Wef global competitiveness report_2010-11

In its 30th year, The Global Competitiveness Report is published against the backdrop of

the deepest global economic slowdown in generations. Policymakers find themselves

struggling to manage new challenges while preparing their economies to perform well in

a future characterized by high uncertainty.

In such a difficult economic environment, it is more important than ever for countries

to put into place the fundamentals underpinning growth and development. The Global

Competitiveness Report series has, for the past three decades, facilitated this process

by providing detailed analysis of the productive potential of nations worldwide. The

Report offers policymakers, business executives, and academics as well as the public

at large one of the worlds most respected assessments of national competitiveness,

thus providing invaluable insights into the policies, institutions, and factors that enable

robust economic development and long-term prosperity.

Produced in collaboration with leading academics and a global network of Partner Institutes,

The Global Competitiveness Report 20092010 offers users a unique dataset on a broad

array of competitiveness indicators for 133 economies, which together account for more

than 98 percent of the worlds GDP. The data used in the Report come from leading

international sources as well as from the World Economic Forums annual Executive

Opinion Survey, which provides a distinctive source capturing the perceptions of several

thousand business leaders on topics related to national competitiveness.

This years edition presents the rankings of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI),

developed by Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin and originally introduced in 2004. The GCI

is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the

competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at different stages of economic

development. The Report also contains detailed profiles highlighting competitive strengths

and weaknesses for each of the 133 economies featured, as well as an extensive

section of data tables displaying relative rankings for more than 100 variables.

Cover design: Neil Weinberg Cover art: Getty Images;Getty Images; iStockPhotography; Getty Images

ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-25-8

The Global Competitiveness Report20102011

Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum


Schwab


Professor Xavier Sala-i-MartinColumbia UniversityChief Advisor of the Centre for Global Competitiveness and Performance

Members of the Global Competitiveness Report Advisory Board

Dr Kemal DervisBrookings InstitutionVice-President and Director, Global Economy and Development

Professor Ricardo HausmannHarvard UniversityDirector, Center for International Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government

H.E. Dr Felipe Larran BascunMinister of Finance of Chile

H.E. Dr Mari Elka PangestuMinister of Trade of Indonesia

World Economic ForumGeneva, Switzerland 2010

Professor Klaus SchwabWorld Economic ForumEditor

The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 2010 World Economic Forum

World Economic ForumGeneva

Copyright 2010by the World Economic Forum

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,or otherwise without the prior permission ofthe World Economic Forum.

ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-87-6ISBN-10: 92-95044-87-8

This book is printed on paper suitable forrecycling and made from fully managed andsustained forest sources.

Printed and bound in Switzerland by SRO-Kundig.

The Global Competitiveness Report20102011 is published by the WorldEconomic Forum within the framework of the Centre for Global Competitiveness andPerformance

Professor Klaus SchwabExecutive Chairman

Professor Xavier Sala-i-MartinChief Advisor of the Centre for GlobalCompetitiveness and Performance

Robert GreenhillChief Business Officer

CENTRE FOR GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS AND PERFORMANCE

Jennifer Blanke, Director, Lead Economist,Head of the Centre for GlobalCompetitiveness and PerformanceMargareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Director,Senior EconomistIrene Mia, Director, Senior EconomistThierry Geiger, Associate Director,EconomistCiara Browne, Associate DirectorPearl Samandari, Community ManagerEva Trujillo Herrera, Research AssistantCarissa Sahli, Coordinator

We thank Hope Steele for her superb editingwork and Neil Weinberg for his excellentgraphic design and layout. We are grateful toMiriam Poretti for her invaluable researchassistance.

The terms country and nation as used in thisreport do not in all cases refer to a territorialentity that is a state as understood by inter-national law and practice. The terms coverwell-defined, geographically self-containedeconomic areas that may not be states butfor which statistical data are maintained on aseparate and independent basis.


Contents

Partner Institutes v

Preface xiby Klaus Schwab

Part 1: Measuring Competitiveness 1

1.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 20102011: 3Looking Beyond the Global Economic Crisisby Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Jennifer Blanke, Margareta DrzeniekHanouz, Thierry Geiger, and Irene Mia

1.2 The Executive Opinion Survey: The Business 57Executives Insight into their Operating Environmentby Ciara Browne and Thierry Geiger

Part 2: Data Presentation 67

2.1 Country/Economy Profiles 69How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles ...............................71List of Countries/Economies .........................................................73Country/Economy Profiles .............................................................74

2.2 Data Tables 353How to Read the Data Tables......................................................355Index of Data Tables ....................................................................357Data Tables ..................................................................................359

Technical Notes and Sources 495

About the Authors 499

Acknowledgments 501


The World Economic Forums Centre for GlobalCompetitiveness and Performance is pleased toacknowledge and thank the following organizations as its valued Partner Institutes, without which the realization of The Global Competitiveness Report20102011 would not have been feasible:

AlbaniaInstitute for Contemporary Studies (ISB)Artan Hoxha, PresidentElira Jorgoni, Senior ExpertEndrit Kapaj, Junior Expert

AlgeriaCentre de Recherche en Economie Applique pour le Dveloppement (CREAD)

Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant ProfessorYassine Ferfera, Director

AngolaMITC InvestimentosEstefania Jover, Senior Adviser

PROPETROLServios PetroliferosArnaldo Lago de Carvalho, Managing Partner

South Africa-Angola Chamber of Commerce (SA-ACC)Roger Ballard-Tremeer, Hon Chief Executive

ArgentinaIAEUniversidad AustralMara Elina Gigaglia, Project ManagerEduardo Luis Fracchia, Professor

ArmeniaEconomy and Values Research CenterManuk Hergnyan, ChairmanSevak Hovhannisyan, Board Member and Senior AssociateGohar Malumyan, Research Associate

AustraliaAustralian Industry GroupColleen Dowling, Senior Research CoordinatorNick James, EconomistHeather Ridout, Chief Executive

AustriaAustrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO)Karl Aiginger, DirectorGerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey Department

AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Marketing SocietyFuad Aliyev, Project ManagerZaur Veliyev, Consultant

BahrainBahrain Competitiveness Council, Bahrain Economic Development Board

Nada Azmi, Manager, Economic Planning and DevelopmentJawad Habib, Senior Partner, BDO Jawad HabibRima Al Kilani, Director, International Marketing

BangladeshCentre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Senior Research FellowKazi Mahmudur Rahman, Senior Research AssociateMustafizur Rahman, Executive Director

BarbadosArthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies, University of West Indies (UWI)

Andrew Downes, Director

BelgiumVlerick Leuven Gent Management SchoolPriscilla Boairdi, Associate, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship, Governance and Strategy

Wim Moesen, ProfessorLeo Sleuwaegen, Professor, Competence CentreEntrepreneurship, Governance and Strategy

BeninMicro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP) Benin

Epiphane Adjovi, Business CoordinatorMaria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy CoordinatorFructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher

Bosnia and HerzegovinaMIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,University of Sarajevo

Zlatko Lagumdzija, ProfessorZeljko Sain, Executive DirectorJasmina Selimovic, Assistant Director

BotswanaBotswana National Productivity CentreLetsogile Batsetswe, Research Consultant and StatisticianParmod Chandna, Acting Executive DirectorPhumzile Thobokwe, Manager, Information and Research Services Department

BrazilFundao Dom CabralMarina Arajo, Economist and Researcher, The Competitiveness and Innovation Center

Carlos Arruda, Executive Director, International Board andProfessor and Coordinator, The Competitiveness and Innovation Center

Arthur Kux, Economist and Research Assistant, The Competitiveness and Innovation Center

Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC)Erik Camarano, Director PresidentCeclia Macedo, Economist and Senior Projects CoordinatorNikelma Moura, Communications Assistant

Brunei DarussalamMinistry of Industry and Primary ResourcesPehin Dato Yahya Bakar, MinisterDayang Hajah Suriyah Haji Umar, Permanent Secretary IDato Dr Amin Abdullah, Permanent Secretary II

BulgariaCenter for Economic DevelopmentAnelia Damianova, Senior Expert

v

Part

ner

Inst

itute

s

Partner Institutes


Burkina Fasolnstitut Suprieure des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), University of Ouagadougou

Samuel Kabore, Economist and Head of Development Strategy and Population Research

BurundiUniversity Research Centre for Economic and Social Development (CURDES), National University of Burundi

Richard Ndereyahaga, Head of CURDESGilbert Niyongabo, Dean, Faculty of Economics & Management

CambodiaEconomic Institute of CambodiaSok Hach, PresidentPoch Kongchheng, Researcher

CameroonComit de Comptitivit (Competitiveness Committee)Lucien Sanzouango, Permanent Secretary

CanadaInstitute for Competitiveness and ProsperityTamer Azer, ResearcherRoger Martin, Chairman and Dean of the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto

James Milway, Executive Director

Cape VerdeINOVE RESEARCHInvestigao e Desenvolvimento, LdaRosa Brito, Senior ResearcherJlio Delgado, Partner and Senior ResearcherFrantz Tavares, Partner and Chief Executive Officer

ChadGroupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring du Projet Ptrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC)

