This month the World Economic Forum and the Harvard Center for International Development issued this year's Global Competitiveness Report.
Finland, the US, and Canada ranked first through third among the 75 countries studied, while Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe ranked in the last three places.
As a co-director of this annual study, I am often asked what competitiveness actually means. Do countries really compete economically, in the way that they do militarily? Does it make sense to say that Finland is more competitive than, say, Germany or Italy?
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
For the purposes of our report, we define competitiveness in a precise way: as a country's capacity to achieve sustained economic growth in the medium term -- ie, five-years time. In defining competitiveness we are not claiming that one country's competitiveness means another country's lack of competitiveness. With better policies all countries in the world could simultaneously achieve higher growth. Even so, it does make sense to rank countries regarding their capacity to achieve growth. Each country is interested in knowing whether its policies and institutions stack up against those of other nations in the capacity to achieve and sustain economic growth.
There are aspects of growth that are like head-to-head competition, in which the gains of one country or region can be at the expense of another country or region.
Countries compete for internationally mobile capital. The more one country reaps in foreign direct investment, the less investment another country can attract. This is clear when countries compete for an individual investment project.
When Intel plans a new semiconductor plant, it invites bids from various countries. The competition is fierce to attract the project, and usually involves tax breaks, commitments on infrastructure, and even promises about the engineering curriculum in the local university.
In this year's rankings, we determined a country's competitiveness (the capacity to grow) according to three broad criteria: technology, public institutions; and macroeconomic stability.
Indexes were created in each of these categories and then averaged in a specific manner to create an overall Growth Competitiveness Index.
Technology refers to the ability of the country to spur new inventions and to adopt technologies invented in other countries. Some countries, like the US, Japan, Korea, Israel, and Sweden, invest heavily in research and development, and so achieve high rates of innovation. Other countries, such as Argentina and Brazil, invest less in research and development, and therefore achieve little in the way of new products and processes. Innovators enjoy a high level of prosperity as the result of their innovations. Here the US, Canada, and Finland rank first through third.
Public institutions refer to the quality of governance. Is there widespread corruption? Are courts honest and impartial in their judgments? Can governments be trusted to follow through on their commitments?
Countries with well-functioning public institutions achieve higher rates of economic growth than do countries plagued by corruption and rotten judges. High ethical standards promote better economic performance. Northern Europe stands at the top of the world in this regard, with Finland, Iceland, and Denmark ranking first through third. Corruption is deemed nearly non-existent in these countries.
Macroeconomic stability refers to the absence of inflation, budget balance, a realistic value for the exchange rate, the ability of businesses and government to obtain market loans, and high confidence that government financial obligations will be honored. We have learned in the past decade that even when businesses are internationally competitive, a macroeconomic crisis can derail economic growth, as it did in most of Asia in the late 1990s. Singapore, Ireland, and Switzerland are the three top-ranked countries in macroeconomic stability.
In our competitiveness studies, we noticed that the world economy can be divided into two categories of countries: the innovators and the non-innovators. Only about 20 countries in the world are active creators of new inventions. For these countries, which tend to be among the world's richest, continued competitiveness requires an excellent system of technological innovation.
Universities must be excellent, government laboratories should be world class, and government and industry should be investing heavily in research and development. A key determinant of future growth among these economies is the proportion of students that go on to higher education after high-school graduation. This proportion is now around 80 percent of students in Canada and the US.
For "non-innovators," technology remains important, but in these countries most new technologies are imported from abroad rather than invented at home. Some of these countries are good at importing new technologies, and others are not. For the past decade or more, a great deal of technological imports came in the context of foreign direct investment. When US firms invested heavily in Mexico, or Taiwanese firms invested heavily in mainland China, the firms brought with them new technologies that upgraded the production efficiency of the host economy. So it made sense for countries to compete vigorously for such foreign investors: they offer not only capital, but also new technologies.
A strength and weakness of our analysis of competitiveness is that it focuses on the medium term, not the coming year or two. Our rankings cannot be used to assess short run cyclical conditions in an economy, but do provide insights into the longer-term prospects of major economies. Thus, it is ironic that many of this year's leaders in competitiveness, such as the US and Singapore, are in recession, while countries further down the list, such as China (39th), will escape the global recession.
Part of the slowdown relates to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, but it is becoming clear that the US economy, and other economies linked to the US through trade and production networks, were sliding into recession before September.
Still, our best guess is that this cyclical downturn will prove temporary, and that on a five-year perspective, the US will continue to demonstrate a strong capacity to achieve economic growth.
Jeffrey Sachs is Galen L. Stone professor of economics, and director of the Center for International Development, Harvard University.
Copyright: Project syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations