Explore Ebooks
Categories
Explore Audiobooks
Categories
Explore Magazines
Categories
Explore Documents
Categories
The Global
Competitiveness Report
20122013
Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum
Insight Report
The Global
Competitiveness Report
20122013
Full Data Edition
Copyright 2012
by the World Economic Forum
ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-35-7
ISBN-10: 92-95044-35-5
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and
made from fully managed and sustained forest sources.
Printed and bound in Switzerland by SRO-Kundig.
The Report and an interactive data platform are available
at www.weforum.org/gcr.
Contents
Partner Institutes
Preface
xiii
by Klaus Schwab
79
81
375
519
523
Acknowledgments
527
49
69
Partner Institutes
Belgium
Vlerick Business School
Priscilla Boiardi, Associate, Competence Centre
Entrepreneurship, Governance and Strategy
Wim Moesen, Professor
Leo Sleuwaegen, Professor, Competence Centre
Entrepreneurship, Governance and Strategy
Benin
CAPODConception et Analyse de Politiques de
Dveloppement
Epiphane Adjovi, Director
Maria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy Coordinator
Fructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher
Algeria
Centre de Recherche en Economie Applique pour
le Dveloppement (CREAD)
Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant Professor
Yassine Ferfera, Director
Argentina
IAEUniversidad Austral
Eduardo Luis Fracchia, Professor
Santiago Novoa, Project Manager
Armenia
Economy and Values Research Center
Manuk Hergnyan, Chairman
Sevak Hovhannisyan, Board Member and Senior Associate
Gohar Malumyan, Research Associate
Australia
Australian Industry Group
Colleen Dowling, Senior Research Coordinator
Innes Willox, Chief Executive
Austria
Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO)
Karl Aiginger, Director
Gerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey Department
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Marketing Society
Fuad Aliyev, Deputy Chairman
Ashraf Hajiyev, Consultant
Bahrain
Bahrain Economic Development Board
Kamal Bin Ahmed, Minister of Transportation and Acting Chief
Executive of the Economic Development Board
Nada Azmi, Manager, Economic Planning and Development
Maryam Matter, Coordinator, Economic Planning and
Development
Bangladesh
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)
Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Senior Research Fellow
Kishore Kumer Basak, Research Associate
Mustafizur Rahman, Executive Director
Barbados
Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies,
University of West Indies (UWI)
Judy Whitehead, Director
Brunei Darussalam
Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources
Pehin Dato Yahya Bakar, Minister
Normah Suria Hayati Jamil Al-Sufri, Permanent Secretary
Bulgaria
Center for Economic Development
Adriana Daganova, Expert, International Programmes and
Projects
Anelia Damianova, Senior Expert
Burkina Faso
lnstitut Suprieure des Sciences de la Population (ISSP),
University of Ouagadougou
Baya Banza, Director
Partner Institutes
Burundi
University Research Centre for Economic and Social
Development (CURDES), National University of Burundi
Banderembako Deo, Director
Gilbert Niyongabo, Dean, Faculty of Economics &
Management
Cambodia
Economic Institute of Cambodia
Sok Hach, President
Sokheng Sam, Researcher
Cameroon
Comit de Comptitivit (Competitiveness Committee)
Lucien Sanzouango, Permanent Secretary
Canada
The Conference Board of Canada
Michael R. Bloom, Vice-President, Organizational
Effectiveness & Learning
Douglas Watt, Associate Director
Cape Verde
INOVE RESEARCHInvestigao e Desenvolvimento, Lda
Jlio Delgado, Partner and Senior Researcher
Jos Mendes, Chief Executive Officer
Sara Frana Silva, Project Manager
Chad
Groupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring du Projet
Ptrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC)
Antoine Doudjidingao, Researcher
Gilbert Maoundonodji, Director
Celine Nnodji Mbaipeur, Programme Officer
Chile
Universidad Adolfo Ibez
Fernando Larrain Aninat, Director MBA
Leonidas Montes, Dean, School of Government
China
Institute of Economic System and Management, National
Development and Reform Commission
Chen Wei, Research Fellow
Dong Ying, Professor
Zhou Haichun, Deputy Director and Professor
China Center for Economic Statistics Research, Tianjin
University of Finance and Economics
Bojuan Zhao, Professor
Fan Yang, Professor Jian Wang, Associate Professor
Hongye Xiao, Professor
Lu Dong, Professor
Colombia
National Planning Department
Sara Patricia Rivera, Advisor
John Rodrguez, Coordinator, Competitiveness Observatory
Javier Villarreal, Enterprise Development Director
Colombian Private Council on Competitiveness
Rosario Crdoba, President
Marco Llins, Vicepresident
Cte dIvoire
Chambre de Commerce et dIndustrie de Cte dIvoire
Jean-Louis Billon, President
Mamadou Sarr, Director General
Croatia
National Competitiveness Council
Jadranka Gable, Advisor
Kresimir Jurlin, Research Fellow
Cyprus
The European University
Bambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic and
Academic Research
cdbbankThe Cyprus Development Bank
Maria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, Business Development
and Special Projects
Czech Republic
CMC Graduate School of Business
Tomas Janca, Executive Director
Denmark
Danish Technological Institute, Center for Policy and Business
Development
Hanne Shapiro, Center Manager
Ecuador
ESPAE Graduate School of Management, Escuela Superior
Politcnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
Elizabeth Arteaga, Project Assistant
Virginia Lasio, Director
Sara Wong, Professor
Egypt
The Egyptian Center for Economic Studies (ECES)
Iman Al-Ayouty, Senior Economist
Omneia Helmy, Acting Executive Director and Director
of Research
Estonia
Estonian Institute of Economic Research
Evelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research Sector
Marje Josing, Director
Estonian Development Fund
Kitty Kubo, Head of Foresight
Ott Prna, Chief Executive Officer
Ethiopia
African Institute of Management, Development and
Governance
Zebenay Kifle, General Manager
Tegenge Teka, Senior Expert
Finland
ETLAThe Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
Markku Kotilainen, Research Director
Petri Rouvinen, Research Director
Pekka Yl-Anttila, Managing Director
France
HEC School of Management, Paris
Bertrand Moingeon, Professor and Deputy Dean
Bernard Ramanantsoa, Professor and Dean
Gabon
Confdration Patronale Gabonaise
Regis Loussou Kiki, General Secretary
Gina Eyama Ondo, Assistant General Secretary
Henri Claude Oyima, President
Gambia, The
Gambia Economic and Social Development Research Institute
(GESDRI)
Makaireh A. Njie, Director
Georgia
Business Initiative for Reforms in Georgia
Tamara Janashia, Executive Director
Giga Makharadze, Founding Member of the Board of Directors
Mamuka Tsereteli, Founding Member of the Board of Directors
Partner Institutes
Germany
WHUOtto Beisheim School of Management
Ralf Fendel, Professor of Monetary Economics
Michael Frenkel, Professor, Chair of Macroeconomics and
International Economics
Ghana
Association of Ghana Industries (AGI)
Patricia Addy, Projects Officer
Nana Owusu-Afari, President
Seth Twum-Akwaboah, Executive Director
Ireland
Institute for Business Development and Competitiveness
School of Economics, University College Cork
Justin Doran, Principal Associate
Eleanor Doyle, Director
Catherine Kavanagh, Principal Associate
Forfs, Economic Analysis and Competitiveness Department
Adrian Devitt, Manager
Conor Hand, Economist
Israel
Manufacturers Association of Israel (MAI)
Dan Catarivas, Director
Amir Hayek, Managing Director
Zvi Oren, President
Greece
SEV Hellenic Federation of Enterprises
Michael Mitsopoulos, Senior Advisor, Entrepreneurship
Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Entrepreneurship
Italy
SDA Bocconi School of Management
Secchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi
University
Paola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi University
Francesco A. Saviozzi, SDA Professor, Strategic and
Entrepreneurial Management Department
Guatemala
FUNDESA
Felipe Bosch G., President of the Board of Directors
Pablo Schneider, Economic Director
Juan Carlos Zapata, General Manager
Guinea
Confdration Patronale des Entreprises de Guine
Mohamed Bnogo Conde, Secretary-General
Jamaica
Mona School of Business (MSB), The University of the West
Indies
Patricia Douce, Project Administrator
Evan Duggan, Executive Director and Professor
William Lawrence, Director, Professional Services Unit
Guyana
Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana
Karen Pratt, Research Associate
Clive Thomas, Director
Haiti
Group Croissance SA
Pierre Lenz Dominique, Coordinator, Survey Department
Kesner Pharel, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Japan
Keio University
Yoko Ishikura, Professor, Graduate School of Media Design
Heizo Takenaka, Director, Global Security Research Institute
Jiro Tamura, Professor of Law, Keio University
Jordan
Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation
Jordan National Competitiveness Team
Kawther Al-Zoubi, Head of Competitiveness Division
Basma Arabiyat, Researcher
Mukhallad Omari, Director of Policies and Studies Department
Kazakhstan
National Analytical Centre
Diana Tamabayeva, Project Manager
Vladislav Yezhov, Chairman
Iceland
Innovation Center Iceland
Ardis Armannsdottir, Marketing Manager
Karl Fridriksson, Managing Director of Human Resources
and Marketing
Thorsteinn I. Sigfusson, Director
Kenya
Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi
Mohamud Jama, Director and Associate Research Professor
Paul Kamau, Senior Research Fellow
Dorothy McCormick, Research Professor
India
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
Chandrajit Banerjee, Director General
Marut Sengupta, Deputy Director General
Gantakolla Srivastava, Head, Financial Services
Indonesia
Center for Industry, SME & Business Competition Studies,
University of Trisakti
Tulus Tambunan, Professor and Director
Iran, Islamic Republic of
The Center for Economic Studies and Surveys (CESS), Iran
Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture
Mohammad Janati Fard, Research Associate
Hamed Nikraftar, Project Manager
Farnaz Safdari, Research Associate
Korea, Republic of
College of Business School, Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology KAIST
Byungtae Lee, Acting Dean
Soung-Hie Kim, Associate Dean and Professor
Jinyung Cha, Assistant Director, Exchange Programme
Korea Development Institute
Joohee Cho, Senior Research Associate
Yongsoo Lee, Head, Policy Survey Unit
Kuwait
Kuwait National Competitiveness Committee
Adel Al-Husainan, Committee Member
Fahed Al-Rashed, Committee Chairman
Sayer Al-Sayer, Committee Member
Partner Institutes
Kyrgyz Republic
Economic Policy Institute Bishkek Consensus
Lola Abduhametova, Program Coordinator
Marat Tazabekov, Chairman
Latvia
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
Karlis Kreslins, EMBA Programme Director
Anders Paalzow, Rector
Lebanon
Bader Young Entrepreneurs Program
Antoine Abou-Samra, Managing Director
Farah Shamas, Program Coordinator
Lesotho
Private Sector Foundation of Lesotho
O.S.M. Moosa, President
Thabo Qhesi, Chief Executive Officer
Nteboheleng Thaele, Researcher
Libya
Libya Development Policy Center
Yusser Al-Gayed, Project Director
Ahmed Jehani, Chairman
Mohamed Wefati, Director
Lithuania
Statistics Lithuania
Ona Grigiene, Deputy Head, Knowledge Economy
and Special Surveys Statistics Division
Vilija Lapeniene, Director General
Gediminas Samuolis, Head, Knowledge Economy
and Special Surveys Statistics Division
Luxembourg
Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce
Christel Chatelain, Research Analyst
Stephanie Musialski, Research Analyst
Carlo Thelen, Chief Economist, Member of the
Managing Board
Macedonia, FYR
National Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness
Council (NECC)
Mirjana Apostolova, President of the Assembly
Dejan Janevski, Project Coordinator
Madagascar
Centre of Economic Studies, University of Antananarivo
Ravelomanana Mamy Raoul, Director
Razato Rarijaona Simon, Executive Secretary
Malawi
Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and
Industry
Hope Chavula, Public Private Dialogue Manager
Chancellor L. Kaferapanjira, Chief Executive Officer
Malaysia
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)
Jorah Ramlan, Senior Analyst, Economics
Steven C.M. Wong, Senior Director, Economics
Mahani Zainal Abidin, Chief Executive
Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC)
Mohd Razali Hussain, Director General
Lee Saw Hoon, Senior Director
Mali
Groupe de Recherche en Economie Applique et
Thorique (GREAT)
Massa Coulibaly, Executive Director
Malta
Competitive MaltaFoundation for National Competitiveness
Margrith Lutschg-Emmenegger, Vice President
Adrian Said, Chief Coordinator
Caroline Sciortino, Research Coordinator
Mauritania
Centre dInformation Mauritanien pour le Dveloppement
Economique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM)
L Abdoul, Consultant and Analyst
Mehla Mint Ahmed, Director
Habib Sy, Administrative Agent and Analyst
Mauritius
Board of Investment of Mauritius
Nirmala Jeetah, Director, Planning and Policy
Ken Poonoosamy, Managing Director
Joint Economic Council
Raj Makoond, Director
Mexico
Center for Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness
Erika Ruiz Manzur, Executive Director
Ren Villarreal Arrambide, President and Chief Executive
Officer
Rodrigo David Villarreal Ramos, Director
Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (IMCO)
Priscila Garcia, Researcher
Manuel Molano, Deputy General Director
Juan E. Pardinas, General Director
Ministry of the Economy
Jose Antonio Torre, Undersecretary for Competitiveness
and Standardization
Enrique Perret Erhard, Technical Secretary for
Competitiveness
Narciso Suarez, Research Director, Technical Secretary
for Competitiveness
Moldova
Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova (AESM)
Grigore Belostecinic, Rector
Centre for Economic Research (CER)
Corneliu Gutu, Director
Mongolia
Open Society Forum (OSF)
Munkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic Policy
Erdenejargal Perenlei, Executive Director
Montenegro
Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses (ISSP)
Maja Drakic, Project Manager
Petar Ivanovic, Chief Executive Officer
Veselin Vukotic, President
Morocco
Comit National de lEnvironnement des Affaires
Seloua Benmbarek, Head of Mission
Mozambique
EconPolicy Research Group, Lda.
Peter Coughlin, Director
Donaldo Miguel Soares, Researcher
Ema Marta Soares, Assistant
Namibia
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
Graham Hopwood, Executive Director
Partner Institutes
Nepal
Centre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA)
Ramesh Chandra Chitrakar, Professor, Country Coordinator
and Project Director
Mahendra Raj Joshi, Member
Hari Dhoj Pant, Officiating Executive Director, Advisor, Survey
project
Netherlands
INSCOPE: Research for Innovation, Erasmus University
Rotterdam
Frans A. J. Van den Bosch, Professor
Henk W. Volberda, Director and Professor
New Zealand
The New Zealand Initiative
Catherine Harland, Research Fellow
Oliver Hartwich, Executive Director
Nigeria
Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG)
Frank Nweke Jr., Director General
Chris Okpoko, Associate Director, Research
Foluso Phillips, Chairman
Norway
BI Norwegian Business School
Eskil Goldeng, Researcher
Torger Reve, Professor
Oman
The International Research Foundation
Salem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, Chairman
Public Authority for Investment Promotion and Export
Development (PAIPED)
Mehdi Ali Juma, Expert for Economic Research
Pakistan
Mishal Pakistan
Puruesh Chaudhary, Director Content
Amir Jahangir, Chief Executive Officer
Paraguay
Centro de Anlisis y Difusin de Economia Paraguaya
(CADEP)
Dionisio Borda, Research Member
Fernando Masi, Director
Mara Beln Servn, Research Member
Peru
Centro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacional
de Industrias
Nstor Asto, Project Director
Luis Tenorio, Executive Director
Philippines
Makati Business Club (MBC)
Michael B. Mundo, Chief Economist
Marc P. Opulencia, Deputy Director
Peter Angelo V. Perfecto, Executive Director
Management Association of the Philippines (MAP)
Arnold P. Salvador, Executive Director
Poland
Economic Institute, National Bank of Poland
Piotr Boguszewski, Advisor
Jarosaw T. Jakubik, Deputy Director
Portugal
PROFORUM, 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 Director
Pedro do Carmo Costa, Member of the Board of Directors
Esmeralda Dourado, President of the Board of Directors
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico 2000, Inc.