Antoine Doudjidingao, ResearcherGilbert Maoundonodji, DirectorCeline Nnodji Mbaipeur, Programme Officer

ChileUniversidad Adolfo IbezFernando Larrain Aninat, Director of the Master in Managementand Public Policy, School of Government

Camila Chadwick, Project CoordinatorLeonidas Montes, Dean, School of Government

ChinaInstitute of Economic System and ManagementNational Development and Reform CommissionZhou Haichun, Deputy Director and ProfessorChen Wei, Research FellowDong Ying, Professor

China Center for Economic Statistics Research, Tianjin University of Finance and Economics

Lu Dong, ProfessorJian Wang, Associate ProfessorHongye Xiao, ProfessorBojuan Zhao, ProfessorHuazhang Zheng, Associate Professor

ColombiaNational Planning DepartmentAlvaro Edgar Balcazar, Entrepreneurial Development DirectorCarolina Rentera Rodrguez, General DirectorMauricio Torres Velsquez, Advisor

Colombian Council of CompetitivenessHernando Jos Gomez, President

Cte dIvoireChambre de Commerce et dIndustrie de Cte dIvoireJean-Louis Billon, PresidentJean-Louis Giacometti, Technical Advisor to the PresidentMamadou Sarr, Director General

CroatiaNational Competitiveness CouncilMartina Hatlak, Research AssistantKresimir Jurlin, Research FellowMira Lenardic, General Secretary

CyprusCyprus College Research CenterBambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic and Academic Research

The Cyprus Development BankMaria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, InternationalBanking Services Unit and Business Development

Czech RepublicCMC Graduate School of BusinessTomas Janca, Executive Director

DenmarkDepartment of Business Studies, Aalborg UniversityBirgitte Gregersen, Associate ProfessorGert Villumsen, Associate Professor

EcuadorESPAE Graduate School of Management, Escuela Superior Politcnica del Litoral (ESPOL)

Elizabeth Arteaga, Project AssistantVirginia Lasio, Acting DirectorSara Wong, Professor

EgyptThe Egyptian Center for Economic StudiesOmneia Helmy, Deputy Director of Research and Lead Economist

Magda Kandil, Executive Director and Director of ResearchMalak Reda, Senior Economist

EstoniaEstonian Institute of Economic ResearchEvelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research SectorMarje Josing, Director

Estonian Development FundKitty Kubo, Head of ForesightOtt Prna, Chief Executive Officer

EthiopiaAfrican Institute of Management, Development and Governance

Tegegne Teka, General Manager

FinlandETLAThe Research Institute of the Finnish EconomyPetri Rouvinen, Research DirectorPasi Sorjonen, Head of the Forecasting GroupPekka Yl-Anttila, Managing Director

FranceHEC School of Management, ParisBertrand Moingeon, Professor and Deputy DeanBernard Ramanantsoa, Professor and Dean

Gambia, TheGambia Economic and Social Development Research Institute (GESDRI)

Makaireh A. Njie, Director

GeorgiaBusiness Initiative for Reforms in GeorgiaTamara Janashia, Executive DirectorGiga Makharadze, Founding Member of the Board of DirectorsMamuka Tsereteli, Founding Member of the Board of Directors

GermanyWHUOtto Beisheim School of Management, VallendarRalf Fendel, Professor of Monetary EconomicsMichael Frenkel, Professor, Chair of Macroeconomics and International Economics

vi

Part

ner

Inst

itute

s


GhanaAssociation of Ghana Industries (AGI)Patricia Djorbuah, Projects OfficerCletus Kosiba, Executive DirectorNana Owusu-Afari, President

GreeceSEV Hellenic Federation of EnterprisesMichael Mitsopoulos, Coordinator, Research and Analysis

Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Research and Analysis

GuatemalaFUNDESAEdgar A. Heinemann, President of the Board of DirectorsPablo Schneider, Economic DirectorJuan Carlos Zapata, General Manager

GuyanaInstitute of Development Studies, University of GuyanaKaren Pratt, Research AssociateClive Thomas, Director

Hong Kong SARHong Kong General Chamber of CommerceDavid ORear, Chief Economist

Federation of Hong Kong IndustriesAlexandra Poon, Director

The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce

HungaryKOPINT-TRKI Economic Research Ltd.gnes Nagy, Project Managerva Palcz, Chief Executive Officer

IcelandInnovation Center IcelandKarl Fridriksson, Managing Director of Human Resources and Marketing

Rosa Gisladottir, Marketing ManagerThorsteinn I. Sigfusson, Director

IndiaConfederation of Indian Industry (CII)Chandrajit Banerjee, Director GeneralTarun Das, Chief MentorVirendra Gupta, Head, International and Trade Fairs

IndonesiaCenter for Industry, SME & Business Competition Studies, University of Trisakti

Tulus Tambunan, Professor and Director

Iran, Islamic Republic ofThe Centre for Economic Studies and Surveys (CESS), Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines

Hammed Roohani, Director

IrelandCompetitiveness Survey Group, Department of Economics,University College Cork

Eleanor Doyle, Professor, Department of EconomicsNiall OSullivanBernadette Power

National Competitiveness CouncilAdrian Devitt, ManagerCaoimhe Gavin, Policy Advisor

IsraelManufacturers Association of Israel (MAI)Shraga Brosh, PresidentDan Catarivas, DirectorYehuda Segev, Managing Director

ItalySDA Bocconi School of ManagementSecchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi University

Paola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi UniversityFrancesco A. Saviozzi, SDA Assistant Professor,Strategic and Entrepreneurial Management Department

JamaicaMona School of Business (MSB), The University of the West Indies

Patricia Douce, Project AdministratorEvan Duggan, Executive Director and ProfessorWilliam Lawrence, Director, Professional Services Unit

JapanHitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy (ICS) in cooperation with Keizai Doyukai Keizai (Japan Association of Corporate Executives)

Yoko Ishikura, ProfessorKiyohiko Ito, Managing Director, Keizai Doyukai

JordanMinistry of Planning & International CooperationJordan National Competitiveness TeamHiba Abu Taleb, Primary ResearcherMaher Al Mahrouq, Team Leader and Director of Policies and Studies Department

Kawther Al-Zoubi, Primary Researcher

KazakhstanJSC National Analytical Centre of the Government and the National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Ayana Manasova, ChairpersonAibek Baisakalov, Project Manager

KenyaInstitute for Development Studies, University of NairobiMohamud Jama, Director and Associate ProfessorPaul Kamau, Research FellowDorothy McCormick, Associate Professor

Korea, Republic ofCollege of Business School, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology KAIST

Ingoo Han, Senior Associate Dean and ProfessorRavi Kumar, Dean and ProfessorYoujin Sung, Manager, Exchange Programme

KuwaitKuwait National Competitiveness CommitteeAdel Al-Husainan, Committee MemberFahed Al-Rashed, Committee ChairmanSayer Al-Sayer, Committee Member

Kyrgyz RepublicEconomic Policy Institute Bishkek ConsensusLola Abduhametova, Program CoordinatorMarat Tazabekov, Chairman

LatviaInstitute of Economics, Latvian Academy of SciencesHelma Jirgena, DirectorIrina Curkina, Researcher

LebanonBader Young Entrepreneurs ProgramAntoine Abou-Samra, Managing DirectorHiba Zunji, Assistant

LesothoMohloli Chamber of Business

LibyaNational Economic Development BoardEntisar Elbahi, Director, Relations and Supported Services

LithuaniaStatistics LithuaniaOna Grigiene, Head, Economical Survey DivisionAlgirdas emeta, Director General

vii

Part

ner

Inst

itute

s


LuxembourgChamber of Commerce of the Grand Duchy of LuxembourgFranois-Xavier Borsi, Attach, Economic DepartmentCarlo Thelen, Chief Economist, Member of the Managing BoardMarc Wagener, Attach, Economic Department

Macedonia, FYRNational Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness Council (NECC)Dejan Janevski, Project CoordinatorZoran Stavreski, President of the Managing BoardSaso Trajkoski, Executive Director

MadagascarCentre of Economic Studies, University of AntananarivoRavelomanana Mamy Raoul, DirectorRazato Rarijaona Simon, Executive Secretary

MalawiMalawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and IndustryChancellor L. Kaferapanjira, Chief Executive Officer

MalaysiaInstitute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)Mahani Zainal Abidin, Chief ExecutiveSteven C.M. Wong, Senior Director, Economics

Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC)Mohd Razali Hussain, Director GeneralLee Saw Hoon, Senior Director

MaliGroupe de Recherche en Economie Applique et Thorique (GREAT)

Massa Coulibaly, Coordinator

MaltaCompetitive MaltaFoundation for National CompetitivenessMargrith Lutschg-Emmenegger, Vice PresidentAdrian Said, Chief CoordinatorCaroline Sciortino, Research Coordinator

MauritaniaCentre dInformation Mauritanien pour le DveloppementEconomique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM)

