[Global HR Forum 2011] Global HRD Competitiveness Report 2011

Global HRD Competitiveness Global HRD Competitiveness Report 2011

Hunseok OhDirector of Korea Human Resource Research CenterSeoul National [email protected]

Contributors

Seoul National University Korea Human Resource Research Center

Hunseok Oh Myungweon ChoiKukkeun Kim Hyuehyun Ryu

Korea Human Resource Research Center

Kukkeun Kim Hyuehyun RyuYeseul Choi Dongin Seo

Korea Economic Daily

2

Background

� Pre-existing indices to evaluate NHRD competitiveness� IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook� WEF Global Competitiveness Report� IPS National Competitiveness Research


� IPS National Competitiveness Research� Talent global competitiveness (China)� Global Talent Index (EIU, UK)� Creativity Index (Hong Kong)� UNDP Human Development Index� OECD Education at a Glance

3

Background (cont’d)

� Limitations of these indices include: � An economy-centered or industry-centered

perspective� Absence of a theoretical model of NHRD� Heavy reliance on corporation executives’ opinions

and/or subjective ratings


and/or subjective ratings

4

Background (cont’d)

� Need for an alternative index to measure NHRD competitiveness � to assess national competitiveness from an HRD

perspective� to measure NHRD competitiveness based on a

sound theoretical model


sound theoretical model� to reflect the full spectrum of HRD competitiveness,

rather than opinions of a specific population

5

Defining NHRD

Competitive-ness

Building the conceptual

model

Determining the

components of the model

Validating the model and its components

(AHP)

Procedure to develop and validate the Global HRD Competitiveness Index


ness of the model (AHP)

Comparing competitiveness

across the countries

Computing the countries’ HRD competitiveness

scores

Collecting data of OECD member countries

6

Conceptual Model of NHRD System

� NHRD is “a system that a country has in order to secure, develop, and utilize its human resources”

Securing Securing Human Human ResourcesResources

Utilizing


DevelopingDevelopingHuman Human ResourcesResources

Utilizing Human Resources

National HRD System

National HRD System

7

Measurement Model of NHRD System

� NHRD competitiveness is “the cumulative sum of a country’s achievement in each of the factors as well as the interaction among them”

DevelopingDevelopingHuman Human ResourcesResources

Securing Securing Human Human ResourcesResources

Utilizing Human Resources

8

Factors & Sub -Factors of NHRD System

Environment

SupplyConditions

DemandConditions

SupportingSystems

9

QualityQuantity

SupplyConditions

Indicators of Supply Conditions


• PISA score• number of World Top 500

Universities• quality of management

schools• perceived health status

• total fertility rates• life expectancy at birth • working-age population• percentage of population

with at least upper secondary education

• percentage of population with tertiary education

• percentage of population 25-64 years old in adult learning

10

DemandConditions

Indicators of Demand Conditions

QualityQuantity


• number of creative professionals as a percentage of total population

• number of technicians and associate professionals as a percentage of total population

• brain gain• gender gap in median

earnings of full-time employees

• employment rate• unemployment rate• percentage of the population

aged 25-64 with tertiary education in employment

• percentage of the population aged 25-64 with tertiary education in unemployment

• rate of female labor force participation

11

Technology

• fixed/mobile broadband internet Social capital

Globalization

Industry

• exports and imports of creative goods as

Environment

Indicators of Environment


subscribers per 100 population

• international internet bandwidth bit/s per internet user

• number of estimated internet users per 100 population

• number of mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 population

• ICT price

Social capital

• interpersonal trust• confidence in social

institutions• tolerance• voter turnout

• TOEFL score • foreign students as

a percentage of all tertiary enrollment

• number of international meetings per GDP

• international passengers relative to total population

• political globalization

percentage of total trades in goods

• receipts of royalties and licenses fees as percentage of total services exports

• hi-technology exports as percentage of total manufacturing exports

• university-industry collaboration in R&D

12

SupportingSystems

Indicators of Supporting Systems


Investment

• public expenditure on education

• private expenditure on education

• government expenditure on R&D

• business expenditure on R&D

Institutions

• intellectual property protection• duration of compulsory

education• public expenditure on active

labor market policies• FRE paid maternity leave

13

Selecting Indicators (1)

� Criteria for selecting indicators � international comparability� accuracy and reliability

(37 out of 45 indicators are measured by hard data) � relevance� timeliness and punctuality


� timeliness and punctuality� coherence � accessibility and clarity

14

Selecting Indicators (2)

� Resources include: � ILO Statistics � ITU World telecommunication/ICT Indicators database � OECD Factbook� OCED Education at a Glance � OECD Society at a Glance


� OECD Society at a Glance � OECD Health at a Glance � OECD Earnings, Family, PISA databases� UNCTAD Creative Economy Report � WEF Global Competitiveness Report � World Bank World Development Indicators� World Bank World Governance Indicators � Word Bank Science & Technology Indicators� UNESCO database

15

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

� What is AHP? � A structured technique which relies on the judgment and

experience of decision makers to prioritize information for better decisions

� A method frequently used to determine the weight to be given to each of the criteria to be considered in making a choice


� Procedures� Participants included 17 faculty members and researchers in the

fields of economics, technology management, public administration & policy, corporate strategies, educational policy, lifelong education, women’s studies, etc.