Ivan Puig, President
Instituto de Competitividad Internacional, Universidad
Interamericana de Puerto Rico
Francisco Montalvo, Project Coordinator
Qatar
Qatari Businessmen Association (QBA)
Sarah Abdallah, Deputy General Manager
Issa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-General
Social and Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI)
Hanan Abdul Ibrahim, Associate Director
Darwish Al Emadi, Director
Romania
SC VBD Alliance Consulting Srl
Irina Ion, Program Coordinator
Rolan Orzan, General Director
Russian Federation
Bauman Innovation & Eurasia Competitiveness Institute
Katerina Marandi, Programme Manager
Alexey Prazdnichnykh, Principal and Managing Director
Stockholm School of Economics, Russia
Igor Dukeov, Area Principal
Carl F. Fey, Associate Dean of Research
Rwanda
Private Sector Federation (PSF)
Hannington Namara, Chief Executive Officer
Andrew O. Rwigyema, Head of Research and Policy
Saudi Arabia
National Competitiveness Center (NCC)
Awwad Al-Awwad, President
Khaldon Mahasen, Vice President
Senegal
Centre de Recherches Economiques Appliques (CREA),
University of Dakar
Diop Ibrahima Thione, Director
Serbia
Foundation for the Advancement of Economics (FREN)
Mihail Arandarenko, Director
Aleksandar Radivojevic, Project Coordinator
Bojan Ristic, Researcher
Seychelles
Plutus Auditing & Accounting Services
Nicolas Boulle, Partner
Marco L. Francis, Partner
Singapore
Economic Development Board
Anna Chan, Assistant Managing Director, Planning & Policy
Cheng Wai San, Head, Research & Statistics Unit
Teo Xinyu, Executive, Research & Statistics Unit
Slovak Republic
Business Alliance of Slovakia (PAS)
Robert Kicina, Executive Director
Partner Institutes
Slovenia
Institute for Economic Research
Peter Stanovnik, Professor
Sonja Uric, Senior Research Assistant
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Mateja Drnovek, Professor
Ale Vahcic, Professor
South Africa
Business Leadership South Africa
Friede Dowie, Director
Thero Setiloane, Chief Executive Officer
Business Unity South Africa
Nomaxabiso Majokweni, Chief Executive Officer
Joan Stott, Executive Director, Economic Policy
Spain
IESE Business School, International Center for
Competitiveness
Mara Luisa Blzquez, Research Associate
Antoni Subir, Professor
Sri Lanka
Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS)
Ayodya Galappattige, Research Officer
Dilani Hirimuthugodage, Research Officer
Saman Kelegama, Executive Director
Suriname
Suriname Trade & Industry Association (VSB)
Helen Doelwijt, Executive Secretary
Rene van Essen, Director
Dayenne Wielingen Verwey, Economic Policy Officer
Swaziland
Federation of Swaziland Employers and Chamber of
Commerce
Mduduzi Lokotfwako, Research Analyst
Zodwa Mabuza, Chief Executive Officer
Nyakwesi Motsa, Administration & Finance Manager
Sweden
International University of Entrepreneurship and Technology
Niclas Adler, President
Switzerland
University of St. Gallen, Executive School of Management,
Technology and Law (ES-HSG)
Rubn Rodriguez Startz, Head of Project
Tobias Trtsch, Communications Manager
Taiwan, China
Council for Economic Planning and Development, Executive
Yuan
Hung, J. B., Director, Economic Research Department
Shieh, Chung Chung, Researcher, Economic Research
Department
Wu, Ming-Ji, Deputy Minister
Tajikistan
The Center for Sociological Research Zerkalo
Rahima Ashrapova, Assistant Researcher
Qahramon Baqoev, Director
Gulnora Beknazarova, Researcher
Tanzania
Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA)
Cornel Jahari, Assistant Researcher
Johansein Rutaihwa, Commissioned Researcher
Samuel Wangwe, Professor and Executive Director
Thailand
Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration,
Chulalongkorn University
Pongsak Hoontrakul, Senior Research Fellow
Narudee Kiengsiri, President of Sasin Alumni Association
Toemsakdi Krishnamra, Director of Sasin
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
Somchai Jitsuchon, Research Director
Chalongphob Sussangkarn, Distinguished Fellow
Yos Vajragupta, Senior Researcher
Timor-Leste
East Timor Development Agency (ETDA)
Jose Barreto, Survey Manager
Palmira Pires, Director
Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Timor-Leste
Kathleen Fon Ha Tchong Goncalves, Vice-President
Trinidad and Tobago
Arthur Lok Jack Graduate School of Business
Miguel Carillo, Executive Director and Professor of Strategy
Nirmala Harrylal, Director, Internationalisation and Institutional
Relations Centre
The Competitiveness Company
Rolph Balgobin, Chairman
Tunisia
Institut Arabe des Chefs dEntreprises
Ahmed Bouzguenda, President
Majdi Hassen, Executive Counsellor
Turkey
TUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum
Izak Atiyas, Director
Selcuk Karaata, Vice Director
Sezen Ugurlu, Project Specialist
Uganda
Kabano Research and Development Centre
Robert Apunyo, Program Manager
Delius Asiimwe, Executive Director
Francis Mukuya, Research Associate
Ukraine
CASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic Research
Dmytro Boyarchuk, Executive Director
Vladimir Dubrovskiy, Leading Economist
United Arab Emirates
Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development
H.E. Mohammed Omar Abdulla, Undersecretary
Dubai Economic Council
H.E. Hani Al Hamly, Secretary General
Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), Zayed
University
Mouawiya Alawad, Director
Emirates Competitiveness Council
H.E. Abdulla Nasser Lootah, Secretary General
United Kingdom
LSE Enterprise Ltd, London School of Economics and
Political Science
Adam Austerfield, Director of Projects
Niccolo Durazzi, Project Manager
Robyn Klingler Vidra, Researcher
Uruguay
Universidad ORT Uruguay
Isidoro Hodara, Professor
Partner Institutes
Venezuela
CONAPRIThe Venezuelan Council for Investment Promotion
Litsay Guerrero, Economic Affairs and Investor Services
Manager
Eduardo Porcarelli, Executive Director
Vietnam
Ho Chi Minh City Institute for Development Studies (HIDS)
Nguyen Trong Hoa, Professor and President
Du Phuoc Tan, Head of Department
Trieu Thanh Son, Researcher
Yemen
Yemeni Businessmen Club (YBC)
Mohammed Esmail Hamanah, Executive Manager
Fathi Abdulwasa Hayel Saeed, Chairman
Moneera Abdo Othman, Project Coordinator
MARcon Marketing Consulting
Margret Arning, Managing Director
Zambia
Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR),
University of Zambia
Patricia Funjika, Research Fellow
Jolly Kamwanga, Senior Research Fellow and Project
Coordinator
Mubiana Macwangi, Director and Professor
Zimbabwe
Graduate School of Management, University of Zimbabwe
A. M. Hawkins, Professor
Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
INCAE Business School, Latin American Center for
Competitiveness and Sustainable Development (CLACDS)
Ronald Arce, Researcher
Arturo Condo, Rector
Marlene de Estrella, Director of External Relations
Lawrence Pratt, Director
Liberia and Sierra Leone
FJP Development and Management Consultants
Omodele R. N. Jones, Chief Executive Officer
Preface
KLAUS SCHWAB
Preface
Part 1
Measuring Competitiveness
CHAPTER 1.1
The Global
Competitiveness Index
20122013: Strengthening
Recovery by Raising
Productivity
XAVIER SALA-I-MARTN
BEAT BILBAO-OSORIO
JENNIFER BLANKE
ROBERTO CROTTI
MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ
THIERRY GEIGER
CAROLINE KO
Basic requirements
subindex
Pillar 1. Institutions
Pillar 2. Infrastructure
Pillar 3. Macroeconomic environment
Pillar 4. Health and primary education
Efficiency enhancers
subindex
Pillar 5. Higher education and
training
Key for
Key for
Key for
factor-driven
efficiency-driven
innovation-driven
economies
economies
economies
Note: See the appendix for the detailed structure of the GCI.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
Stage 1:
Factor-driven
Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2
Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven
Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3
<2,000
2,0002,999
3,0008,999
9,00017,000
>17,000
60%
4060%
40%
2040%
20%
35%
3550%
50%
50%
50%
5%
510%
10%
1030%
30%
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
Note: See individual country/economy profiles for the exact applied weights.
* For economies with a high dependency on mineral resources, GDP per capita is not the sole criterion for the determination of the stage of development. See text for details.
Stage 1:
Factor-driven
(38 economies)
Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2
(17 economies)
Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven
(33 economies)
Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3
(21 economies)
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
(35 economies)
Bangladesh
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chad
Cte dIvoire
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Ghana
Guinea
Haiti
India
Kenya
Kyrgyz Republic
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Moldova
Mozambique
Nepal
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Uganda
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Egypt
Gabon
Honduras
Iran, Islamic rep.
Kuwait
Libya
Mongolia
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
Venezuela
Albania
Armenia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Indonesia
Jamaica
Jordan
Macedonia, FYR
Mauritius
Montenegro
Morocco
Namibia
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Romania
Serbia
South Africa
Suriname
Swaziland
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Ukraine
Argentina
Bahrain
Barbados
Brazil
Chile
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Malaysia
Mexico
Oman
Poland
Russian Federation
Seychelles
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uruguay
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong SAR
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
GCI score*
n [5.39,5.72]
n [5.00,5.39[
n [4.60,5.00[
n [4.20,4.60[
n [3.80,4.20[
n [2.78,3.80[
n Not covered
* The interval [x,y[ is inclusive of x but exclusive of y. Highest value; lowest value.
Table 3: The Global Competitiveness Index 20122013 rankings and 20112012 comparisons
GCI 20122013
Country/Economy
Switzerland
Singapore
Finland
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
United States
United Kingdom
Hong Kong SAR
Japan
Qatar
Denmark
Taiwan, China
Canada
Norway
Austria
Belgium
Saudi Arabia
Korea, Rep.
Australia
France
Luxembourg
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Israel
Ireland
Brunei Darussalam
China
Iceland
Puerto Rico
Oman
Chile
Estonia
Bahrain
Spain
Kuwait
Thailand
Czech Republic
Panama
Poland
Italy
Turkey
Barbados
Lithuania
Azerbaijan
Malta
Brazil
Portugal
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Mexico
Mauritius
Latvia
Slovenia
Costa Rica
Cyprus
India
Hungary
Peru
Bulgaria
Rwanda
Jordan
Philippines
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Russian Federation
Sri Lanka
Colombia
Morocco
Slovak Republic
Montenegro
Rank/144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
GCI 20122013
Rank among
Score GCI 20112012
(17)
sample
5.72
5.67
5.55
5.53
5.50
5.48
5.47
5.45
5.41
5.40
5.38
5.29
5.28
5.27
5.27
5.22
5.21
5.19
5.12
5.12
5.11
5.09
5.09
5.07
5.06
5.02
4.91
4.87
4.83
4.74
4.67
4.65
4.65
4.64
4.63
4.60
4.56
4.52
4.51
4.49
4.46
4.46
4.45
4.42
4.41
4.41
4.41
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.38
4.37
4.36
4.35
4.35
4.34
4.34
4.32
4.32
4.30
4.28
4.27
4.24
4.23
4.23
4.22
4.20
4.19
4.18
4.15
4.14
4.14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
GCI 20112012
rank
1
2
4
3
7
6
5
10
11
9
14
8
13
12
16
19
15
17
24
20
18
23
25
27
21
22
29
28
26
30
35
32
31
33
37
36
34
39
38
49
41
43
59
42
44
55
51
53
45
46
72
50
58
54
64
57
61
47
56
48
67
74
70
71
75
62
66
52
68
73
69
60
Country/Economy
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vietnam
Seychelles
Georgia
Romania
Botswana
Macedonia, FYR
Croatia
Armenia
Guatemala
Trinidad and Tobago
Cambodia
Ecuador
Moldova
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Albania
Honduras
Lebanon
Namibia
Mongolia
Argentina
Serbia
Greece
Jamaica
Gambia, The
Gabon
Tajikistan
El Salvador
Zambia
Ghana
Bolivia
Dominican Republic
Kenya
Egypt
Nicaragua
Guyana
Algeria
Liberia
Cameroon
Libya
Suriname
Nigeria
Paraguay
Senegal
Bangladesh
Benin
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Cape Verde
Uganda
Pakistan
Nepal
Venezuela
Kyrgyz Republic
Mali
Malawi
Madagascar
Cte dIvoire
Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso
Mauritania
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Lesotho
Mozambique
Chad
Yemen
Guinea
Haiti
Sierra Leone
Burundi
Rank/144
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Rank among
Score GCI 20112012
(17)
sample
4.14
4.13
4.11
4.10
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.04
4.04
4.02
4.01
4.01
4.01
3.94
3.94
3.93
3.91
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.86
3.84
3.83
3.82
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.75
3.73
3.73
3.73
3.72
3.71
3.69
3.68
3.68
3.67
3.67
3.66
3.65
3.61
3.60
3.55
3.55
3.53
3.52
3.49
3.46
3.44
3.43
3.38
3.38
3.36
3.34
3.34
3.32
3.28
3.27
3.19
3.17
3.05
2.97
2.90
2.90
2.82
2.78
73
74
75
n/a
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
n/a
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
n/a
109
n/a
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
n/a
137
n/a
138
GCI 20112012
rank
82
63
65
n/a
88
77
80
79
76
92
84
81
97
101
93
100
78
86
89
83
96
85
95
90
107
99
n/a
105
91
113
114
103
110
102
94
115
109
87
n/a
116
n/a
112
127
122
111
108
104
120
106
119
121
118
125
124
126
128
117
130
129
132
136
137
134
131
135
133
142
138
n/a
141
n/a
140
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy
Switzerland
Singapore
Finland
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
United States
United Kingdom
Hong Kong SAR
Japan
Qatar
Denmark
Taiwan, China
Canada
Norway
Austria
Belgium
Saudi Arabia
Korea, Rep.
Australia
France
Luxembourg
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Israel
Ireland
Brunei Darussalam
China
Iceland
Puerto Rico
Oman
Chile
Estonia
Bahrain
Spain
Kuwait
Thailand
Czech Republic
Panama
Poland
Italy
Turkey
Barbados
Lithuania
Azerbaijan
Malta
Brazil
Portugal
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Mexico
Mauritius
Latvia
Slovenia
Costa Rica
Cyprus
India
Hungary
Peru
Bulgaria
Rwanda
Jordan
Philippines
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Russian Federation
Sri Lanka
Colombia
Morocco
Slovak Republic
Montenegro
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
Innovation and
sophistication factors
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
5.72
5.67
5.55
5.53
5.50
5.48
5.47
5.45
5.41
5.40
5.38
5.29
5.28
5.27
5.27
5.22
5.21
5.19
5.12
5.12
5.11
5.09
5.09
5.07
5.06
5.02
4.91
4.87
4.83
4.74
4.67
4.65
4.65
4.64
4.63
4.60
4.56
4.52
4.51
4.49
4.46
4.46
4.45
4.42
4.41
4.41
4.41
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.38
4.37
4.36
4.35
4.35
4.34
4.34
4.32
4.32
4.30
4.28
4.27
4.24
4.23
4.23
4.22
4.20
4.19
4.18
4.15
4.14
4.14
2
1
4
6
10
11
33
24
3
29
7
16
17
14
9
20
22
13
18
12
23
8
19
5
27
37
35
21
31
30
48
15
28
26
25
36
32
45
44
50
61
51
57
38
49
56
34
73
40
58
47
84
63
52
54
39
67
42
85
55
69
65
70
66
80
59
53
72
77
68
62
74
6.22
6.34
6.03
6.01
5.92
5.86
5.12
5.51
6.14
5.30
5.96
5.68
5.67
5.71
5.95
5.63
5.52
5.74
5.66
5.75
5.52
5.96
5.65
6.03
5.38
5.10
5.11
5.56
5.25
5.27
4.86
5.69
5.35
5.47
5.47
5.11
5.21
4.89
4.89
4.83
4.66
4.81
4.75
5.09
4.84
4.76
5.12
4.49
4.96
4.74
4.86
4.28
4.64
4.80
4.79
5.05
4.61
4.94
4.26
4.78
4.57
4.63
4.56
4.61
4.35
4.69
4.79
4.50
4.40
4.60
4.64
4.49
5
1
9
8
7
10
2
4
3
11
22
15
12
6
16
19
17
26
20
13
18
24
14
21
23
27
25
68
30
36
33
45
32
31
35
29
75
47
34
50
28
41
42
49
46
67
40
38
44
58
56
37
53
62
48
55
60
43
39
52
57
59
94
70
61
90
54
77
63
79
51
74
5.48
5.65
5.30
5.32
5.35
5.27
5.63
5.50
5.54
5.27
4.93
5.15
5.24
5.41
5.15
5.01
5.09
4.84
5.00
5.20
5.04
4.87
5.16
4.94
4.89
4.79
4.85
4.05
4.64
4.54
4.61
4.40
4.63
4.63
4.58
4.67
3.98
4.38
4.59
4.36
4.69
4.44
4.42
4.37
4.38
4.05
4.46
4.52
4.40
4.20
4.24
4.53
4.31
4.14
4.37
4.25
4.18
4.41
4.48
4.32
4.23
4.18
3.77
4.03
4.17
3.81
4.26
3.96
4.13
3.94
4.33
3.99
1
11
3
5
6
4
7
9
22
2
15
12
14
21
16
10
13
29
17
28
18
19
27
25
23
8
20
62
34
24
26
44
45
33
53
31
86
55
32
48
61
30
50
38
47
57
46
39
37
40
104
42
49
63
68
36
35
51
43
58
94
97
60
52
64
77
108
41
66
84
74
69
5.79
5.27
5.62
5.56
5.47
5.57
5.42
5.32
4.73
5.67
5.02
5.24
5.08
4.74
5.00
5.30
5.21
4.47
4.96
4.56
4.96
4.89
4.60
4.64
4.70
5.33
4.87
3.64
4.05
4.69
4.64
3.91
3.87
4.06
3.74
4.14
3.36
3.72
4.13
3.83
3.66
4.24
3.79
3.97
3.83
3.68
3.85
3.97
4.01
3.96
3.25
3.94
3.79
3.63
3.57
4.02
4.04
3.77
3.94
3.68
3.31
3.30
3.66
3.74
3.60
3.46
3.16
3.96
3.58
3.38
3.50
3.57
(Contd.)
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vietnam
Seychelles
Georgia
Romania
Botswana
Macedonia, FYR
Croatia
Armenia
Guatemala
Trinidad and Tobago
Cambodia
Ecuador
Moldova
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Albania
Honduras
Lebanon
Namibia
Mongolia
Argentina
Serbia
Greece
Jamaica
Gambia, The
Gabon
Tajikistan
El Salvador
Zambia
Ghana
Bolivia
Dominican Republic
Kenya
Egypt
Nicaragua
Guyana
Algeria
Liberia
Cameroon
Libya
Suriname
Nigeria
Paraguay
Senegal
Bangladesh
Benin
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Cape Verde
Uganda
Pakistan
Nepal
Venezuela
Kyrgyz Republic
Mali
Malawi
Madagascar
Cte dIvoire
Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso
Mauritania
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Lesotho
Mozambique
Chad
Yemen
Guinea
Haiti
Sierra Leone
Burundi
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
Innovation and
sophistication factors
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
4.14
4.13
4.11
4.10
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.04
4.04
4.02
4.01
4.01
4.01
3.94
3.94
3.93
3.91
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.86
3.84
3.83
3.82
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.75
3.73
3.73
3.73
3.72
3.71
3.69
3.68
3.68
3.67
3.67
3.66
3.65
3.61
3.60
3.55
3.55
3.53
3.52
3.49
3.46
3.44
3.43
3.38
3.38
3.36
3.34
3.34
3.32
3.28
3.27
3.19
3.17
3.05
2.97
2.90
2.90
2.82
2.78
79
43
91
46
64
90
78
71
60
76
88
41
97
75
93
81
87
101
116
82
92
96
95
98
114
103
86
105
99
108
112
94
111
123
110
104
107
89
109
115
102
83
130
106
120
119
113
122
118
100
132
134
121
126
128
125
135
129
137
127
133
124
131
117
136
138
139
141
143
140
144
142
4.35
4.91
4.22
4.86
4.63
4.22
4.38
4.52
4.68
4.41
4.23
4.95
4.14
4.42
4.16
4.33
4.24
4.08
3.79
4.33
4.17
4.15
4.15
4.13
3.82
4.01
4.25
3.97
4.13
3.92
3.85
4.15
3.88
3.62
3.91
3.99
3.93
4.22
3.92
3.80
4.06
4.29
3.52
3.94
3.68
3.72
3.83
3.65
3.74
4.08
3.48
3.41
3.65
3.54
3.52
3.55
3.40
3.52
3.29
3.53
3.45
3.60
3.49
3.78
3.32
3.22
3.15
3.01
2.80
3.02
2.77
2.94
65
73
71
91
87
64
89
84
72
82
81
83
85
100
99
97
92
102
66
105
96
86
88
69
80
114
116
112
103
108
95
122
93
76
101
119
109
136
121
111
131
124
78
110
106
107
125
113
123
128
104
98
126
117
118
127
120
132
115
135
129
142
130
138
137
133
141
139
134
143
140
144
4.11
4.00
4.02
3.81
3.84
4.12
3.82
3.85
4.01
3.86
3.92
3.85
3.84
3.68
3.71
3.75
3.80
3.66
4.06
3.64
3.76
3.84
3.83
4.05
3.93
3.54
3.52
3.56
3.66
3.61
3.77
3.35
3.79
3.97
3.67
3.38
3.61
3.08
3.36
3.57
3.19
3.32
3.96
3.59
3.63
3.62
3.31
3.55
3.33
3.22
3.66
3.71
3.30
3.46
3.40
3.26
3.37
3.18
3.53
3.08
3.22
2.88
3.21
2.97
3.05
3.10
2.91
2.95
3.10
2.76
2.94
2.56
79
78
90
87
120
106
82
110
83
98
70
89
72
93
131
99
113
91
81
103
112
88
124
85
80
54
139
76
107
67
102
100
105
56
96
116
71
144
59
95
127
117
73
123
65
122
111
92
125
119
101
75
133
135
140
114
109
115
121
128
126
118
134
136
137
130
129
141
132
143
138
142
3.43
3.46
3.32
3.36
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.13
3.39
3.29
3.56
3.33
3.53
3.32
2.85
3.28
3.11
3.32
3.41
3.25
3.11
3.35
2.96
3.37
3.41
3.74
2.64
3.46
3.16
3.57
3.27
3.28
3.25
3.68
3.31
3.05
3.54
2.31
3.67
3.31
2.92
3.01
3.53
2.97
3.59
2.98
3.12
3.32
2.96
3.01
3.27
3.47
2.82
2.78
2.63
3.11
3.16
3.08
2.99
2.90
2.94
3.01
2.80
2.73
2.72
2.89
2.89
2.50
2.82
2.41
2.69
2.42
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
PILLARS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
3. Macroeconomic
environment
4. Health and
primary education
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
87
89
96
76
12
20
56
25
119
38
22
113
94
81
78
73
21
65
133
142
97
115
14
100
139
28
31
77
67
137
60
42
44
16
111
75
110
99
26
118
4
23
86
103
64
11
112
98
88
143
107
140
101
3
55
30
85
58
59
35
37
51
114
29
66
47
123
18
32
128
54
116
4.24
4.22
4.15
4.41
5.75
5.63
4.76
5.47
3.72
5.09
5.52
3.83
4.15
4.33
4.38
4.49
5.56
4.63
3.45
2.94
4.14
3.80
5.71
4.08
3.15
5.35
5.25
4.40
4.61
3.29
4.68
4.94
4.89
5.68
3.88
4.42
3.91
4.13
5.47
3.74
6.03
5.52
4.25
4.01
4.63
5.86
3.85
4.13
4.23
2.80
3.93
3.02
4.08
6.14
4.78
5.27
4.26
4.74
4.69
5.11
5.10
4.81
3.82
5.30
4.61
4.86
3.62
5.66
5.21
3.52
4.79
3.79
84
141
138
71
18
25
63
21
127
24
27
99
119
85
33
79
31
108
83
142
73
107
11
57
140
28
50
109
53
129
98
40
82
14
126
131
96
134
30
74
3
32
67
35
61
16
75
111
124
128
100
143
118
10
80
23
70
72
68
19
34
97
87
22
42
66
106
62
51
137
59
125
3.65
2.66
2.85
3.90
5.27
5.04
3.98
5.13
3.20
5.06
5.00
3.51
3.31
3.64
4.82
3.78
4.86
3.39
3.66
2.59
3.84
3.40
5.52
4.07
2.73
4.97
4.22
3.38
4.13
3.16
3.52
4.59
3.67
5.40
3.21
3.16
3.56
3.02
4.94
3.83
6.03
4.83
3.94
4.67
4.00
5.31
3.82
3.37
3.25
3.18
3.50
2.49
3.32
5.53
3.70
5.09
3.91
3.86
3.93
5.22
4.75
3.56
3.62
5.13
4.50
3.96
3.43
3.98
4.20
2.92
4.01
3.22
91
100
86
80
18
15
71
29
134
22
21
122
108
94
87
70
57
76
136
141
104
125
13
114
140
45
48
93
74
102
44
39
38
16
105
90
83
72
41
119
23
4
117
82
53
3
110
43
75
142
109
144
101
1
50
20
84
78
69
25
36
28
85
11
60
67
103
9
52
121
64
127
3.48
3.16
3.58
3.71
5.70
5.80
3.94
5.19
2.22
5.58
5.68
2.56
2.95
3.44
3.58
4.00
4.20
3.79
2.18
1.87
3.08
2.51
5.84
2.80
1.89
4.62
4.46
3.44
3.80
3.10
4.65
4.80
4.81
5.74
3.02
3.51
3.61
3.93
4.72
2.65
5.58
6.28
2.71
3.61
4.35
6.36
2.87
4.70
3.79
1.86
2.91
1.54
3.12
6.72
4.39
5.69
3.60
3.75
4.03
5.34
4.89
5.19
3.59
5.92
4.17
4.05
3.09
5.92
4.38
2.59
4.11
2.46
98
23
94
83
26
33
18
29
100
134
66
76
49
97
81
62
1
31
85
137
91
59
51
121
45
14
11
34
65
130
60
117
42
32
105
37
138
103
20
114
24
68
9
129
88
30
108
144
77
142
109
86
80
15
44
123
99
25
57
131
64
102
141
124
112
16
133
10
4
132
46
135
4.27
5.71
4.33
4.50
5.57
5.35
6.05
5.50
4.24
3.32
4.66
4.57
5.02
4.31
4.52
4.73
7.00
5.42
4.48
3.15
4.39
4.79
4.90
3.80
5.12
6.15
6.22
5.34
4.68
3.48
4.75
3.86
5.19
5.40
4.17
5.30
3.12
4.18
6.01
3.92
5.70
4.64
6.25
3.58
4.40
5.48
4.07
2.42
4.56
2.63
4.02
4.44
4.53
6.07
5.15
3.73
4.25
5.68
4.83
3.44
4.72
4.23
2.89
3.67
3.94
6.07
3.39
6.25
6.58
3.41
5.06
3.32
79
93
59
80
13
20
107
38
103
16
2
111
97
48
114
88
31
49
139
127
102
118
7
71
144
74
35
85
57
140
60
9
53
29
106
67
94
90
27
116
1
21
128
126
61
22
112
41
95
138
99
134
96
26
51
6
101
70
46
12
40
25
104
10
56
92
115
11
72
105
45
32
5.56
5.37
5.82
5.53
6.46
6.32
5.08
6.07
5.20
6.41
6.75
4.68
5.32
5.93
4.60
5.43
6.18
5.92
3.48
4.16
5.25
4.49
6.58
5.66
2.85
5.64
6.11
5.45
5.82
3.40
5.81
6.50
5.87
6.19
5.13
5.73
5.35
5.38
6.21
4.56
6.82
6.31
4.11
4.17
5.79
6.30
4.65
6.04
5.34
3.52
5.29
3.62
5.34
6.24
5.89
6.58
5.27
5.69
5.97
6.46
6.04
6.27
5.19
6.50
5.84
5.37
4.58
6.49
5.66
5.18
5.99
6.18
(Contd.)
PILLARS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
Country/Economy
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Seychelles
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
3. Macroeconomic
environment
4. Health and
primary education
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
136
109
102
49
8
71
129
135
27
125
34
124
52
63
93
92
74
68
138
82
121
10
19
104
130
9
15
134
50
106
69
80
61
40
48
7
90
53
70
13
46
120
95
144
1
62
39
84
36
72
83
131
6
2
17
105
122
45
117
41
57
132
79
5
24
33
43
126
91
141
108
127
3.32
3.92
4.06
4.84
5.96
4.52
3.52
3.40
5.38
3.55
5.12
3.60
4.80
4.64
4.16
4.17
4.49
4.60
3.22
4.33
3.65
5.92
5.65
3.99
3.52
5.95
5.69
3.41
4.83
3.94
4.57
4.35
4.66
4.96
4.86
5.96
4.22
4.79
4.56
5.74
4.86
3.68
4.15
2.77
6.34
4.64
5.05
4.28
5.11
4.50
4.29
3.49
6.01
6.22
5.67
3.97
3.65
4.89
3.78
4.95
4.75
3.48
4.35
6.03
5.51
5.12
4.91
3.54
4.22
3.01
3.92
3.53
121
45
81
60
9
78
136
76
29
120
37
122
39
92
110
113
44
54
112
52
123
7
2
114
117
8
17
115
69
135
105
94
55
46
38
4
116
133
20
15
47
90
130
95
1
104
58
43
48
49
93
88
6
5
26
65
86
77
103
91
64
102
132
12
13
41
36
144
89
139
56
101
3.30
4.31
3.69
4.01
5.60
3.80
2.94
3.82
4.94
3.31
4.61
3.29
4.59
3.59
3.38
3.34
4.38
4.12
3.35
4.19
3.26
5.72
6.06
3.34
3.33
5.66
5.29
3.34
3.92
3.00
3.44
3.57
4.11
4.28
4.61
5.77
3.33
3.09
5.20
5.35
4.25
3.60
3.16
3.56
6.07
3.44
4.05
4.42
4.25
4.24
3.59
3.61
5.73
5.75
5.00
3.96
3.62
3.82
3.45
3.59
3.98
3.49
3.13
5.50
5.41
4.59
4.63
2.36
3.61
2.77
4.09
3.50
126
115
88
40
12
81
137
135
32
107
34
113
54
68
92
112
66
61
129
59
143
7
30
106
130
27
33
116
37
123
89
98
73
24
58
31
97
47
96
26
42
124
77
138
2
56
35
63
10
62
79
99
19
5
17
118
132
46
131
55
51
133
65
8
6
14
49
120
95
139
111
128
2.50
2.77
3.56
4.74
5.84
3.65
2.13
2.19
5.09
2.96
4.91
2.82
4.32
4.03
3.46
2.83
4.06
4.14
2.36
4.18
1.81
6.18
5.18
2.97
2.28
5.19
5.04
2.73
4.82
2.54
3.51
3.19
3.89
5.50
4.18
5.12
3.22
4.52
3.22
5.23
4.71
2.51
3.78
2.09
6.50
4.23
4.91
4.13
5.92
4.13
3.74
3.17
5.69
6.22
5.72
2.66
2.27
4.62
2.27
4.30
4.38
2.27
4.10
6.12
6.22
5.81
4.40
2.64
3.34
2.01
2.85
2.40
113
82
73
75
12
47
95
136
35
74
71
89
87
40
93
52
118
70
125
84
56
41
61
101
39
3
5
139
53
43
21
36
72
116
48
2
58
22
78
6
79
92
115
143
17
54
50
69
104
127
96
128
13
8
28
120
107
27
38
19
55
119
90
7
110
111
63
126
106
140
67
122
3.93
4.51
4.60
4.57
6.18
5.04
4.33
3.30
5.34
4.59
4.60
4.40
4.41
5.21
4.35
4.89
3.85
4.62
3.66
4.50
4.85
5.20
4.75
4.24
5.25
6.60
6.56
3.06
4.88
5.19
5.95
5.33
4.60
3.87
5.04
6.66
4.83
5.80
4.56
6.55
4.55
4.37
3.91
2.47
6.06
4.87
4.94
4.63
4.17
3.66
4.32
3.60
6.16
6.38
5.51
3.82
4.12
5.55
5.29
6.05
4.86
3.83
4.40
6.41
4.01
3.97
4.72
3.66
4.16
2.90
4.65
3.77
136
130
121
39
28
77
110
124
33
141
19
133
54
68
86
76
73
81
137
120
109
5
4
89
142
18
52
117
69
108
91
98
43
30
75
23
83
65
100
58
47
125
66
143
3
42
24
132
36
44
82
135
14
8
15
87
113
78
131
55
63
123
62
37
17
34
50
84
64
122
129
119
3.54
4.10
4.40
6.05
6.20
5.59
4.68
4.30
6.16
3.36
6.34
3.88
5.85
5.71
5.44
5.60
5.65
5.53
3.52
4.44
4.69
6.60
6.63
5.43
3.20
6.34
5.88
4.52
5.70
5.03
5.38
5.31
6.03
6.19
5.61
6.29
5.51
5.75
5.27
5.82
5.95
4.23
5.73
2.95
6.73
6.03
6.29
3.93
6.09
5.99
5.52
3.57
6.46
6.54
6.45
5.43
4.60
5.56
4.09
5.85
5.78
4.35
5.78
6.08
6.39
6.11
5.90
5.49
5.77
4.39
4.11
4.47
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
PILLARS
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
5. Higher education
and training
6. Goods market
efficiency
7. Labor market
efficiency
8. Financial market
development
9. Technological
readiness
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
92
136
86
82
13
19
67
35
107
49
17
125
122
97
89
38
68
59
129
144
85
111
6
128
141
32
30
63
60
115
72
43
34
15
93
100
101
103
31
123
9
18
116
114
87
10
95
69
81
134
109
143
102
3
52
36
39
58
90
25
27
41
80
11
70
56
76
20
75
118
48
66
3.80
3.08
3.84
3.86
5.20
5.01
4.05
4.58
3.62
4.37
5.09
3.31
3.35
3.75
3.82
4.52
4.05
4.18
3.22
2.56
3.84
3.57
5.41
3.22
2.91
4.63
4.64
4.13
4.18
3.53
4.01
4.41
4.59
5.15
3.79
3.68
3.67
3.66
4.63
3.33
5.30
5.04
3.52
3.54
3.84
5.27
3.77
4.05
3.92
3.10
3.61
2.76
