Creating an enabling environment

5.5 P RESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE O BJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY

5.5.5 Objective 4: To investigate whether the objectives of the Policy and Strategy Framework for

5.5.5.1 Creating an enabling environment

Creating an enabling environment where SMEs can grow was the main objective of the National Policy and Strategy for SMEs in Zimbabwe (2002:5). Figure 5.13 below shows participants’

rating of a hostile regulatory environment with strongly disagree being extremely undesirable and strongly agree showing that a hostile regulatory environment presents little challenge.

Figure 5. 13 Challenges of a hostile regulatory environment

173

The bar graph shows that over 74.31 percent of the respondents viewed the regulatory environment as a challenge, of which 35.78 percent strongly agree. Of the respondents, 15.60 percent were neutral, 7.34 percent disagreed and 2.75 percent strongly disagreed that the regulatory environment is hostile. Therefore, through the National Policy and Strategy for SMEs in Zimbabwe, the Government of Zimbabwe is yet to achieve the objective of creating an enabling environment since most of the businesses in this survey find it difficult to operate in the current regulatory environment. In terms of Rationale the findings show that the specific objective of creating an enabling legal and regulatory environment is yet to be achieved.

However, there could be differences across groups in this survey in relation to a hostile regulatory environment. A hostile regulatory environment could be a challenge to respondents in the age group 21-30 and yet those in the 41-50 age group might have a different experience. To ascertain if there are any variations in groups’ experiences with the regulatory environment the Kruskal-Wallis Test was done. The respondents can be grouped into three categories, all of which might have statistically significant different experiences with the regulatory environment.

These groups are role in SME, age and turnover.

5.5.5.1.1 Kruskal-Wallis Test

This test was done to determine if there are any variances between groups in challenges presented by the regulatory environment across role, age groups and turnover. For the test variables there are more than two categories therefore the Kruskal-Wallis test is a suitable test.

Role was divided in Owner, Owner and Manager as well as Manager. Age groups were divided into five categories that ranged from below 20 years to 50 years and older and turnover was divided into five categories. Therefore, these variables can be tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test as they have more than two categories. The following hypotheses was developed to test if there is any statistically significant difference across role in how SMEs experience the regulatory environment:

𝐇𝟎:𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

𝐇𝟏:𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

174

Table 5.19 shows the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test between-groups variance on how respondents occupying different roles in SMEs experience the regulatory environment.

Table 5. 19 Kruskal-Wallis results for role and a hostile regulatory environment

Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

Hostile Regulatory Environment

0.904 2 .636

The Kruskal-Wallis Test shows that there is no statistically significant difference in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment across three different roles (Gp1, n = 68: Owner and Manager, Gp2, n = 22: Owner, Gp3, n = 13: Manager, Chi-square = 904, p = .636.) Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted while the alternate hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment across different roles is rejected. The category of Owner and Manager has a higher median rank (Md = 44) in comparison to the other two groups. This shows that if an SME operator is both the owner and manager they are less likely to experience the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment.

Regardless of the role one has in a small business the sentiments concerning the regulatory environment are the same. As such efforts to create a conducive environment are yet to yield the desired results.

5.5.5.1.2 Test for variations in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment across different ages

With the government’s targeted support initiative aimed at improving the participation of the youth in the SME sector there is a possibility that there are differences in how the age groups experience the regulatory environment. The youth development initiative aimed at lessening the burden of entry for the youth and enable their participation in the SMEs sector (National Policy and Strategy for SMEs in Zimbabwe, 2002:12). The following hypothesis was developed to test whether or not there are variances in how different age groups experience the regulatory environment:

𝐇𝟎:𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

175

𝐇𝟏:𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Table 5.20 shows the results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test for variance in the experience of a hostile regulatory environment across age. This tests if there are any significant difference in how the five age groups view the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment.

Table 5. 20 Kruskal-Wallis results for age and a hostile regulatory environment

Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

Hostile Regulatory Environment

5.543 3 .136

The results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test revealed that there is no statistically significant difference in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment across four age groups (Gp1, n = 38: 21- 30years, Gp2, n = 32: 31-40years, Gp3, n = 27: 41-50years, Gp4, n = 10: 50+years Chi-Square = 5.543, p = .136). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted and the researcher concludes that there is no statistically significant difference across age in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment. The lack of a conducive environment affects all age groups therefore the government’s targeted support initiative aimed at improving the regulatory environment for the youth is yet to bear the desired outcomes.

5.5.5.1.3 Test for variations in a hostile regulatory environment across turnover

The last test between-groups variance was tested on turnover, to determine if there are any statistically significant differences in how SMEs with different turnovers experienced the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment. The following hypothesis was developed to test whether or not there are statistically significant differences in how SMEs with different turnovers experienced the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment:

𝐇𝟎:𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

𝐇𝟏:𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

176

Table 5.21 is a presentation of the results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test to determine if there is any statistically significant difference in the experience of a hostile regulatory environment across turnover.

Table 5. 21 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Turnover and a hostile regulatory environment

N Median Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

Hostile Regulatory Environment

109 4.0000 5.439 2 .066

The results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test show that there is no statistically significant difference in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment based on an SME’s turnover (Gp1, n = 92: less than 100 000, Gp2, n = 16: 100 001-300 000, Gp3, n = 1: 300 001-500 000 chi-square = 5.44, p

= 0.066). Therefore, the alternate hypothesis is rejected and the researcher accepts the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in the challenge of a hostile regulatory environment across SMEs with different turnovers. SMEs with a Turnover of less than 100 000 have a higher median rank (Md = 63) showing that SMEs with a low turnover have the most challenges with a hostile regulatory environment.