Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17 World Economic Forum › en › aktualnosci › 2016 › 20160928_awans_en.pdf · 2016-09-29 · Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17 World

Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17World Economic Forum

Warsaw, September 28, 2016

Piotr BoguszewskiDorota Mirowska-Wierzbicka/Financial Stability Department

Contents

Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17

1 Global Competitiveness Report – introductory remarks

2 Global processes – 2016 vs. trends

3 World in 2016

4 Poland

5 Financial stability, innovation

6 Concluding remarks

2

Global Competitiveness Report– introductory remarks

3

1


Final assessment of the country is a weighted sum of answers to the particular questions and results of so called „hard assessments” of the country (mainly some macroeconomic data). Altogether 113 variables are taken into account.

Procedure of means calculation has a built-in mechanism of results weighing, which takes into account results from the previous year. It smooths the assessments.

EOS methodology is a subject of an audit (last in 2012).

This year’s report – prepared according to methodology adopted in previous years.

Based on Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) – a survey addressed to boards of directors and executive boards members of enterprises participating in the survey.

Interviewees are asked about situation in the country, not in the particular company.

In 2016 the survey was conducted in 138 countries on the sample consisting of circa 14.000 interviewees.

Reliability of questionnaires (Mahalanobisdistance method) and of country data is validated. This year 6% of questionnaires were canceled and datasets from some countries were not taken into account.

4

Methodological assumptions


5

Domestic research procedure National Bank of Poland

has participated since 2009 in work on the Report: on the methodological

consultation level, in the research process –

conducting annual EOS among domestic entrepreneurs,

in the analytical process –domestic presentation of the Report,

in the educational area in a broad sense.

Domestic research procedure – also stable since couple of editions.

Crucial role of regional branches of NBP.

214 questionnaires (firms) in the current year.

The sample is compatible with the general methodology of the Report: circa 50% of respondents

are the same as in the previous year,

sectors (agriculture, industry, services) arerepresented according to their role in Polish GDP,

50% share of SME’s.

In the Report different definition of a large company – above 500 employees. In Poland, it is hard to find such entities in agriculture.

The survey conducted between February and April 2016.


Global processes – 2016 r. vs. trends

6

2


Further “appeasement of the ranking” – since 2013 systematic decline of reshuffling scale.

Still very high percentage of countries improving their ranking. However, it is lower than in 2015.

Still very low percentage of countries with deterioration of their position in ranking.

Dynamics – scale of reshuffling

7

Source: Own calculations based on WEF.

Figure 1. Frequency of annual changes of rankings in years 2006-16 [in %]

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 20162007 2009 2011 2013 2015

68

72

76

80

84

88

92

(%)

10

20

30

40

50

60


Klasa zmian 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016for

years

W 1-2 12,7 17,6 12,1 15,9 17,4 10,9 12,6 11,2 16,9 24,6 15,2W 3-5 8,5 11,2 21,2 6,8 16,7 12,3 13,3 20,3 19,1 15,7 14,5W 6-10 0,8 8,0 6,8 8,3 9,4 9,4 11,2 18,2 10,3 6,0 8,8W 11-15 1,7 2,4 3,0 1,5 2,2 5,8 2,8 4,9 3,7 1,5 3,0W >15 0,0 1,6 3,0 2,3 0,0 1,4 0,0 2,1 1,5 0,7 1,3

B.Z. 11,6 12,7 13,6 9,8 9,4 13,0 9,8 11,2 15,4 14,2 12,1S 1-2 17,0 8,5 15,9 16,7 18,8 20,3 16,1 12,6 14,7 10,4 15,1S 3-5 13,4 16,9 10,6 15,9 10,9 13,0 10,5 7,0 8,8 11,9 11,9S 6-10 14,3 22,0 7,6 14,4 12,3 5,8 15,4 8,4 6,6 10,4 11,7S 11-15 3,6 11,9 3,8 6,1 2,9 6,5 5,6 3,5 1,5 2,2 4,8S >15 2,7 4,2 2,3 2,3 0,0 1,4 2,8 0,7 1,5 2,2 2,0

Dynamics – structure of reshuffling

8

Historically highest percentage of small increases – groups W 1-2. The same situation as in the previous year.

Still very high percentage of “lack of changes” –structural freezing?

Third consecutive year in which statistics of declines are lower than multiannual averages in all groups.

Still low indicator S 11-15.Source: Own calculations based on WEF data.

Table 1. Distribution of increases and declines in rankings in years 2007-16.


Dynamics – competitors’ pressure and resistance 9

Figure 2. Barriers of ranking changes in years 2007-16

In 2016, scoring thatguarantees improvement in ranking has increased. Current level – still low.

Since 2010 – declining number of countries for which increase of scoring and decrease of ranking occurred– reversal od tendency.

In total – certain increase of competitive pressure.

Source: Own calculations based on WEF data.


2008 2012 20162006 2010 2014

0

10

20

30

5

15

25

35

0,01

0,1

1

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,060,070,080,09

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,60,70,80,9INCREASE OF SCORING

AND DECREASE OF RANKING (NUMBER – LHS)

SCORING GUARANTEEING INCREASE (RHS)

INCREASE OF SCORING AND DECREASE OF RANKING (MEDIAN – RHS)

CH

ANG

E O

F G

CI –

LOG

ARIT

HM

IC S

CAL

E

Who runs ahead, who stays behind?10

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016D1 D2 D3 D4D5 D6 D7 D8D9 D10 POLAND

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

D1 D2 D3 D4D5 D6 D7 D8D9 D10 POLAND

Figure 3. GCI means in decile groups


Figure 4. Evolution of GCI values in years (2007=100) – means in decile groups


Highest income and lowest income traps (decile 1 and 10) –average scorings in these deciles almost unchanged.

Groups of the most developedcountries (decile 1 and 2) – most sensitive to global financial crisis – after 2008 visible effect of depression.

…but these groups are returning to initial states.

Significant distance between 1, 2 and 3 deciles: The mean scoring of none of the

groups in the end of analysis period crossed the mean of higher group in the beginning of analysis period.

Poland crossed “decile barrier”(for 4thgroup) and its scoring has rapidly increased in 2016.

Who runs ahead, who stays behind? – cont.

11Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17

Scoring and its changes – selected characteristics12

Figure 5. Parameters of GCI distribution (left chart) and of GCI changes (right chart) in years 2007-16

-.4-.2

0.2

.42008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016



4,05

4,1

4,15

4,2

4,25

4,3

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

GCI

MEDIAN MEAN

■ In 2016 average annual increase of scoring is slightly larger than in 2015 (“acceleration”), and variability of this indicator is a little bit larger.

13

■ Upward trend of the GCI median, but stabilization since 2014.

■ Stabilization of the mean till 2013, but large increase since then.

■ Such configuration may suggest weaker growth at the left tail of the distribution – countries with lower ranking.

Scoring and its changes – selected characteristics – cont.


CountryDecrease in years 2007-16

Hungary -22Oman -24Slovak Republic -24Cyprus -28Pakistan -30Nigeria -32Venezuela -32Egypt -38El Salvador -38Tunisia -63

Winners and losers in years 2007-16

14

CountryIncrease in years 2007-16

Tajikistan 40Georgia 31Albania 29Azerbaijan 29Bulgaria 29Macedonia 26United Arab Emirates 21Cambodia 21Peru 19Panama 17

Significant declines of ranking in relatively well developed, small countries – Slovak Republic, Hungary, Cyprus.

Devastating impact of political instability (e.g. in Tunisia, Egypt, Venezuela, Nigeria).

The biggest improvement –generally in smaller countries, relatively less developed (of which 6 post-socialistcountries).

Table 2. Ten countries with the highest changes in rankings in years 2007-16



World in 2016

15

3


16

Map 1. The World – distribution of GCI in 2016 r.



India – further significant improvement.

Declines in 3 post-socialist countries.

Zambia – sizeable drop, caused by, inter alia,declining cooper price, significant for this economy.

17

„Winners and Losers” – last year

CountryDecline in years 2015-16

Romania -9Laos -10Philippines -10El Salvador -10Kazakhstan -11Montenegro -12Ecuador -15Moldova -16Cyprus -18Zambia -22

CountryIncrease in years 2015-16

India 16Albania 13Jamaica 11Bhutan 8Malta 8Panama 8Botswana 7Georgia 7Dominican Republic 6Mexico 6

Table 3. Ten countries with the highest changes in rankings in years 2015-16.



Since 2012 no “falling out”, only “reshufflings”.

Switzerland still a leader since 2009, second position of Singapore (since 2011).

Since 2014 improvement of Netherlands’ and Sweden’s positions.

Improvement of the UK’s position (survey conducted before Brexit).

Systematic fall of Finland’s position.

Canada, Denmark, Taiwan –still out of the Top 10 group.

Top 10

18

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Switzerland 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Singapore 6 8 7 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2US 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 7 5 3 3 3Netherlands 10 8 10 8 7 5 8 8 5 4Germany 8 7 5 7 7 5 6 6 4 5 4 5Sweden 9 9 4 4 4 2 3 4 6 10 9 6UK 3 2 9 10 8 10 9 10 7Japan 5 5 8 9 8 6 9 10 9 6 6 8Hong Kong SAR 10 9 7 7 7 9Finland 2 6 6 6 6 7 4 3 3 4 8 10Canada 10 9 10Denmark 7 3 3 3 5 9 8Taiwan 10

Table 4. Top 10 of GCR ranking in years 2005-16



19

Map 2. Europe – distribution of GCI in 2016

Europe is still a competitiveness leader – 6 countries from this continent in the TOP 10.

The most developed Europeancountries decide on the competitiveness of Europe. Considerable diversification of development.

Still relatively worse situation of countries from the South of the continent.

Quite big diversification in Pillar “Macroeconomic environment”.



Poland

20

4


21

Poland’s position in ranking in years 2005-16


I. InstitutionsII. InfrastructureIII. Macroeconomic

environment IV. Health and primary

educationV. Higher educationVI. Goods market

efficiencyVII. Labor market

efficiencyVIII. Financial market

developmentIX. Technological

readinessX. Market sizeXI. Business

sophisticationXII. Innovation2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

56

52

48

44

40

36

PO

SIT

ION

IN R

AN

KIN

G

4745

5153

46

39

41

41

4243 41

36

4,1

4,2

4,3

4,4

4,5

4,6

4,15

4,25

4,35

4,45

4,55

SC

OR

ING

20

30

40

50

60

70

G I

2030

4050

6070

G II

2030

4050

6070

G III

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 800

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

020406080 0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

BE

TTE

R


22

Poland’s position – cont. Significant improvement of

Poland’s ranking – by 5 positions, accompanied by a significant increase of scoring (by 0.07).

Convergence of basic factors, but a divergence (and decline) of institutions assessment.

Systematic improvement of infrastructure. However, still historically low assessment of labor market.

Another year of increase in innovation but still distant positions in this area.

Figure 6. Poland’s position (for 12 pillars of GCI) in 2007-16Source: Own calculations based on WEF data.