Khira Mint Cheikhnani, DirectorL Abdoul, Consultant and AnalystHabib Sy, Analyst

MauritiusJoint Economic Council of MauritiusRaj Makoond, Director

Board of InvestmentKevin Bessondyal, Assistant Director, Planning and PolicyDev Chamroo, Director, Planning and PolicyVeekram Gowd, Senior Investment Advisor, Planning and Policy

Raju Jaddoo, Managing Director

MexicoCenter for Intellectual Capital and CompetitivenessErika Ruiz Manzur, Executive DirectorRen Villarreal Arrambide, President and Chief Executive Officer

Jess Zurita Gonzlez, General Director

Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (IMCO)Gabriela Alarcn Esteva, EconomistLuis Csar Castaeda Valds, ResearcherManuel J. Molano Ruz, Deputy General DirectorRoberto Newell Garca, General Director

Ministry of the EconomyPaulo Esteban Alcaraz, Research Director, ProMxico Trade & Investment

Felipe Duarte Olvera, Undersecretary for Competitiveness and Standardization

Javier Prieto, Technical Secretary for CompetitivenessJose Antonio Torre, Head of the Business Intelligence Unit,ProMxico Trade & Investment

MoldovaAcademy of Economic Studies of Moldova (AESM)Grigore Belostecinic, Rector

Centre for Economic Research (CER)Corneliu Gutu, Director

MongoliaOpen Society Forum (OSF)Munkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic PolicyErdenejargal Perenlei, Executive Director

MontenegroInstitute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses (ISSP)Maja Drakic, Project ManagerPetar Ivanovic, Chief Executive OfficerVeselin Vukotic, President

MoroccoUniversit Hassan II, LASAAREFouzi Mourji, Professor of Economics

MozambiqueEconPolicy Research Group, Lda.Peter Coughlin, DirectorDonaldo Miguel Soares, ResearcherEma Marta Soares, Assistant

NamibiaNamibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU)Jacob Nyambe, Senior ResearcherFanuel Tjingaete, Director

NepalCentre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA)

Ramesh Chandra Chitrakar, Professor and Country Coordinator

Bharat Pokharel, Project Director and Executive DirectorMahendra Raj Joshi, Member

NetherlandsErasmus Strategic Renewal Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Frans A. J. Van den Bosch, ProfessorHenk W. Volberda, Professor

New ZealandBusiness New ZealandPhil OReilly, Chief Executive

The New Zealand InstituteLisa Bailey, Executive AssistantRick Boven, Director

NigeriaNigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG)Frank Nweke Jr., Director GeneralSam Ohuabunwa, ChairmanChris Okpoko, Research Director, Research

NorwayBI Norwegian School of ManagementEskil Goldeng, ResearcherTorger Reve, Professor

OmanThe International Research FoundationSalem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, Chairman

Arabian Research BureauGus Freeman, Managing DirectorMahir Al-Maskari, General Manager

PakistanCompetitiveness Support FundArthur Bayhan, Chief Executive OfficerImran Naeem Ahmad, Communication SpecialistMaryam Jawaid, Communication Specialist

viii

Part

ner

Inst

itute

s


ParaguayCentro de Anlisis y Difusin de Economia Paraguaya (CADEP)Dionisio Borda, Research MemberFernando Masi, DirectorMara Beln Servn, Research Member

PeruCentro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacionalde IndustriasNstor Asto, Project DirectorLuis Tenorio, Executive Director

PhilippinesMakati Business Club (MBC) in association with Management Association of the Philippines (MAP)

Alberto A. Lim, Executive Director, MBCArnold P. Salvador, Executive Director, MAPMarc P. Opulencia, Deputy Director, MBCMichael B. Mundo, Chief Economist, MBC

PolandEconomic Institute, National Bank of PolandMateusz Pipien, General DirectorPiotr Boguszewski, Advisor

PortugalPROFORUM, Associao para o Desenvolvimento da Engenharia

Ildio Antnio de Ayala Serdio, Vice President of the Board of Directors

Frum de Administradores de Empresas (FAE)Paulo Bandeira, General DirectorPedro do Carmo Costa, Member of the Board of DirectorsEsmeralda Dourado, President of the Board of Directors

Puerto RicoPuerto Rico 2000, Inc.Suzette M. Jimenez, PresidentFrancisco Montalvo Fiol, Project Coordinator

QatarQatari Businessmen Association (QBA)Issa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-GeneralSarah Abdallah, Deputy General Manager

RomaniaGroup of Applied Economics (GEA)Liviu Voinea, Executive DirectorIrina Zgreaban, Program Coordinator

Russian FederationBauman InnovationAlexei Prazdnitchnykh, Principal, Associate ProfessorKaterina Marandi, Consultant

Stockholm School of Economics, RussiaIgor Dukeov, Area PrincipalCarl F. Fey, Associate Dean of Research

RwandaPrivate Sector FederationMolly Rwigamba, Acting Chief Executive OfficerEmmanuel Rutagengwa, Policy Analyst

Saudi ArabiaNational Competitiveness Center (NCC)Awwad Al-Awwad, PresidentKhaldon Mahasen, Vice President

SenegalCentre de Recherches Economiques Appliques (CREA),University of DakarDiop Ibrahima Thione, Director

SerbiaCenter for Applied European Studies (CPES)Srdjan Djurovic, DirectorDusko Vasiljevic, Senior Researcher

SingaporeEconomic Development BoardLim Hong Khiang, Director Planning 2Chua Kia Chee, Head, Research and Statistics UnitCheng Wai San, Head, Planning

Slovak RepublicBusiness Alliance of Slovakia (PAS)Robert Kicina, Executive DirectorPeter Klatik, ResearcherMatej Tunega, Researcher

SloveniaInstitute for Economic ResearchMateja Drnovek, Professor, Faculty of EconomicsPeter Stanovnik, ProfessorSonja Uri, Senior ResearcherAles Vahcic, Professor, Faculty of Economics

South AfricaBusiness Leadership South AfricaFriede Dowie, DirectorMichael Spicer, Chief Executive Officer

Business Unity South AfricaSimi Siwisa, DirectorJerry Vilakazi, Chief Executive Officer

SpainIESE Business School, International Center for CompetitivenessAntoni Subir, ProfessorMara Luisa Blzquez, Research Associate

Sri LankaInstitute of Policy StudiesAyodya Galappattige, Research OfficerSaman Kelegama, Executive DirectorManoj Thibbotuwawa, Research Officer

SwazilandFederation of Swaziland Employers and Chamber of CommerceZodwa Mabuza, Chief Executive OfficerSihle Fakude,Research Analyst

SwedenCenter for Strategy and Competitiveness, Stockholm School of Economics

Christian Ketels, Senior Research Fellowrjan Slvell, Professor

SwitzerlandUniversity of St. Gallen, Executive School of Management,Technology and Law (ES-HSG)

Beat Bechtold, Communications ManagerAlexander Jungmeister, Vice Executive DirectorRubn Rodriguez Startz, Project Manager

SyriaMinistry of Economy and TradeAmer Housni Louitfi, Minister of Economy and Trade

State Planning CommissionTayseer Al-Ridawi, Head of State Planning Commission

Syrian Enterprise Business Center (SEBC)Tamer Abadi, Director

Taiwan, ChinaCouncil for Economic Planning and Development, Executive YuanLiu, Y. Christina, MinisterHung, J. B., Director, Economic Research DepartmentShieh, Chung Chung, Researcher, Economic Research Department

TajikistanThe Center for Sociological Research ZerkaloQahramon Baqoev, DirectorGulnora Beknazarova, ResearcherAlikul Isoev, Sociologist and Economist

ix

Part

ner

Inst

itute

s


TanzaniaResearch on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA)Joseph Semboja, Professor and Executive DirectorLucas Katera, Director, Commissioned ResearchCornel Jahari, Researcher, Commissioned Research Department

ThailandSasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration, Chulalongkorn University

Pongsak Hoontrakul, Senior Research FellowToemsakdi Krishnamra, Director of SasinPiyachart Phiromswad, Faculty of Economics

Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)Somchai Jitsuchon, Research DirectorChalongphob Sussangkarn, Distinguished FellowYos Vajragupta, Senior Researcher

Timor-LesteEast Timor Development Agency (ETDA)Jose Barreto Goncalves, Survey SupervisorPalmira Pires, DirectorDavid Wilkes, Survey Field Officer

Trinidad and TobagoArthur Lok Jack Graduate School of BusinessMiguel Carillo, Executive DirectorHarrylal Nirmala, Director, International Centre

The Competitiveness CompanyRolph Balgobin, Chairman

TunisiaInstitut Arabe des Chefs dEntreprisesMajdi Hassen, Executive CounsellorChekib Nouira, President

TurkeyTUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness ForumDilek Cetindamar, Director and ProfessorFunda Kalemci, Project Specialist

UgandaKabano Research and Development CentreRobert Apunyo, Program ManagerDelius Asiimwe, Executive DirectorCatherine Ssekimpi, Research Associate

UkraineCASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic ResearchDmytro Boyarchuk, Executive DirectorVladimir Dubrovskiy, Leading Economist

United Arab EmiratesDubai Economic CouncilGayane Afrikian, Director, Dubai Competitiveness CentreKhawla Belqazi, Special Projects Manager

