D steigt von 17 auf 14 bei Standortwahl - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Joerver]

Wirtschaft
Zeitung: Standort Deutschland beliebter

Der Standort Deutschland ist laut einer Studie attraktiver geworden. Das berichtet die "Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung".

In der Rangliste der wettbewerbsfähigsten Nationen steige Deutschland vom 17. Platz auf Rang 14, berichtet das Blatt über den "Global Competitiveness Report". Das World Economic Forum wird diesen am Dienstag vorstellen.

Der Aufstieg Deutschlands resultiere allerdings nicht aus der Verbesserung der politischen Rahmenbedingungen, sondern resultiere aus dem technologischen Fortschritt in den Unternehmen, hieß es 702 << >> 709

ARD-Text

[Lifetrader]

... und die Erhebung datiert sicher noch von vor der Wahl, als fiskalisch und abgabentechnisch bei uns noch heile Welt herrschte, da bekannter Maßen selbst die politischen Insider erst während bzw. nach der Siegesfeier von der Realität völlig überrollt wurden!

[Optimalist]

Ja,Jörver,und wo ist der techn.Fortschritt beheimatet?

Sach et,isch will et höre!

[Optimalist]

Hilfe,es ist nicht das Steinkohleland vom Clement!
Na,jetzt aber

[Joerver]

In Deutschland!
J.

[Optimalist]

Jörver,fällt es so schwer














bayern zu sagen

[Optimalist]

Und Jörver,nachdem wir mit Wilschmi einen Politanfänger
an board begrüßen durften,sach ihm mal,wer dort
regiert.
Auch hier ne Hilfe,fängt nicht mit S an!
Gruß Opti

[ToraToraTora]

Frag amal die Zenzi, die woas dees.

[Karl]

nun, ich denke mal das resultiert daraus dass wir argentinien, ruanda und den jemen überholt haben...
und als nächstes platz 13, dann haben wir auch den irak eingeholt!

im ernst: das resultiert m.e. hauptsächlich daraus, dass die unternehmensbesteuerung mit den geschenken der frei verrechenbaren auslandsinvestitionen/verluste und der steuerfreien beteiligungsverkäufe abgeändert wurde. erstens ändert sich das bald mit der mindestbesteuerung und dem anstieg der lohnnebenkosten wieder und zweitens liegt der gewinn von drei plätzen wohl weniger am positiven trend deutschlands als vielmehr dem noch negativeren weltwirtschaftlich bedingten trend dreier anderer staaten.

hmmm, statistisch gesehen gehen die investitionen ausländischer unternehmen in d aber doch zurück, wenn ich mich richtig an die letzten zahlen erinnere?

[Joerver]

Opti
Gut ich sag es: "Bayern ist Spitze in Deutschland
J.

[Optimalist]

[broker1003]

test

[Joerver]

im pro Kopf Bierkonsum."
Denk dran es heißt CSU.
Und dem sozialen fühle ich mich verpflichtet.
J.

[Joerver]

15
GROWTH COMPETITIVENESS INDEX RANKING
Country
Finland 1 1 5
United States 2 2 1
Canada 3 3 6
Singapore 4 4 2
Australia 5 5 11
Norway 6 6 15
Taiwan 7 7 10
Netherlands 8 8 3
Sweden 9 9 12
New Zealand 10 10 19
Ireland 11 11 4
United Kingdom 12 12 8
Hong Kong SAR 13 13 7
Denmark 14 14 13
Switzerland 15 15 9
Iceland 16 16 23
Germany 17 17 14
Austria 18 18 17
Belgium 19 19 16
France 20 20 21
Japan 21 21 20
Spain 22 22 26
Korea 23 23 28
Israel 24 24 18
Portugal 25 25 22
Italy 26 26 29
Chile 27 27 27
Hungary 28 28 25
Estonia 29 — —
Malaysia 30 29 24
Slovenia 31 — —
Mauritius 32 30 35
Thailand 33 31 30
South Africa 34 32 32
Costa Rica 35 33 37
Greece 36 34 33
Czech Republic 37 35 31
Trinidad and Tobago 38 — —
China 39 36 40
Slovak Republic 40 37 38
Poland 41 38 34
Mexico 42 39 42
Lithuania 43 — —
Brazil 44 40 45
Jordan 45 41 46
Uruguay 46 — —
Latvia 47 — —
Philippines 48 42 36
Argentina 49 43 44
Dominican Republic 50 — —
Egypt 51 44 41
Jamaica 52 — —
Panama 53 — —
Turkey 54 45 39
Peru 55 46 47
Romania 56 — —
India 57 47 48
El Salvador 58 48 49
Bulgaria 59 49 57
Vietnam 60 50 52
Sri Lanka 61 — —
Venezuela 62 51 53
Russia 63 52 54
Indonesia 64 53 43
Colombia 65 54 51
Guatemala 66 — —
Bolivia 67 55 50
Ecuador 68 56 58
Ukraine 69 57 56
Honduras 70 — —
Bangladesh 71 — —
Paraguay 72 — —
Nicaragua 73 — —
Nigeria 74 — —
Zimbabwe 75 58 55
Table 1. Overall competitiveness rankings
Growth
Competitiveness
Ranking 2001
Growth
Competitiveness
Ranking 2000
Growth
Competitiveness
Ranking 2001 among
GCR 2000 countries
CURRENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX RANKING
Country
Finland 1 1 1
United States 2 2 2
Netherlands 3 3 4
Germany 4 4 3
Switzerland 5 5 5
Sweden 6 6 7
United Kingdom 7 7 8
Denmark 8 8 6
Australia 9 9 10
Singapore 10 10 9
Canada 11 11 11
France 12 12 15
Austria 13 13 13
Belgium 14 14 12
Japan 15 15 14
Iceland 16 16 17
Israel 17 17 18
Hong Kong SAR 18 18 16
Norway 19 19 20
New Zealand 20 20 19
Taiwan 21 21 21
Ireland 22 22 22
Spain 23 23 23
Italy 24 24 24
South Africa 25 25 25
Hungary 26 26 32
Estonia 27 — —
Korea 28 27 27
Chile 29 28 26
Brazil 30 29 31
Portugal 31 30 28
Slovenia 32 — —
Turkey 33 31 29
Trinidad and Tobago 34 — —
Czech Republic 35 32 34
India 36 33 37
Malaysia 37 34 30
Thailand 38 35 40
Slovakia 39 36 36
Jamaica 40 — —
Poland 41 37 41
Latvia 42 — —
Greece 43 38 33
Jordan 44 39 35
Egypt 45 40 39
Uruguay 46 — —
China 47 41 44
Panama 48 — —
Lithuania 49 — —
Costa Rica 50 42 43
Mexico 51 43 42
Mauritius 52 44 38
Argentina 53 45 45
Philippines 54 46 46
Indonesia 55 47 47
Colombia 56 48 48
Sri Lanka 57 — —
Russia 58 49 52
Dominican Republic 59 — —
Ukraine 60 50 56
Romania 61 — —
Vietnam 62 51 53
Peru 63 52 49
El Salvador 64 53 51
Zimbabwe 65 54 50
Venezuela 66 55 54
Nigeria 67 — —
Bulgaria 68 56 55
Guatemala 69 — —
Paraguay 70 — —
Nicaragua 71 — —
Ecuador 72 57 57
Bangladesh 73 — —
Honduras 74 — —
Bolivia 75 58 58
Current
Competitiveness
Ranking 2001
Current
Competitiveness
Ranking 2000
Current
Competitiveness
Ranking 2001 among
GCR 2000 countries
Quelle:World economic Forum 2001/2002

[Karl]

danke für das einstellen der ranglisten, joerver.

nur ist da auch gleich ein kleines logisches problem in der argumentation dass sich etwas verbessert hätte, denn wenn man sich die beiden rankings anschaut sieht man:
einmal ist es das GROWTH COMPETITIVENESS INDEX RANKING, da gehts um das wachstum der wettbewerbsfähigkeit, da sind wir von 17 auf 14 gestiegen.
an sich ein gutes zeichen, aber wenn man sich die zweite tabelle ansieht: CURRENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX RANKING, da gehts um den aktuellen stand, da sind wir vierter (und gerade von den holländern überholt worden, sonst wären wir noch dritter).

im logischen schluss und vereinfacht ausgedrückt sind wir die nummer 4 in der welt, allerdings traut man uns für die zukunft nur noch das vierzehntbeste wachstum zu...
dass das argument mit dem hohen stand und den daraus folgenden geringeren zuwächsen nicht zieht kann mit den positionen 1 und 2 beider tabellen gezeigt werden, die sind identisch.

und das soll also ne gute nachricht sein?

[Joerver]

Karl
Es sind zwei verschiedene Rangliste, einmal Growth und einmal current In der growth steigt D von 17 auf 14, wird nächste Woche veröffentlicht. In de Current steht D. auf 4, da weiss ich von keinen Anderungen.
Bei der Übertragung wurde nur eine Spalte übertragen.
Bitte selbst unter "World economic Forum" Site nachschauen und versuchen die zweite Spalte reinzustellen.
J.

[Joerver]

Ein Fehler meinerseits, die zweite Hälfte der Rangliste ist die Current. Hat doch übertragen.
J.

[konns]

Übrigens habe ich die Zeitung gerade vor mir liegen und irgendwie ist ein kleiner Nebensatz verschwunden:

".. der politischen Rahmenbedingungen - daran übt der Bericht Kritik - ..."

[Joerver]

Konns
Die neuen Daten kommen am 12.Was darinsteht, weiss ich nicht und die FAZ genausowenig. Es ist Vorabveröffentlichung.
J.

[konns]

Joerver

Interessant, als Indiz, dass Lügen-Gerd alles super gemacht hat, kann man daraus zitieren, aber dann weiss die zitierte Zeitung, wenn Kritik geübt wird, nichts.

Irgendwie gab es eine solche Art und Weise, mit Informationen umzugehen, auch schon mal

[Joerver]

Ich habe die eizigen Informationen, die ich habe reingestellt, wenn Du mehr hast, stell es rein. Ich habe auch keine Wertungen vorgenommen.
Vielleicht kannst Du den Faz-Artikel reinstellen, ich hab ihn nicht.
J.

[konns]

müsste ich abtippen :-(

Aber hier was Interessantes:

Was wird aus einem Land, in dem die Nutzung des „Gesunden Menschenverstandes“ bereits als Rechtsaußen-Position gebrandmarkt wird? Wie soll man die Zukunftsfähigkeit eines Landes beurteilen, in dem es noch nicht einmal möglich ist, einen objektiven Ist-Zustand mit Risiken und Chancen zu beschreiben? Wie soll ein Land zukunftsfähig gemacht werden, wenn es keine Visionen und damit auch keine zielführenden Konzeptionen gibt? Wie soll ein Land funktionieren ohne selbstbewußte, selbstverantwortliche und freie Bürger, die nicht ständig die Verantwortung auf den Staat oder die Gesellschaft zurückdelegieren? Was ist von einem Land zu halten, dessen Regierung unfähig oder nicht dazu bereit ist, auf internationaler Ebene die Interessen seiner Bürger zu formulieren und durchzusetzen? Ein Blick über die Grenzen macht erschreckend deutlich, dass uns unsere Nachbarn in diesen Kern-Bereichen schon längst überholt haben. Ausländische Regierungen machen sich schon seit geraumer Zeit Sorgen um Deutschland als größtes Land in der Mitte Europas, das seine Zukunft und damit auch die Zukunft Europas zu verspielen droht. Sicherlich haben diese dabei auch gewisse Facetten des deutschen National-Charakters im Auge, den Churchil einst mit folgenden Worten ausdrückte: „Die Deutschen sind ein merkwürdiges Volk. Entweder küssen sie einem die Füße oder sie springen einem an die Kehle. Beides ist mir gleichermaßen suspekt!“ Um einen drohenden radikalen Rechts-Trend zu verhindern, muß durch dieses Land (wie es der ehemalige Bundespräsident Herzog verlangte) ein gewaltiger, mutiger und konsequenter Ruck gehen.
Grundvoraussetzung dafür sind allerdings Visionen, die von den Bürgern getragen werden müssen („in einem solchen Land wollen wir gerne leben, arbeiten, eine Familie gründen und unsere Kinder aufziehen, so wollen wir gerne von außen gesehen werden“ etc.). Von uns gewählte und bezahlte Politiker (Visionäre, Manager), die etwas von ihrem Fach verstehen, und natürlich auch wir müssen uns darüber einig werden, was, wann und wie wir alle an der Erreichung dieser Visionen an lang- und kurzfristigen beitragen können und müssen.
Um dies zu realisieren, muß liberales Denken und Handeln gefördert , ein Re-Engineering aller staatlichen und öffentlichen Funktionsträger durchgeführt und über die Schnittstellen zwischen Staat und Bürger nachgedacht werden. Wir brauchen einen kleinen, aber starken Staat und nicht, wie wir ihn heute haben, einen immer größer und schwächer werdenden Staat, der unter Verschwendung riesiger Ressourcen seine Funktionen kaum noch effizient erfüllen kann. Auch muß endlich damit Schluß gemacht werden mit der sozialistischen Gleichmacherei. Lincoln hat schon im vorletzten Jahrhundert gewarnt: „Man darf die Schwachen nicht stärken, indem man die Starken schwächt!“ Wie recht er hatte, aber das sagt einem wiederum auch schon der gesunde Menschenverstand, der –und das ist das eigentliche Problem- in diesem unseren Lande schon als Rechtsaußen-Position in das leider völlig verschobene politische Koordinaten-System eingeschachtelt wird. Das nenne ich Demokratur! Ich wünsche trotzdem einen schönen Tag, Jörg Schülke