3.66
5.54
4.32
4.54
4.48
4.20
3.81
4.85
4.79
4.44
3.93
5.27
4.03
4.24
3.97
5.00
3.98
3.40
4.37
4.06
76
108
53
70
11
18
89
34
126
19
4
120
92
72
95
66
57
63
137
143
111
115
15
99
140
46
62
67
41
123
56
32
38
14
97
91
109
105
25
134
1
27
122
94
93
5
107
43
104
136
87
144
106
22
49
13
86
73
78
20
28
45
75
21
55
58
100
17
82
98
42
48
4.11
3.38
4.59
4.22
5.64
5.48
3.91
4.93
2.88
5.38
5.81
3.07
3.83
4.18
3.74
4.27
4.40
4.31
2.50
1.98
3.32
3.25
5.57
3.65
2.34
4.72
4.32
4.27
4.78
2.99
4.47
4.98
4.87
5.59
3.69
3.84
3.32
3.45
5.17
2.67
6.18
5.14
3.05
3.77
3.82
5.80
3.40
4.74
3.52
2.60
3.97
1.90
3.43
5.26
4.67
5.60
3.97
4.17
4.10
5.30
5.07
4.73
4.12
5.28
4.49
4.37
3.59
5.52
4.01
3.66
4.78
4.70
58
143
140
72
24
22
60
16
95
64
15
132
138
109
78
104
73
83
118
139
50
89
13
105
141
30
59
99
62
122
114
33
41
19
101
129
125
74
31
120
18
46
126
94
82
21
76
108
66
127
84
142
92
2
67
45
75
63
98
9
43
65
80
20
44
71
93
29
90
123
47
36
4.33
2.99
3.18
4.22
4.87
4.91
4.31
5.10
4.10
4.29
5.12
3.66
3.40
3.92
4.20
3.94
4.22
4.17
3.80
3.28
4.42
4.15
5.12
3.93
3.08
4.74
4.31
3.98
4.30
3.78
3.85
4.68
4.53
5.03
3.97
3.70
3.76
4.21
4.73
3.79
5.05
4.47
3.73
4.10
4.18
4.92
4.20
3.92
4.29
3.71
4.17
3.03
4.10
5.44
4.28
4.47
4.21
4.29
4.00
5.24
4.51
4.29
4.19
4.98
4.50
4.24
4.10
4.75
4.14
3.78
4.42
4.57
68
144
140
30
42
32
26
21
117
29
50
67
132
99
60
69
13
49
64
112
28
58
4
126
95
34
41
88
52
71
106
44
75
8
107
135
142
121
10
87
15
66
63
31
35
53
97
133
90
56
85
83
134
3
79
12
82
120
141
16
40
127
77
20
101
19
39
73
98
72
27
105
4.40
2.79
3.29
4.72
4.60
4.69
4.80
4.89
3.91
4.75
4.54
4.40
3.58
4.08
4.46
4.39
5.07
4.54
4.42
3.97
4.78
4.48
5.45
3.72
4.12
4.68
4.60
4.17
4.51
4.38
4.00
4.57
4.32
5.22
4.00
3.49
3.06
3.86
5.11
4.18
5.00
4.41
4.43
4.72
4.67
4.51
4.08
3.56
4.16
4.49
4.23
4.24
3.52
5.65
4.27
5.10
4.24
3.87
3.18
5.00
4.61
3.72
4.32
4.89
4.02
4.98
4.62
4.35
4.08
4.36
4.78
4.00
120
142
131
78
8
34
98
18
95
33
31
112
126
119
53
46
56
80
117
144
64
105
11
121
137
28
54
67
101
103
92
38
57
30
96
110
102
81
39
129
4
27
106
69
93
32
59
132
41
135
86
141
51
1
72
97
21
70
123
108
17
111
55
36
65
115
24
71
76
118
52
66
3.38
2.39
3.18
3.97
5.35
4.65
3.73
4.99
3.74
4.66
4.68
3.55
3.33
3.41
4.39
4.45
4.27
3.97
3.43
2.31
4.11
3.64
5.28
3.37
3.01
4.73
4.31
4.10
3.67
3.65
3.79
4.56
4.25
4.69
3.74
3.58
3.67
3.95
4.51
3.24
5.50
4.73
3.62
4.07
3.79
4.66
4.21
3.13
4.48
3.07
3.87
2.55
4.43
5.89
4.05
3.74
4.90
4.07
3.35
3.60
5.03
3.57
4.30
4.63
4.11
3.49
4.74
4.06
4.00
3.42
4.40
4.10
77
133
67
92
19
17
61
39
125
30
22
124
127
68
106
48
64
52
137
144
100
126
20
90
143
44
88
80
46
99
50
37
31
3
78
82
91
102
25
140
10
14
86
109
76
15
108
43
87
142
94
138
97
4
49
8
96
85
111
12
29
40
73
16
69
55
101
18
74
130
38
93
3.69
2.59
3.85
3.40
5.61
5.70
4.04
4.72
2.74
5.14
5.57
2.75
2.73
3.84
3.17
4.43
3.95
4.30
2.52
2.22
3.28
2.73
5.60
3.43
2.23
4.48
3.50
3.62
4.45
3.32
4.36
4.85
5.06
6.17
3.68
3.59
3.43
3.26
5.29
2.48
5.92
5.72
3.53
3.13
3.71
5.71
3.13
4.54
3.52
2.45
3.39
2.49
3.34
6.16
4.43
5.99
3.36
3.56
3.08
5.82
5.23
4.71
3.80
5.70
3.82
4.20
3.27
5.70
3.77
2.63
4.73
3.39
10. Market
size
Rank Score
98
49
23
115
21
36
76
103
47
134
27
122
82
93
97
9
124
62
114
140
89
87
13
143
112
42
2
31
81
94
71
106
40
53
65
60
29
83
96
66
54
8
110
141
99
5
70
46
73
129
132
127
88
26
52
126
3
16
18
56
51
10
100
4
84
55
75
11
61
117
91
69
2.89
4.34
4.94
2.62
5.10
4.62
3.51
2.86
4.36
1.97
4.81
2.45
3.25
3.07
2.94
5.63
2.39
3.82
2.64
1.57
3.15
3.18
5.45
1.25
2.70
4.44
6.82
4.65
3.35
3.05
3.57
2.81
4.51
4.22
3.66
3.90
4.77
3.23
2.98
3.64
4.18
5.76
2.74
1.42
2.87
6.02
3.57
4.38
3.54
2.27
2.03
2.35
3.16
4.82
4.25
2.36
6.24
5.27
5.16
4.13
4.30
5.63
2.86
6.13
3.23
4.14
3.52
5.60
3.88
2.58
3.11
3.59
(Contd.)
PILLARS
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
Country/Economy
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Seychelles
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
5. Higher education
and training
6. Goods market
efficiency
7. Labor market
efficiency
8. Financial market
development
9. Technological
readiness
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
137
121
131
46
24
84
132
120
23
127
40
142
62
53
99
96
74
79
133
105
126
7
14
119
78
16
45
98
50
110
57
61
28
44
33
22
64
54
94
26
91
106
88
140
1
51
55
37
29
77
124
130
8
5
12
112
113
47
138
83
42
104
65
21
4
2
73
117
71
139
108
135
3.05
3.36
3.19
4.38
4.87
3.85
3.18
3.37
4.89
3.26
4.46
2.88
4.14
4.31
3.71
3.76
3.99
3.94
3.10
3.64
3.30
5.35
5.16
3.38
3.96
5.15
4.40
3.71
4.36
3.59
4.23
4.17
4.69
4.40
4.61
4.93
4.12
4.26
3.77
4.84
3.81
3.63
3.83
2.94
5.65
4.33
4.25
4.53
4.67
3.96
3.32
3.21
5.32
5.48
5.24
3.56
3.55
4.38
2.97
3.85
4.42
3.66
4.11
4.94
5.50
5.63
4.00
3.46
4.02
2.95
3.61
3.08
135
114
103
26
44
81
133
129
39
130
35
142
65
77
88
83
51
101
138
119
128
6
10
110
113
12
61
124
69
112
80
64
36
30
24
33
59
52
117
40
31
116
85
141
2
54
23
84
29
79
102
125
7
3
9
90
132
60
131
71
74
127
47
37
16
8
50
68
96
139
121
118
2.65
3.30
3.56
5.15
4.74
4.04
2.67
2.81
4.83
2.77
4.93
2.23
4.29
4.11
3.96
3.99
4.63
3.58
2.39
3.14
2.84
5.79
5.66
3.32
3.31
5.61
4.33
2.99
4.22
3.32
4.05
4.30
4.92
4.98
5.19
4.94
4.36
4.59
3.21
4.79
4.98
3.23
3.97
2.30
5.93
4.50
5.20
3.98
5.02
4.06
3.57
2.95
5.75
5.90
5.68
3.86
2.71
4.35
2.75
4.20
4.15
2.86
4.70
4.90
5.57
5.72
4.67
4.24
3.69
2.35
3.07
3.14
102
40
137
56
4
68
115
112
11
111
34
135
27
79
100
85
48
69
124
87
121
6
3
119
88
28
25
97
35
81
53
86
51
61
26
10
113
134
39
14
70
77
136
116
1
54
49
32
55
57
128
107
12
7
8
96
110
37
130
106
38
103
117
5
17
23
52
144
91
131
42
133
3.97
4.54
3.45
4.36
5.32
4.28
3.84
3.86
5.16
3.87
4.62
3.58
4.80
4.20
3.98
4.17
4.42
4.27
3.77
4.16
3.78
5.29
5.35
3.79
4.16
4.79
4.86
4.02
4.59
4.19
4.37
4.17
4.39
4.31
4.86
5.24
3.86
3.62
4.54
5.12
4.27
4.20
3.57
3.84
5.60
4.37
4.42
4.68
4.37
4.33
3.70
3.92
5.14
5.26
5.26
4.04
3.89
4.56
3.69
3.92
4.55
3.95
3.82
5.31
5.09
4.88
4.38
2.78
4.13
3.68
4.53
3.63
116
61
137
65
37
94
54
43
24
118
92
131
70
102
81
33
93
122
128
74
125
17
9
109
55
18
36
130
89
115
45
103
57
123
38
14
104
84
11
59
48
80
100
114
2
86
91
113
108
129
96
119
25
1
22
46
47
76
78
110
124
23
62
7
5
6
136
143
51
138
111
139
3.92
4.45
3.46
4.41
4.65
4.13
4.50
4.58
4.82
3.89
4.14
3.60
4.38
4.01
4.26
4.69
4.14
3.84
3.72
4.33
3.75
4.99
5.19
3.98
4.50
4.98
4.66
3.65
4.17
3.92
4.56
4.01
4.48
3.80
4.62
5.01
4.01
4.23
5.10
4.47
4.54
4.27
4.04
3.92
5.80
4.20
4.15
3.94
3.98
3.66
4.10
3.87
4.81
5.90
4.84
4.55
4.55
4.32
4.29
3.97
3.79
4.83
4.44
5.24
5.42
5.37
3.49
2.88
4.51
3.44
3.97
3.40
122
74
140
87
12
79
138
75
6
113
15
136
35
61
104
127
40
63
134
48
91
20
5
116
68
7
26
73
23
83
45
58
37
99
29
14
77
130
49
22
94
84
100
125
2
47
128
3
82
42
107
89
10
9
19
124
85
43
139
60
44
62
114
25
13
16
90
133
88
143
50
109
3.36
4.03
2.68
3.86
5.21
3.97
2.88
4.00
5.44
3.53
5.11
3.04
4.65
4.15
3.65
3.33
4.49
4.12
3.09
4.44
3.81
4.96
5.48
3.48
4.07
5.42
4.74
4.04
4.88
3.89
4.46
4.25
4.59
3.71
4.69
5.12
3.98
3.19
4.44
4.88
3.79
3.89
3.68
3.34
5.85
4.45
3.29
5.72
3.90
4.46
3.60
3.82
5.29
5.30
4.98
3.35
3.87
4.46
2.68
4.17
4.46
4.14
3.52
4.74
5.16
5.07
3.81
3.11
3.85
2.37
4.43
3.60
136
132
110
33
2
71
135
134
51
119
21
123
63
72
65
70
56
75
121
104
129
9
23
116
112
13
54
118
36
107
83
79
42
28
41
27
59
57
113
35
66
95
58
141
5
45
34
62
26
89
105
128
1
6
24
114
122
84
131
60
53
117
81
32
7
11
47
103
98
139
115
120
2.53
2.62
3.11
5.00
6.21
3.81
2.54
2.54
4.31
2.90
5.59
2.75
3.98
3.80
3.91
3.82
4.15
3.71
2.80
3.23
2.63
5.98
5.47
2.95
3.08
5.78
4.26
2.90
4.87
3.15
3.57
3.63
4.66
5.27
4.70
5.28
4.09
4.13
3.04
4.91
3.88
3.37
4.10
2.46
6.10
4.46
4.96
4.01
5.29
3.45
3.19
2.69
6.29
6.02
5.44
2.97
2.77
3.56
2.62
4.06
4.29
2.93
3.60
5.05
6.00
5.84
4.44
3.25
3.33
2.48
2.96
2.83
10. Market
size
Rank Score
136
144
102
74
92
104
113
123
28
118
125
131
109
12
121
116
130
57
101
120
95
20
63
108
33
50
72
30
79
90
45
35
19
48
68
58
43
7
128
24
142
105
67
138
37
59
78
25
14
64
139
133
34
39
17
119
77
22
137
107
15
85
38
44
6
1
86
41
32
80
111
135
1.86
1.24
2.86
3.53
3.07
2.85
2.66
2.41
4.78
2.57
2.38
2.07
2.74
5.58
2.51
2.60
2.08
4.11
2.86
2.57
2.98
5.11
3.82
2.76
4.63
4.31
3.55
4.67
3.42
3.11
4.40
4.62
5.12
4.34
3.62
4.01
4.41
5.76
2.28
4.85
1.38
2.83
3.64
1.76
4.61
4.00
3.46
4.85
5.45
3.79
1.74
2.00
4.62
4.52
5.24
2.57
3.50
5.04
1.80
2.80
5.28
3.22
4.60
4.41
5.78
6.93
3.21
4.50
4.63
3.35
2.71
1.90
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
Table 7: The Global Competitiveness Index 20122013: Innovation and sophistication factors
INNOVATION AND
SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
PILLARS
11. Business
sophistication
INNOVATION AND
SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS
12.
Innovation
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
113
144
88
98
28
10
57
53
122
38
13
111
100
99
82
39
62
97
126
142
72
95
21
119
129
45
34
66
35
121
83
51
32
12
105
93
96
107
33
125
3
18
139
54
120
4
102
85
70
132
71
143
91
22
58
24
43
40
77
20
8
30
80
2
52
104
56
17
86
140
68
81
3.11
2.31
3.35
3.29
4.56
5.30
3.68
3.74
2.98
3.97
5.21
3.12
3.28
3.28
3.40
3.97
3.64
3.30
2.94
2.42
3.53
3.31
4.74
3.01
2.89
3.87
4.05
3.58
4.04
2.99
3.39
3.77
4.13
5.24
3.25
3.32
3.31
3.16
4.06
2.96
5.62
4.96
2.64
3.74
3.00
5.57
3.27
3.37
3.56
2.82
3.54
2.41
3.32
4.73
3.68
4.69
3.94
3.96
3.46
4.87
5.33
4.24
3.41
5.67
3.74
3.25
3.68
4.96
3.36
2.63
3.57
3.41
98
144
89
92
30
6
69
39
108
36
12
125
103
109
95
33
65
97
140
143
74
104
26
118
138
48
45
63
34
123
96
52
35
9
80
94
83
82
51
129
7
21
141
59
113
3
102
85
57
139
64
142
77
17
86
29
40
42
93
18
16
28
79
1
55
99
67
22
73
130
71
58
3.59
2.54
3.72
3.70
4.61
5.52
3.91
4.34
3.50
4.39
5.32
3.23
3.55
3.48
3.66
4.51
3.97
3.62
3.01
2.67
3.88
3.52
4.84
3.34
3.04
4.24
4.25
3.98
4.46
3.28
3.66
4.18
4.45
5.41
3.80
3.67
3.77
3.79
4.20
3.18
5.49
5.00
2.93
4.09
3.40
5.71
3.57
3.74
4.15
3.03
3.97
2.77
3.83
5.09
3.74
4.71
4.31
4.30
3.68
5.09
5.10
4.75
3.82
5.80
4.16
3.58
3.96
4.99
3.88
3.18
3.89
4.14
123
141
91
105
23
13
46
72
130
40
11
84
83
80
73
49
59
92
107
140
67
79
22
120
113
44
33
70
38
115
74
53
34
12
118
96
109
128
30
114
2
17
136
52
126
7
95
87
90
125
76
143
112
26
37
20
41
39
65
21
3
36
86
5
57
103
50
16
108
142
64
119
2.63
2.09
2.98
2.89
4.51
5.07
3.45
3.13
2.47
3.56
5.09
3.01
3.01
3.09
3.13
3.42
3.31
2.98
2.87
2.17
3.19
3.09
4.64
2.68
2.74
3.50
3.85
3.17
3.61
2.71
3.12
3.36
3.81
5.08
2.69
2.96
2.84
2.54
3.93
2.73
5.75
4.91
2.35
3.38
2.60
5.42
2.96
3.00
2.98
2.62
3.11
2.05
2.80
4.37
3.61
4.68
3.56
3.61
3.25
4.66
5.57
3.73
3.00
5.54
3.32
2.92
3.41
4.94
2.84
2.08
3.25
2.68
Country/Economy
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Seychelles
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
PILLARS
11. Business
sophistication
12.
Innovation
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
137
59
127
47
19
110
115
109
23
114
46
118
63
49
131
112
69
84
130
103
133
6
27
116
73
16
44
75
48
123
94
64
61
37
26
15
106
108
60
29
87
65
124
138
11
74
36
42
31
41
117
134
5
1
14
76
92
55
136
89
50
101
79
25
9
7
78
135
90
141
67
128
2.72
3.67
2.92
3.83
4.89
3.13
3.08
3.16
4.70
3.11
3.85
3.01
3.63
3.79
2.85
3.11
3.57
3.38
2.89
3.25
2.82
5.47
4.60
3.05
3.53
5.00
3.91
3.47
3.83
2.97
3.31
3.60
3.66
4.01
4.64
5.02
3.20
3.16
3.66
4.47
3.36
3.59
2.96
2.69
5.27
3.50
4.02
3.94
4.14
3.96
3.01
2.80
5.56
5.79
5.08
3.46
3.32
3.72
2.73
3.33
3.79
3.27
3.43
4.64
5.32
5.42
3.46
2.78
3.32
2.50
3.57
2.90
135
62
116
56
23
111
122
115
20
126
43
117
41
44
120
121
76
81
131
101
127
4
27
114
66
19
37
78
50
107
68
49
60
54
24
11
110
119
70
25
87
72
132
136
14
61
53
38
32
31
112
124
5
2
13
90
106
46
137
84
47
105
91
15
8
10
88
133
100
134
75
128
3.11
3.99
3.35
4.16
4.96
3.44
3.28
3.38
5.02
3.22
4.27
3.35
4.30
4.26
3.30
3.30
3.83
3.80
3.14
3.57
3.21
5.63
4.78
3.39
3.96
5.05
4.38
3.82
4.21
3.51
3.94
4.23
4.06
4.17
4.92
5.33
3.47
3.31
3.91
4.91
3.74
3.89
3.11
3.10
5.14
4.02
4.18
4.34
4.51
4.60
3.41
3.26
5.56
5.79
5.18
3.71
3.51
4.25
3.05
3.76
4.25
3.52
3.70
5.10
5.48
5.34
3.73
3.11
3.57
3.11
3.84
3.21
138
54
129
43
18
110
106
99
25
88
48
121
98
56
135
100
60
97
122
101
133
9
24
116
78
15
47
77
45
132
117
94
63
31
27
19
102
85
51
29
93
62
111
139
8
89
32
42
35
58
124
137
4
1
14
66
75
68
134
104
55
82
71
28
10
6
69
131
81
144
61
127
2.33
3.34
2.50
3.51
4.82
2.83
2.88
2.94
4.38
2.99
3.43
2.68
2.95
3.33
2.40
2.93
3.31
2.95
2.63
2.93
2.42
5.31
4.43
2.71
3.10
4.96
3.44
3.11
3.46
2.43
2.69
2.97
3.25
3.86
4.35
4.71
2.92
3.01
3.40
4.03
2.98
3.29
2.81
2.27
5.39
2.98
3.85
3.55
3.77
3.32
2.62
2.33
5.56
5.78
4.99
3.22
3.12
3.19
2.41
2.90
3.33
3.02
3.16
4.18
5.17
5.50
3.18
2.44
3.07
1.89
3.30
2.59
Box 2: Sovereign debt crisis, macroeconomic imbalances, and the lack of competitiveness in
Southern Europe
From the beginning of the worst financial and economic
crisis that the Western world has experienced since the
Great Depression, Southern European economies, along
with Ireland, have found themselves in the eye of the storm.
Excessive public spending in the case of Greece, failing
banks in Ireland and more recently Spain following the bursting of a decade-long real estate bubble, and Italys and
Portugals general inability to grow and compete in a globalized environment have brought these economies to the very
edge of sovereign bankruptcy for the first time since the end
of World War II. As a result, these economiesexcept Italy
have been forced to request full or partial international bailouts because of their inability to obtain affordable financing in
the international financial markets.
In parallel with these events, governments in other euro
zone countries (such as Austria, Finland, and Germany) and
noneuro zone countries (such as Sweden, Switzerland, and
the United Kingdom) have benefited from increasingly low,
and sometimes even negative, real interest rates. In some
cases this is the result of the countries traditionally sound
fiscal policies; it is sometimes also a consequence of the high
uncertainty that is driving investors to seek safe locations.
Overall, the sovereign debt crisis reflects the lack of
confidence on the part of the financial markets in the ability
of Southern European economies to balance their public
accounts by curbing public spending and escaping the
vicious circle of high public debt; the need to support banking
systems in difficulties (which can increase national debt); and
diminishing fiscal revenues. The latter are linked to economic
contraction caused by sharp falls in both public and private
consumption and investment, lack of credit, and an inability to
compete internationally as reflected by the persistent current
account deficits (Figure 1).
At present, the vicious cycle seems to be leading these
economies toward a downward spiral of worsening financial
Percent
5
0
5
10
15
20
2002Q1
2003Q1
2004Q1
Netherlands
Germany
2005Q1
2006Q1
Denmark
Italy
2007Q1
2008Q1
Spain
Portugal
2009Q1
2010Q1
2011Q1
Greece
Source: Eurostat.
(Contd.)
Box 2: Sovereign debt crisis, macroeconomic imbalances, and the lack of competitiveness in
Southern Europe (contd.)
GCI score*
n [5.39,5.55]
n [5.00,5.39[
n [4.60,5.00[
n [4.20,4.60[
n [3.86,4.20[
n Non-EU countries
* The interval [x,y[ is inclusive of x but exclusive of y. Highest value; lowest value.
5.0
4.5
EU-11
Southern Europe
4.0
3.5
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
GCI edition
Note: Southern Europe includes Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain; EU-11 includes the original 15 member states except Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.
Transport Infrastructure
7
6
5
4
3
2
ICT use
Electricity supply
(Contd.)
Box 3: Connecting the Americas through better transport, energy, and ICT infrastructure (contd.)
divide of the region compared with other areas in the world,
notably developed economies (Table 1) but also many
Asian economies.1 The severe lag in the region is clearly
reflected in the available Internet bandwidth capacity, which
is only slightly above 20 percent of the OECD average. This
affects the capacity of the already-low number of Internet
users to access fast broadband connections, either through
fixed or mobile devices. Addressing these weaknesses by
improving national infrastructure and intra-national transport,
energy, and ICT connectivity will be crucial moving forward.
Improved infrastructure in all three areas will help increase
national and regional productivity by deepening national and
regional markets, reducing transaction costs, and creating
more favorable conditions for innovation. Engaging in these
resource-intensive projects will require closer collaboration
between the public and private sectors to leverage each
others capacities and resources, and between national
governments to enhance connecting the Americas.
Note
1
Table 1: Transport, electricity, and ICT infrastructures: Latin America and the Caribbean compared with
OECD countries
Indicator
Transport infrastructure
OECD
Gap
3.30
4.96
1.66
3.86
5.53
1.67
Quality of roads
3.58
5.19
1.61
1.90
4.47
2.57
3.93
5.21
1.27
4.44
5.58
1.14
397.33
2,373.87
1,976.53
4.24
6.13
1.89
4.24
6.13
1.89
2.72
5.29
2.57
35.15
75.02
39.87
6.00
26.51
20.51
17.08
83.03
65.95
40.60
5.35
45.96
112.49
118.16
5.68
17.02
41.46
24.45
Note: The scores range from 1 to 7 for those variables that are collected from the Executive Opinion Survey. Those variables marked with an asterisk are collected from other sources
and the values reflect the units indicated in variable. For more information on the definition and sources of these variables, please refer to Part 2.2 of this publication.
Economic diversification. In oil- and gas-exporting countries, where growth has been high over the past years
because of high energy prices, creating jobs will require
countries to continue efforts to diversify their economies. Given the high wage levels present throughout
these economies, appropriate productivity levels can be
achieved only through expanding into high-value-added,
knowledge-based sectors.
Addressing the skills mismatch. Much progress has been
made in terms of promoting education in the Arab world
over the past several decades. However, as more recent
data show, university degrees do not increase the chances of finding a job in many Arab countries. This situation
points to a misalignment of the skills taught in educational
institutions and the needs of the regions employers.
Indeed, when asked whether their countrys educational
systems are supportive of a competitive economy, business leaders in the region said that private-sector training
schemes could provide solutions in this context. Training
does not appear to be a priority for local businesses,
however.
Promoting meritocracy. In many countries, the public sector is the employer of choice and many of the hiring decisions are based on personal networks rather than formal
qualifications. In the GCI, meritocracy is captured through
two variables: the degree to which employers rely on
professional managers when filling positions as opposed
to friends and relatives, and the relationship between pay
and productivity. On both indicators at least half of the 14
Middle East countries assessed in this Report rank in the
bottom half of the rankings.
Note
1
(Contd.)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
20052006
20062007
20072008
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
GCI edition
OECD
Sub-Saharan Africa*
Middle-income countries
Low-income countries
Oil exporters
Note: The constant sample includes the following economies: Oil exporters: Cameroon, Chad, and Nigeria; middle-income countries: Botswana, Mauritius, Namibia, and South Africa;
low-income countries: Benin, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
* 2005 constant sample.
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
20052006
20062007
20072008
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
GCI edition
Macroeconomic environment
Institutions
Basic requirements
Infrastructure
(Contd.)
Score (17)
OECD
Oil exporters
Middle-income countries
Fragile countries
12. Innovation
9. Technological readiness
3. Macroeconomic environment
2. Infrastructure
1. Institutions
Non-fragile low-income
countries
Note: The constant sample includes the following economies: Oil exporters: Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, and Nigeria; middle-income countries: Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana,
Lesotho, Mauritius, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zambia; non-fragile low-income economies: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gambia,
Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Uganda; fragile economies: Burundi, Cte dIvoire, Guinea, Liberia, and Zimbabwe.
The blue bars reflect the dispersion in performance across sub-Saharan countries in the 12 dimensions analyzed in the GCR, the end points presenting the highest and
lowest score in the sample, respectively.
Figure 4: The most problematic factors for doing business: Sub-Saharan African average
Access to financing
Corruption
Inadequate supply of infrastructure
Inefficient government bureaucracy
Tax rates
Inadequately educated workforce
Poor work ethic in national labor force
Inflation
Policy instability
Tax regulations
Restrictive labor regulations
Foreign currency regulations
Crime and theft
Government instability/coups
Poor public health
0
10
15
20
Percent of responses
(Contd.)
Originally, sub-Saharan economies were grouped into oil exporters, middle-income countries, non-fragile low-income countries,
and fragile countries. As Zimbabwe is the only country classified
as fragile in the constant sample, we merge fragile and non-fragile
low-income countries into a single group of low-income countries
for purpose of this trend exercise. See IMF 2012a.
25 The BRICS countries are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Africa.
26 IMF 2012b.
27 IMF 2012c.
12 See Schultz 1961; Lucas 1988; Becker 1993; and Kremer 1993.
13 See Almeida and Carneiro 2009; Amin 2009; and Kaplan 2009
for country studies demonstrating the importance of flexible labor
markets for higher employment rates and, therefore, economic
performance.
14 See Aghion and Howitt 1992 and Barro and Sala-i-Martn 2003 for
a technical exposition of technology-based growth theories.
15 A general purpose technology (GPT), according to Trajtenberg
(2005), is one that, in any given period, gives a particular
contribution to an overall economys growth thanks to its ability to
transform the methods of production in a wide array of industries.
Examples of GPTs have been the invention of the steam engine
and the electric dynamo.
16 See Sachs and Warner 1995; Frenkel and Romer 1999; Rodrik
and Rodriguez 1999; Alesina et al. 2005; and Feyrer 2009.
17 This is particularly important in a world in which economic
borders are not as clearly delineated as political ones. In other
words, when Belgium sells goods to the Netherlands, the national
accounts register the transaction as an export (so the Netherlands
is a foreign market for Belgium), but when California sells the
same kind of output to Nevada, the national accounts register
the transaction as domestic (so Nevada is a domestic market for
California).
18 See Romer 1990; Grossman and Helpman 1991; and Aghion and
Howitt 1992.
19 Probably the most famous theory of stages of development was
developed by the American historian W. W. Rostow in the 1960s
(see Rostow 1960). Here we adapt Michael Porters theory of
stages (see Porter 1990). Please see Chapter 1.1 of The Global
Competitiveness Report 20072008 for a complete description
of how we have adapted Michael Porters theory for the present
application.
REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. Robinson. 2001. The Colonial
Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.
American Economic Review 91: 1369401.
. 2002. Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the
Making of the Modern World Distribution of Income. Quarterly
Journal of Economics 117 (4): 123194.
Aghion P. and P. Howitt. 1992. A Model of Growth through Creative
Destruction. Econometrica LX: 32351.
Alesina, A., E. Spolaore, and R. Enrico. 1998. Endogenous Growth.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
. 2005. Trade, Growth and the Size of Countries. In P. Aghion
and S. Durlauf, eds., Handbook of Economic Growth, 1st edition,
volume 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1499542.
Almeida, R., and P. Carneiro, 2009. Enforcement of Labor Regulation
and Firm Size. Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 2846.
Amin, M. 2009. Labor Regulation and Employment in Indias Retail
Stores. Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 4761.
Aschauer, D. A. 1989. Is Public Expenditure Productive? Journal of
Monetary Economics 23 (2): 117200.
Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-i-Martn. 1992. Convergence. Journal of
Political Economy 100 (April): 22351.
. 2003. Economic Growth, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Becker, G. S. 1993. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical
Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, 3rd edition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Appendix:
Computation and structure of the Global Competitiveness Index 20122013
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
EFFICIENCY ENHANCERS
B. Efficient
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
6 x
NOTES
a Formally, for a category i composed of K indicators, we have:
K
indicatork
k=1
Efficiencydriven
stage (2)
Transition
from stage 2
to stage 3
Innovationdriven
stage (3)
4060%
>17,000
40%
2040%
20%
50%
50%
50%
1030%
30%
3550%
510%
10%
* For economies with a high dependency on mineral resources, GDP per capita is
not the sole criterion for the determination of the stage of development. See text
for details.
+ 1
In order to capture the idea that both high inflation and deflation
are detrimental, inflation enters the model in a U-shaped manner
as follows: for values of inflation between 0.5 and 2.9 percent,
a country receives the highest possible score of 7. Outside this
range, scores decrease linearly as they move away from these
values.
c Formally, we have:
6 x
+ 7
categoryi
CHAPTER 1.2
2.
3.
GLOBAL
COMPETITIVENESS
INDEX (GCI)
Social
sustainability
pillar
Environmental
sustainability
pillar
Social
sustainability
adjusted GCI
Environmental
sustainability
adjusted GCI
(GCI) (social
sustainability coefficient)
(GCI) (environmental
sustainability coefficient)
Sustainabilityadjusted GCI
Environmental policy
Environmental regulations
(stringency and enforcement)
Forest depletion
(change in forest cover and forest loss)
Fish stocks overexploitation
CO2 intensity
Quality of the natural environment
Vulnerability to shocks
Social cohesion
Access to sanitation
Vulnerable employment
Social mobility
Access to healthcare
Youth unemployment
Box 4: Concepts not yet captured by the sustainable competitiveness analysis and areas for future
research
There are a number of areas that we recognize as critical
for sustainable competitiveness but that have not yet been
included in our analysis because of a lack of relevant data.
Our goal is to include and update these elements and more
accurate indicators as relevant and improved data become
available in coming years.
Inclusion of minorities. There is some evidence that
excluding minorities can cause political instability, but no
data are available to assess the actual level of cohesion of
different ethnic groups in a country.
Working conditions. In the context of social sustainability
it is desirable, to meet a certain level of safety conditions
and to ensure that salaries are sufficient to enable full
participation in the countrys prosperity. Although the
International Labour Organization has published statistics
on the quality of working conditions, the data available
cover only a limited number of economies. Until such data
are available for a wide range of countries, they cannot be
considered for a global assessment.
2.
3.
GCI 20122013
Country/Economy
Social
sustainability
adjusted GCI**
Rank*
Score
Score
Switzerland
5.72
6.83
Finland
5.55
6.45
Sweden
5.53
6.17
Netherlands
5.50
6.54
Germany
5.48
6.37
United States
5.47
5.63
United Kingdom
5.45
6.03
Japan
10
5.40
6.10
Denmark
12
5.29
6.21
Canada
14
5.27
5.93
Norway
15
5.27
6.32
Austria
16
5.22
6.17
Belgium
17
5.21
5.90
Korea, Rep.
19
5.12
5.37
Australia
20
5.12
5.83
France
21
5.11
5.59
New Zealand
23
5.09
5.82
Malaysia
25
5.06
5.30
Israel
26
5.02
5.40
Ireland
27
4.91
5.26
China
29
4.83
4.61
Iceland
30
4.74
5.45
Chile
33
4.65
4.53
Estonia
34
4.64
4.82
Spain
36
4.60
4.66
Thailand
38
4.52
4.39
Czech Republic
39
4.51
4.89
Panama
40
4.49
4.15
Poland
41
4.46
4.32
Italy
42
4.46
4.38
Turkey
43
4.45
4.24
Lithuania
45
4.41
4.52
Azerbaijan
46
4.41
4.08
Brazil
48
4.40
4.22
Portugal
49
4.40
4.58
Indonesia
50
4.40
3.85
Kazakhstan
51
4.38
4.53
South Africa
52
4.37
3.83
Mexico
53
4.36
4.12
Mauritius
54
4.35
4.40
Direction
Environmental
sustainability
adjusted GCI
Score
6.87
6.26
6.15
5.88
5.92
5.00
5.62
5.42
5.25
5.33
5.98
5.86
5.46
4.41
5.08
5.40
5.53
4.98
4.72
5.11
4.27
5.43
4.43
4.85
4.45
4.16
4.66
4.71
4.42
4.40
3.84
4.71
3.78
4.69
4.15
4.21
3.50
3.77
3.90
3.66
Direction
Sustainabilityadjusted GCI
Score
6.85
6.36
6.16
6.21
6.14
5.31
5.82
5.76
5.73
5.63
6.15
6.02
5.68
4.89
5.46
5.50
5.68
5.14
5.06
5.18
4.44
5.44
4.48
4.83
4.55
4.28
4.77
4.43
4.37
4.39
4.04
4.61
3.93
4.46
4.36
4.03
4.02
3.80
4.01
4.03
Direction
(Contd.)
GCI 20122013
Country/Economy
Rank*
Score
Social
sustainability
adjusted GCI**
Score
Latvia
55
4.35
4.55
Slovenia
56
4.34
4.76
Costa Rica
57
4.34
4.30
Cyprus
58
4.32
4.63
India
59
4.32
3.70
Hungary
60
4.30
4.29
Peru
61
4.28
3.73
Bulgaria
62
4.27
4.17
Jordan
64
4.23
4.25
Philippines
65
4.23
3.82
66
4.22
3.85
Russian Federation
67
4.20
4.09
Sri Lanka
68
4.19
3.67
Colombia
69
4.18
3.47
Morocco
70
4.15
3.55
Slovak Republic
71
4.14
4.18
Ukraine
73
4.14
4.04
Uruguay
74
4.13
4.21
Romania
78
4.07
3.71
Macedonia, FYR
80
4.04
3.66
Croatia
81
4.04
3.84
Armenia
82
4.02
3.58
84
4.01
4.00
Cambodia
85
4.01
3.31
Ecuador
86
3.94
3.58
Moldova
87
3.94
3.75
Namibia
92
3.88
3.22
Argentina
94
3.87
3.59
Serbia
95
3.87
3.48
Greece
96
3.86
3.59
Jamaica
97
3.84
3.28
Dominican Republic
105
3.77
3.29
Kenya
106
3.75
3.01
Egypt
107
3.73
3.56
Algeria
110
3.72
3.31
Paraguay
116
3.67
3.00
Tanzania
120
3.60
2.88
Pakistan
124
3.52
2.84
Venezuela
126
3.46
3.15
Direction
Environmental
sustainability
adjusted GCI
Score
4.69
4.56
4.69
4.05
3.75
4.32
4.03
3.97
3.58
4.16
3.85
3.87
4.25
4.01
3.52
4.36
3.53
4.09
3.73
3.64
4.20
3.50
3.67
3.93
3.67
3.75
3.84
3.37
3.71
3.82
3.74
3.29
3.76
3.20
3.01
3.61
3.60
2.96
3.41
Direction
Sustainabilityadjusted GCI
Score
4.62
4.66
4.49
4.34
3.73
4.30
3.88
4.07
3.92
3.99
3.85
3.98
3.96
3.74
3.53
4.27
3.78
4.15
3.72
3.65
4.02
3.54
3.83
3.62
3.63
3.75
3.53
3.48
3.59
3.71
3.51
3.29
3.38
3.38
3.16
3.31
3.24
2.90
3.28
Direction
* This is the GCI rank, as presented in Chapter 1.1. Only the 79 countries covered by this exercise are included in the table.
** This is the score obtained by multiplying the GCI score by the social sustainability coefficient.
This is the score obtained by multiplying the GCI score by the environmental sustainability coefficient.
This is the average of social sustainabilityadjusted GCI and environmental sustainabilityadjusted GCI scores.
Please refer to the technical appendix of this chapter for a description of how the coefficients are calculated. All the underlying indicators are available at http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/
sustainable-competitiveness.
Key
NOTES
1 See, for example, Atkinson 2003.
2 See, for example, Nordhaus 1994, 2000, 2002; Bovenberg and
Smulders 1996; Aghion et al. 1998; and Acemoglu 2002, 2007,
2009.
3 See, for example, Perotti 1993: Bertola 1993: Alesina and Rodrik
1994: Persson and Tabellini 1994: and Green et al. 2006.
Cowen, T., ed. 1992. Public Goods and Market Failures. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
6 See http://hdr.undp.org/en/.
8 See http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/
methodology/ for information about information about the Global
Footprint Network.
Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st
Century Business. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D. 2002. Directed Technical Change. Review of Economic
Studies 69 (4): 781809.
. 2007. Equilibrium Bias of Technology. Econometrica 75 (5):
13711409.
. 2012b. Financing Green Growth in a ResourceConstrained World. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Available at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENI_
FinancingGreenGrowthResourceConstrainedWorld_Report_2012.
pdf.
YCELP and CIESIN (Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, and
Center for International Earth Science Information Network at
Columbia University). 2012. Environmental Performance Index.
Available at http://epi.yale.edu/.
Appendix A:
Calculation of the sustainability-adjusted GCI
NOTES
a Formally we have
0.4 x
+ 0.8
categoryi
indicatork
k=1
c Formally, we have:
6 x
+ 1
+ 7
Appendix B:
Technical notes and sources for sustainability indicators
S12 CO intensity
CHAPTER 1.3
n Previous coverage
n 2012 additions
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
2.
3.
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Timor-Leste
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
Macedonia, FYR
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Survey edition
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
n/a
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
n/a
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
No. of respondents
79
39
86
83
72
46
96
80
69
37
68
105
79
100
114
185
91
126
40
77
100
83
98
83
113
75
137
99
132
97
99
153
33
54
31
134
121
90
93
100
33
115
109
n/a
91
95
95
84
85
78
n/a
84
146
85
51
50
81
248
86
328
49
47
92
53
105
96
122
104
49
99
176
48
44.7
47.1
43.2
45.5
45.7
35.2
45.1
47.6
42.3
37.0
42.5
46.9
46.2
45.0
49.4
48.2
53.7
45.6
44.7
42.8
48.2
48.6
44.4
41.7
45.9
44.5
36.2
45.6
49.5
43.8
47.8
44.2
30.2
38.6
43.5
100.0
51.2
56.3
46.1
51.3
43.9
48.2
42.9
n/a
45.6
100.0
41.4
45.8
45.3
44.2
n/a
44.3
54.3
44.9
41.3
36.3
43.3
53.5
44.7
38.0
42.1
44.0
45.7
40.7
44.3
39.0
47.1
44.1
48.2
45.0
52.1
47.9
No. of respondents
81
33
99
80
68
105
95
65
86
72
83
90
72
100
80
143
44
120
41
92
77
62
103
108
105
78
286
94
92
107
79
163
128
91
35
n/a
73
34
85
60
36
89
129
48
87
n/a
127
79
83
83
60
89
67
86
69
103
93
122
88
585
62
51
87
75
111
156
103
112
38
99
98
38
Weight (%)
0.0
3.0
100.0
8.8
69.1
53.3
0.0
96.9
0.0
77.8
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
31.3
93.7
59.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
97.1
24.1
0.0
26.9
83.9
96.8
0.0
47.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
n/a
0.0
79.4
100.0
0.0
97.2
1.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
n/a
79.5
21.5
63.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
75.4
66.0
100.0
33.6
1.1
36.6
93.5
100.0
3.4
0.0
4.5
16.0
0.0
0.0
31.6
0.0
91.8
100.0
55.3
52.9
56.8
54.5
54.3
64.8
54.9
52.4
57.7
63.0
57.5
53.1
53.8
55.0
50.6
51.8
46.3
54.4
55.3
57.2
51.8
51.4
55.6
58.3
54.1
55.5
63.8
54.4
50.5
56.2
52.2
55.8
69.8
61.4
56.5
n/a
48.8
43.7
53.9
48.8
56.1
51.8
57.1
100.0
54.4
n/a
58.6
54.2
54.7
55.8
100.0
55.7
45.7
55.1
58.8
63.7
56.7
46.5
55.3
62.0
57.9
56.0
54.3
59.3
55.7
61.0
52.9
55.9
51.8
55.0
47.9
52.1
(Contd.)
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
China
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Korea, Rep.
Montenegro
Serbia
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Survey edition
2011
n/a
n/a
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
2011
n/a
n/a
2011
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
No. of respondents
79
n/a
n/a
178
35
86
64
87
129
52
71
95
354
108
84
94
112
75
102
87
51
93
110
47
70
130
134
94
370
88
93
198
136
63
75
112
78
81
94
377
40
152
90
n/a
n/a
152
78
101
57
103
105
34
40
32
90
68
101
92
55
116
79
94
104
108
93
422
82
45
96
52
88
56
43.5
n/a
n/a
46.9
41.9
44.2
45.6
46.2
47.9
43.6
43.2
45.5
48.0
44.5
44.9
55.1
47.6
43.9
46.2
45.7
44.1
47.4
45.7
39.3
43.6
47.1
45.1
47.0
45.0
45.7
40.7
44.5
47.1
43.5
38.9
46.7
45.3
42.5
44.5
43.8
100.0
50.8
44.5
n/a
n/a
43.0
46.7
43.9
47.9
46.5
100.0
43.9
42.0
34.7
46.6
44.6
45.5
44.1
41.2
41.7
44.1
45.5
44.4
39.5
43.8
45.8
45.2
46.8
45.0
44.8
44.2
43.3
Grand total/Average
No. of respondents
Weight (%)
89
85
72
153
45
92
61
79
102
58
82
91
278
112
85
40
91
82
93
82
55
77
104
75
78
110
133
80
371
83
132
206
115
71
123
98
76
99
98
414
n/a
95
94
32
99
178
68
110
45
91
n/a
37
51
77
79
70
97
99
75
151
85
90
109
169
102
397
81
39
96
53
94
64
0.0
0.0
45.8
63.4
93.3
0.0
11.5
38.0
0.0
77.6
0.0
39.6
91.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.8
96.4
84.4
1.0
97.3
50.0
23.6
63.2
7.5
0.3
30.1
0.8
93.7
55.7
98.6
16.3
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
n/a
96.8
0.0
34.4
0.0
56.2
80.9
0.0
82.2
83.5
n/a
0.0
68.6
97.4
93.7
50.0
0.0
1.0
73.3
80.1
21.2
0.0
1.8
7.1
96.1
98.2
0.0
100.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
40.6
56.5
100.0
100.0
53.1
58.1
55.8
54.4
53.8
52.1
56.4
56.8
54.5
52.0
55.5
55.1
44.9
52.4
56.1
53.8
54.3
55.9
52.6
54.3
60.7
56.4
52.9
54.9
53.0
55.0
54.3
59.3
55.5
52.9
56.5
61.1
53.3
54.7
57.5
55.5
56.2
n/a
49.2
55.5
100.0
100.0
57.0
53.3
56.1
52.1
53.5
n/a
56.1
58.0
65.3
53.4
55.4
54.5
55.9
58.8
58.3
55.9
54.5
55.6
60.5
56.2
54.2
54.8
53.2
55.0
55.2
55.8
56.7
14,059
36.6
Note: All statistics were computed following the edited process. See text for details.
* The table reports information about the two Survey editions used in the computation of the two-year weighted average score. See Box 2 for details.
Survey edition(s) used for the computation of the two-year weighted average score: 2010 and 2012; 2011; 2012. See Box 2 for details about exceptions.
w q
w q
N
s,c
q
N
j
N s,c
q
,
N
j
s,c
i,s,c
s,c
i,s,c
s
S
s
q i,s,c =
N s,c
j
i,j,s,c
s,c
i,j,s,c
s,c
q i,j,s,c
N s,c
where
ws,c is sector ss contribution to the economy of
country c;
qi,s,c is the mean of the answers to question i from
sector s in country c;
qi,j,s,c is the answer to question i from respondent j in
sector s in country c; and
Ns,c is the number of responses from sector s in
country c.
When for a given country the sample size is too
small or the sectoral representation of the sample is too
different from the actual structure in the economy, the
xi,q,c xq,c
mechanism
described above might not be sufficient
q,c
to prevent an individual response from receiving a
disproportionate weight.8 In such a case the economic
sector stratification average is abandoned and a simple
average of the surveys is applied, where all individual
responses contribute equally to the country score
regardless the sector of activity of the respondents
companies. In 2012, this was the case for seven
countries: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Kuwait, Morocco,
Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. Going forward, we
will work closely with our Partner Institutes to increase
the sample size and improve the sector representation in
these countries.
Data weighting: Moving average
As a final step, the sector-weighted country averages for
2012 are combined with the 2011 averages to produce
the country scores that are used for the computation of
the GCI 20122013 and for other projects.
This moving average technique, introduced in 2008,
consists of taking a weighted average of the most recent
years Survey results together with a discounted average
of the previous year. There are several reasons for doing
this. First, it makes results less sensitive to the specific
point in time when the Survey is administered. Second,
it increases the amount of available information by
providing a larger sample size. Additionally, because the
Survey is carried out during the first quarter of the year,
the average of the responses in the first quarter of 2011
and first quarter of 2012 better aligns the Survey data
with many of the data indicators from sources other than
the Survey, which are often year-average data. For newly
introduced questions, for which no time series exists, the
final country score simply corresponds to the country
score in 2012. Such is the case for indicator 1.13, which
is derived from the new Survey question about the
provision of government services aiming at improving
business performance.
To calculate the moving average, we use a weighting
scheme composed of two overlapping elements. On one
hand, we want to give each response an equal weight
and, therefore, place more weight on the year with the
larger sample size. At the same time, we would like to
give more weight to the most recent responses because
Table 2: Sectoral value-added as a share (%) of GDP, most recent year available
Country/Economy
Albania
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Agriculture
20
9
20
3
2
6
0
19
4
1
32
14
8
3
6
1
5
35
35
19
2
9
14
3
10
7
7
23
7
2
2
1
6
7
10
13
3
48
3
2
4
27
10
1
30
3
12
13
19
25
11
0
4
6
16
16
10
1
3
2
6
1
3
5
19
3
29
4
5
Manufacturing
industry
20*
22
15
10
19
4
66*
18
7
14
8
14
13
3
16
10
16
9
15
17
14
7
7
13
32
14
19
19
17
8
23
13
22
11
14
22
17
5
18
11
4
5
9
19
6
10
19
5
7
16*
17
2
22
13
16
26
11
24
32*
16
9
20
19
12
8
28
13
12
8
Nonmanufacturing industry
Services
Country/Economy
Agriculture
n/a
9
18
19
11
65
n/a
11
11
8
6
22
16
42
10
61
14
11
8
14
18
13
42
30
12
18
8
8
12
12
14
9
5
15
15
6
12
9
10
8
50
11
12
7
12
8
8
43
29
n/a
8
6
8
14
12
23
34
8
n/a
9
13
8
11
31
6
9
7
10
8
60
60
47
68
69
24
33
53
78
78
54
50
63
52
68
28
64
45
42
50
67
71
38
54
46
61
66
50
63
78
60
77
67
67
61
59
68
38
69
79
42
57
69
73
51
79
61
40
46
59
64
93
66
66
55
35
45
67
64
73
71
71
66
52
67
61
51
74
78
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe
8
61
2
3
0
11
29
31
10
37
2
20
4
4
10
18
10
32
8
33
2
6
18
32
1
2
22
5
19
7
12
4
2
1
0
7
5
34
3
17
11
2
47
0
3
2
3
3
14
5
7
2
1
2
21
28
11
0
9
24
8
2
1
1
12
20
9
17
Manufacturing
industry
16
13
4
16
6
23
14
10
25
3
14
4
19
18
12
7
6
13
8
7
13
15
19
3
10
8
17
6
12
14
21
16
13
40
68*
22
15
6
10
13
19*
11
4
22
19
22
15
13
16
20
45
16
19
30*
10
10
34
6
17
8
18
12
11
13
17
20
9
15
Nonmanufacturing industry
Services
19
4
74
11
7
13
2
6
19
21
19
33
10
17
0
29
14
10
12
9
11
10
9
39
31
47
7
11
8
18
11
14
10
3
n/a
4
18
8
52
9
n/a
8
21
6
15
12
16
13
11
19
5
9
8
n/a
13
15
9
46
9
17
11
48
10
8
8
20
28
14
58
22
20
70
87
52
55
53
46
39
65
43
67
61
78
45
70
45
73
52
74
69
53
26
58
43
55
78
62
62
55
66
75
56
32
67
62
52
35
61
70
79
29
72
63
64
66
71
60
56
42
73
72
69
57
47
45
47
65
50
63
38
78
77
63
39
54
53
Sources: World Bank, World Development Indicators (accessed December 8, 2011); Economist Intelligence Unit, CountryData database (accessed December 9, 2011); US Central Intelligence
Agency, The World Factbook (accessed December 9, 2011).
Note: The simple average was used to compute the country scores of Algeria, Burkina Faso, Kuwait, Morocco, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. The values for these countries are therefore not
reported. See text for details.
* Combined share of manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries.
q i,
qscores
This box presents the method applied to compute the country
for the vast majority of economies included in
i,c
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 (see text for exceptions).
1011
q1011
i,
2011
2011
2012
2012
q i,Survey
q i,ci,c question i, country cs final score, q 201112
q i,c201112 q i,c2012
q i,c1011 q i,c2011
For any given
, isw cgiven
qby:
w c q i,c
i,c
i,c
q i,
q i,c1011
q i,c2011
q i,201112q i,c10112011
1011
2012
2011
201112
2011
2012
2012
t q
q2012
(1)
q201112
201112
i,c
i,c
i,c q2011
i,c
w2011
q2011
w2012
q2012
t q1011
q
i,c
c
i,c
c
i,c
Nc q
i,cq i,c
q i,c
q 201112
i,c
w c2011 q i,c2011 w c2012 q i,c2012q
q i,c
i,c
t
2011
q i,c1011 q 201112
2011
2011
q qi,c2012
qqi,c1011
q i,c
w c q i,c w c q i,c i,
i,n,c q i,c
Nc
2011
i,c
t i,c
t
n=1
where
1011
2011
201112
qqi,c2012
t
201112
2011
2011t
2012
2012
q
(1)
i,n,c
2011
2012
q
q
q
q
2011
i,c
q i,cqt i,c w c q i,c Nt c w c q i,c
i,c
N c N c
q i,c
N i,cct i,c
i,c
2011
q ti,c
t
Nc
2011
w
t
2012
201112
2011
q
c
201112
t i,n,c on question
2011
2011
2012 2012,
2012
t score
countryt csN
i inyear
N ct,with
q i,c
q2i,c
q i,c1011 q i,c2011
c t =
t is
c q
n=1
q i,c (1)
i,c c
q2011,
q i,c as computed
wc
qNNi,c2011
w
q i, qqi,ctt i,n,c
q i,c1011
ti,n,c
qti,c n=1
2011 c2011 2012
t
t
Ncapproach
qNi,n,c
described
in the
c
qqi,cti,n,c following
(1)
text;
N 2011
q ti,c the
2011
c N c N 2012
2011
q2012
tt c
N c2012
i,c
q i,
q i,c1011
t (1) wNt c2011 2011
w2011
qNi,n,ct
Nq ti,n,c
q i,c n=1
c
c
c
N
N
w
t
c
2
c
N
N
tt c
c
q
t
2011
c c 2012
c 2012
n=1Nns
1011
2011
respondent
response
(on
a 17 scale)
iqin
year 2011
t; and
qN tc is 2011
q 201112
201112
q 2011
2c2011to Nquestion
i,c(1)
w2012
2012
2012
t
c
2011
q i,c N i,n,c
i,c q i,c
w c i,c
q i,c
N2i,cc
N qcqi,ci,n,c
c t
2012
2012
2011
N cwt c q i,c 2011 t
NNc c N c
2012
t
n=1
1011
w c 1
w
w c 0
w
w
t
1011
2012 c
2011
201112
c
2011
201112
2011
2011
2012 Nqt c2012
q
(1)
N
q
q
2012
i,n,c
q i,c cs
qscore
2011
2012
q
applied qtoi,c country
in
year
t
(see
below).
q i,c
i,c
i,c N 2c i,c
w c q i,c w c i, wqctci,ci,c is the weightq
t
2
i,c
Nc
Nc
2011
c2012 2012 N c
2011
t
t
N 2011
2011
2012
q i,cw c
N c
c N c N 2012
c
2012N t
2012 w c
2011
w c 1
w c 0
q i,c2011w2012
t
2012
N c2012
c Nc
0
1
w
w
t
2
2012
2011
c
c
c
2011
w
2011
The
weights
for
each
year
are
determined
as
follows:
t
q
c
N
0
1
w
w
w
i,n,c
N
t
2
c
N c 201112
N c 2012
1011
2011
c2012
c2011
q i,c
t
201112
2012
2012 c2012
Nc
t2011
q i,c2 2011 c2012
q2012
t
q i,c q i,n,c w c2011
i,c
q n=1
wt c 2011
q i,c w c (1)
0q i,c
1 2012
w c 2012
wqc i,c2011
2011
t
1011 q i,ci,c
N c N2c
N
q i,n,c
N c
N c2011
N c2012
0
N1c 2012
w2011
w2012
c 201112
q
q
2012 w c
N
2011
2012
N
c
c
2011
2011
2011
2012
i,
i,c
1
c
t
2011
c
t
n=1
0
w
w
w
0
11
w
w
w
q
q i,c2012 1
2011
t
(1)
q i,c
q
c
c
c
q
q i,n,c
(1)
c
c
i,c
2011
2012 q i,c
c
q i,c
i,c
i,c
2011
20122011
2011
2012
N
N c2012
t
2
2
2
N
N
N
w c 02012 w c N c 1N c
c
c
c
N c N c
t
N c q i,ct c 2011
2012
2011
(2a)
and
2011
Nc
2011 w c
2012N 2012
0
w c 1
w c (2b)
wc
t
N2011
t
cw
c1 average
2011
2012
2012
0 q 20112011
w cweighted
1 q2011
12011
201112
Nc
discounted-past
1011
201112
c
t
2
2 (1)2012
201112
2011
2012
N2012
N2012
sample-size weighted average
i,n,c
q2011
q201112
2012
c2011 2012
N
q
q
q
2011
i,cq q2012
i,c
i,cq i,c
i,c
2011
2011c2012 2012 q2012
1
1
i,cw t
c
tqwi,cc
i,c
i,c
i,c
q
w
Nc 2 N2011
N2012
c
2n=1
(1)c q i,c2011 i,c(1)
q
i,c
q i,c2011 N2011
q i,c2012
q201112
2011
2012
N c N2012
i,c
c
cNc
c
q i,n,c
i,c q
2012
201112
2012N c
i,c 12
0
1
w
w
N
N
N
t
t
c
c
c20112011
2012
c2011 2012 c2012 q i,c
q i,c 2011
q 2011
c
q i,c N c (1)
2011 c2012 q i,c
N c
N
2012
i,c
wc
q
N2
N
N
N
i,c
discounted-past
weighted
average
N
2
N
N
N
N
c
c
c
c
2012
2012
2011
2011
2012
2011
2012
w
1
1
c
201112
t
c
c
c
c
sample-size
weighted
average
c
t
0
1
w
w
w
q
q
q
q
discounted-past
weighted
average
(1)
N t (i.e.,
i,c c
respondents)
i,c2012.
q i,csample
where N c qisi,c the
size
of
country
cin i,cyear ct, with
t = 2011,
2011
c
i,c
22 2 for
2012the number
c
N c2012
N c2011 N c2012 sample-size weighted
N c2011average
t
N2c
Ndiscounted-past
weighted
N 2011
N c2012 N t
ct
2012
2012 average
2011
sample-size
weighted
2011
2011
2012average1
2012
1
201112
q
c
tq
t
t
0
1
w
w
w
12011 c 2012 Nc q i,c2011 q t 2011
1
t t (1)
i,n,c
2011
2012
N
q
q
c
c
c
q
t
c
i,c
i,c q
t
i,c
q
t and
(1)
i,c q i,c
q
n=1(2b)
discounted-past
weighted
average
2012
0
1
w
w
i,c
i,c
i,c
t
t
t
Plugging
(2a)
into
(1)
and
rearranging
yields:
i,c
NNt c2012
w c Equations
2
2
N
N
N
c
c
q i,n,c
(1)
sample-size weighted
average2
q i,c
c
cN
c
N
2
N
N
2
2011
2012
c
c
c
c
c
t
N
N
2011
2012
c
Nc
0 2011
1 c discounted-past
w2011
Nt
Nt
weighted average
t
Nwc12012
c
twc c N
1
sample-size weighted average
c t
2012 q t
2011
Nc
Nwct tcc2011
N ct tc N1tc2012 qt i,ct
q2012
q2012
(1) w2011
112
qt i,cttt
t i,c
ti,c
t N
t 0 t i,c 2011w t
12 (1)
1
201112
c
c
c
qti,c q i,c2012 .
Ntc N c 2011
Ntc 2012
(3)
qti,cq i,c
Nc Ntc 2012
qqi,ci,ct 2
122
2012NNtc2011
q i,c qti,ct 12 (1) q i,cqti,c 2011
N ct c q i,c N ct NctN ct
N c q i,c
N c Nct c
q i,c 22012 (1) qNi,cc q i,c2011 22012
t N
t
2011
2012
2012
N
N
1
1
201112
w
2
N
N
2
cN c2011
cN c
t
t
t
t
1
1
c
t
t
c
c
N
q
q
q
q
c 2011
1 q
2011
q i,c
c i,c
q i,c (1) i,c q i,c
2012 w
(1)
average
0q i,c w tc 2005
N c2005
N c2006
i,c
i,c
t
t
t
weighted
i,c
2006
2005
2006
2
2discounted-past
N c q i,c
Nc2012
N c
NN0506
t 1
t
average
sample-size
c N1
20112
2012
Nweighted
2
q
(1)
q i,c
q
c c
c q i,cN c q i,c
i,c
2005
2006
2005
N
N
i,c
Nt ct
c
t
t 2011
t
1
1N c (1)2 2012
2012
2 qNi,ctc N c c
N c N c2006
q
q
q
2011
2012
q
discounted-past weighted average
0
1
w
wc
w
i,c
i,c
i,c
t
t
t
t
i,c
c
2005
sample-size
weighted
Ncc N 22006 2012
N c 2006
Nc
N c N c
2011
2011
1
1 2 averageN c N2005
c q
c q
2006 2 1
1
qi,c2012
20052011
q i,c q 2005
q 201112 0506
i,c
i,c q
N2012discounted-past
N20122006
weighting
1 (1)
(1)
q
1 N2011isthe
2005
2006
2006
In Equationi,c (3), qthe
component
of
the
weighted
The
second
component
i,c
i,c 2scheme
i,cN
i,c
2005c2005
2006 q2005
2005c2006 2006 average.
0506
i,c2 first
2011
2012
N
N
c
c
c
c
N cN c wN
N c
q2006
2
q2006
q i,c 1 2 (1) q 2005
0 q2005
1 N2006
N
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
2006
c
t 2005
t w c 2005
c
Nc half-weight
N
N c value
5.85
NN
is the sample-size
weighted
average.
two
The
is 0.6, which
c2005 0.543
q i,c 1 12 are
q i,cfor
c cgiven
c each.
(1)
t components
weighted
q i,cN6.03
5.70
q i,c0506
2006
t q i,cThe
t 0.457
t c2006
1 2 (1)
t t
2005 2005 c2006
discounted-past
average
average
q i,c 2006
q i,ct
t 12 t N c t N
sample-size
q
2
N cq i,c cweighted
N NcqNi,c of
t
2005
2005
c 2012
corresponds i,ctoq i,c0506
a discount
factor
of
That
score
of ccountry
is
the
N2005
given
N
N ct c20052/3
2 1 (1)
q2011
q i,c2006 given to the 2012
t is,q i,ctheN2 2011
weight
c
c 2011 2006 N
c
i,c
i,c
N c q2/3.
c
t
t
t N N c N
N c2012
1
1
2005
2006
N c2006
2
2
N
2011 q
2012
2011
2012
1
1
201112
c
c
c
q
q
qOne
q i,ct t (1)
score.
additional
characteristic
of
this
approach
is
that
it
prevents
a
country
sample
that
is
much
one yearNfrom
i,c
i,c
t q6.03
t 5.70
t 1
0.543
0.457
0506
5.85 i,c 2011
c
2011
q i,cN
N
q i,c i,c 2 (1)
2005q i,c
2006
2006
1 q i,c N c larger inq 2005
2012
2012
6.03
N c
Ni,cct
2
q
q
2c 5.85
N(1)
q i,c
qc5.70
0.543
0.457
2
N
N
N
i,c
i,c
i,c
2005
2006
2005
i,c
c
c
c
c
overwhelming the smaller sample
from the other
2011
2012year. 2
2
N c N c
N c N c2006
0.4572011
6.03 0.5432012
5.70 5.85 t
discounted-past weighted
average
Nc
N ct weighted
The formula
For any
two consecutive
editions
t1 and
t2 of average
the
Survey, country cs final score on
sample-size
t
t
t
t
1 is easily generalized.
2012
6.03 0.543
15.70
q2011
5.85
2005q i,c t
q2006
q i,ct t (1)0.457
i,c q i,c
t
t
N
N c i,c
question
i
is
computed
as
follows:
N c N c c lower bound
N c2005 N ct = Q1
2 1
1011
2012
2011
201112
2005
20062
2006
1011
2012
2011
201112
1
0506
2011
2012
1.5q i,cIQR
qqi,ci,c
qqi,ci,c
qqi,ci,c
q i,c
qi,c 0.543
2005
2006
2006 5.85
qqi,ci,ci,c 2 (1) q i,c 2005
6.03
N
N c
2 N c2006N c0.457
N c20055.70
c
N
c
2005
2006
2005
2006
1
1
0506
2011
bound 2012
= Q3 1.5 IQR
2011
q i,c
2005 10112006t upper
q i,c q i,c
10112005
q i,c q(1)
qi,ci,c2011
2006 q i,c
NQ1
2
N c q
N N
lower
1.5
q i,IQR
N ct
c
q i, 2 bound
q i,c N c t =
t
t
t
1 lower
1
t t
i,c c c
bound
=
Q1
1.5
IQR
q
q
q
(4)
t
i,c
q i,c .
q i,c (1) i,c i,c
t
2006
2 lower
2IQR
N ct N2005
N ct
N c N
2011
2011
upper
bound
=
Q3
1.5
bound
=
Q1
1.5
IQR
0.457
6.03
0.543
5.70
5.85
c
N
NN cc
c
c
2005
2006
2005
2006
1
1
0506
upper
bound
= Q3
1.5 IQR
2005
(1)bound
2011q i,c
q
q
q i,c
q lower
)
)
2011
2012
= Q1
IQR
2011
2012
2012
upper
bound
i,c1.5
1.5
N 20062011 i,c201112
2012
2IQR 2012
N 2005
N 2006 1011 2011201112 q 2012
201112
0.457 6.03 i,c 0.5432 5.70
5.85
2011= Q32011
2012201112
2011
2012N
NN cc2012
NN cc
q i,c1011 q i,c2011
q i,c
i,c
w c q i,c w c q i,c q i,c wc c c q i,c qi,cw c c qqi,ci,c c q i,c q i,c q i,c
t
Nc
q i,c
t
i,c
q i,c2011
2006
N c2005 N t = Q32005 1.5 N cIQR
q5.85
2006
q 6.03 2005
1 0.457
1 upper bound
0.543
5.70
c
(1) q
q
q
t
i,c
2012
Exceptions
22
2011
2006
q i,c0506
i,c
i,c
i,c
2006 t
2006 q i,c
2011
N c
2text, there
2
N c2005
N c2005 Nabove.
q t exceptions
q i,n,c N c2011
2011
2012
c
1011
1011
Nc
As
described
in thelower
are= aQ1
number
to
the
described
In describing
them below, we use
tbound
t
t n=1
t approach
n=1
1.5i,n,cof
IQR
qqi,i,
qqi,ci,c
q
q
(1)
(1)
2011
q
q
NN
NN
i,n,c
i,n,c
2011
2012
i,c
i,c
2012
2011
2012
2011
t
t
actual
yearsrather
than
lettersin
equations
for
the
sake
of
concreteness.
N c
N c2012
N
N
0
1
w
w
0
1
w
w
c
c
N
N
2011
2011
c
c
c
c
c IQR
c
lower bound = Q1 1.5 upper
IQR tbound = Q3 1.5
in 2012, where,
w c no past data exist, the weight applied is
t wc
22
In the case of Survey
questions
that were
introduced
by definition,
N 0.457
N
c
c 5.85
2
2
6.03 0.543 201112
5.70
2011
2012
2011 2011
2012 2012
1011
2012
2011
201112
1011
2012
2011
201112
upper
bound
=
Q3
1.5
IQR
201112
2011
2011
2012
2012
2011
2012
q i,
q i,c1011
(1) simply is qq2012
= qqi,ci,c . The
ww
0 and
w1w
1.ccEquation
qqi,ci,csame
qqi,ci,c wwcc
w
qqi,c
qqi,ci,c2011
wc0
i,ci,c
qqi,ci,cis true for those countries that are newly covered (Gabon,
c
i,ccc
t
t
2012
2012
w c and
w creinstated
Guinea, Liberia,lower
Seychelles,
Sierra
Leone)
and
(Libya)
2011
bound
= Q1
1.5
IQR
N cin 2012. For these countries
N c too we use
q i,
q i,c1011
qqi,c2011
i,c
1011
2012
2011
1011
2012
2011
201112
2011
2012
2011 201112
2012
2012
2012
2011
2011
t qqi,ci,c
t
q
q
q
=
.
2012
2012
q
q
q
N
N
N
N
i,c
i,c
i,c
q
i,c
i,c
i,c
q
cc
2012 IQR
201112
bound
t tupper
2011
2012
2 201112
2011
2012
1
i,ci,c 1
2012
2012
qqci,cci,c2011
N c N c
N c N2011
= Q3 q1.5
c
c
q i,c1011 q i,c2011
2012
20122012
2012
2011
w c2011 2011
qqi,ci,cqthat
q i,c
i,c
i,cthe inter-year
wqqi,ci,c
q i,c 2012
qNi,cNc2011
2012
2011
2012
t countries
t
case
of
failed
robustness
check,
the
weight
applied
is
0
1 and w c 0 , so that
w
w c 1
w
w
w
2011
2011
2011
2011
c
c
c
c
22
NNcc2011
NNcc2012 Inc the
N
N
N
N
cc qqi,n,c
qqi,ci,c
i,n,c cc
NNcc1011 2011
2012
2 that failed the inter-year 2robustness check last year and for
t t 2011
201112
2011
2012
2012 becomes q 201112 = qq 2011
tt simply
n=1
n=1
Equation
(1)
.