Emirates Competitiveness CouncilAbdullah Nasser Lootah,Secretary General

Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), Zayed University

Nico Vellinga, Professor

United KingdomLSE Enterprise Ltd, London School of Economics and PoliticalScience

Niccolo Durazzi, Project AdministratorRobyn Klingler Vidra, ResearcherJane Lac, Project Manager

UruguayUniversidad ORTIsidoro Hodara, Professor

VenezuelaCONAPRIVenezuelan Council for Investment PromotionEduardo Porcarelli, Executive DirectorLitsay Guerrero, Manager, Economic Affairs

VietnamCentral Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)Dinh Van An, PresidentPhan Thanh Ha, Deputy Director, Department ofMacroeconomic Management

Pham Hoang Ha, Senior Researcher, Department ofMacroeconomic Management

Institute for Development Studies in HCMC (HIDS)Nguyen Trong Hoa, Professor and PresidentDu Phuoc Tan, Head of DepartmentTrieu Thanh Son, Researcher

ZambiaInstitute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR), University of Zambia

Mutumba M. Bull, DirectorPatricia Funjika, Staff Development FellowJolly Kamwanga, Coordinator

ZimbabweGraduate School of Management, University of ZimbabweA. M. Hawkins, Professor

Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Honduras, Nicaragua, PanamaINCAE Business School, Latin American Center forCompetitiveness and Sustainable Development (CLACDS)

Arturo Condo, RectorMarlene de Estrella, Director of External RelationsLawrence Pratt, Director, CLACDSVctor Umaa, Researcher and Project Manager, CLACDS

Latvia, LithuaniaStockholm School of Economics in RigaKarlis Kreslins, Executive MBA Programme DirectorAnders Paalzow, Rectorx

Part

ner

Inst

itute

s


xi

This years Global Competitiveness Report is being published amid uncertainty in the global economy and a continuing shift in the balance of economic activityaway from advanced economies and toward developingones. Despite significant government stimulus spendingaimed at dampening the recession, growth in advancedeconomies remains sluggish as they are mired in persist-ent unemployment and weak demand. Recent concernsabout the sustainability of sovereign debt in Europe, andthe stability and efficient functioning of financial mar-kets more generally, have added to the list of concerns.The present situation emphasizes the importance ofmapping out clear exit strategies to get economies backon a steady footing. Yet charting out such a processremains elusive in many countries for fear of a doubledip as well as for political considerations. On the otherhand, developing economies have for the most partfared comparatively well during the crisis: countriessuch as Brazil, China, and India are expected to grow at rates of between 5.5 and 10 percent in 2010, withgrowth holding up well over the next few years. Indeed,the world increasingly looks to the developing world asthe major engine of the global economy.

Policymakers are struggling with ways of managingthe present economic challenges while preparing theireconomies to perform well in a future economic land-scape characterized by uncertainty and shifting balances.In such a global economic environment, it is moreimportant than ever for countries to put into place the fundamentals underpinning economic growth anddevelopment. The World Economic Forum has, for morethan 30 years, played a facilitating role in this process by providing detailed assessments of the productivepotential of nations worldwide. The Report contributesto the understanding of the key factors determiningeconomic growth, helps to explain why some countriesare more successful than others in raising income levelsand opportunities for their respective populations, andoffers policymakers and business leaders an importanttool in the formulation of improved economic policiesand institutional reforms.

This years Report features a record number of 139economies, and thus continues to be the most compre-hensive assessment of its kind. It contains a detailed profile for each of the economies featured in the studyas well as an extensive section of data tables with globalrankings covering over 100 indicators.

This Report remains the flagship publication withinthe Forums Centre for Global Competitiveness andPerformance, which produces a number of researchstudies that truly mirror the increased integration andcomplexity of the world economy. Additional regularpublications include The Global Enabling Trade Report, TheGlobal Gender Gap Report, The Global Information TechnologyReport, and The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report,as well as various regional and country studies.

The Global Competitiveness Report 20102011 couldnot have been put together without the thought leader-ship of Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin at ColumbiaUniversity, who has provided ongoing intellectual supportfor our competitiveness research. We have also receivedimportant feedback from our Advisory Board: Dr KemalDervis, Vice-President and Director, Global Economyand Development, Brookings Institution; ProfessorRicardo Hausmann, Director, Center for InternationalDevelopment, John F. Kennedy School of Government,Harvard University; H.E. Dr Felipe Larran Bascun,Minister of Finance of Chile; and H.E. Dr Mari ElkaPangestu, Minister of Trade of Indonesia. Appreciationalso goes to Robert Greenhill, Chief Business Officer atthe Forum, and Jennifer Blanke, Head of the Centre forGlobal Competitiveness and Performance, as well as thecompetitiveness team members Ciara Browne, MargaretaDrzeniek Hanouz, Thierry Geiger, Irene Mia, CarissaSahli, Pearl Samandari, and Eva Trujillo Herrera. Wethank the Africa Commission and FedEx, our partners inthis Report, for their support in this important venture.In addition, this Report would have not been possiblewithout the commitment and enthusiasm of our networkof over 150 Partner Institutes worldwide, who carry outthe Executive Opinion Survey, which provides the basisof this Report. Finally, we would also like to convey oursincere gratitude to all the business executives aroundthe world who took the time to participate in ourExecutive Opinion Survey, and whose valuable inputsmade the publication of this Report possible.

PrefaceKLAUS SCHWAB

Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

Pref

ace


Part 1 Measuring Competitiveness


CHAPTER 1.1

The Global CompetitivenessIndex 20102011: LookingBeyond the Global EconomicCrisisXAVIER SALA-I-MARTIN

JENNIFER BLANKE

MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ

THIERRY GEIGER

IRENE MIA

World Economic Forum

The Global Competitiveness Report 20102011 is beingreleased at a time when the global economy continuesto be characterized by significant uncertainty. Growthhas resumed following important injections, in manycountries, of government stimulus spending aimed atcounterbalancing the worst global recession in decades.Yet economies are advancing at different speeds andthere is still the risk of a double dip in a number ofcountries. While emerging economies have, for the mostpart, bounced back to healthy growth, advancedeconomies face continuing difficulties such as persistingunemployment, weak demand, and spiraling debt, whilestill struggling with reforms in the financial and labormarkets, among other challenges. The InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) predicts growth of 6.25 percentfor emerging markets, compared with 2.25 percent foradvanced economies in 2010.

In this context, policymakers are being confrontedwith difficult economic management challenges.Following their active stance in addressing the crisis and the ensuing recession, governments are struggling to unwind their deficit spending in an effort to controlsoaring debts. Indeed, fears of a double dip are hinder-ing many governments from articulating clear exitstrategies, a major topic of discussion in recent G-20summits.1Yet without a clear commitment to gettingspending under control in the medium term, countrieswill compromise their future ability to make pro-growthinvestments in areas such as infrastructure, health, andeducation, which are necessary for sustained develop-ment and competitiveness over the longer term.

Todays still-difficult economic environment requiresnot losing sight of long-term competitiveness fundamen-tals amid short-term urgencies. Indeed, any exit strategiesmust be complemented by competitiveness-enhancingefforts aimed at improving the potential for growth inthe medium to longer run, which will in turn help toeliminate fiscal imbalances. Competitive economies arethose that have in place factors driving the productivityenhancements on which their present and future pros-perity is built. A competitiveness-supporting economicenvironment can help national economies to supporthigh incomes and ensure that the mechanisms enablingsolid economic performance going into the future are in place.

For more than three decades, the World EconomicForums annual competitiveness reports have examinedthe many factors enabling national economies to achievesustained economic growth and long-term prosperity.Our goal over the years has been to provide bench-marking tools for business leaders and policymakers toidentify obstacles to improved competitiveness, thusstimulating discussion on the best strategies and policiesto overcome them. In the current challenging economicenvironment, our work specifically serves as a criticalreminder of the importance of taking into account the

3

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1


1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

4

consequences of our present actions on future prosperitybased on sustained growth.

Since 2005, the World Economic Forum has basedits competitiveness analysis on the Global CompetitivenessIndex (GCI), a highly comprehensive index for measur-ing national competitiveness, which captures the micro-economic and macroeconomic foundations of nationalcompetitiveness.2

We define competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country.The level of productivity, in turn, sets the sus-tainable level of prosperity that can be earned by aneconomy. In other words, more competitive economiestend to be able to produce higher levels of income fortheir citizens. The productivity level also determines therates of return obtained by investments (physical,human, and technological) in an economy. Because therates of return are the fundamental drivers of thegrowth rates of the economy, a more competitive econ-omy is one that is likely to grow faster in the mediumto long run.

The concept of competitiveness thus involves staticand dynamic components: although the productivity ofa country clearly determines its ability to sustain a highlevel of income, it is also one of the central determinantsof the returns to investment, which is one of the keyfactors explaining an economys growth potential.

The 12 pillars of competitivenessThere are many determinants driving productivity andcompetitiveness. Understanding the factors behind thisprocess has occupied the minds of economists for hun-dreds of years, ranging from Adam Smiths focus on specialization and the division of labor to neoclassicaleconomists emphasis on investment in physical capitaland infrastructure,3 and, more recently, to interest inother mechanisms such as education and training, tech-nological progress, macroeconomic stability, good gover-nance, firm sophistication, and market efficiency, amongothers. While all of these ideas are likely to be impor-tant, they are not mutually exclusivetwo or more ofthem can be true at the same time, and in fact that iswhat has been shown in the economic literature.4

This open-endedness is captured within the GCIby including a weighted average of many different com-ponents, each measuring a different aspect of competi-tiveness. These components are grouped into 12 pillars of economic competitiveness:

First pillar: InstitutionsThe institutional environment is determined by thelegal and administrative framework within which indi-viduals, firms, and governments interact to generateincome and wealth in the economy. The importance ofa sound and fair institutional environment has becomeeven more apparent during the economic crisis, given

the increasingly direct role played by the state in theeconomy of many countries.

The quality of institutions has a strong bearing oncompetitiveness and growth.5 It influences investmentdecisions and the organization of production and plays a key role in the ways in which societies distribute thebenefits and bear the costs of development strategies and policies. For example, owners of land, corporateshares, or intellectual property are unwilling to invest inthe improvement and upkeep of their property if theirrights as owners are not protected.6

The role of institutions goes beyond the legalframework. Government attitudes toward markets andfreedoms and the efficiency of its operations are also veryimportant: excessive bureaucracy and red tape,7 overreg-ulation, corruption, dishonesty in dealing with publiccontracts, lack of transparency and trustworthiness, andthe political dependence of the judicial system imposesignificant economic costs to businesses and slow theprocess of economic development.

In addition, proper management of public financesis also critical to ensuring trust in the national businessenvironment. Indicators capturing the quality of govern-ment management of public finances are included hereto complement the measures of macroeconomic stabilitycaptured in pillar 3 below.

Although the economic literature has focusedmainly on public institutions, private institutions are also an important element in the process of creation of wealth. The recent global financial crisis, along withnumerous corporate scandals, has highlighted the rele-vance of accounting and reporting standards and trans-parency for preventing fraud and mismanagement,ensuring good governance, and maintaining investor and consumer confidence. An economy is well served by businesses that are run honestly, where managersabide by strong ethical practices in their dealings withthe government, other firms, and the public at large.8

Private-sector transparency is indispensable to business,and can be brought about through the use of standardsas well as auditing and accounting practices that ensureaccess to information in a timely manner.9

Second pillar: InfrastructureExtensive and efficient infrastructure is critical forensuring the effective functioning of the economy, as itis an important factor determining the location of eco-nomic activity and the kinds of activities or sectors that can develop in a particular economy. Well-developed infra-structure reduces the effect of distance between regions,integrating the national market and connecting it at lowcost to markets in other countries and regions. In addition,the quality and extensiveness of infrastructure networks significantly impact economic growth and affect incomeinequalities and poverty in a variety of ways.10 A well-developed transport and communications infrastructurenetwork is a prerequisite for the access of less-developed


1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

5

communities to core economic activities and services.Effective modes of transport, including quality roads,

railroads, ports, and air transport, enable entrepreneurs to get their goods and services to market in a secure andtimely manner and facilitate the movement of workers to the most suitable jobs. Economies also depend onelectricity supplies that are free of interruptions andshortages so that businesses and factories can workunimpeded. Finally, a solid and extensive telecommuni-cations network allows for a rapid and free flow of infor-mation, which increases overall economic efficiency byhelping to ensure that businesses can communicate anddecisions are made by economic actors taking intoaccount all available relevant information. This is an areawhere the crisis may prove to have positive longer-termeffects, given the significant resources earmarked forinfrastructure development by many national stimuluspackages, including those of the United States and China.

Third pillar: Macroeconomic environmentThe stability of the macroeconomic environment isimportant for business and, therefore, is important forthe overall competitiveness of a country.11 Although it is certainly true that macroeconomic stability alonecannot increase the productivity of a nation, it is alsorecognized that macroeconomic disarray harms theeconomy. The government cannot provide services efficiently if it has to make high-interest payments on its past debts. Running fiscal deficits limits the govern-ments future ability to react to business cycles. Firmscannot operate efficiently when inflation rates are out ofhand. In sum, the economy cannot grow in a sustainablemanner unless the macroeconomic environment is stable.This issue has captured the attention of the public mostrecently through discussions on exit strategies to winddown deficit spending, and in the context of the recentbuildup of sovereign debt.

It is important to note that this pillar evaluates thestability of the macroeconomic environment, so it doesnot directly take into account the way in which publicaccounts are managed by the government. This qualita-tive dimension is captured in the institutions pillardescribed above.

Box 1 discusses the relationship between fiscalimbalances and competitiveness, of particular relevancegiven recent fiscal stimulus spending and the discussionsrelated to the importance of winding down spendingand articulating clear exit strategies.

Fourth pillar: Health and primary educationA healthy workforce is vital to a countrys competitive-ness and productivity. Workers who are ill cannot functionto their potential and will be less productive. Poor healthleads to significant costs to business, as sick workers areoften absent or operate at lower levels of efficiency.Investment in the provision of health services is thus criti-cal for clear economic, as well as moral, considerations.12

In addition to health, this pillar takes into accountthe quantity and quality of basic education received bythe population, which is increasingly important intodays economy. Basic education increases the efficiencyof each individual worker. Moreover, workers who havereceived little formal education can carry out only sim-ple manual work and find it much more difficult toadapt to more advanced production processes and tech-niques. Lack of basic education can therefore become aconstraint on business development, with firms findingit difficult to move up the value chain by producingmore sophisticated or value-intensive products.

For the longer term, it will be essential to avoid significant reductions in resource allocation to thesecritical areas, in spite of the fact that government budg-ets will need to be cut to reduce public debt broughtabout by the present stimulus spending.

Fifth pillar: Higher education and trainingQuality higher education and training is crucial foreconomies that want to move up the value chainbeyond simple production processes and products.13 Inparticular, todays globalizing economy requires countriesto nurture pools of well-educated workers who are ableto adapt rapidly to their changing environment and theevolving needs of the production system. This pillarmeasures secondary and tertiary enrollment rates as wellas the quality of education as evaluated by the businesscommunity. The extent of staff training is also taken intoconsideration because of the importance of vocationaland continuous on-the-job trainingwhich is neglectedin many economiesfor ensuring a constant upgradingof workers skills.

Sixth pillar: Goods market efficiencyCountries with efficient goods markets are well positionedto produce the right mix of products and services giventheir particular supply-and-demand conditions, as wellas to ensure that these goods can be most effectivelytraded in the economy. Healthy market competition,both domestic and foreign, is important in driving marketefficiency and thus business productivity, by ensuringthat the most efficient firms, producing goods demandedby the market, are those that thrive. The best possibleenvironment for the exchange of goods requires a mini-mum of impediments to business activity through gov-ernment intervention. For example, competitiveness ishindered by distortionary or burdensome taxes and byrestrictive and discriminatory rules on foreign directinvestment (FDI)limiting foreign ownershipas wellas on international trade. The recent economic crisis hashighlighted the degree of interdependence of economiesworldwide and the degree to which growth depends onopen markets. Protectionist measures are counterpro-ductive as they reduce aggregate economic activity.

Market efficiency also depends on demand conditionssuch as customer orientation and buyer sophistication.


As the world emerges from the global recession, the full extentof the deterioration of fiscal accounts is becoming visible and is raising questions about the consequences for longer-termcompetitiveness. In the Global Competitiveness Index, fiscalpolicy is assessed by including the budget balance and publicdebt in the macroeconomic environment pillar, based on thebelief that, although sound fiscal policy does not contributedirectly to raising productivity and competitiveness, disarraycan be very harmful.

Continued budget deficits and high public debt are likely tohave a negative impact on productivity for a number of reasons.First, they reduce fiscal flexibility. Because of higher interest pay-ments on debt, the government will have fewer funds availableto invest in areas that are necessary to maintain future growthsuch as public health, education, or the upkeep of infrastructure.The government will also be unable to use fiscal stimulus in anynew downturns. Second, because the government needs tofinance spending by issuing new debt, interest rates across theeconomy will tend to rise, and the higher cost of capital forenterprises will stifle investment and future growth. Theseeffects can be exacerbated by the fact that economic behavioris driven by expectations. Because taxes will most likely have to

be raised in order to repay debt, economic agents will adapttheir growth expectations, investing less and saving more.Taken together those factors may lower growth, making it evenmore difficult to repay debt in the future and potentially leadingto a vicious cycle. In countries that are fiscally challenged,increases in debt could set off a different type of spiral, asrecently seen in the case of Greece. Debt increases can lead todowngrades of sovereign risk ratings, thereby sharply raisingthe refinancing cost of short-term debt and, in the most extremecase, leading to sovereign default.

As the recession cut government revenues and automaticstabilizers kicked in, and many policymakers resorted to bankbailouts and stimulus packages, many developed countrieshave observed the largest weakening of fiscal accounts sinceWorld War II. This development is not new, however. It contin-ues a trend that has been prevalent in G-7 countries over thepast 40 years (see Figure 1).1 Debt accumulated since the 1970sbecause fiscal policy was used to dampen the effect of cyclical downturns but was not cut back when the business cycle wentup again. As a consequence, the debt-to-GDP ratio of G-7economies is expected to break the 100 percent mark in 2011.

Box 1: Fiscal policy and competitiveness

20

40

60

80

100

120

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Percent of G

DP

Advanced economiesEmerging and developing economiesWorldG-7 economies

Source: IMF, 2010a. Note: Data are shown for the longest available period for each country group.

Figure 1: The evolution of public debt in G-7 and other country groups, 19502015

(Contd.)

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

6


According to research by Reinhardt and Rogoff,2 these levelswill have a serious impact on future growth rates of theseeconomies. They estimate that median GDP growth rates indeveloped economies fall by about one percentage point a yearonce a debt-to-GDP ratio of 90 percent is reached.3

In the medium to longer term, in order to maintain macro-economic stability and competitiveness, fiscal policiesin particular in G-7 countries, but also in some European and G-20economieswill have to be put on a sounder footing. Towardthat end, at their summit in June 2010 in Toronto, G-20 leadersagreed on a strategy to cut fiscal deficits in half by 2013 and to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio by 2016. The challenge will beto implement fiscal adjustment without undermining the fraileconomic recovery in the shorter term. Although this may seempolitically painful, recent research shows that governments that implement painful budgetary reforms tend to be rewardedpolitically.4 Fiscal consolidation will have to be accompanied bystructural reforms in order to increase overall competitiveness.5

By sending a signal, these reforms can mitigate the negative

effect of fiscal tightening on short-term growth, but they will alsoenhance growth in the longer term, which in turn will improvethe fiscal position. Such reforms are of particular importance in the context of Greece, where weakening competitivenessover the past years has been a root cause of macroeconomicinstability.6

Notes1 The G-7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the

United Kingdom, and the United States.

2 Reinhardt and Rogoff 2009.

3 In comparison to growth at low debt levels (below 30 percent ofGDP), the average rate of growth is reduced by 4 percentagepoints.

4 Alesina et al. 2010.

5 Blanchard and Cotarelli 2010.

6 In the Global Competitiveness Index, the country has droppedfrom 61st in the 20062007 edition to 83rd this year.

Box 1: Fiscal policy and competitiveness (contd.)

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

7For cultural or historical reasons, customers may bemore demanding in some countries than in others. Thiscan create an important competitive advantage, as itforces companies to be more innovative and customeroriented and thus imposes the discipline necessary forefficiency to be achieved in the market.

Seventh pillar: Labor market efficiencyThe efficiency and flexibility of the labor market are criti-cal for ensuring that workers are allocated to their mostefficient use in the economy and provided with incentivesto give their best effort in their jobs. Labor markets musttherefore have the flexibility to shift workers from oneeconomic activity to another rapidly and at low cost, andto allow for wage fluctuations without much social dis-ruption.14 The importance of the latter has been dramati-cally highlighted by the difficulties countries with particu-larly rigid labor marketssuch as Spainhave encoun-tered in recovering from the recent major economicdownturn.

Efficient labor markets must also ensure a clear rela-tionship between worker incentives and their efforts, aswell as equity in the business environment betweenwomen and men.

Eighth pillar: Financial market developmentThe recent financial crisis has highlighted the centralrole of a sound and well-functioning financial sector foreconomic activities. An efficient financial sector allocatesthe resources saved by a nations citizens, as well as thoseentering the economy from abroad, to their most pro-

ductive uses. It channels resources to those entrepreneurialor investment projects with the highest expected rates of return rather than to the politically connected. Athorough and proper assessment of risk is therefore akey ingredient. Business investment is critical to produc-tivity. Therefore economies require sophisticated financialmarkets that can make capital available for private-sectorinvestment from such sources as loans from a soundbanking sector, properly regulated securities exchanges, venture capital, and other financial products. The impor-tance of such access to capital was recently underscoredby the liquidity crunch experienced by businesses andthe public sector in both developing and developedcountries. In order to fulfill all those functions, thebanking sector needs to be trustworthy and transparent,andas has been made so clear recentlyfinancial markets need appropriate regulation to protect investorsand other actors in the economy at large.

Ninth pillar: Technological readinessIn todays globalized world, technology has increasinglybecome an important element for firms to compete and prosper. The technological readiness pillar measuresthe agility with which an economy adopts existing tech-nologies to enhance the productivity of its industries,with specific emphasis on its capacity to fully leverageinformation and communication technologies (ICT) indaily activities and production processes for increasedefficiency and competitiveness.15 ICT has evolved intothe general purpose technology of our time,16 giventhe critical spillovers to the other economic sectors and


1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

8

their role as industry-wide enabling infrastructure.Therefore ICT access and usage are key enablers ofcountries overall technological readiness.

Whether the technology used has or has not beendeveloped within national borders is irrelevant for its abili-ty to enhance productivity. The central point is that thefirms operating in the country have access to advancedproducts and blueprints and the ability to use them.Among the main sources of foreign technology, FDI oftenplays a key role. It is important to note that, in this context,the level of technology available to firms in a countryneeds to be distinguished from the countrys ability toinnovate and expand the frontiers of knowledge. That iswhy we separate technological readiness from innovation,which is captured in the 12th pillar below.

Tenth pillar: Market sizeThe size of the market affects productivity since largemarkets allow firms to exploit economies of scale.Traditionally, the markets available to firms have beenconstrained by national borders. In the era of globaliza-tion, international markets have become a substitute fordomestic markets, especially for small countries. There isvast empirical evidence showing that trade openness ispositively associated with growth. Even if some recentresearch casts doubts on the robustness of this relation-ship, the general sense is that trade has a positive effecton growth, especially for countries with small domesticmarkets.17

Thus exports can be thought of as a substitute fordomestic demand in determining the size of the marketfor the firms of a country.18 By including both domesticand foreign markets in our measure of market size, wegive credit to export-driven economies and geographicareas (such as the European Union) that are broken intomany countries but have a single common market.

Eleventh pillar: Business sophisticationBusiness sophistication is conducive to higher efficiencyin the production of goods and services. This leads, inturn, to increased productivity, thus enhancing a nationscompetitiveness. Business sophistication concerns thequality of a countrys overall business networks as well asthe quality of individual firms operations and strategies.This is particularly important for countries at anadvanced stage of development, when the more basicsources of productivity improvements have been exhaust-ed to a large extent. The quality of a countrys businessnetworks and supporting industries, as measured by thequantity and quality of local suppliers and the extent oftheir interaction, is important for a variety of reasons.When companies and suppliers from a particular sectorare interconnected in geographically proximate groups(clusters), efficiency is heightened, greater opportunitiesfor innovation are created, and barriers to entry for newfirms are reduced. Individual firms operations and strate-gies (branding, marketing, the presence of a value chain,

and the production of unique and sophisticated products)all lead to sophisticated and modern business processes.

Twelfth pillar: InnovationThe final pillar of competitiveness is technological inno-vation. Although substantial gains can be obtained byimproving institutions, building infrastructure, reducingmacroeconomic instability, or improving human capital,all these factors eventually seem to run into diminishingreturns. The same is true for the efficiency of the labor,financial, and goods markets. In the long run, standardsof living can be enhanced only by technological innova-tion. Innovation is particularly important for economiesas they approach the frontiers of knowledge and thepossibility of integrating and adapting exogenous tech-nologies tends to disappear.19

Although less-advanced countries can still improvetheir productivity by adopting existing technologies ormaking incremental improvements in other areas, forthose that have reached the innovation stage of develop-ment, this is no longer sufficient for increasing produc-tivity. Firms in these countries must design and developcutting-edge products and processes to maintain a com-petitive edge. This requires an environment that is con-ducive to innovative activity, supported by both thepublic and the private sectors. In particular, it means suf-ficient investment in research and development (R&D),especially by the private sector; the presence of high-quality scientific research institutions; extensive collabo-ration in research between universities and industry; andthe protection of intellectual property. Amid the presenteconomic uncertainty, it will be important to resist pres-sures to cut back on R&D spendingboth at the pri-vate and public levelsthat will be so critical for sus-tainable growth going into the future.

The interrelation of the 12 pillarsWhile we report the results of the 12 pillars of competi-tiveness separately, it is important to keep in mind thatthey are not independent: they tend to reinforce eachother, and a weakness in one area often has a negativeimpact on other areas. For example, innovation (pillar 12)will be very difficult without a well-educated and trainedworkforce (pillars 4 and 5) that are adept at absorbingnew technologies (pillar 9), and without sufficientfinancing (pillar 8) for R&D or an efficient goods mar-ket that makes it possible to take new innovations tomarket (pillar 6). While the pillars are aggregated into asingle index, measures are reported for the 12 pillars sep-arately because such details provide a sense of the specificareas in which a particular country needs to improve.

Appendix A describes the exact composition of theGCI and technical details of its construction.