[Joerver]

Leidet der Herr Schülke an Verfolgungswahn, oder wer ist Herr Schülke. Alles was er schreibt, mit Ausnahme der Ausfällen, wird doch von niemand bestritten.
J.

[Joerver]

Der neue Report vom 12.11.02

Last year’s Global Competitiveness Report was published in
an environment of exceptional uncertainty. In the two
weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the world equity markets lost approximately two
trillion US dollars, with 20 of the world’s major stock
exchanges dropping more than 10 percent.There was
widespread agreement that in the near term the horrific
event would accelerate and deepen the slowdown in the
global economy that had already been underway by caus-ing
substantial disruptions of the global transport networks
and production chains and a fall in consumer and business
confidence. There was less agreement, however, about how
fast the global economy would recover and return to a
sustained growth path in the medium term. Even greater
uncertainty existed with regard to the long-term impact
of the terrorist attacks. In the introduction to last year’s
Report we wrote:

In the longer term, the terrorist attacks will have
a lasting negative impact if the policy responses
trigger a reversal of the global economic integration
that has characterized the past 20 years. The possi-bility
of large-scale global conflict, terrorism, political
backlash, and market uncertainty have the potential
to raise the costs of cross-border business to levels
not seen in decades, and thereby to limit the gains
in economic well-being that global economic inte-gration
can yield.
Cornelius et al. (2002, p 8).
Over the last 12 months, the world economy seems
to have proved quite robust thus far. Although global out-put
growth has fallen, arguably the situation could have
been considerably worse. However, this should not give
rise to complacency. The risks we highlighted last year
have hardly become smaller. Even if new terrorist attacks
do not occur and large-scale conflicts can be avoided, the
global economic outlook remains clouded with tremen-dous
uncertainty.
Short-term uncertainties and longer-term growth
dynamics
The prospects of a war in Iraq, corporate scandals, the
bursting of the IT asset bubble, and the uncertain outlook
in some emerging markets continue to weigh heavily on
investors’ confidence. Asset prices have remained subject to
substantial volatility. In the two-and-a-half-year period
between March 2000 when equity prices peaked and end-September
2002, some of the major stock indices lost up
to two thirds of their value, with the Nikkei having hit a
19-year low. The NASDAQ and other tech-laden stock
exchanges have suffered even greater losses, with some
markets—including Germany’s Neuer Markt and
Switzerland’s New Market—being dissolved. Moreover,
the latest GDP revisions in the United States confirm that
the situation a year ago was actually worse than thought.
Rather than merely slowing, we now know that the
largest economy in the world was already in recession
when the terrorist attacks occurred, with output having
shrunk for the first nine months of 2001.
Nevertheless, in each of the three subsequent quarters
GDP growth has been positive, and judged by the fears
many had a year ago, one might argue that the US econo-my
has weathered the economic impact of the tragic
events of September 11 reasonably well. To be sure, the
terrorist attacks were not the only shock to the world
economy. The failure of Enron and WorldCom and other
high-profile collapses, the disappearance of Argentina’s
currency board, and the severe tensions in the Middle East
might each have been expected to have a considerable
impact on the global economic outlook, too. Taken
together, their impact could have been far more serious,
possibly pushing the world economy into a prolonged
recession. Considering the potential damage these shocks
could have caused, the world economy and the global
financial system seem to have proved surprisingly resilient
thus far.
1
Executive Summary
Economic developments in the emerging markets are
largely explicable in terms of the same contractionary
forces affecting the industrialized countries. Asia’s substan-tial
reliance on exports of IT-related products made the
region particularly vulnerable to the slowdown in the US
economy, which was driven by a major decline in activity
in the high-tech sector. Latin America, with the notable
exception of Mexico, was generally less affected, while
several emerging market economies in central and eastern
Europe seemed almost immune. The economic crises in
Argentina and Turkey have proved very costly, but the
contagion effects have remained relatively limited.
Much credit for the global economy’s resilience is due
to the sharp monetary easing in most countries, especially
the United States.This monetary easing has been accom-panied
by a more expansionary fiscal stance. In the United
States, sizeable tax cuts were implemented and public
expenditure has been rising strongly, especially in the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks, and in 2002, the easing
of the budgetary stance is estimated to amount to around
1.5 percent of GDP. Fiscal policy has become significantly
more expansionary in several other countries, including
Canada, Norway, Sweden, and especially the United
Kingdom.
In the United States, the economy has also benefited
from the fact that banks entered the recession with strong
balance sheets. Moreover, capital markets provided a ready
alternative supply of credit, shielding the economy from
the financial implications of the recession. Unlike many
previous recessions, there was no oversupply of housing, a
factor that—combined with low interest rates—helped
shore up consumer spending. Finally, it has been argued
that trend growth in the United States is now in the range
of 3 to 3.5 percent thanks to increased productivity,
around half a percentage point higher than it was in
1980–1995.This means that if output growth falls by
3 percent, the economy simply stalls, whereas in previous
cycles it would have contracted.
Although the mildness of America’s recent recession
may seem surprising—from peak to trough, GDP fell by
only 0.6 percent, compared with an average decline of
over 2 percent during recessions in the postwar era—it
is important to note that nominal GDP growth in the
G-7 countries fell to one of its slowest rates for decades.
It is too early to tell whether the worst is already over.
To begin with, the recovery in the United States seems
rather slow, and there remains considerable concern about
a possible “double dip.” Although massive adjustments in
inventories boosted growth to an annual rate of 5 percent
in the first quarter of 2002, the rate of expansion fell back
to just 1.1 percent in the months from April to June. With
consumption having increased by less than 2 percent,
economic growth has fallen considerably short of what
could be expected in a normal recovery. In other major
industrialized countries, economic growth has also
remained sluggish, and world trade actually shrank by
around 1 percent in 2001—one of the worst performances
in the last few decades.
To be sure, the relative resilience of the global econo-my
should not lead to complacency. The short-term
economic risks are considerable, and they exist regardless
of the enormous uncertainties associated with the possibil-ity
of a protracted war in Iraq or new terrorist threats. For
one thing, corporate and private debts still appear rather
large in the United States. Lower interest rates have
encouraged a house-price boom that has partially offset
losses in the stock market, helping insulate private wealth
and maintain consumer spending. Once households
reduce their borrowing propped up by higher mortgages,
they will spend less and save more, which could lead to a
prolonged period of sluggish growth.The United States
will not have much monetary policy ammunition left if,
under such a scenario, the economy stumbles. With the
US current account deficit becoming harder to be financed,
there is concern that a sharp fall in the US dollar could
help export deflationary pressures to other countries. At
the same time, to the extent that the economy has become
more open, fiscal policy might have become less effective
to cushion downturns than it was in previous cycles.
How well the United States and the rest of the world
can weather the potential turbulence will depend, first and
foremost, on the robustness of their economies. Primarily,
this ability is a function of the factors determining their
competitiveness—that is, the set of institutions, policies,
and regulations that support high levels of productivity
and drive productivity growth and sustained increases in
output. Competitive countries can be expected to return
to a sustained growth path faster and earlier than those
that are less competitive. This is precisely what The Global
Competitiveness Report is concerned with—the five-to-eight-
year prospects in a large number of individual
economies.
As in the two previous years, The Global Competitive-ness
Report employs two distinct but complementary
approaches to the analysis of competitiveness.The first one
focuses on growth competitiveness. Introduced originally
by Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew Warner and developed
with the assistance of John McArthur, it has been further
refined in this edition.This year covering 80 countries, the
Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) represents a best
estimate of the underlying prospects for growth over the
next five to eight years. Six new countries are covered by
the Index this year: Botswana, Croatia, Haiti, Morocco,
Namibia, and Tunisia. On the other hand, Egypt had to be
dropped this year due to the lack of Survey data.
2
Executive
The Report’s second approach to competitiveness has
been developed by Michael E. Porter of the Institute for
Strategy and Competitiveness at the Harvard Business
School. In contrast to the GCI, the Microeconomic
Competitiveness Index (MICI) uses microeconomic indi-cators
to measure the “set of institutions, market struc-tures,
and economic policies supportive of high current
levels of prosperity,” referring mainly to an economy’s
effective utilization of its current stock of resources.
Covering the same countries, the Index thus assesses the
current productive potential.Together, the GCI and the
MICI present distinct yet highly complementary insights
into sources of national competitiveness.
The two indexes reflect that there exist circumstances
that contribute to the level of income per capita and those
that contribute to the change in income per capita, or
growth.1 In its simplest form, the theory of growth sup-poses
that the level of income per capita depends on the
amount of capital per person—the capital intensity of the
economy—and the level of technology determining the
average productivity of a unit of capital.With a fixed
proportion of income assumed to be saved, which is equal
to the change in the capital stock, economic growth, then,
has two major components: technological change and
capital deepening.
Of course, in reality things are more complex. Although
in theory a clear distinction can be made between the fac-tors
explaining the level of economic prosperity as
opposed to those that drive economic growth, in practice
this proves substantially more difficult. One important
problem stems from the fact that some of the same institu-tions,
regulations, attributes, and practices affect both level
and growth.The intensity of rivalry, for instance, drives
current productivity, but it also fosters innovation and
technological progress and hence productivity growth.
In actual economies, technological change and capital
deepening are highly complex processes.The capital stock
of an economy includes not just the accumulated physical
capital of machinery, structures, and physical infrastructure
(roads, ports, telecommunications), but also the level of
education, workforce skills and attitudes, managerial talent,
and social capital. Moreover, the stock of capital encom-passes
a country’s set of legal institutions and regulatory
practices governing businesses. In the same way, the condi-tions
that lead to rapid economic growth include not just
the aggregate investment or saving rates in an economy,
but also the mix of public and private institutions that
support innovation, the diffusion of ideas across sectors,
and the inflows of ideas from foreign companies into the
domestic economy. Similarly, technology and technological