� Participants were asked to provide pairwise comparisons for every set of factors, sub-factors, and indicators

� Relative weights were calculated based on T. Saaty’s guideline

16

Analytical Hierarchy Process (cont’d)

Supply

conditions

26.32

Demand

conditions

29.90

Environment

21.28

Supporting

systems

22.50

� Weights given to the factors and sub-factors


Quan

8.92

Qual

17.39

Quan

12.02

Qual

17.89

Techno

-logy

4.98

Social

capital

5.58

Globali

-zation

4.14

Industr

-y

6.57

Institut

-ions

12.27

Invest

-ment

10.23

Note: Numbers in the boxes indicate the weights given to the factors and sub-factors (unit: %)

17

Analytical Hierarchy Process (cont’d)

� Weight of each of the 45 indicators ranged from 9.14% to 0.25%

� Indicators with high weights� number of creative professionals as a percentage of total

population (9.14%)


population (9.14%)� number of World Top 500 Universities (8.95%)� public expenditure on education (4.20%)� intellectual property protection (4.20%) � number of 25-64 year-olds with tertiary education in

employment as a percentage of the population aged 25 to 64 (3.79%)

� brain gain (3.61%) (weights in the parentheses)

18

Computing the Competitiveness Scores

Korea Human Resource Research Center19

Ranking Country Score Ranking Country Score

1 Switzerland 4.873 18 Ireland 3.944

2 Sweden 4.787 19 Israel 3.891

3 United States 4.786 20 Slovenia 3.713

4 Netherlands 4.696 21 Estonia 3.635

5 Finland 4.539 22 Japan 3.631

6 Denmark 4.531 23 Korea 3.472

7 Norway 4.462 24 Spain 3.375

Ranking: OECD Member Countries

8 Canada 4.395 25 Czech Republic 3.280

9 Iceland 4.355 26 Poland 3.069

10 United Kingdom 4.333 27 Portugal 2.998

11 Australia 4.306 28 Italy 2.971

12 New Zealand 4.209 29 Hungary 2.963

13 Germany 4.203 30 Slovak Republic 2.890

14 France 4.013 31 Greece 2.874

15 Belgium 3.997 32 Chile 2.843

16 Luxemburg 3.986 33 Mexico 2.510

17 Austria 3.959 34 Turkey 1.953

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Canada

United States

Ranking: OECD Member Countries (cont’d)

� Supply Conditions: Top 10 OECD Countries

Korea Human Resource Research Center1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Netherlands

Sweden

Germany

Finland

Australia

New Zealand

21

Australia

Norway

Sweden

Netherlands

Switzerland


� Demand Conditions: Top 10 OECD Countries


Denmark

Slovenia

Canada

Finland

Iceland

Australia

22


United States

Netherlands

Sweden

Switzerland

Denmark

� Environment: Top 10 OECD Countries


Norway

Austria

Luxemburg

Finland

United Kingdom

United States

23

Israel

Denmark

Iceland

Sweden

Finland


� Supporting Systems: Top 10 OECD Countries


Norway

Germany

Netherlands

Belgium

France

Israel

24

Country Groups by HRD Competitiveness

2

3

4

5

6

7

supply(quan)

supply(qual)

demand(quan)investment

institutions

0

1

demand(qual)

technology

social capital

globalization

industry

strong countries intermediary countries weak countries 25

Country Groups by GDP per capita

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

supply(quan)

supply(qual)


institutions

0

1

demand(qual)

technology

social capital

globalization

industry

large economies medium economies small economies 26

Comparison between Country Groups

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

supply(quan)

supply(qual)


policiesinstitutions

27

0

1

demand(qual)

technology

social capital

globalization

industry

Top 5 countries Bottom 5 countries

Comparison between Country Groups (cont’d)

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

Top 5 countries Bottom 5 countries

28


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

supply(quan)

supply(qual)


policiesinstitutions

29

0

1

demand(qual)

technology

social capital

globalization

industry

Top 5 countries Rank 6-15 countries


3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

Top 5 countries Rank 6-15 countries 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

supply(quan)

supply(qual)


institutions

Country Profile: Korea 14

18

283

32

0

1

demand(qual)

technology

social capital

globalization

industry

Korea OECD average

32

8

33

31

10

Numbers indicate the rank of Korea in each sub-factor

(reference group: OECD member countries) 31

Country Profile: Korea (cont’d)