Figure 1: The 12 pillars of competitiveness

Basic requirements Institutions Infrastructure Macroeconomic environment Health and primary education

Efficiency enhancers Higher education and training Goods market efficiency Labor market efficiency Financial market development Technological readiness Market size

Innovation and sophistication factors Business sophistication Innovation

Key for

factor-driveneconomies

Key for

efficiency-driveneconomies

Key for

innovation-driveneconomies

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

9

Stages of development and the weighted IndexWhile all of the pillars described above will matter to acertain extent for all economies, it is clear that they willaffect them in different ways: the best way for Rwandato improve its competitiveness is not the same as thebest way for Germany to do so. This is because Rwandaand Germany are in different stages of development: ascountries move along the development path, wages tendto increase and, in order to sustain this higher income,labor productivity must improve.

In line with the well-known economic theory ofstages of development, the GCI assumes that, in the firststage, the economy is factor-driven and countries competebased on their factor endowments: primarily unskilledlabor and natural resources.20 Companies compete onthe basis of price and sell basic products or commodi-ties, with their low productivity reflected in low wages.Maintaining competitiveness at this stage of develop-ment hinges primarily on well-functioning public andprivate institutions (pillar 1), well-developed infrastruc-ture (pillar 2), a stable macroeconomic environment (pil-lar 3), and a healthy workforce that has received at leasta basic education (pillar 4).

As a country becomes more competitive, productivitywill increase and wages will rise with advancing develop-ment. Countries will then move into the efficiency-drivenstage of development, when they must begin to developmore efficient production processes and increase product

quality because wages have risen and they cannot increaseprices. At this point, competitiveness is increasingly drivenby higher education and training (pillar 5), efficient goodsmarkets (pillar 6), well-functioning labor markets (pillar 7),developed financial markets (pillar 8), the ability to harnessthe benefits of existing technologies (pillar 9), and a largedomestic or foreign market (pillar 10).

Finally, as countries move into the innovation-drivenstage, wages will have risen by so much that they areable to sustain those higher wages and the associatedstandard of living only if their businesses are able tocompete with new and unique products. At this stage,companies must compete by producing new and differ-ent goods using the most sophisticated productionprocesses (pillar 11) and through innovation (pillar 12).

The GCI takes the stages of development intoaccount by attributing higher relative weights to thosepillars that are more relevant for an economy given itsparticular stage of development. That is, although all 12pillars matter to a certain extent for all countries, therelative importance of each one depends on a countrysparticular stage of development. To implement this con-cept, the pillars are organized into three subindexes, eachcritical to a particular stage of development.

The basic requirements subindex groups those pillarsmost critical for countries in the factor-driven stage. Theefficiency enhancers subindex includes those pillars criticalfor countries in the efficiency-driven stage. And the


1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

10

innovation and sophistication factors subindex includes thepillars critical to countries in the innovation-drivenstage. The three subindexes are shown in Figure 1.

The weights attributed to each subindex in everystage of development are shown in Table 1. To obtainthe weights, a maximum likelihood regression of GDPper capita was run against each subindex for past years,allowing for different coefficients for each stage ofdevelopment.21 The rounding of these econometric esti-mates led to the choice of weights displayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Weights of the three main subindexes at eachstage of development

Factor- Efficiency- Innovation-driven driven driven

Subindex stage (%) stage (%) stage (%)

Basic requirements 60 40 20Efficiency enhancers 35 50 50Innovation and sophistication factors 5 10 30

Implementation of stages of developmentTwo criteria are used to allocate countries into stages ofdevelopment. The first is the level of GDP per capita atmarket exchange rates. This widely available measure isused as a proxy for wages, because internationally com-parable data on wages are not available for all countriescovered. The thresholds used are shown in Table 2. Asecond criterion measures the extent to which countriesare factor driven. This is measured by the share ofexports of mineral goods in total exports (goods andservices), assuming that countries that export more than70 percent of mineral products (measured using a five-year average) are to a large extent factor driven.22

Table 2: Income thresholds for establishing stages ofdevelopment

Stage of development GDP per capita (in US$)

Stage 1: Factor driven < 2,000 Transition from stage 1 to stage 2 2,0003,000Stage 2: Efficiency driven 3,0009,000Transition from stage 2 to stage 3 9,00017,000Stage 3: Innovation driven > 17,000

Any countries falling in between two of the three stagesare considered to be in transition. For these countries,the weights change smoothly as a country develops,reflecting the smooth transition from one stage of devel-opment to another. This allows us to place increasinglymore weight on those areas that are becoming moreimportant for the countrys competitiveness as the coun-try develops, ensuring that the GCI can graduallypenalize those countries that are not preparing for the

next stage. The classification of countries into stages ofdevelopment is shown in Table 3.

Adjustments to the GCIOver the past year, the Global Competitiveness Indexhas been put through a rigorous analysis by the JointResearch Centre of the European Commission (JRC).The JRC is widely recognized as holding the worldsleading expertise on composite indicators, such as theGCI. Overall the JRC found that the GCI is robust tochanges in weights and is a solid index. Box 2 providesdetails of their findings.

In addition to this overall assessment, the JRC madesome recommendations on how to further strengthenthe GCI. Based on their findings, as well as the Forumsown analysis and changes in data availability, someminor adjustments to the structure of the GCI havebeen made, as follows:

In the institutions pillar (1st), a measure of the extentof bribery and irregular payments derived from theExecutive Opinion Survey has been added under ethicsand corruption.The index of the strength of investor pro-tection compiled by the World Bank, previously in thefinancial market development pillar, is now included in theprivate institutions subpillar.

Within the infrastructure pillar (2nd), the indicatorshave been reorganized into two relevant subpillars,namely transport infrastructure and energy and telephonyinfrastructure.The latter now includes mobile telephonesubscriptions. This variable is also part of the technologicalreadiness pillar and therefore receives half weight in eachpillar.

Within the health and primary education and the high-er education and training pillars (4th and 5th), we havedropped the variable on education expenditure as it isno longer collected by UNESCO.

In the goods market efficiency pillar (6th), the variableused as a proxy for the tax rate is now given full weight.Previously, this variable was also included in the labormarket efficiency pillar and in each instance it was givenhalf weight.

The technological readiness pillar (9th) has been sepa-rated into two relevant subpillars: technological adoptionand ICT use.The indicator on personal computers is nolonger included as the data are no longer collected bythe International Telecommunication Union. The densi-ty of fixed telephone lines is included in the ICT usecategory. Since it is also included in the infrastructure pil-lar, each instance is given half weight. Finally, the vari-able on the laws relating to ICT was dropped as it wasdeemed too specific, given the general scope of theIndex. A new variable on Internet bandwidth, on theother hand, has been included because of the risingimportance of this factor for competitiveness.


Table 3: List of countries/economies at each stage of development

Stage 1 Transition from 1 to 2 Stage 2 Transition from 2 to 3 Stage 3

Bangladesh Algeria Albania Bahrain AustraliaBenin Angola Argentina Barbados AustriaBolivia Armenia Bosnia and Herzegovina Chile BelgiumBurkina Faso Azerbaijan Brazil Croatia CanadaBurundi Botswana Bulgaria Estonia CyprusCambodia Brunei Darussalam Cape Verde Hungary Czech RepublicCameroon Egypt China Latvia DenmarkChad Georgia Colombia Lithuania FinlandCte dIvoire Guatemala Costa Rica Oman FranceEthiopia Guyana Dominican Republic Poland GermanyGambia, The Indonesia Ecuador Puerto Rico GreeceGhana Iran, Islamic Rep. El Salvador Slovak Republic Hong Kong SARHonduras Jamaica Jordan Taiwan, China IcelandIndia Kazakhstan Lebanon Trinidad and Tobago IrelandKenya Kuwait Macedonia, FYR Uruguay IsraelKyrgyz Republic Libya Malaysia ItalyLesotho Morocco Mauritius JapanMadagascar Paraguay Mexico Korea, Rep.Malawi Qatar Montenegro LuxembourgMali Saudi Arabia Namibia MaltaMauritania Sri Lanka Panama NetherlandsMoldova Swaziland Peru New ZealandMongolia Syria Romania NorwayMozambique Ukraine Russian Federation PortugalNepal Venezuela Serbia SingaporeNicaragua South Africa SloveniaNigeria Thailand SpainPakistan Tunisia SwedenPhilippines Turkey SwitzerlandRwanda United Arab EmiratesSenegal United KingdomTajikistan United StatesTanzaniaTimor-LesteUgandaVietnamZambiaZimbabwe

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

11

The business sophistication pillar (11th) is no longerdivided into two subpillars, but instead groups all vari-ables together.

Finally, in order to deal with skewness of two of thehard data variables (4.10 Primary enrollment and 10.04Imports as a percentage of GDP), we have employed alogarithmic transformation as one step in convertingthem to a 1-to-7 scale. All of the adjustments describedabove are reflected in Appendix A at the end of thischapter.