progress include multiple dimensions, going beyond the
technological know-how embedded in a nation’s scientific
and technological institutions to also include the technology
rooted in firms, which is embodied in every activity they
perform and in the strategy they employ to compete.
Understanding the factors that explain current levels
of economic prosperity and growth requires employing a
data set that reflects the complexity of the development
process in a large cross-section of countries. Using publicly
available information and statistics is not enough.Therefore,
our competitiveness assessments also include Survey evi-dence.
This evidence appears particularly important in
areas where no reliable hard data sources exist for many of
the most important aspects of an economy, such as the
efficiency of government institutions, the sophistication of
local supplier networks, or the nature of competitive prac-tices.
But even where hard data exist, the data often do
not cover all the countries in our sample. The Executive
Opinion Survey, conducted annually by the World
Economic Forum with the assistance of a large number of
partner institutes, reflects the perspectives of business lead-ers
around the world by asking them to compare aspects
of their local business environment with global standards.
This year, more than 4,800 respondents participated in the
Survey. Given that these business leaders actually make
many of the investment decisions that drive economic
growth, their responses provide an invaluable source
concerning the current state of economic affairs in 80
countries.
The Growth Competitiveness Index
The Growth Competitiveness Index is based on three
broad categories of variables that are found to drive eco-nomic
growth in the medium- and long-term: technology,
public institutions, and the macroeconomic environment.
Without technological progress, countries may achieve a
higher standard of living, for example, through a higher
rate of capital accumulation, but they will not be able to
enjoy continuously high economic growth. Institutions are
crucial for their role in ensuring the protection of proper-ty
rights, the objective resolution of contract and other
legal disputes, efficiency of government spending, and
transparency in all levels of government. In the absence
of good governance, the division of labor is likely to be
impeded and the allocation of resources inefficient. Mone-tary
and fiscal policies, and the stability of financial institu-tions,
have important effects on short-term economic
dynamics as well as on the long-term capacity to grow.
These drivers play a critical role at all stages of eco-nomic
development. As far as technology is concerned,
however, the way this driver affects economic growth
varies according to the level of economic prosperity a
country has already achieved. At early stages of economic
development, a country’s ability to launch its economy on
a steeper growth path depends primarily on the transfer of
3
Executive Summary
technology from abroad. Countries that have experienced
rapid economic growth are typically those that are suc-cessful
in adopting and adapting a technology that has
been developed abroad, a process known as technological dif-fusion.
At more advanced stages of economic development,
however, it becomes increasingly important that a country
itself innovate new technologies in order to sustain rapid
economic growth. In the high-income countries, each
new technological innovation triggers yet further innova-tion,
in a kind of chain reaction that fuels long-term
economic growth.
Taking into account the different channels through
which technology affects economic growth at different
stages of development, in this Report we continue to dis-tinguish
between two groups of countries. The group of
core innovators (a term introduced last year, and in no way
to be construed as a value judgment) includes those coun-tries
whose companies have registered at least 15 US utili-ty
patents per million population in 2001.This criterion is
met in 24 economies. All other countries are said to be
non-core innovators. Empirical tests find that technology
plays a particularly critical role in the core innovating
countries, which is reflected in the weights we attach to
the different growth drivers. In these countries, technolo-gy
has a weight of 50 percent in the overall GCI, com-pared
with 25 percent each for public institutions and the
macroeconomic environment. By contrast, equal weights
of one third are attached to the three drivers in the case of
the non-core innovators.
For the core economies, the technology index is a
simple average of an innovation subindex and an informa-tion
and communication technology subindex, both of
which are comprised of hard and soft data (note that the
innovation subindex is different from the “innovative
capacity index” constructed by Michael E. Porter and
Scott Stern in Chapter 3.1.While the innovation subindex
seeks to explain the elements of innovation that are linked
to economic growth, the innovative capacity index seeks
to explain the underlying factors that contribute to inno-vation).
In the case of non-core innovators, by contrast,
technology transfer plays a considerably more important
role than innovation, which is reflected in relative weights
of three eighths versus one eighth in the innovation
index. Information and communication technology repre-sents
the other subindex of the technology index, with a
weight of one half.
This year’s Report includes one important adjustment:
the technology transfer subindex includes new Survey evi-dence
on the licensing of foreign technology as an impor-tant
source of new technology. This evidence replaces a
variable that was created to measure the extent of manu-facturing
technology in the export structure of non-core
countries. The reasoning behind that variable was that
countries with a technology-based export sector may be
expected to be more adept at absorbing technologies from
abroad than economies with a primarily commodity-based
export structure. Empirical tests suggest that the new vari-able
has significant explanatory power.
The composition of the public institutions index and
the macroeconomic environment index has remained
unchanged.The public institutions index consists of two
