This page summarizes Enterprise Surveys data for Estonia. The graphs below provide an overview of the sample and highlight the biggest obstacles experienced by private sector firms in Estonia. The 12 tables below the graphs summarize key factual indicators at the country and regional levels for each of the business environment topics. A few subjective indicators are also available.

 

NUMBER OF FIRMS SURVEYED

273

Business owners and top managers in 273 firms were interviewed from April 2008 through October 2008.

Characteristics of Firms Surveyed

Manufacturing: 92 Retail: 82 Other Services: 99 Manufacturing: 92 Retail: 82 Other Services: 99 Manufacturing: 92 Manufacturing: 92 Retail: 82 Retail: 82 Other Services: 99 Other Services: 99 Small (5-19): 113 Large (100+): 78 Medium (20-99): 82 Small (5-19): 113 Large (100+): 78 Medium (20-99): 82 Small (5-19): 113 Small (5-19): 113 Medium (20-99): 82 Medium (20-99): 82 Large (100+): 78 Large (100+): 78 North: 105 South: 62 East: 30 West: 37 Central: 39 North: 105 South: 62 East: 30 North: 105 North: 105 South: 62 South: 62 Central: 39 Central: 39 West: 37 West: 37 East: 30 East: 30

NUMBER OF FIRMS SURVEYED

273

After being presented with a list of 15 business environment obstacles, business owners and top managers in 273 firms were asked to choose the biggest obstacle to their business.

Top 10 Business Environment Constraints

"Crime, theft and disorder": 1.2 Customs and trade regulations: 1.8 Access to land: 1.9 Electricity: 2.5 Tax rates: 5.6 Access to finance: 10.0 Labor regulations: 14.6 Practices of the informal sector: 14.7 Political instability: 15.9 Inadequately educated workforce: 28.8

ECONOMY OVERVIEW

REGION
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
INCOME CATEGORY
High income
POPULATION
1,339,396
GNI PER CAPITA (US $)
15,830

Resources

Economy profile

Estonia Country Profile

Estonia Country Profile

483.4KB pdf file

Economy profile

Custom Data Set

Generate a Custom Data Set for Estonia including standard errors, indicator values by firm subgroups, historical data and comparable countries.

  • Excel
  • Print
Indicator Estonia Eastern Europe & Central Asia All Countries 2  
Bribery incidence (percent of firms experiencing at least one bribe payment request) Percent of firms experiencing at least one bribe payment request during 6 transactions dealing with utilities access, permits, licences, and taxes.

5.7 14.0 17.0  
Bribery depth (% of public transactions where a gift or informal payment was requested) Bribery depth is the percentage of transactions (out of 6 transactions dealing with utilities access, permits, licences, and taxes) where a gift or informal payment was requested.

2.8 10.9 13.0  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts in meetings with tax officials Percent of firms expected to give gifts or an informal payment in meetings with tax officials.

0 10.3 12.2  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to secure government contract Percent of establishments that consider that firms with characteristics similar to theirs are making informal payments or giving gifts to public officials to secure government contract.

1.6 23.2 25.9  
Value of gift expected to secure a government contract (% of contract value) Percentage of the contract value expected as a gift to secure a government contract. Only firms that have confirmed that they have secured or attempted to secure a government contract in the last 12 months were required to answer this question.

0 1.2 1.6  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to get an operating license Percent of firms expected to give gifts or an informal payment to get an operating license.

0 10.9 13.6  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to get an import license Percent of firms expected to give gifts or an informal payment to get an import license.

0 9.1 12.2  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to get a construction permit Percent of firms expected to give gifts or an informal payment to get a construction permit.

12.7 22.4 21.7  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to get an electrical connection Percent of firms expected to give gifts or an informal payment to get an electrical connection.

3.4 12.6 15.5  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to get a water connection Percent of firms expected to give gifts or an informal payment to get a water connection.

2.6 8.6 15.8  
Percent of firms expected to give gifts to public officials "to get things done" Percent of establishments that consider that firms with characteristics similar to theirs are making informal payments or giving gifts to public officials to "get things done” with regard to customs, taxes, licenses, regulations, services, etc.

3.7 19.7 19.6  
Percent of firms identifying corruption as a major constraint Percent of firms identifying corruption as a major constraint. The computation of the indicator is based on the rating of the obstacle as a potential constraint to the current operations of the establishment.

5.4 21.5 33.9  
Percent of firms identifying the courts system as a major constraint Percent of firms identifying the courts system as a major constraint. The computation of the indicator is based on the rating of the obstacle as a potential constraint to the current operations of the establishment.

3.1 6.6 15.9  
  • Notes
    * This indicator is computed using data from manufacturing firms only.

    Additional Notes

    1. Most surveys were administered using the Enterprise Surveys Global Methodology as outlined in the Methodology page, while some others did not strictly adhere to the Enterprise Surveys Global Methodology. For example, for surveys which do not follow the Global Methodology, the Universe under consideration may have consisted of only manufacturing firms or the questionnaire used may have been different from the standard global questionnaire. Data users should exercise caution when comparing raw data and point estimates between surveys that did and did not adhere to the Enterprise Surveys Global Methodology. For surveys which did not adhere to the Global Methodology plus Afghanistan 2008, any inference from one of these surveys is representative only for the data sample itself.
    2. Regional and "all countries" averages of indicators are computed by taking a simple average of country-level point estimates. For each economy, only the latest available year of survey data is used in this computation. Only surveys, posted during the years 2009-2014, and adhering to the Enterprise Surveys Global Methodology are used to compute these regional and "all countries" averages.
    3. Descriptions of firm subgroup levels, e.g. how the ex post groupings are constructed, are provided in the Indicator Descriptions (PDF, 710KB) document.
    4. Statistics derived from less than or equal to five firms are displayed with an "n.a." to maintain confidentiality and should be distinguished from ".." which indicates missing values. Also note for three growth-related indicators under the "Performance" topic, these indicators are not computed when they are derived from less than 30 firms.
    5. Standard errors are labeled "n.c.", meaning not computed, for the following:
           1) indicators for all surveys that were not conducted using the Enterprise Surveys Global Methodology and
           2) for indicator breakdowns by ex post groupings: exporter or ownership type, and gender of the top manager.
    6. Please cite our data as follows:
      Enterprise Surveys (http://www.enterprisesurveys.org), The World Bank.