Country coverageA number of new countries have been added this year.These include four African countries (Angola, Cape

Verde, Rwanda, and Swaziland) and two Middle Easterncountries (the Islamic Republic of Iran and Lebanon).Moldova, a country that had been covered for severalyears but was excluded last year because of insufficientExecutive Opinion Survey data, has now been reinstated.On the other hand, Suriname, which was covered lastyear, could not be included in this edition because of alack of Survey data. This has led to an increase in coverageto a total of 139 economies this year.

The Global Competitiveness Index 20102011 rankingsTables 4 through 8 provide the detailed rankings of thisyears GCI. As Table 4 shows, all of the countries in thetop 10 remain the same as last year, with some shifts in


Box 2: Testing the robustness of the Global Competitiveness Index

12

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

MICHELA NARDO and PAOLA ANNONI, European Commission Joint Research Centre

Analyzing the robustness of the Global Competitiveness Index(GCI) and identifying how a countrys performance improves ordeteriorates under certain assumptions are necessary steps for ensuring the transparency and reliability of the Index andputting the results into a contextual framework. Every modeldepends on a set of assumptions. Changing these assumptionsis likely to affect the inferences drawn from the model.Robustness analysis assesses the major drivers of uncertaintyin model predictions, enabling policymakers to derive moreaccurate and meaningful conclusions. The Unit of Econometricsand Applied Statistics at the European Commission JointResearch Centre has longstanding experience in construc-ting and testing composite indicators. Together with theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), the Unit developed the Handbook on ConstructingComposite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide, which has become the international reference in the field.

The robustness analysis performed for the GCI challengessome of its key assumptions: the differentiated weightingscheme adjusted to the countries development stage and thecontribution to the final score of each of the 12 pillars, oftenpopulated by a different number of indicators.1

The robustness of the GCI with respect to its weighting schemeAs described in the main text of this chapter, the final GCIscores are computed as a weighted average of three subindex-es, which describe basic requirements, efficiency enhancers,and innovation and sophistication factors as follows:

GCIij = wj1Basici + wj2Effciencyi+ (1 wj1 wj2)Innovation

where i is the country index and j is the country developmentstage. The robustness of the GCI weighting scheme is tested by randomly sampling the set of weights wjk, where k = 1,2,3from uniform continuous distributions centered in the corre-sponding GCI reference value (see Table 1 in the main text ofthis chapter). The Monte Carlo simulation comprises 1,200 runs,each corresponding to a different set of weights of the threesubindexes. For technical reasons, only the three major devel-opment stages (stages 1, 2, and 3) are considered for therobustness analysis. Countries in transition are assigned to thenearest development stage. The range of variation of the set ofweights takes into account this simplification by overlappinguncertainty intervals (see Table 1). The choice of the range ofvariation has been driven by two opposite needs: on the onehand, the need to ensure a wide enough interval to have mean-ingful robustness checks; on the other hand, the need to keepthe rationale of the GCI weighting scheme, originally designedto take into account intrinsic differences across countries.Considering this trade-off, limit values of uncertainty intervalshave been defined as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Uncertainty intervals of GCI weights

Distribution Stage of Reference assigned for thedevelopment Weight value robustness analysis

Stage 1: Factor-driven w11 0.6 U[0.4,0.8]

w12 0.35 U[0.2,0.5]

w13 0.05 U[0.0,0.1]

Stage 2: Efficiency-driven w21 0.4 U[0.2,0.6]

w22 0.5 U[0.3,0.7]

w23 0.1 U[0.05,0.3]

Stage 3: Innovation-driven w31 0.2 U[0.1,0.4]

w32 0.5 U[0.3,0.7]

w33 0.3 U[0.1,0.4]

Sources: European Commission Joint Research Centre; World EconomicForum, 2009.

The main outcome of the robustness analysis is shown inFigure 1 with median scores and 90 percent confidence intervalscomputed across the 1,200 Monte Carlo simulations. Countriesare ordered from best to worst according to their GCI referencescore (black line), the blue dot being the median score. Errorbars represent, for each country, the 90 percent confidenceinterval. GCI scores are rather robust: the median score isalways close to the reference score. For only 7 countries out of133 is the width of confidence interval slightly higher than 10percent of the GCI reference valuethese are Algeria, Bahrain,Brunei Darussalam, Namibia, Oman, Suriname, and Syria.Relatively higher volatility (longer error bars) is present in themiddle part of the graph, where the black line of the referencescore is less steep, meaning that higher volatility is associatedwith countries with similar scores. More on the robustnessanalysis of the weighting scheme is discussed in Appendix B.

Evaluating each pillar's contribution to the finalscoreIs the GCI framework well balanced across the 12 differentdimensions that define country competitiveness? This is testedby assigning a zero weight to one pillar at a time and comparingthe resulting score with the GCI values. The main results areshown in Figure 2. The black line is the median across all coun-tries and the boxes include 75 percent of the cases. The wholedistribution of the score differences is displayed by the verticalblue lines. A median close to zero with a small box and a shortblue line indicates a pillar whose exclusion does not affect thefinal score in a significant manner. The most influential pillarsare institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment,health and primary education, and market size. All but the lastbelong to the basic requirements subindex. The influence is,however, moderate in absolute terms. Looking at the shift in ranks(see Appendix B), the maximum shift of a country is up to 5positions for 75 percent of the cases. This demonstrates thatalmost all of the 12 pillars contribute to the GCI score in a balanced way.

(Contd.)


Box 2: Testing the robustness of the Global Competitiveness Index (contd.)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Inst

itutio

ns

Infra

stru

ctur

e

Mac

roec

onom

icen

viro

nmen

t

Heal

th a

ndpr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

High

er e

duca

tion

and

train

ing

Good

s m

arke

tef

ficie

ncy

Labo

r mar

ket

effic

ienc

y

Fina

ncia

l mar

ket

deve

lopm

ent

Tech

nolo

gica

lre

adin

ess

Mar

ket s

ize

Busi

ness

soph

istic

atio

n

Inno

vatio

n

GCI scoresimulated score

Figure 2: GCI framework balance of pillars: Score differences

Sources: European Commission Joint Research Centre; World Economic Forum, 2009.

7

6

4

5

3

2

1

Score

Countries in the GCI 20092010

Figure 1: Robustness analysis: Median scores and their confidence intervals

Sources: European Commission Joint Research Centre; World Economic Forum, 2009.

13

1.1:

The

Glo

bal C

ompe

titiv

enes

s In

dex

2010

201

1

Overall, the GCI proved to be robust. Country scores andranks are not significantly affected by different weightingschemes with only few exceptions. Almost all pillars contributein a balanced way to the overall GCI score, with the most influ-ential pillars being those of the basic requirements subindex.

Note1 The analysis was carried out on the GCI from The Global

Competitiveness Report 20092010. See World Economic Forum2009.

Median score GCI 20092010 score


rank, highlighting the stability among the top 10 per-formers. The following sections discuss the findings ofthe GCI 20102011 for the top 10 performers globally,as well as for a number of selected economies in each ofthe five following regions: Europe and Central Asia,Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific,the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-SaharanAfrica.23

One trend worth noting is the slight decline onaverage among countries in the most advanced stage ofdevelopment, the innovation-driven stage, while thosecountries in the first and second stages have seen a slightimprovement in score. In other words, while the com-petitiveness of more industrialized economies is worsen-ing, developing countries are improving, resulting in asmall convergence in performance.

Top 10The countries that constitute the top 10 remain thesame as last year, with some changes in rank amongthem. Switzerland retains its 1st place position, charac-terized by an excellent capacity for innovation and avery sophisticated business culture, ranked 4th for itsbusiness sophistication and 2nd for its innovation capac-ity. Switzerlands scientific research institutions areamong the worlds best, and the strong collaborationbetween the academic and business sectors, combinedwith high company spending on R&D, ensures thatmuch of this research is translated into marketable prod-ucts and processes, reinforced by strong intellectualproperty protection and government support of innova-tion through its procurement processes. This stronginnovative capacity is captured by the high rate ofpatenting (158.95 per million inhabitants) in the coun-try, for which Switzerland ranks 7th worldwide on a percapita basis.

Public institutions in Switzerland are among themost effective and transparent in the world (5th), receiv-ing an even better comparative assessment this year thanin past years. Governance structures ensure a level play-ing field, enhancing business confidence; these includean independent judiciary, strong rule of law, and a highlyaccountable public sector. Competitiveness is also but-tressed by excellent infrastructure (6th), a well-function-ing goods market (4th), and a highly developed financialmarket (8th) as well as a labor market that is among themost efficient in the world (2nd, just behind Singapores).And Switzerlands macroeconomic environment, afterweakening slightly last year, has bounced back and isamong the most stable in the world (ranked 5th) at atime when many countries are struggling in this area.

While Switzerland demonstrates many competitivestrengths, the university enrollment rate of 49.4 percentcontinues to lag behind many other high-innovationcountries, placing it 48th on this indicator. With an eyeto the future, efforts should be made to boost higher

education attainment to ensure sufficient national talentto continue contributing to productivity improvements.

Sweden has moved ahead of Singapore and theUnited States to claim 2nd position this year. The coun-try benefits from the worlds most transparent and effi-cient public institutions, with very low levels of corrup-tion and undue influence

Documents

Wef global competitiveness report_2010-11