global competitiveness report

2021/05/21

competitiveness examines This factor is identified with C3 (201011) and explains 8.8% (8.9%) of the total variability. No, Is the Subject Area "Labor markets" applicable to this article? Learn how and when to remove this template message. Moreover, the 2012 GSCI report [13] indicates that countries in northern Europe are the leading countries: Denmarkrank 1, Swedenrank 2 Norwayrank 3 have the highest rakings, although this index is proposed from a sustainable perspective. Values of the KMO measurement below 0.5 are not acceptable [24]. To maintain competitiveness at this stage of development, competitiveness hinges mainly on well-functioning public and private institutions (pillar 1), appropriate infrastructure (pillar 2), a stable macroeconomic framework (pillar 3), and good health and primary education (pillar 4). The eternal question: What is the best index? Similarly, when limited to the European context, the association between the CSI index and the European Competitiveness Index (ECI) is not only maintained, but rather increases. Finally, the CSI shows a very similar evolution as mentioned in the previous paragraph (see Figs 3 and 5). At this point, competitiveness becomes increasingly driven by higher education and training (pillar 5), efficient goods markets (pillar 6), efficient labor markets (pillar 7), developed financial markets (pillar 8), the ability to harness the benefits of existing technologies (pillar 9), and its market size, both domestic and international (pillar 10). You can find the computation and structure of the GCI pp. As a complement to the linear dependence analysis, we calculated the KMO index (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin). At this stage, companies must compete by producing new and different goods using the most sophisticated production processes (pillar 11) and through innovation (pillar 12). here. Thus, the GCI separates countries into three specific stages: factor-driven, efficiency-driven, and innovation-driven, each implying a growing degree of complexity in the operation of the economy. Source: Prepared by authors using ArcGIS software. Unreliable citations may be challenged or deleted. This is the top 30 of the 2022 report:[12], This is the full ranking of the 2019 report:[11], This is the top 30 of the 2018 report:[10], This is the top 30 of the 20172018 report:[13], This is the top 30 of the 20162017 report:[14], This is the top 30 of the 20152016 report:[15], This is the top 30 of the 20142015 report:[1], This is the top 30 of the 20132014 report:[16], This is the top 30 of the 20122013 report:[17], This is the top 30 of the 20112012 report:[18][19], This is the top 30 of the 20102011 report:[20], This is the top 30 of the 20092010 report:[21], This is the top 30 of the 20082009 report:[22]. According to the structure of said factor (which is common to both periods), a possible name could be Human development and ease of communication. This factor explains 28.4% (31.5%) of the total variability. The Global Competitiveness Report 2018[10] and 2019[11] used the ecological footprint as a context indicator, but the footprint was not included in the scoring algorithm that determines the ranking. Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, Full Data Edition. Please help this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Yes However, as we mentioned previously it is not questionable that inside the subjectivity, our proposed index is less manipulable for humans as no survey opinions are included. Similarly, all of the countries classified in the last quintile for the 200708 period, except for Israel, remain in the same quintile for the 201011 period. One year later, in 2013, the first report of SolAbility-GSCI [13] only using quantitative indicators was published by this South Korean company and maintains the publication currently but from the perspective of sustainability. The variables are organized into twelve pillars,[6] with each pillar representing an area considered as an important determinant of competitiveness. The data provided by the scores of the retained factors have been synthesized in a sole index, the synthetic competitiveness index (CSI), which summarizes the situation of each of the analyzed countries in terms of competitiveness. The rankings provided by the proposed index (CSI) present a high degree of association with the rankings from the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) for the two analyzed periods. Meanwhile, the most competitive countries for both periods belong to Oceania (Australia), America (United States), Central and Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland), and Asia (Singapore). We use the scores to analyze the geographic distribution of the indices within said context and the relationship between the two.