I. InstitutionsII. InfrastructureIII. Macroeconomic

environment IV. Health and primary

educationV. Higher educationVI. Goods market

efficiencyVII. Labor market efficiencyVIII. Financial market

developmentIX. Technological

readinessX. Market sizeXI. Business

sophisticationXII. Innovation


23

Figure 7. Distribution of most problematic factors for doing business in 2015 (left chart) and shares of strong and weak positions in rankings in years 2006-16 [in%] (right chart)

Poland – strengths and weaknesses



0 5 10 15 20 25

FOREIGN CURRENCY REGULATIONS

CRIME AND THEFT

INFLATION

CORRUPTION

POOR PUBLIC HEALTH

GOVERNMENT INSTABILITY

POOR WORK ETHICS

LOW INNOVATION

INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE

ACCES TO FINANCING

WORKFORCE QUALIFICATIONS

INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY

HIGH TAX RATES

POLICY INSTABILITY

LABOR MARKET BARRIERS

TAX REGULATIONS

BARRIERS

PROBLEM 2010 2012 2015 2016TAX REGULATIONS 1 1 1 1LABOR MARKET BARRIERS 3 2 2 2POLICY INSTABILITY 10 12 9 3HIGH TAX RATES 5 4 3 4INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY 2 3 4 5WORKFORCE QUALIFICATIONS 8 8 8 6ACCESS TO FINANCING 4 5 5 7INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE 6 6 6 8LOW INNOVATION 7 7 9POOR WORK ETHICS 7 9 10 10GOVERNMENT INSTABILITY 12 14 13 11POOR PUBLIC HEALTH 13 13 11 12CORRUPTION 9 10 12 13INFLATION 14 11 15 14CRIME AND THEFT 15 15 14 15FOREIGN CURRENCY REGULATIONS 11 16 16 16

Persistency of barriers

24

Since 2013 – systematic decline of “bad” grades share (position >75 or >100) accompanied by a slight improvement of “very good” grades (position <36) share.

Small changes of problems importance during last 7 years.

In the first place – traditionally –complexity of tax regulations.

Companies raise the problem of policy instability.

Systematic improvement of government bureaucracy.

Certain improvement of infrastructure investment perception and weakening problem of low innovation.

Table 5. Ranking of most problematic factors for doing business in Poland in years 2005-16



Bottlenecks as one of mechanisms which weaken advantages : Low assessments of institutions (Pillar I –

65/58), because: i.a. overburden of regulations (119/122), poor transparency of procedures (109/106), insufficient public trust.

Still poor assessment of labor market efficiency (Pilar VII – position 79/81), because i.a.: suboptimal employers-employees relations (93), negative influence of taxes on employees motivation (127!), net outflow of human capital (96, 116) but accompanied by a very high elasticity of wage formation (29).

For Pillar VI (47/46) – number of procedures to start a business (position 22), but time to start a business – position 118 (situation almost unchanged in comparison to previous year).

Business sophistication (Pillar 11 –position 54/55). Very good assessment of local suppliers quantity and quality (23,35), but lack of factors merging this potential (although improvement visible) –state of cluster development (71/81), active position in international distribution (68/87), product-based competitive advantage (96 – our competitive advantage is primarily cost-based).

Traditionally strong, although weaker, position in Education (Pillar V – 37/31), high market potential (Pillar X– 21/21).

25

Poland – SWOT


■ Competitors – countries which in last 10 years for at least 50% of time were in the same decile group of GCI as Poland and were in this group also in 2015.

Poland – competitors, challenges26

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

AZE BHR CHL CZEEST ISL IDN KWTLTU POL PRT ESPTHA

■ Poland under strong pressure from this group:■ Poland at “the

bottom” of this range and quite “flat”.

■ Some countries have higher scoring and speed up faster.

POLAND’S COMPETITORSAZERBAIJANBAHRAINCHILECZECH REPUBLICESTONIASPAININDONESIAISLANDIAKUWAITLITHUANIAPORTUGALTHAILANDSource: Own calculations based on WEF data.


Estonia as the leader (30/30) is still ahead of us, but increase in competitiveness of this country is not significant. Czech Republic (31/31 – significant improvement since 2007) and Lithuania (35/36) are also still ahead of us. They are “running ahead leaders”, although the main leader made small progress.

Most of post-socialist countries improved theirscoring in this ranking in the horizon of the analysis (the weakest ones – most significantly). Poland has made the greatest progress with respect to the group starting at the level higher than ours.