subindexes, one that reflects the perceived degree of cor-ruption
and one that focuses on the role of contracts and
law. Both subindexes have equal weights and are based sole-ly
on Survey evidence. The macroeconomic environment
index includes a subindex on macroeconomic stability
(mirroring, among other things, inflation, national savings,
and real exchange rate developments) as well as country
credit ratings and general government expenditure.
This year’s rankings are presented in Table 1.The
United States leads the Growth Competitiveness Index,
swapping positions with Finland, last year’s number 1 and
now ranked number 2.Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden
follow. While Singapore has retained its fourth rank,
Taiwan and Sweden enjoy a significant improvement of
three and four positions, respectively. An even greater
improvement in its relative position concerns Switzerland,
however, a country that is being ranked sixth this year (see
Chapter 2.3 in this Report, which contains a case study on
Switzerland).
The United States owes its position mainly to its stel-lar
performance on technology-related factors (see Table
2). Research and development, collaboration between uni-versities
and businesses, the level of tertiary education, and
a sophisticated and innovative business and academic com-munity
all contribute to the high ranking of the United
States.The United States also receives high scores for its
venture capital markets, receptivity to innovation, and
leadership in information and communication technology.
In addition, during the 1990s, fiscal consolidation helped
the United States, contributing to a second place on the
macroeconomic environment index. By contrast, the
respondents to the Executive Opinion Survey perceive
public institutions to be in need of reform, an area where
the United States is ranked only 16. However, this rela-tively
poor reading does not jeopardize the country’s top
position on the overall Index, given its strong performance
in technology and the macroeconomic environment.
Finland also enjoys a very high level of technological
sophistication, being ranked third in this dimension of
competitiveness. In addition, Finland’s public institutions
are perceived to be the best in the world. On the other
hand, Finland has slipped slightly in terms of its macro-economic
environment.Taiwan’s high overall score also
results primarily from its very high position on the tech-nology
index, whereas Singapore’s strengths are found
especially in the macroeconomic area.
4
Executive Summary
5
Executive Summary
MICROECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS INDEX RANKINGS
Country
United States 1 1 2
Finland 2 2 1
United Kingdom 3 3 7
Germany 4 4 4
Switzerland 5 5 5
Sweden 6 6 6
Netherlands 7 7 3
Denmark 8 8 8
Singapore 9 9 9
Canada 10 10 12
Japan 11 11 10
Austria 12 12 11
Belgium 13 13 15
Australia 14 14 14
France 15 15 13
Taiwan 16 16 21
Iceland 17 17 16
Israel 18 18 17
Hong Kong SAR 19 19 18
Ireland 20 20 22
Norway 21 21 19
New Zealand 22 22 20
Korea 23 23 26
Italy 24 24 23
Spain 25 25 24
Malaysia 26 26 37
Slovenia 27 27 32
Hungary 28 28 27
South Africa 29 29 25
Estonia 30 30 28
Chile 31 31 29
Tunisia 32 — —
Brazil 33 32 30
Czech Republic 34 33 34
Thailand 35 34 38
Portugal 36 35 33
India 37 36 36
China 38 37 43
Costa Rica 39 38 48
Lithuania 40 39 50
Dominican Republic 41 40 60
Slovak Republic 42 41 40
Greece 43 42 46
Trinidad and Tobago 44 43 31
Latvia 45 44 41
Poland 46 45 42
Sri Lanka 47 46 58
Morocco 48 — —
Mauritius 49 47 51
Panama 50 48 49
Namibia 51 — —
Croatia 52 — —
Jordan 53 49 47
Turkey 54 50 35
Mexico 55 51 52
Colombia 56 52 57
Botswana 57 — —
Russian Federation 58 53 56
Jamaica 59 54 39
Vietnam 60 55 62
Philippines 61 56 53
Uruguay 62 57 45
El Salvador 63 58 64
Indonesia 64 59 55
Argentina 65 60 54
Peru 66 61 63
Romania 67 62 61
Bulgaria 68 63 68
Ukraine 69 64 59
Zimbabwe 70 65 65
Nigeria 71 66 66
Venezuela 72 67 67
Guatemala 73 68 69
Bangladesh 74 69 73
Nicaragua 75 70 71
Paraguay 76 71 70
Ecuador 77 72 72
Honduras 78 73 74
Bolivia 79 74 75
Haiti 80 — —
Microeconomic
Competitiveness
Ranking 2002
Microeconomic
Competitiveness
Ranking 2001**
Microeconomic
Competitiveness
Ranking 2002 among
GCR 2001 countries*
Table 1: Overall competitiveness rankings
GROWTH COMPETITIVENESS INDEX RANKINGS
Country
United States 1 1 2
Finland 2 2 1
Taiwan 3 3 7
Singapore 4 4 4
Sweden 5 5 9
Switzerland 6 6 15
Australia 7 7 5
Canada 8 8 3
Norway 9 9 6
Denmark 10 10 14
United Kingdom 11 11 12
Iceland 12 12 16
Japan 13 13 21
Germany 14 14 17
Netherlands 15 15 8
New Zealand 16 16 10
Hong Kong SAR 17 17 13
Austria 18 18 18
Israel 19 19 24
Chile 20 20 27
Korea 21 21 23
Spain 22 22 22
Portugal 23 23 25
Ireland 24 24 11
Belgium 25 25 19
Estonia 26 26 29
Malaysia 27 27 30
Slovenia 28 28 31
Hungary 29 29 28
France 30 30 20
Thailand 31 31 33
South Africa 32 32 34
China 33 33 39
Tunisia 34 — —
Mauritius 35 34 32
Lithuania 36 35 43
Trinidad and Tobago 37 36 38
Greece 38 37 36
Italy 39 38 26
Czech Republic 40 39 37
Botswana 41 — —
Uruguay 42 40 46
Costa Rica 43 41 35
Latvia 44 42 47
Mexico 45 43 42
Brazil 46 44 44
Jordan 47 45 45
India 48 46 57
Slovak Republic 49 47 40
Panama 50 48 53
Poland 51 49 41
Dominican Republic 52 50 50
Namibia 53 — —
Peru 54 51 55
Morocco 55 — —
Colombia 56 52 65
El Salvador 57 53 58
Croatia 58 — —
Sri Lanka 59 54 61
Jamaica 60 55 52
Philippines 61 56 48
Bulgaria 62 57 59
Argentina 63 58 49
Russian Federation 64 59 63
Vietnam 65 60 60
Romania 66 61 56
Indonesia 67 62 64
Venezuela 68 63 62
Turkey 69 64 54
Guatemala 70 65 66
Nigeria 71 66 74
Paraguay 72 67 72
Ecuador 73 68 68
Bangladesh 74 69 71
Nicaragua 75 70 73
Honduras 76 71 70
Ukraine 77 72 69
Bolivia 78 73 67
Zimbabwe 79 74 75
Haiti 80 — —
Growth
Competitiveness
Ranking 2002
Growth
Competitiveness
Ranking 2001
Growth
Competitiveness
Ranking 2002 among
GCR 2001 countries*
* Only 74 countries out of the 75 covered last year are shown, as Egypt is not included in this year’s Report. ** Using 2002 formula
6
Executive Summary
Country
United States 1 1 16 2
Finland 2 3 1 14
Taiwan 3 2 27 6
Singapore 4 17 7 1
Sweden 5 4 15 34
Switzerland 6 6 8 5
Australia 7 9 5 4
Canada 8 8 9 12
Norway 9 10 12 7
Denmark 10 11 2 31
United Kingdom 11 15 6 16
Iceland 12 16 3 24
Japan 13 5 25 29
Germany 14 12 14 22
Netherlands 15 19 10 19
New Zealand 16 27 4 17