3

4

5

6

7

8 3

0

1

2

Korea OECD average

32

3233

3132

Numbers indicate the rank of Korea in each sub-factor (reference group: OECD member countries)

Relations with Other Competitiveness Indices

IMD (2010) WEF (2010) HDI (2010) GHRD (2011)

IMD (2010) 1 .914** .610** .816**

WEF (2010) 1 .645** .872**

HDI (2010) 1 .803**

GHRD (2011) 1

(Pearson's r)

33

Correlation with GDP per capita

Pearson’s r = .588 Pearson’s r = .675

34

Country Groups by HRD Competitiveness and GDP per capita

CanadaDenmarkFinlandNetherlandsNorwaySwedenSwitzerland

AustraliaIcelandUnited Kingdom

large economy medium economy small economy

strongly

competitive

SwitzerlandUnited States

AustriaIrelandLuxemburg

BelgiumFranceGermanyIsraelJapanNew Zealand

EstoniaKoreaSlovenia

GreeceItalySpain

ChileCzech RepublicHungaryMexicoPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicTurkey

intermediately

competitive

weakly

competitive

35

Changes in HRD Competitiveness between 2005 and 2011

Country 2011 ranking 2005 ranking Change Country 2011 ranking 2005 ranking Change

Switzerland 1 2 △△△△ 1 Ireland 18 17 ▽▽▽▽ 1

Sweden 2 3 △△△△ 1 Israel 19 13 ▽▽▽▽ 6

United States 3 1 ▽▽▽▽ 2 Slovenia 20 20 -

Netherlands 4 4 - Estonia 21 24 △△△△ 3

Finland 5 5 - Japan 22 19 ▽▽▽▽ 3

Denmark 6 6 - Korea 23 21 ▽▽▽▽ 2

Norway 7 11 △△△△ 4 Spain 24 23 ▽▽▽▽ 1Norway 7 11 △△△△ 4 Spain 24 23 ▽▽▽▽ 1

Canada 8 8 - Czech Republic 25 25 -

Iceland 9 7 ▽▽▽▽ 2 Poland 26 32 △△△△ 6

United Kingdom 10 9 ▽▽▽▽ 1 Portugal 27 26 ▽▽▽▽ 1

Australia 11 12 △△△△ 1 Italy 28 28 -

New Zealand 12 16 △△△△ 4 Hungary 29 27 ▽▽▽▽ 2

Germany 13 10 ▽▽▽▽ 3 Slovak Republic 30 30 -

France 14 15 △△△△ 1 Greece 31 31 -

Belgium 15 14 ▽▽▽▽ 1 Chile 32 29 ▽▽▽▽ 3

Luxemburg 16 22 △△△△ 6 Mexico 33 33 -

Austria 17 18 △△△△ 1 Turkey 34 34 -

Changes in HRD Competitiveness between 2005 and 2011 (cont’d)

ADVANCERSwitzerland

SwedenNorway

Australia

ORDINARY

NetherlandsFinland

DenmarkCanada

LAGGER United StatesIceland

United Kingdom

Luxemburg New Zealand

large economy medium economy small economy

strongly

competitive

intermediately

competitive

ADVANCERLuxemburg

AustriaNew Zealand

FranceEstonia

ORDINARY Slovenia

LAGGER Ireland

GermanyBelgium

IsraelJapan

Korea

ADVANCER Poland

ORDINARYItaly

Greece

Czech RepublicSlovak Republic

MexicoTurkey

LAGGER SpainPortugalHungary

Chile

weakly

competitive

37

Conclusion & Implications

� The US, Canada, and a few countries in Northern Europe are the most competitive when it comes to NHRD system

� North American countries, especially the US, occupy an unrivaled position as far as Supply Conditions of NHRD system is concerned


position as far as Supply Conditions of NHRD system is concerned � European countries occupy high positions in various aspects of

NHRD system (relatively well-balanced)

� Korea and Japan, which are assumed to have competitive advantages partly due to their national emphasis on education, occupy relatively low positions among OECD member countries (23rd and 22nd, respectively)

38

� Countries which are strongly competitive in terms of NHRD system have relatively high GDP per capita. Countries which are weak in NHRD system have relatively low GDP per capita.

� Most of the countries with high GDP per capita are

Conclusion & Implications (cont’d)


� Most of the countries with high GDP per capita are either advancers or ordinaries. On the other hand, most countries with low GDP per capita are either ordinaries or laggers.

39

Korea Human Resource Research Center40