Poland’s competitors from this group still haveproblems with catching us up (except for Russia).

27

Poland in comparison to post-socialist countries 2007-16


POLAND’S SCORING IN 2015

GREEN – INCREASERED – DECREASE

BETTER ONES IN 2007


SC

OR

ING

28

Poland’s position in years 2006-16 – long-term characteristics

Poland in two clusters – till 2009 and since 2009. Significant increase of Poland’s scoring in years 2007-16

(higher than for ¾ of the sample). Fundamental assessment of Poland’s position in this

ranking according to DTF (Distance to Frontier) also indicates its improvement.


Results for years 2006-2016

HIGHEST POSITION 36 (2016)

LOWEST POSITION 53 (2008)

MEDIAN 43

COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION FORGCI

51 POSITION


35

40

45

50

55

602007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

POLAND’S POSITION ACCORDING TO DTF 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-.6 -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7

Figure 8. Distribution function of GCI increase for sample in years2007-16 (upper chart, vertical line – value for Poland) and of Poland’sposition according to DTF methodology in years 2007-16 (lower chart,inverted scale).

Financial stability, innovation

29

5


■ In Poland procedural requirements and barriers in access to bank loans – higher than in euro area countries and in Hungary.

■ Markedly lower “cost” in euro area countries: Estonia, Slovak Republic, Lithuania, Latvia and in Czech Republic.

■ Poland follows this group.

Financial environment – cost and procedural requirements

30

Figure 9. Cost of financing as a barrier for doing business (left chart) and procedural requirements and barriers in access to bank loans (right chart) in 2016 – Poland in comparison to post-socialist countries

020406080

100120140

ESTONIACZECH

REPUBLIC

SLOVAKREPUBLIC

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

POLAND

HUNGARYBULGARIA

SLOVENIA

ALBANIA

CROATIA

BOSNIA

ROMANIA

SERBIA

020406080

100120

SLOVAKREPUBLIC

HUNGARY

ESTONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

POLAND

LITHUANIA

BULGARIABOSNIA

SERBIA

LATVIA

CROATIA

ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

ROMANIA



■ Venture capital availability in Poland (82/96) – still poor. Better situation in euro area countries as well as in Bulgaria and in Hungary.

■ Access to financing for SMEs –Poland on 59 position. Czech Republic (20/15) and Estonia (31/23) are still leaders among post-socialist countries (PS). Lithuania and Slovak Republic – close to Poland. In other PSs – markedly worse situation.

Financial environment – access to financing for SMEs31

Figure 10. Distribution of access to finance for SMEs index (left chart) and availability of venture capital (right chart)– Poland’s position in 2016

