The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared
There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity spec...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
The Berkeley Electronic Press ; 2004 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Global jurist / Advances - Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001, 4.2004, 1, art3 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:4 ; year:2004 ; number:1 ; pages:3 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ219553882 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ219553882 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210707085658.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 090716s2004 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ219553882 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 044 | |c XD-US | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared |
| 264 | 1 | |b The Berkeley Electronic Press |c 2004 | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. | ||
| 533 | |f Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Regulation and Business Law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Regulation and Business Law | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Spall, Hugh |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Szerb, Laszlo |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Global jurist / Advances |d Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 |g 4.2004, 1, art3 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 |w (DE-600)2115502-1 |x 1535-1661 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:4 |g year:2004 |g number:1 |g pages:3 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-BEP | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 4 |j 2004 |e 1 |h 3 |y 4.2004, 1, art3 | ||
| matchkey_str |
article:15351661:2004----::hipcolglueoteiencptleesrtognzaebsnsetthnayhuiesaewsigosaen |
|---|---|
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2004 |
| publishDate |
2004 |
| allfields |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553882 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared The Berkeley Electronic Press 2004 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law Spall, Hugh oth Szerb, Laszlo oth In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2004, 1, art3 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2004 1 3 4.2004, 1, art3 |
| spelling |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553882 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared The Berkeley Electronic Press 2004 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law Spall, Hugh oth Szerb, Laszlo oth In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2004, 1, art3 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2004 1 3 4.2004, 1, art3 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553882 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared The Berkeley Electronic Press 2004 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law Spall, Hugh oth Szerb, Laszlo oth In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2004, 1, art3 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2004 1 3 4.2004, 1, art3 |
| allfieldsGer |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553882 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared The Berkeley Electronic Press 2004 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law Spall, Hugh oth Szerb, Laszlo oth In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2004, 1, art3 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2004 1 3 4.2004, 1, art3 |
| allfieldsSound |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553882 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared The Berkeley Electronic Press 2004 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law Spall, Hugh oth Szerb, Laszlo oth In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2004, 1, art3 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2004 1 3 4.2004, 1, art3 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Global jurist / Advances 4.2004, 1, art3 volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 |
| sourceStr |
In Global jurist / Advances 4.2004, 1, art3 volume:4 year:2004 number:1 pages:3 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Global jurist / Advances |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Spall, Hugh @@oth@@ Szerb, Laszlo @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2004-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ219537267 |
| id |
NLEJ219553882 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ219553882</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707085658.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2004 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ219553882</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">The Berkeley Electronic Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative Regulation and Business Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regulation and Business Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Spall, Hugh</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Szerb, Laszlo</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Global jurist / Advances</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">4.2004, 1, art3</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ219537267</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2115502-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1535-1661</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2004</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-BEP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2004</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">3</subfield><subfield code="y">4.2004, 1, art3</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ219537267 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1535-1661 |
| topic_title |
The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared Comparative Law Comparative Regulation and Business Law Regulation and Business Law |
| publisher |
The Berkeley Electronic Press |
| publisherStr |
The Berkeley Electronic Press |
| topic |
misc Comparative Law misc Comparative Regulation and Business Law misc Regulation and Business Law |
| spellingShingle |
misc Comparative Law misc Comparative Regulation and Business Law misc Regulation and Business Law The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Comparative Law misc Comparative Regulation and Business Law misc Regulation and Business Law |
| topic_browse |
misc Comparative Law misc Comparative Regulation and Business Law misc Regulation and Business Law |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
h s hs l s ls |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Global jurist / Advances |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ219537267 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Global jurist / Advances |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 |
| title |
The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553882 |
| title_full |
The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared |
| journal |
Global jurist / Advances |
| journalStr |
Global jurist / Advances |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2004 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
3 |
| container_volume |
4 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| countryofpublication_str_mv |
XD-US |
| title_sort |
the impact of legal rules on the time and capital necessary to organize a new business entity: hungary, the united states (washington state) and the countries of the pre-accession eu compared |
| title_auth |
The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared |
| abstract |
There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. |
| abstractGer |
There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared |
| url |
http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Spall, Hugh Szerb, Laszlo |
| author2Str |
Spall, Hugh Szerb, Laszlo |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ219537267 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T05:28:47.877Z |
| _version_ |
1803806287202353153 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ219553882</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707085658.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2004 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ219553882</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The Impact of Legal Rules on the Time and Capital Necessary to Organize a New Business Entity: Hungary, the United States (Washington State) and the Countries of the Pre-Accession EU Compared</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">The Berkeley Electronic Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are three types of rules applicable to business start-ups: entity formation rules, general operational start-up rules, and activity specific rules. Some types of activities are not subject to activity specific rules. A firm that is engaged in activities that are not subject to activity specific rules can begin operating when it has complied with the entity formation rules and general operational start-up rules.This paper benchmarks the impact of legal rules on start-ups in Hungary, a recent EU entrant, and Washington State, one of the states comprising the United States, using the legal rules that existed in these jurisdictions during 2003. It then compares the benchmarks in the two jurisdictions with each other and with the benchmarks produced by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) for the European Commission during 2001- 2002. The comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks with the CSES benchmarks suggests that the harmonization of Hungarian law with the law existing in the countries of the pre-May, 2004 EU, a process that Hungary underwent as a condition of membership, did not create a set of legal rules whose impact on start-ups is similar to the impact of the rules in the pre-accession EU countries. Additionally, a comparison of the Hungarian benchmarks and the benchmarks in the pre-May 2004 EU suggests that it is easier to start a business firm in at least one of the states comprising the United States than in Hungary and almost all of the countries comprising the pre-May, 2004 EU.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative Regulation and Business Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regulation and Business Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Spall, Hugh</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Szerb, Laszlo</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Global jurist / Advances</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">4.2004, 1, art3</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ219537267</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2115502-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1535-1661</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2004</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss1/art3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-BEP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2004</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">3</subfield><subfield code="y">4.2004, 1, art3</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401434 |