Hong Kong SAR 17 32 13 3
Austria 18 23 11 23
Israel 19 7 17 62
Chile 20 33 19 13
Korea 21 18 32 10
Spain 22 24 26 15
Portugal 23 13 21 40
Ireland 24 31 18 9
Belgium 25 22 22 26
Estonia 26 14 28 46
Malaysia 27 26 33 20
Slovenia 28 25 23 50
Hungary 29 21 30 49
France 30 28 29 28
Thailand 31 41 39 11
South Africa 32 38 34 30
China 33 63 38 8
Tunisia 34 60 24 37
Mauritius 35 45 35 36
Lithuania 36 40 36 45
Trinidad and Tobago 37 42 43 25
Greece 38 30 44 47
Italy 39 39 37 27
Czech Republic 40 20 50 59
Botswana 41 61 31 48
Uruguay 42 50 20 73
Costa Rica 43 37 46 43
Latvia 44 29 52 55
Mexico 45 47 58 21
Brazil 46 35 45 67
Jordan 47 51 40 57
India 48 57 59 18
Slovak Republic 49 34 53 64
Panama 50 49 55 42
Poland 51 36 61 54
Dominican Republic 52 48 60 41
Namibia 53 59 41 66
Peru 54 64 49 52
Morocco 55 62 56 44
Colombia 56 58 54 51
El Salvador 57 69 48 33
Croatia 58 43 57 70
Sri Lanka 59 67 42 60
Jamaica 60 46 51 74
Philippines 61 52 70 32
Bulgaria 62 56 47 75
Argentina 63 44 66 65
Russian Federation 64 66 65 35
Vietnam 65 68 62 38
Romania 66 55 67 58
Indonesia 67 65 77 53
Venezuela 68 53 73 72
Turkey 69 54 63 78
Guatemala 70 74 74 56
Nigeria 71 71 78 61
Paraguay 72 76 71 63
Ecuador 73 70 75 69
Bangladesh 74 79 79 39
Nicaragua 75 73 64 79
Honduras 76 78 76 71
Ukraine 77 72 72 77
Bolivia 78 77 69 76
Zimbabwe 79 75 68 80
Haiti 80 80 80 68
Table 2: Rankings on growth competitiveness component indexes
GCI Ranking
Technology
Index Ranking
Public Institutions
Index Ranking
Macroeconomic
Environment
Index Ranking
7
Executive Summary
As far as emerging-market economies are concerned,
China and India register substantial improvements in their
relative positions, to 33 and 48, respectively. The world’s
two most populous countries—but especially China—
have outperformed most other countries in terms of
economic growth in recent years. Much of the countries’
overall rankings is owed to their stable macroeconomic
environment, although in the case of China potential risks
have been flagged more recently with regard to contingent
liabilities for the budget stemming from problems in the
banking sector.
Conversely, the overall rankings of Argentina and
Turkey decline substantially, to 63 and 69, respectively.
Both countries have suffered from severe financial crises
that have caused real output to shrink dramatically. Rela-tive
to their overall position, both countries do moderately
well on the technology dimension. Major problems are
identified in the areas of public institutions and the
macroeconomic environment, however.
Tunisia is the highest new entrant at number 34.
Further down the list are Botswana at number 41,
Morocco at number 55, Namibia at 53, Croatia at number
58, and Haiti at number 80.Tunisia owes its ranking to
moderately good performance on macroeconomic envi-ronment
variables and especially to good public institu-tions.
Botswana is also perceived to perform well with
regard to its public institutions relative to its overall posi-tion
on the Growth Competitiveness Index, whereas its
position on the technology index is sub-par, given its
overall competitiveness score. Haiti, at the bottom, is
known to be going through one of the most difficult
periods in its history. Its competitiveness suffers from rock-bottom
scores on technology and public institutions and
only a slighter better position regarding the country’s
macroeconomic environment.
The Microeconomic Competitiveness Index
Whereas the GCI strives to estimate the underlying con-ditions
for growth over the medium term, the Microeco-nomic
Competitiveness Index (MICI) examines the
underlying conditions defining the sustainable level of
productivity in each of the 80 countries covered in the
Report.2 Productivity and the creation of wealth are rooted
in the sophistication of companies and operating practices
as well as in the quality of the microeconomic business
environment in which a nation’s firms compete. As impor-tant
as the macroeconomic, political, and legal contexts
are, unless there is appropriate improvement at the micro-economic
level, other reforms will not bear full fruit.
Accordingly, the MICI is composed of two subindexes:
one that reflects the degree of company sophistication and
another that mirrors the quality of the national business
environment. Both subindexes draw on a complex array
of variables with demonstrated statistical relationships to
GDP per capita (PPP) using common factor analysis.The
weights for the two subindexes are determined from the
coefficients of a multiple regression of the subindexes on
GDP per capita and are 0.37 and 0.63, respectively.
This year’s MICI rankings are shown in Table 1, while
subrankings on the sophistication of company operating
practices in each country and the quality of the business
environment are presented in Table 3.The United States
retakes the leading position over Finland after two years of
being ranked second. Consistent with its top position on
the GCI, the United States appears to be in an excellent
position to return to a sustained growth path. Other
advanced nations improving their MICI rankings include
the United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium,Taiwan, and
Ireland. Of these, the improvement of the United
Kingdom’s position is particularly remarkable, with its
jump from 7 in 2001 to 3 this year, reflecting, inter alia,
notable improvements in venture capital availability, intel-lectual
property rights protection, the effectiveness of
antitrust policy, and buyer sophistication. By contrast, the
Netherlands, France, and New Zealand are found to have
become relatively less competitive in terms of their foun-dations
of productivity and economic prosperity. The drop
of the Netherlands from 3 to 7 is particularly significant,
where deteriorations relative to other nations were
found in both the business environment and company
sophistication, including financial market sophistication,
the context for firm strategy and rivalry, public administra-tive
effectiveness, R&D spending, and marketing.
Of the countries newly added to the sample, Tunisia
is the top-ranked performer, coming in 32nd. Morocco,
Namibia, and Croatia all enter at around 50. Although the
increase in the number of countries make intertemporal
comparisons difficult, these three new entrants appear
