial Payments: Government Contracts - All firms 1 6 17 J.6.97 NS 2.9 Unofficial Payments: Government Contracts - Firms making payments 1 12 1 J.6.8 NS 3.2 Payments for Security 378 389 I.1. *** 3.3a Security Costs - All firms 1 3 3 I.2a, b. *** 3.3b Security Costs - Firms reporting payments 1 229 37 I.2a, b.21 NS 3. Losses as a Result of Crime - Incidence 379 388 I.3.12 NS 3.a Losses as a Result of Crime - All firms 1 37 386 I.a, b.1 NS 3.b Losses as a Result of Crime - Firms experiencing losses 1 7 I.a, b.26 NS.2a Time Tax - Distribution of firms 3 3 J.2 - - % firms spending no time 3 3 J.2. *** % firms spending <=% 3 3 J.2. *** % firms spending >% 3 3 J.2.97 NS.2b Time Tax - All Firms 3 3 J.2. *** Armenia 28
.2c Time Tax - Firms Spending Time 169 2 J.2.27 NS.3a Direct Exports - Distribution of firms 38 39 D.3c - - % firms with no export sales 38 39 D.3c.2 ** % firms with less than % sales from direct exports 38 39 D.3c.17 NS % firms with more than % sales from direct exports 38 39 D.3c. **.3b Direct exports - All firms 38 39 D.3c. **.3c Direct exports - Firms with sales from exports 19 7 D.3c.23 NS 6. Tax Inspections 377 3 J.3. NS 6.a Frequency of tax inspections - All firms 377 3 J.3 & J..1 *** 6.b Frequency of Tax Inspections - Inspected firms 3 36 J..1 ** 7.3 Professionalism of Labor 3 3 Q.69.6 * 7. Provision of Formal Training: Permanent Employees b, 28 only 119 383 L.1.2 ** 7. Percent of Employees Trained: Production 1, b 13 7 L.11a b. *** Non-Production 1, b 12 7 L.11b b.1 NS 8.2 Adequacy of Firm Financing 1 39 312 K.17 [K.17].1 NS 8.3 Purchasing on Credit 379 3 K.1c [K.1d].19 NS 8.a Purchases Made on Credit - All firms 37 3 K.1c [K.1d & K.1e].18 NS 8.b Purchases Made on Credit - Firms Purchasing on credit 1 132 K.1c [K.1e].8 NS 8.a Credit Extensions to Clients 3 3 K.2c - - % of firms with no sales on credit 3 3 K.2c. *** % firms with <=% sales on credit 3 3 K.2c.88 NS % firms with >% sales on credit 3 3 K.2c. *** 8.b Credit Extensions to Clients - All firms 3 3 K.2c. *** 8.c Credit Extensions to Clients - Firms Extending Credit 181 16 K.2c. *** 8.6 Sources of Firm Financing 1, c 137 6 - - Banks: private and state-owned 137 6 K.bc [K.b, c] d. NS Non-bank financial institutions / Other c 137 6 K.e, hdj e [K.hdej].3 ** Purchased on trade credit from suppliers or customers 137 6 K.f.1 *** 8.7 Loan Applications 1 39 312 K.17 [K.17] - - Application procedures too complex 39 312 K.17 [K.17].77 NS Unfavorable interest rates 39 312 K.17 [K.17].11 NS Collateral Requirements too high 39 312 K.17 [K.17]. *** Did not think it would be approved 39 312 K.17 [K.17].91 NS Other 39 312 K.17 [K.17]. NS 9.2 Use of Courts 38 387 Q.31e.7 * 9.3 The Court System is Fair, Impartial, Uncorrupted 332 2 H.7a. *** 9. The Court System is Quick 33 27 J.1b. *** 9. The Court System is Able to Enforce its Decisions 32 2 J.1c. *** 1. Experienced Power Outages 38 386 C.6. *** 1.a Sales Lost due to Power Outages - All firms 1 331 38 C.9a, b.9 NS 1.b Sales Lost due to Power Outages- Firms Experiencing Losses 1 7 19 C.9a, b. ** Armenia 29
1.6 Use of Email Communication 379 39 C.22a. *** 11.1 New Product/Service Development c 38 39 H.1 [ O.1]. *** 11.2 Research and Development Activities c 38 39 H.6 [ O.3]. *** 12.1 New Electrical Connection 378 387 C.3.1 *** 12.1a Average wait time - number of days 1 9 18 C..3 ** 12.1b Informal gift or payment was expected 1 32 C.. *** 12.2 New Water Connection 38 387 C.12. ** 12.2a Average wait time - number of days 1 3 16 C.13.18 NS 12.2b Informal gift or payment was expected 1 2 21 C.1.6 NS 12.3 Construction Permits 38 387 G.2. *** 12.3a Average wait time - number of days 1 7 G.3. *** 12.3b Informal gift or payment was expected 1 3 7 G.. *** 12. Tax Inspections 377 3 J.3. NS 12.a Average number of tax inspections/meetings 1 3 36 J..1 ** 12.b Informal gift or payment was expected 1 233 296 J.. *** 12. Import License 378 38 J.1. *** 12.a Average wait time - number of days 1 1 J.11.1 ** 12.b Informal gift or payment was expected 1 38 13 J.12.6 * 12.6 Operating License 378 383 J.13.1 *** 12.6a Average wait time - number of days 1 6 2 J.1. *** 12.6b Informal gift or payment was expected 1 2 2 J.1. *** 13 State Capture f Q. - - 13.1 Parliamentarians 1 321 Q.a [Q.a]. *** 13.2 Government officials 2 318 Q.b [Q.b]. *** 13.3 Local/Regional officials 318 Q.c [Q.c]. *** NOTES: *28 survey question number provided [in brackets] if different from ** NS p>.1, *** p<.1, ** p<., * p<.1 1 Reduced sample size due to preceding filtering question. a Service module respondents only in 28, all respondents in b Manufacturing module respondents only in 28, all respondents in for question L1. Questions L.11a and L.11b are asked of Manufacturing module respondents only both in 28 and. c Slight change in wording/response options between 28 and. See individual chart notes in Annex I d kb and kc need to be combined in the 28 data to be compatible with (kbc) e ke and khdj need to be combined in the data to be compatible with 28 (khdej) f data Armenia 3