020406080

100120140

ESTONIACZECH

REPUBLIC

BULGARIA

SLOVAKREPUBLIC

LITHUANIA

HUNGARY

SLOVENIALATVIA

POLAND

BOSNIA

CROATIA

SERBIA

ALBANIA

ROMANIA



020406080

100120140

CZECH REPUBLICESTONIA

SLOVAKREPUBLIC

POLAND

LITHUANIA

BULGARIA

HUNGARYSLOVENIA

CROATIA

SERBIA

LATVIA

ALBANIA

ROMANIA

BOSNIA

GCR and Morawiecki’s Plan

32

AREA

DISTANCE TO THE BEST COUNTRIES

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY TO INVESTORS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 70,4EFFECTIVENESS OF MARKETING 67,9TREATMENT OF CUSTOMERS 65,2PROFESSIONALISM Of SENIOR MANAGEMENT 51,6COMPANIES’ CAPACITY TO INNOVATE 50,7SOPHISTICATION OF PRODUCTION PROCESSES 48,3ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEES TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS 47,2BUILDING INTERNATIONAL BRANDS 45,1CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCT 44,4AVAILABILITY OF BUSINESS SERVICES 44,3ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT IDEAS 44,2DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO SUBORDINATES 41,8APPETITE FOR ENTERPRENEURIAL RISK 40,3PRESENCE IN THE VALUE CHAIN 40,3SCALE OF INVESTMENT IN R&D 36,7COLLABORATION OF FIRMS AND UNIVERSITIES ON R&D 35,3PACE OF DEVELOPMENT OF FIRMS WITH INNOVATIVE IDEAS 33,6GOVERMENT PURCHASES AND INNOVATION 32,7EMBRACING RISKY OR DISRUPTIVE IDEAS BY FIRMS 28,4ACCESS TO IDEAS FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY 27,5PRODUCT‐BASED COMPETITIVE VS. COST‐BASED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 25,3SHARING IDEAS BETWEEN FIRMS 20,5SHARING IDEAS INSIDE THE FIRM 11,0

■ Diagnosis of Morawiecki’s Plan –consistent with challenges resulting from GCR.

■ Strengths – supporting competitivenessby marketing, responsive treatment of customers and professionalism of senior management.

■ Cost-based competitive advantage is prevailing, accompanied by quite weak position in value chain and in the area of international distribution control.

■ Sharing knowledge does extremely week – inside the company as well as between firms.

■ Low appetite for risk at the company level as well as at the society level.


■ Improvement in these competitiveness dimensions is however observed – out of 23 pro-innovative factors, in Poland only in three cases deterioration in comparison to 2015 occurred: professionalism of senior

management (Q0805), delegating authority to

subordinates (Q0806), sophistication of

production processes(Q0804).

Very small changes of product-based competitive advantage – long-term process.

Changes of pro-innovative factors in Poland in years 2015-1633

PRODUCT‐BASED COMPETITIVE VS. COST‐BASED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Q0801PRESENCE IN THE VALUE CHAIN Q0802CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCT Q0803SOPHISTICATION OF PRODUCTION PROCESSES Q0804PROFESSIONALISM Of SENIOR MANAGEMENT Q0805DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO SUBORDINATES Q0806MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY TO INVESTORS AND B.OF D. Q0807TREATMENT OF CUSTOMERS Q0808COMPANIES’ CAPACITY TO INNOVATE Q0809SCALE OF INVESTMENT IN R&D Q0810EFFECTIVENESS OF MARKETING Q0811ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEES TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS Q0812ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT IDEAS Q0813SHARING IDEAS INSIDE THE FIRM Q0814EMBRACING RISKY OR DISRUPTIVE IDEAS BY FIRMS Q0815BUILDING INTERNATIONAL BRANDS Q0816PACE OF DEVELOPMENT OF FIRMS WITH INNOVATIVE IDEAS Q0817GOVERMENT PURCHASES AND INNOVATION Q0818APPETITE FOR ENTERPRENEURIAL RISK Q0819COLLABORATION OF FIRMS AND UNIVERSITIES ON R&D Q0820AVAILABILITY OF BUSINESS SERVICES Q0821SHARING IDEAS BETWEEN FIRMS Q0822ACCESS TO IDEAS FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY Q0823


Concluding remarks

34

6


In 2016 relatively few changes in rankings.

List of the most developed countries(Top 10) in 2016 remains unchanged.

Significant declines in rankings concern countries hit by wars and other shocks.

Three reasons for Poland to be satisfied: Significant increase of our

position in ranking (+5), This is the second consecutive

year of increase.

Current Poland’s position – 36 – brings us closer to „higher league” of this ranking, including such countries as Estonia (30) and Czech Republic (31).

Although the biggest challenge for Poland remains innovation, systematic and visible improvement in this area is observed.

Still, Poland has to deal with chronic problems: Weak, in many dimensions, level of human

capital, Too low, compared to aspirations and

needs, level of institutional development, Still quite high, although systematically

declining, share of low partial grades.

Concluding remarks

35Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17

www.nbp.pl

Documents

Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17 World Economic Forum › en › aktualnosci › 2016 › 20160928_awans_en.pdf · 2016-09-29 · Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17 World