The geographic representation is based on the quintiles (values that divide the corresponding distribution into five types, each with the same number of countries, approximately). Be aware, there is not included hard data into the following pillars: the Pillar 1 Institutions, the Pillar 2 Financial market development, the Pillar 11 Business sophisticationand the Pillar 12Innovation. Meanwhile, other factors related to the 200708 period, such as C3, C4, and C6, could be identified in 201011 with C2, C3, and C6, respectively, since the variables that have higher correlations with each of these factors are the same for both periods. Similarly, C4 (200708) can be called Foreign trade, since the higher correlations correspond to the percentage of imports (Pillar6X4) and exports (Pillar10X1) in the GDP.

In regard to the WEFs methodology, we lean toward a competitiveness index based on official, quantitative data that is computed using statistical and/or mathematical procedures, which considers weights that can be implicitly determined by the inherent structure of the data. Depending on what indicators are used to measure competitiveness, the outcome will be different. This coefficient quantifies the degree of association between the two rankings and indicates their direction, as well as the association between the WEF-GCI for the countries analyzed in this study, which is statistically significant, positive and high. According to Loo [26], Singapore was ranked 3rd using an average between IMD-WCY and WEF-GCI during the period 20072011, and in the period 20092011 was ranking the first one. Theoretically, we cannot establish as clear of a correspondence for the remaining factors in the 200708 period and the 201011 period as those described in the previous paragraph. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265045.t006. In terms of the competitiveness of European countries for the 200708 period, as previously mentioned, this section compares the results obtained for the two aforementioned indicators with those corresponding to the European Competitiveness Index (ECI) for the 200607 period. Yes Yes Finally, the relevant advantages of using this index are the transparency of the information of WEF-GCI (freely available online) and continuation in yearly published since 1979. According to Loo (2012), Singapore was ranked 1st in the rank using an average between IMD-WCY and WEF-GCI. No, Is the Subject Area "Asia" applicable to this article? However, this factor is not exclusive of health for the 201011 period, but some of the variables included in this factor (such as life expectancy and cases of tuberculosis and HIV) are correlated with C4 (8.2% of total variability). [5] It is made up of over 110 variables, of which two thirds come from the Executive Opinion Survey, and one third comes from publicly available sources such as the United Nations. Additionally, limiting our study to countries in the European Union, we have compared the results obtained for the 200708 period for the two aforementioned indices with those from the European Competitiveness Index (ECI) for the 200607 period. In turn, the country distribution considering their scores in the GCI and CSI for the two analyzed periods is shown in Figs 2, 3, 4, and 5. Similarly, although it may seem obvious, the two indices provide different rankings, both in terms of the majority of the countries that are classified as the most competitive according to the WEF-GCI (the first 20 countries) and the majority of the countries that are classified as the least competitive (the last 20 countries), which remain in the same group according to the alternative index CSI. Regarding the countries, different sizes, geographical location, populations, political situations, or climate are other characteristics to take into account in order to elaborate an index. These are: In the factor-driven stage countries compete based on their factor endowments, primarily unskilled labor and natural resources.

The report "assesses the ability of countries to provide high levels of prosperity to their citizens". The Global Competitiveness Index integrates the macroeconomic and the micro/business aspects of competitiveness into a single index. 4950 of the Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, Full Data Edition. Considering the classification presented in Table 7, according to the CSI, we can see that the most competitive countries for the two analyzed periods are Singapore and Norway. Finally, as countries move into the innovation-driven stage, they are only able to sustain higher wages and a higher standard of living if their businesses are able to compete by providing new or unique products. At the same time, other countries relative competitiveness improved from one period to the next: Austria, Germany, Estonia (Europe), and Oman (Asia). Meanwhile, the C2 factor (12% of the total variability) for the 200708 period unites all of the variables that quantify health-related aspects, even those that appear to be accounted for in Factor C1. In summary, and in terms of the evolution of the countries positioned in the first and fifth quintiles, it is noteworthy that for both periods, the majority of the least competitive countries are located in Africa, except for Cambodia, while the most competitive countries are located in Australia (Oceania), United States (America), Singapore (Asia), and others in Central and Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland). The Global Competitiveness Report (GCR)[1] is a yearly report published by the World Economic Forum. See appendix in Page 47 of the 2011-12 report. Yes However, it is not questionable that inside the subjectivity, our proposed index is less manipulable for humans as no survey opinions are included.

Sitemap 18

- le creuset enameled cast iron safe