significantly less competitive than, say, Lithuania, which
jumped from 49 in 2001 to 40 this year. Other developing
nations whose competitiveness improved significantly
include Slovenia, the Dominican Republic, and Sri Lanka.
The largest increase, however, has been achieved by
Malaysia, reflecting improvements in a number of dimen-sions
including cluster vitality, the rules governing compe-tition,
value chain presence, branding, and the nature of
competitive advantage.
Conversely, several developing countries have suffered
from a decline in their competitiveness as mirrored in a
lower position in the MICI. Apart from the Philippines
and Indonesia, this group includes Argentina and Turkey,
two countries that have experienced major financial crises.
Turkey’s drop by 19 ranks is particularly sharp; Argentina’s
fall is slightly less, but ranked 65th now, it is clear that the
country faces enormous challenges in most dimensions of
competitiveness.
Country
United States 1 1 1
Finland 2 4 2
United Kingdom 3 3 3
Germany 4 2 4
Switzerland 5 5 6
Sweden 6 6 8
Netherlands 7 8 10
Denmark 8 9 9
Singapore 9 14 5
Canada 10 13 7
Japan 11 7 17
Austria 12 12 12
Belgium 13 11 15
Australia 14 19 11
France 15 10 21
Taiwan 16 16 13
Iceland 17 17 14
Israel 18 20 18
Hong Kong SAR 19 24 16
Ireland 20 15 22
Norway 21 23 19
New Zealand 22 25 20
Korea 23 21 23
Italy 24 18 24
Spain 25 22 25
Malaysia 26 27 26
Slovenia 27 26 27
Hungary 28 29 29
South Africa 29 31 33
Estonia 30 36 28
Chile 31 35 31
Tunisia 32 37 30
Brazil 33 28 36
Czech Republic 34 34 34
Thailand 35 33 35
Portugal 36 41 32
India 37 40 37
China 38 38 38
Costa Rica 39 32 47
Lithuania 40 39 39
Dominican Republic 41 30 53
Slovak Republic 42 43 40
Greece 43 47 41
Trinidad and Tobago 44 44 44
Latvia 45 48 42
Poland 46 46 45
Sri Lanka 47 52 43
Morocco 48 50 46
Mauritius 49 42 50
Panama 50 54 52
Namibia 51 58 49
Croatia 52 53 54
Jordan 53 59 48
Turkey 54 56 55
Mexico 55 45 60
Colombia 56 51 57
Botswana 57 64 51
Russian Federation 58 62 56
Jamaica 59 60 59
Vietnam 60 67 58
Philippines 61 49 67
Uruguay 62 63 61
El Salvador 63 61 62
Indonesia 64 55 65
Argentina 65 57 68
Peru 66 65 66
Romania 67 69 64
Bulgaria 68 72 63
Ukraine 69 66 69
Zimbabwe 70 68 70
Nigeria 71 71 71
Venezuela 72 73 72
Guatemala 73 70 73
Bangladesh 74 76 74
Nicaragua 75 75 76
Paraguay 76 77 75
Ecuador 77 74 77
Honduras 78 78 79
Bolivia 79 79 78
Haiti 80 80 80
Table 3: Rankings on microeconomic competitiveness
component subindexes
MICI
Ranking
Company
Operations and
Strategy Ranking
Quality of the
National Business
Environment Ranking
In general, there exists a fairly close correlation
between company sophistication and the quality of the
business environment in which the firms operate. But
there are some interesting outliers. Countries whose com-pany
development is ahead of the business environment
include four G-7 countries: Japan, Germany, France, and
Italy. In these countries, significant changes in public
policy are necessary to improve the environment for
competition. Unless such improvements are implemented,
companies will be prone to move operations or make new
investments outside the countries. However, significant
deficits relative to the degree of firm-level sophistication
are also found in several emerging-market economies,
including Argentina, the Dominican Republic, and
Indonesia.
Advanced countries whose business environment
ranks ahead of current company sophistication include
Portugal, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and
Singapore. This constellation is also found in several devel-oping
nations and transition economies, such as Tunisia,
Botswana, and Estonia. Many leading companies in these
countries still rely on natural resource extraction or are
local subsidiaries of foreign multinationals that are not
competing with sophisticated enough strategies. In some
cases, it appears that the rapid improvements in the busi-ness
environment have not yet been taken advantage of
by companies that remain focused on traditional ways of
competing. In these, improvements in entrepreneurship,
strategic thinking, managerial practice, and business educa-tion
seem particularly crucial.
A time-series analysis confirms that there has been a
clear upgrading in national business environments since
1998, when the MICI was introduced.The bar is rising,
and countries need to make considerable progress just to
maintain position vis-à-vis other countries. Areas where
particular improvements have been registered over the last
five years include, for instance, infrastructure, financial
markets, import tariffs, and the reduction of red tape. This
year’s data, however, reveal an interesting development.
Developing countries were less successful in improving
their business environments than advanced countries. In
company operations and strategy, there are also clear areas
where companies in many countries are progressing but
also signs that the growing intensity of competition is
making it hard to keep up. For example, companies in
many countries report difficulties in mastering the full
value chain.While companies in developing countries
seem to be struggling with developing brands, those in
advanced countries report greater difficulties in innovating
on the global knowledge frontier.
Finally, in constructing the MICI, it is recognized that
in the short- and medium-term, nations can overperform
their microeconomic fundamentals, for example, because
of surges of inbound foreign direct investment or natural
8
Executive Summary
resource windfalls. However, unless the microeconomic
fundamentals are improved, countries will find it difficult
to sustain their levels of prosperity when these special fac-tors
disappear. Conversely, a country may underperform in
the sense that it has not fully achieved the level of GDP
per capita that would appear reachable given the country’s
microeconomic foundations. A positive gap between the
MICI and GDP per capita signals upside potential; a nega-tive
gap indicates vulnerability. Countries with upside
potential include the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Brazil,
Chile, Estonia, Lithuania, and India. Norway, Iceland,
Ireland, Canada, Greece, Portugal, Bolivia, and Haiti
are countries, in contrast, whose current GDP per
capita exceeds that predicted by their microeconomic
competitiveness.