In
the
case
of
countries
q
q
(1)
2011
q i,c
i,c (1)
w c qqi,n,c
qi,n,ci,c w c qqi,ci,c q i,c t t
i,ci,c
i,c q 1011
2011 i,c q2012
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
t
IQR
sample-size weighted
weightedNaverage
average
i,c
NNcc
NNSurvey
lower
2011
1.5
0
1with those
wthem
w c 1
wc
t sample-size
cc i,
2011 = Q1
2011
q i,c
c
c
data
werebound
discarded,
we
use
the
data
from 2010 instead, wand
combine
of02012 to
Nwhich
cc
2011the 2011N
w
w
t t c NNt 2011
q
c
c
i,c
2010,2012
2010
2010
2012
2012
2011
Ncc
N
q cc 2012
t
22 IQR
upper
bound
Q3becomes
1.5
compute
the scores.
Equation
(1)
q i,c
w c q i,c w c q i,c .
(1)
N c=then
(1) t
t i,n,c
ti,c
2011
2012
2011
2012
N2011
c
qqi,n,c
(1) 2011 1 2012
q i,c NNcn=1
N
N
N c20112012 2012 1011
N c2012
c
2011
2011
201112
2011
t NNcc
c
c
201112
2011
2011
2012
2012
2011
2012
2011
20122011
2012
t
1
1
201112
201112
2011
t t q
q i,c 2012
wwcc
2012 qqi,ci,c q
q i,c qqi,ci,c2011q i,c 2011
2012
i,c
q(1)
w c q i,c2011q i,c2012q i,cq i,c 1 q
c q i,c
q i,c
q i,cN c Nc N c (1)
N c i,n,c
w
2011
2012
2011
i,c
tt w
tt 2011
i,c w
t
c
c
t
N
N
n=1
N c
N c N c
N c2012
(1)
w
t
2
2
2
2
N
N
2
2
N
cc
N
N
N
N
c
q
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
q
t
t
t
t
1
1
i,n,c
2012
i,c
2N c2011
2011
2012
tt
2012
N c
Example
qqi,ci,c
q i,c2011
NNNc 2011
t2011
t
Nqqi,ci,cct
NNcc
NNcctt 2012
N
22t
NNcctt
NNcc
discounted-past
weighted
average
discounted-past
weighted average
cc
2012
2012
2011
2012
2012
2011
t
wNccc
2012
sample-size weighted average
sample-size weighted average
t
0
1
w
w
w
0
1
w
w
w
q
Ntc
N
c
c
c
c 2012
c
i,c
NNcc
cc
2
wc
t
2011
N c the score22of Australia for indicator 6.01
2011
For
on
the intensity of local competition,
which is not a newly
2012
q
2011
2012this example, we compute
i,n,c
N
c
t
NNcc
NNcc
2011
2012
2011
2012
t
t
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012 20112011
20112012
last
00
wc2011
11 either this(1)
wwcc t
q i,c n=1
i,n,c w
introduced question.
Australia
did not
fail theqinter-year
robustness
test
year or
Therefore, the general
2011year.2012
c
wwwccc
N c wwccN
N11
00 Also,
cc2012
2012
N c N c
c c
ww
N
2011
0
1
w
w
w
222005
c
c
c
c
t
t
t
(1) applies.
Australias
score
was
6.03
in
2011
and
5.70
in
2012.
The
weighting
scheme
described
above
w
t
2011
2012
2005 case of Equation 2006
2006
c
N
N
N
N ct
NNcc
NNcc
2011
N c 22012
2011
2012
t t
tc
t
t
1
1 c 2
t
t t 2011 1t
t N c 1
2011
2012t c
2012
c 2011
2005
2006
2005
2006
2012
2012 q t N
11
0
1
q
q
q
q
q
q
w
w
0
1
w
w
(1)
(1)
q i,c
q
N
N
N
N
indicates
how
the
two
scores
are
combined.
In
Australia,
the
size
of
the
sample
was
72
in
2011
and
68
in
2012.
Using
= 0.6
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
c
c
q
q
q
q
c
c
i,c
w112011 0
i,ci,c11 w c2005
c c i,cw 2012
2011 i,c
2012
2011
2012
2012
201112
201112
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
c
2 2011
Nc c 2012
N qqi,c2012
N c 2 N c N c N c
N c N ct
211qqi,c2011
w c2012
NNqcqc2006
NN
qqi,c2011
i,c
(1)
NN(1)
q2qi,ci,c
w cc
0 2011
22
NNcc2005
i,c
i,c
i,c
2011
2012
2011 c
2012c
2
i,ci,c
cc
c
c
tNN
22
22
NNc cw
NNc c NNc c
2012
cc
2011
2012
c
2011
2012
Nc
1
wc
w 0
NNc2011
NNc2012
c
c average
2012
2011
2012
1
2012
2011
2012c
2011
2012
1
1
discounted-past
weighted
average
discounted-past
weighted
(Contd.)
2011
2012
Nsample-size
sample-size
weighted
average
2011
201112
weighted
average
qqi,ci,c 1
qqi,ci,c 2012
N qc qi,ci,c
2011
c
2011 2011 2012
2012
2012
2011
2012
N c N c
1 NN 2012
(Contd.)
2012
2012
2011
Nc c
Nc c2011
2011
q i,c N
22(1)NN
c c 2011
c c q i,cN
q5.85
2012 q i,c
2012 q i,c
00
5.85
i,c
0
w c 1
w
w
c
c
2
2
N c N2011
Nc
N c N2012
Nc
2005
2006
2005
2
c
c
2011
2012
2011
2012
1
1
201112
eighted
average
N
Nc
N c2006
weighted average
2006
2005
2005c
2006
2005
2006
1 Nc
q 2005
sample-size
weighted
average
sample-size
q weighted
q
average
1 2011 (1)
q i,c (1)
2012 1 q i,c
2011
q1i,cN
qwi,c2006
discounted-pasti,c weighted averagei,c
c2011
(1) q i,c2005 2006q i,cq i,c
qi,ci,c weighted
q0i,c w20052012 12006 q i,c
q i,c0506
q i,c0506
N c2012sample-size
2005
2006
2005 2006
2
2 2N
N
average
c
c
N c
c
c
2
N
N
N
N
2
2
N
N
tt
tt
c
c
c
c
c
c
NNc c
NNc c
tt
tt
tt
tt
11 sample-size
11 weighted
t tt
tt
(1)average
weighted
qqi,ci,c
qqi,ci,c
qqaverage
qqi,ci,c
(1)
qqi,cti,cdiscounted-past
t
t
t
i,ci,c
22
NNctc NNctc
NNc c NNctc
22
N c2011
N c2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
1
1
201112
tt
tt
q
q
q
(1)
q i,c
q
N
N
N
N
i,c
i,c
i,c
2011
2012
2011
i,c
c
c
c
c
0.457 6.03 t0.543 25.70 0.457
5.85 6.03 0.543 5.70 5.85
tt
2
N c N c
N c N c2012
qq t t 11
qqi,cti,ct t t t 1 t t Report
N ct
Nc
Competitiveness
qqi,ci,c 20122013
76 | tThe
Global
tt t
t
QR
t
t
t t i,ci,c 1
NN
NNc c
NNc c
2012q i,c
2011
2012
qci,cc q i,cNNc c
q2011
q i,c 22 (1)
i,c
discounted-past
Forum weighted average
2
N ct NNt ct
N ct NNt ct 2012 World Economic
sample-size weighted average
QR t t 21
c
c
t
t
t
t
1
q
q
q
q
2005
2006
2005
2006
2012
2012
cc
2011
2011
2012
cc2012
cc
NN
22
11
11
212
11
22
22
11
11
2
11 22
22
22
22
11
22
11
11
22
22
11
22
22
11
22
11
22
11
11
q i,ct t
1
N ct
N ct
t
t
t
t
1
1
(1) q i,c q i,c
q i,c t
q i,c
t
t
2
N c N c
N c N ct
2
N c2005
N c2006
2005
2005
1
1
q i,c2006
q i,c2006
2005
applying
(1)
q i,c (2a)
weights
q percent
q i,c0506
and
Equations
and
(2b)yields
of
for
2011
and
54.3 percent for 2012 (see Table 1). The final
i,c
2005
200645.7
2
2
N c N c
N c N c2006
country score for this question is given by Equation (1):
2012
This is the final score used in the computation of the GCI and reported in Table 6.01 (see page 450). Although numbers
are rounded to two decimal places in this example and to one decimal place in the data tables, exact figures are used in all
calculations.
1011
qupper
i,c
bound = Q3 1.5 IQR
q i,
201112
q i,c
2011
wc
2011
q i,c
2012
wc
q i,c1011 q i,c2011
q i,c2012
q i,c201112
2012
q i,c
q i,c2011
t
t
qthey
Nc
i,c
contain more
updated information. That is, we also
t
2011
q i,n,c
N c weights
t
t past.
discount
the
Table1 reports
the exact
n=1
q i,n,c
(1)
q i,c
2011
N c2012
N ceach
N ct
2011 scores of
used
in the computation
ofw cthe
country,
t
Nc
2
Part 2
Data Presentation
2.1
Country/Economy Profiles
The Country/Economy Profiles section presents a twopage profile for each of the 144 economies covered in
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013.
Albania
Key indicators, 2011
Albania
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
PAGE 1
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Key indicators
The first section presents a selection of key indicators for
the economy under review:
Factor
driven
3
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Albania
Efficiency-driven economies
Transition
23
2
Efficiency
driven
Transition
12
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Albania
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
PAGE 2
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
This page details the countrys performance on each
of the indicators entering the composition of the GCI.
Indicators are organized by pillar. For indicators entering
at the GCI in two different pillars, only the first instance is
shown on this page.
INDICATOR, UNITS: This column contains the
title of each indicator and, where relevant, the units
in which it is measuredfor example, days or
% GDP. Indicators that are not derived from the
Survey are identified by an asterisk (*). Indicators
derived from the Survey are always expressed
as scores on a 17 scale, with 7 being the most
desirable outcome.
VALUE: This column reports the countrys score on
each indicator.
RANK/144: This column reports the countrys
position among the 144 economies covered by
the GCI 20122013. The ranks of those indicators
that constitute a notable competitive advantage
are highlighted in blue bold typeface (except for
inflation). Competitive advantages are defined as
follows:
For those economies ranked in the top 10 in the
overall GCI, individual indicators ranked from 1
through 10 are considered to be advantages.
For instance, in the case of Germanywhich is
ranked 6th overallits 7th rank on indicator 1.06
Judicial independence makes this indicator a
competitive advantage.
INDICATOR
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
VALUE RANK/144
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 87
Country/Economy
Page
Country/Economy
Page
Country/Economy
Page
Albania
86
Guatemala
182
Nigeria
278
Algeria
88
Guinea
184
Norway
280
Argentina
90
Guyana
186
Oman
282
Armenia
92
Haiti
188
Pakistan
284
Australia
94
Honduras
190
Panama
286
Austria
96
192
Paraguay
288
Azerbaijan
98
Hungary
194
Peru
290
Bahrain
100
Iceland
196
Philippines
292
Bangladesh
102
India
198
Poland
294
Barbados
104
Indonesia
200
Portugal
296
Belgium
106
202
Puerto Rico
298
Benin
108
Ireland
204
Qatar
300
Bolivia
110
Israel
206
Romania
302
112
Italy
208
Russian Federation
304
Botswana
114
Jamaica
210
Rwanda
306
Brazil
116
Japan
212
Saudi Arabia
308
Brunei Darussalam
118
Jordan
214
Senegal
310
Bulgaria
120
Kazakhstan
216
Serbia
312
Burkina Faso
122
Kenya
218
Seychelles
314
Burundi
124
Korea, Rep.
220
Sierra Leone
316
Cambodia
126
Kuwait
222
Singapore
318
Cameroon
128
Kyrgyz Republic
224
Slovak Republic
320
Canada
130
Latvia
226
Slovenia
322
Cape Verde
132
Lebanon
228
South Africa
324
Chad
134
Lesotho
230
Spain
326
Chile
136
Liberia
232
Sri Lanka
328
China
138
Libya
234
Suriname
330
Colombia
140
Lithuania
236
Swaziland
332
Costa Rica
142
Luxembourg
238
Sweden
334
Cte dIvoire
144
Macedonia, FYR
240
Switzerland
336
Croatia
146
Madagascar
242
Taiwan, China
338
Cyprus
148
Malawi
244
Tajikistan
340
Czech Republic
150
Malaysia
246
Tanzania
342
Denmark
152
Mali
248
Thailand
344
Dominican Republic
154
Malta
250
Timor-Leste
346
Ecuador
156
Mauritania
252
348
Egypt
158
Mauritius
254
Turkey
350
El Salvador
160
Mexico
256
Uganda
352
Estonia
162
Moldova
258
Ukraine
354
Ethiopia
164
Mongolia
260
356
Finland
166
Montenegro
262
United Kingdom
358
France
168
Morocco
264
United States
360
Gabon
170
Mozambique
266
Uruguay
362
Gambia, The
172
Namibia
268
Venezuela
364
Georgia
174
Nepal
270
Vietnam
366
Germany
176
Netherlands
272
Yemen
368
Ghana
178
New Zealand
274
Zambia
370
Greece
180
Nicaragua
276
Zimbabwe
372
Albania
Key indicators, 2011
Albania
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Albania
Efficiency-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Albania
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 87
2012 World Economic Forum
Algeria
Key indicators, 2011
Algeria
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Algeria
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Algeria
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 89
2012 World Economic Forum
Argentina
Key indicators, 2011
Argentina
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Argentina
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Argentina
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 91
2012 World Economic Forum
Armenia
Key indicators, 2011
Armenia
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Armenia
Efficiency-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Armenia
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 93
2012 World Economic Forum
Australia
Key indicators, 2011
Australia
40,000
Advanced economies
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Australia
Innovation-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Australia
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 95
2012 World Economic Forum
Austria
Key indicators, 2011
Austria
40,000
Advanced economies
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Austria
Innovation-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Austria
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 97
2012 World Economic Forum
Azerbaijan
Key indicators, 2011
Azerbaijan
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Azerbaijan
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Azerbaijan
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 99
2012 World Economic Forum
Bahrain
Key indicators, 2011
Bahrain
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Bahrain
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Bahrain
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 101
2012 World Economic Forum
Bangladesh
Key indicators, 2011
Bangladesh
6,000
Developing Asia
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Transition
23
Factor
driven
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Bangladesh
Factor-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Bangladesh
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 103
2012 World Economic Forum
Barbados
Key indicators, 2011
Barbados
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Barbados
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Barbados
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 105
2012 World Economic Forum
Belgium
Key indicators, 2011
Belgium
40,000
Advanced economies
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Belgium
Innovation-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Belgium
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 107
2012 World Economic Forum
Benin
Key indicators, 2011
Benin
2,500
Sub-Saharan Africa
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Benin
Factor-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Benin
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 109
2012 World Economic Forum
Bolivia
Key indicators, 2011
Bolivia
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Bolivia
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Bolivia
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 111
2012 World Economic Forum
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Efficiency-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 113
2012 World Economic Forum
Botswana
Key indicators, 2011
Botswana
20,000
Sub-Saharan Africa
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Botswana
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Botswana
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 115
2012 World Economic Forum
Brazil
Key indicators, 2011
Brazil
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Brazil
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Brazil
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 117
2012 World Economic Forum
Brunei Darussalam
Key indicators, 2011
Brunei Darussalam
60,000
Developing Asia
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Transition
23
Factor
driven
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Brunei Darussalam
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Brunei Darussalam
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 119
2012 World Economic Forum
Bulgaria
Key indicators, 2011
Bulgaria
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Bulgaria
Efficiency-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Bulgaria
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 121
2012 World Economic Forum
Burkina Faso
Key indicators, 2011
Burkina Faso
2,500
Sub-Saharan Africa
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Transition
23
Factor
driven
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Burkina Faso
Factor-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Burkina Faso
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 123
2012 World Economic Forum
Burundi
Key indicators, 2011
Burundi
2,500
Sub-Saharan Africa
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Transition
23
Factor
driven
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Burundi
Factor-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Burundi
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 125
2012 World Economic Forum
Cambodia
Key indicators, 2011
Cambodia
6,000
Developing Asia
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Transition
23
Factor
driven
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Cambodia
Factor-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Cambodia
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 127
2012 World Economic Forum
Cameroon
Key indicators, 2011
Cameroon
2,500
Sub-Saharan Africa
2,000
1,500
1,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Transition
23
Factor
driven
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Cameroon
Factor-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Cameroon
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles on page 83.
The Global Competitiveness Report 20122013 | 129
2012 World Economic Forum
Canada
Key indicators, 2011
Canada
40,000
Advanced economies
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Stage of development
Score
(17)
Transition
12
Factor
driven
Transition
23
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
Institutions
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Canada
Innovation-driven economies
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note:
From the list of factors above, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
25
30
Canada
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/144
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05