top-rated free essay

Global Competitive Report

By Kondorboglarka Jan 20, 2013 64433 Words
Insight Report

The Global
Competitiveness Report
2012–2013
Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum

Insight Report

The Global
Competitiveness Report
2012–2013
Full Data Edition

Professor Klaus Schwab
World Economic Forum
Editor
Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martín
Columbia University
Chief Advisor of The Global Benchmarking Network

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–20013:
Full Data Edition is published by the World Economic
Forum within the framework of The Global
Benchmarking Network.

World Economic Forum
Geneva

Professor Klaus Schwab
Executive Chairman

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

Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martín
Chief Advisor of The Global Benchmarking Network
Børge Brende
Managing Director, Government Relations and
Constituents Engagement

THE GLOBAL BENCHMARKING NETWORK

Jennifer Blanke, Senior Director,
Lead Economist, Head of The Global
Benchmarking Network
Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Associate Director,
Senior Economist
Ciara Browne, Associate Director
Roberto Crotti, Quantitative Economist
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Director, Senior
Economist, Head of Competitiveness Research
Brindusa Fidanza, Associate Director,
Environmental Initiatives
Thierry Geiger, Associate Director, Economist
Tania Gutknecht, Community Manager
Caroline Ko, Junior Economist
Cecilia Serin, Team Coordinator

We thank Hope Steele for her excellent editing work and
Neil Weinberg for his superb graphic design and layout.
We are grateful to Annabel Guinault for her invaluable
research assistance.
The terms country and nation as used in this report do
not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law and practice. The
terms cover well-defined, geographically self-contained
economic areas that may not be states but for which
statistical data are maintained on a separate and
independent basis.

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

v
xiii

by Klaus Schwab

Part 2: Data Presentation

79

2.1 Country/Economy Profiles

81

How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles ..................................83 Index of Countries/Economies ........................................................85 Country/Economy Profiles ..............................................................86

Part 1: Measuring Competitiveness
1.1 The Global Competitiveness Index
2012–2013: Strengthening Recovery by
Raising Productivity

1
3

2.2 Data Tables

375

How to Read the Data Tables .......................................................377 Index of Data Tables .....................................................................379 Data Tables ..................................................................................381

by Xavier Sala-i-Martín, Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Jennifer

Technical Notes and Sources

519

About the Authors

523

Acknowledgments

Blanke, Roberto Crotti, Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz,

527

Thierry Geiger, and Caroline Ko

1.2 Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness
of Nations

49

by Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Jennifer Blanke, Roberto Crotti,
Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Brindusa Fidanza, Thierry
Geiger, Caroline Ko, and Cecilia Serin

1.3 The Executive Opinion Survey: The Voice
of the Business Community

69

by Ciara Browne, Thierry Geiger, and Tania Gutknecht

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | iii

Partner Institutes

The World Economic Forum’s Global Benchmarking
Network is pleased to acknowledge and thank
the following organizations as its valued Partner
Institutes, without which the realization of The Global
Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 would not have
been feasible:
Albania
Institute for Contemporary Studies (ISB)
Artan Hoxha, President
Elira Jorgoni, Senior Expert
Endrit Kapaj, Expert
Algeria
Centre de Recherche en Economie Appliquée pour
le Développement (CREAD)
Youcef Benabdallah, Assistant Professor
Yassine Ferfera, Director
Argentina
IAE—Universidad 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
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
CAPOD—Conception et Analyse de Politiques de
Développement
Epiphane Adjovi, Director
Maria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy Coordinator
Fructueux Deguenonvo, Researcher
Bosnia and Herzegovina
MIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,
University of Sarajevo
Zlatko Lagumdzija, Professor
Zeljko Sain, Executive Director
Jasmina Selimovic, Assistant Director
Botswana
Botswana National Productivity Centre
Letsogile Batsetswe, Research Consultant and Statistician
Baeti Molake, Executive Director
Phumzile Thobokwe, Manager, Information and Research
Services Department
Brazil
Fundação Dom Cabral, Bradesco Innovation Center
Carlos Arruda, International Relations Director, Innovation
and Competitiveness Professor
Daniel Berger, Bachelor Student in Economics
Fabiana Madsen, Economist and Associate Researcher
Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC)
Carolina Aichinger, Project Coordinator
Erik Camarano, Chief Executive Officer
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 Supérieure des Sciences de la Population (ISSP),
University of Ouagadougou
Baya Banza, Director

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | v

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
Comité de Compétitivité (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 RESEARCH—Investigação e Desenvolvimento, Lda
Júlio Delgado, Partner and Senior Researcher
José Mendes, Chief Executive Officer
Sara França Silva, Project Manager
Chad
Groupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring du Projet Pétrole-Tchad-Cameroun (GRAMP-TC)
Antoine Doudjidingao, Researcher
Gilbert Maoundonodji, Director
Celine Nénodji Mbaipeur, Programme Officer
Chile
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
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 Rodríguez, Coordinator, Competitiveness Observatory
Javier Villarreal, Enterprise Development Director
Colombian Private Council on Competitiveness
Rosario Córdoba, President
Marco Llinás, Vicepresident
Côte d’Ivoire
Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Côte d’Ivoire
Jean-Louis Billon, President
Mamadou Sarr, Director General
Croatia
National Competitiveness Council
Jadranka Gable, Advisor
Kresimir Jurlin, Research Fellow

vi | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Cyprus
The European University
Bambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic and
Academic Research
cdbbank—The 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
Politécnica 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 Pärna, Chief Executive Officer
Ethiopia
African Institute of Management, Development and
Governance
Zebenay Kifle, General Manager
Tegenge Teka, Senior Expert
Finland
ETLA—The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
Markku Kotilainen, Research Director
Petri Rouvinen, Research Director
Pekka Ylä-Anttila, Managing Director
France
HEC School of Management, Paris
Bertrand Moingeon, Professor and Deputy Dean
Bernard Ramanantsoa, Professor and Dean
Gabon
Confédération 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
WHU—Otto 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
Greece
SEV Hellenic Federation of Enterprises
Michael Mitsopoulos, Senior Advisor, Entrepreneurship
Thanasis Printsipas, Economist, Entrepreneurship
Guatemala
FUNDESA
Felipe Bosch G., President of the Board of Directors
Pablo Schneider, Economic Director
Juan Carlos Zapata, General Manager
Guinea
Confédération Patronale des Entreprises de Guinée
Mohamed Bénogo Conde, Secretary-General
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
Hong Kong SAR
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
David O’Rear, Chief Economist
Federation of Hong Kong Industries
Alexandra Poon, Director
The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce
Hungary
KOPINT-TÁRKI Economic Research Ltd.
Éva Palócz, Chief Executive Officer
Peter Vakhal, Project Manager
Iceland
Innovation Center Iceland
Ardis Armannsdottir, Marketing Manager
Karl Fridriksson, Managing Director of Human Resources
and Marketing
Thorsteinn I. Sigfusson, Director
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

Ireland
Institute for Business Development and Competitiveness
School of Economics, University College Cork
Justin Doran, Principal Associate
Eleanor Doyle, Director
Catherine Kavanagh, Principal Associate
Forfás, 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
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
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
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
Keizai Doyukai (Japan Association of Corporate Executives)
Kiyohiko Ito, Managing Director, Keizai Doyukai
Jordan
Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation
Jordan National Competitiveness Team
Kawther Al-Zou’bi, 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
Kenya
Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi
Mohamud Jama, Director and Associate Research Professor
Paul Kamau, Senior Research Fellow
Dorothy McCormick, Research Professor
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

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | vii

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 Appliquée et
Théorique (GREAT)
Massa Coulibaly, Executive Director

viii | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Malta
Competitive Malta—Foundation for National Competitiveness
Margrith Lutschg-Emmenegger, Vice President
Adrian Said, Chief Coordinator
Caroline Sciortino, Research Coordinator
Mauritania
Centre d’Information Mauritanien pour le Développement
Economique et Technique (CIMDET/CCIAM)
Lô 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
René 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
Comité National de l’Environnement 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 Análisis y Difusión de Economia Paraguaya
(CADEP)
Dionisio Borda, Research Member
Fernando Masi, Director
María Belén Servín, Research Member
Peru
Centro de Desarrollo Industrial (CDI), Sociedad Nacional
de Industrias
Néstor 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
Jarosław T. Jakubik, Deputy Director

Portugal
PROFORUM, Associação para o Desenvolvimento da
Engenharia
Ilídio António de Ayala Serôdio, Vice President of the Board of Directors
Fórum 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 Appliquées (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

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | ix

Partner Institutes

Slovenia
Institute for Economic Research
Peter Stanovnik, Professor
Sonja Uršic, Senior Research Assistant
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Mateja Drnovšek, Professor
Aleš 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
María Luisa Blázquez, Research Associate
Antoni Subirà, 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)
Rubén Rodriguez Startz, Head of Project
Tobias Trütsch, 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

x | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

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 d’Entreprises
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
CONAPRI—The 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 Macwan’gi, 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

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | xi

Preface
KLAUS SCHWAB

Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 is being
released amid a long period of economic uncertainty.
The tentative recovery that seemed to be gaining ground
during 2010 and the first half of 2011 has given way
to renewed concerns. The global economy faces a
number of significant and interrelated challenges that
could hamper a genuine upturn after an economic crisis
half a decade long in much of the world, especially
in the most advanced economies. The persisting
financial difficulties in the periphery of the euro zone
have led to a long-lasting and unresolved sovereign
debt crisis that has now reached the boiling point. The
possibility of Greece and perhaps other countries leaving
the euro is now a distinct prospect, with potentially
devastating consequences for the region and beyond.
This development is coupled with the risk of a weak
recovery in several other advanced economies outside
of Europe—notably in the United States, where political
gridlock on fiscal tightening could dampen the growth
outlook. Furthermore, given the expected slowdown in
economic growth in China, India, and other emerging
markets, reinforced by a potential decline in global trade
and volatile capital flows, it is not clear which regions
can drive growth and employment creation in the short
to medium term.
Policymakers are struggling to find ways to
cooperate and manage the current economic challenges
while preparing their economies to perform well in an
increasingly difficult and unpredictable global landscape.
Amid the short-term crisis management, it remains
critical for countries to establish the fundamentals
that underpin economic growth and development for
the longer term. The World Economic Forum has, for
more than three decades, played a facilitating role in
this process by providing detailed assessments of the
productive potential of nations worldwide. The Report
contributes to an understanding of the key factors that
determine economic growth, helps to explain why some
countries are more successful than others in raising
income levels and opportunities for their respective
populations, and offers policymakers and business
leaders an important tool in the formulation of improved
economic policies and institutional reforms.
The complexity of today’s global economic
environment has made it more important than ever

to recognize and encourage the qualitative as well as
the quantitative aspects of growth, integrating such
concepts as social and environmental sustainability
to provide a fuller picture of what is needed and what
works. In this context, the Forum’s Global Benchmarking
Network has continued to push forward with its research
on how sustainability relates to competitiveness and
economic performance. To this end, Chapter 1.2 of this
Report presents our evolving analysis of how country
competitiveness can be assessed once issues of
social and environmental sustainability are taken into
account. This represents an important area for the World
Economic Forum’s research going forward.
This year’s Report features a record number of
144 economies, and thus continues to be the most
comprehensive assessment of its kind. It contains a
detailed profile for each of the economies included in
the study as well as an extensive section of data tables
with global rankings covering over 100 indicators.
This Report remains the flagship publication within the
Forum’s Global Benchmarking Network, which produces
a number of research studies that mirror the increased
integration and complexity of the world economy.
The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013
could not have been put together without the thought
leadership of Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martín at Columbia
University, who has provided ongoing intellectual
support for our competitiveness research. Further,
this Report would have not been possible without the
commitment and enthusiasm of our network of over 150
Partner Institutes worldwide. The Partner Institutes are
instrumental in carrying out the Executive Opinion Survey
that provides the foundation data of this Report as well
as imparting the results of the Report at the national
level. We would also like to convey our sincere gratitude
to all the business executives around the world who took
the time to participate in our Executive Opinion Survey.
We are also grateful to the members of our Advisory
Board on Competitiveness and Sustainability, who
have provided their valuable time and knowledge to
help us develop the framework on sustainability and
competitiveness presented in this Report: James
Cameron, Chairman, Climate Change Capital; Dan Esty,
Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection; Edwin J. Feulner Jr, President,

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | xiii

Preface

The Heritage Foundation; Clément Gignac, Minister
of Natural Resources and Wildlife of Quebec; Jeni
Klugman, Director for Gender, The World Bank; Marc A.
Levy, Deputy Director, CIESIN, Columbia University; John
McArthur, Senior Fellow, United Nations Foundation;
Kevin X. Murphy, President and Chief Executive Officer,
J.E. Austin Associates Inc.; Mari Elka Pangestu, Minister
of Tourism and Creative Economy of Indonesia; Mark
Spelman, Global Head of Strategy, Accenture; and
Simon Zadek, Senior Visiting Fellow, Global Green
Growth Institute.
Appreciation also goes to Børge Brende, Managing
Director at the Forum, and Jennifer Blanke, Head of
The Global Benchmarking Network, as well as team
members Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Ciara Browne, Roberto
Crotti, Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Thierry Geiger, Tania
Gutknecht, Caroline Ko, and Cecilia Serin. Finally, we
would like to thank the Africa Commission and FedEx,
our partners in this Report, for their support in this
important publication.

xiv |The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Part 1
Measuring Competitiveness

CHAPTER 1.1

The Global
Competitiveness Index
2012–2013: Strengthening
Recovery by Raising
Productivity
XAVIER SALA-I-MARTÍN
BEÑAT BILBAO-OSORIO
JENNIFER BLANKE
ROBERTO CROTTI
MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ
THIERRY GEIGER
CAROLINE KO

World Economic Forum

At the time of releasing The Global Competitiveness
Report 2012–2013, the outlook for the world economy
is once again fragile. Global growth remains historically
low for the second year running with major centers of
economic activity—particularly large emerging economies
and key advanced economies—expected to slow in
2012–13, confirming the belief that the global economy
is troubled by a slow and weak recovery. As in previous
years, growth remains unequally distributed. Emerging
and developing countries are growing faster than
advanced economies, steadily closing the income gap.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates
that, in 2012, the euro zone will have contracted by
0.3 percent, while the United States is experiencing a
weak recovery with an uncertain future. Large emerging
economies such as Brazil, the Russian Federation, India,
China, and South Africa are growing somewhat less
than they did in 2011. At the same time, other emerging
markets—such as developing Asia—will continue to
show robust growth rates, while the Middle East and
North Africa as well as sub-Saharan African countries
are gaining momentum.
Recent developments—such as the danger of a
property bubble in China, a decline in world trade, and
volatile capital flows in emerging markets—could derail
the recovery and have a lasting impact on the global
economy. Arguably, this year’s deceleration to a large
extent reflects the inability of leaders to address the
many challenges that were already present last year.
Policymakers around the world remain concerned
about high unemployment and the social conditions in
their countries. The political brinkmanship in the United
States continues to affect the outlook for the world’s
largest economy, while the sovereign debt crises and
the danger of a banking system meltdown in peripheral
euro zone countries remain unresolved. The high levels
of public debt coupled with low growth, insufficient
competitiveness, and political gridlock in some European
countries stirred financial markets’ concerns about
sovereign default and the very viability of the euro.
Given the complexity and the urgency of the situation,
European countries are facing particularly difficult
economic management decisions with challenging
political and social ramifications. Although European
leaders do not agree on how to address the immediate
challenges, there is recognition that, in the longer term,
stabilizing the euro and putting Europe on a higher
and more sustainable growth path will necessitate
improvements to the competitiveness of the weaker
member states.
All these developments are highly interrelated
and demand timely, decisive, and coordinated action
by policymakers. In light of these uncertain global
ramifications, sustained structural reforms aimed
at enhancing competitiveness will be necessary for

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 3

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

countries to stabilize economic growth and ensure the
rising prosperity of their populations going into the future. Competitive economies drive productivity
enhancements that support high incomes by ensuring
that the mechanisms enabling solid economic
performance are in place.
For more than three decades, the World Economic
Forum’s annual Global Competitiveness Reports
have studied and benchmarked the many factors
underpinning national competitiveness. From the onset,
the goal has been to provide insight and stimulate the
discussion among all stakeholders on the best strategies
and policies to help countries to overcome the obstacles
to improving competitiveness. In the current challenging
economic environment, our work is a critical reminder of
the importance of structural economic fundamentals for
sustained growth.
Since 2005, the World Economic Forum has
based its competitiveness analysis on the Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI), a comprehensive tool that
measures the microeconomic and macroeconomic
foundations of national competitiveness.1
We define competitiveness as the set of institutions,
policies, and factors that determine the level of
productivity of a country. The level of productivity, in
turn, sets the level of prosperity that can be earned by
an economy. The productivity level also determines the
rates of return obtained by investments in an economy,
which in turn are the fundamental drivers of its growth
rates. In other words, a more competitive economy is
one that is likely to sustain growth.
The concept of competitiveness thus involves static
and dynamic components. Although the productivity of
a country determines its ability to sustain a high level of
income, it is also one of the central determinants of its
returns to investment, which is one of the key factors
explaining an economy’s growth potential.
THE 12 PILLARS OF COMPETITIVENESS
Many determinants drive productivity and
competitiveness. Understanding the factors behind
this process has occupied the minds of economists
for hundreds of years, engendering theories ranging
from Adam Smith’s focus on specialization and the
division of labor to neoclassical economists’ emphasis
on investment in physical capital and infrastructure,2
and, more recently, to interest in other mechanisms
such as education and training, technological progress,
macroeconomic stability, good governance, firm
sophistication, and market efficiency, among others.
While all of these factors are likely to be important for
competitiveness and growth, they are not mutually
exclusive—two or more of them can be significant at the
same time, and in fact that is what has been shown in
the economic literature.3

4 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

This open-endedness is captured within the GCI
by including a weighted average of many different
components, each measuring a different aspect of
competitiveness. These components are grouped into 12
pillars of competitiveness (see Figure 1):
First pillar: Institutions
The institutional environment is determined by the legal
and administrative framework within which individuals,
firms, and governments interact to generate wealth. The
importance of a sound and fair institutional environment
became even more apparent during the recent economic
and financial crisis and is especially crucial for further
solidifying the fragile recovery given the increasing role
played by the state at the international level and for the
economies of many countries.
The quality of institutions has a strong bearing on
competitiveness and growth.4 It influences investment
decisions and the organization of production and plays
a key role in the ways in which societies distribute the
benefits and bear the costs of development strategies
and policies. For example, owners of land, corporate
shares, or intellectual property are unwilling to invest in
the improvement and upkeep of their property if their
rights as owners are not protected.5
The role of institutions goes beyond the legal
framework. Government attitudes toward markets
and freedoms and the efficiency of its operations
are also very important: excessive bureaucracy and
red tape,6 overregulation, corruption, dishonesty in
dealing with public contracts, lack of transparency and
trustworthiness, inability to provide appropriate services
for the business sector, and political dependence of
the judicial system impose significant economic costs
to businesses and slow the process of economic
development.
In addition, the proper management of public
finances is also critical to ensuring trust in the national
business environment. Indicators capturing the quality
of government management of public finances are
therefore included here to complement the measures of
macroeconomic stability captured in pillar 3 below.
Although the economic literature has focused mainly
on public institutions, private institutions are also an
important element in the process of creating wealth.
The recent global financial crisis, along with numerous
corporate scandals, have highlighted the relevance of
accounting and reporting standards and transparency
for preventing fraud and mismanagement, ensuring good
governance, and maintaining investor and consumer
confidence. An economy is well served by businesses
that are run honestly, where managers abide by strong
ethical practices in their dealings with the government,
other firms, and the public at large.7 Private-sector
transparency is indispensable to business, and can be
brought about through the use of standards as well as

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

auditing and accounting practices that ensure access to
information in a timely manner.8
Second pillar: Infrastructure
Extensive and efficient infrastructure is critical for
ensuring the effective functioning of the economy, as
it is an important factor in determining the location of
economic activity and the kinds of activities or sectors
that can develop in a particular instance. Well-developed
infrastructure reduces the effect of distance between
regions, integrating the national market and connecting it
at low cost to markets in other countries and regions. In
addition, the quality and extensiveness of infrastructure
networks significantly impact economic growth and
reduce income inequalities and poverty in a variety of
ways.9 A well-developed transport and communications
infrastructure network is a prerequisite for the access of
less-developed communities to core economic activities
and services.
Effective modes of transport—including quality
roads, railroads, ports, and air transport—enable
entrepreneurs to get their goods and services to
market in a secure and timely manner and facilitate
the movement of workers to the most suitable jobs.
Economies also depend on electricity supplies that are
free of interruptions and shortages so that businesses
and factories can work unimpeded. Finally, a solid
and extensive telecommunications network allows for
a rapid and free flow of information, which increases
overall economic efficiency by helping to ensure that
businesses can communicate and decisions are made
by economic actors taking into account all available
relevant information.
Third pillar: Macroeconomic environment
The stability of the macroeconomic environment is
important for business and, therefore, is important for
the overall competitiveness of a country.10 Although
it is certainly true that macroeconomic stability alone
cannot increase the productivity of a nation, it is also
recognized that macroeconomic instability harms the
economy, as we have seen over the past years, notably
in the European context. The government cannot
provide services efficiently if it has to make high-interest payments on its past debts. Running fiscal deficits limits
the government’s future ability to react to business
cycles and to invest in competitiveness-enhancing
measures. Firms cannot operate efficiently when inflation
rates are out of hand. In sum, the economy cannot grow
in a sustainable manner unless the macro environment
is stable. Macroeconomic stability has captured the
attention of the public most recently when some
European countries needed the support of the IMF and
other euro zone economies to prevent sovereign default,
as their public debt reached unsustainable levels.

It is important to note that this pillar evaluates
the stability of the macroeconomic environment, so it
does not directly take into account the way in which
public accounts are managed by the government. This
qualitative dimension is captured in the institutions pillar described above.
Fourth pillar: Health and primary education
A healthy workforce is vital to a country’s
competitiveness and productivity. Workers who are
ill cannot function to their potential and will be less
productive. Poor health leads to significant costs to
business, as sick workers are often absent or operate at
lower levels of efficiency. Investment in the provision of
health services is thus critical for clear economic, as well as moral, considerations.11
In addition to health, this pillar takes into account the
quantity and quality of the basic education received by
the population. Basic education increases the efficiency
of each individual worker. Moreover, workers who have
received little formal education can carry out only simple
manual tasks and find it much more difficult to adapt to
more advanced production processes and techniques,
and therefore contribute less to come up with or execute
innovations. In other words, lack of basic education
can become a constraint on business development,
with firms finding it difficult to move up the value chain
by producing more sophisticated or value-intensive
products with existing human resources.
For the longer term, it will be essential to avoid
significant reductions in resource allocation to these
critical areas, in spite of the fact that government
budgets will need to be cut to reduce the deficits and
debt burden.
Fifth pillar: Higher education and training
Quality higher education and training is particularly
crucial for economies that want to move up the value
chain beyond simple production processes and
products.12 In particular, today’s globalizing economy
requires countries to nurture pools of well-educated
workers who are able to perform complex tasks and
adapt rapidly to their changing environment and the
evolving needs of the economy. This pillar measures
secondary and tertiary enrollment rates as well as
the quality of education as evaluated by the business
community. The extent of staff training is also taken into
consideration because of the importance of vocational
and continuous on-the-job training—which is neglected
in many economies—for ensuring a constant upgrading
of workers’ skills.
Sixth pillar: Goods market efficiency
Countries with efficient goods markets are well
positioned to produce the right mix of products and
services given their particular supply-and-demand

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 5

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

conditions, as well as to ensure that these goods can
be most effectively traded in the economy. Healthy
market competition, both domestic and foreign, is
important in driving market efficiency and thus business
productivity by ensuring that the most efficient firms,
producing goods demanded by the market, are those
that thrive. The best possible environment for the
exchange of goods requires a minimum of impediments
to business activity through government intervention. For
example, competitiveness is hindered by distortionary or
burdensome taxes and by restrictive and discriminatory
rules on foreign direct investment (FDI)—limiting foreign
ownership—as well as on international trade. The
recent economic crisis has highlighted the degree of
interdependence of economies worldwide and the
degree to which growth depends on open markets.
Protectionist measures are counterproductive as they
reduce aggregate economic activity.
Market efficiency also depends on demand
conditions such as customer orientation and buyer
sophistication. For cultural or historical reasons,
customers may be more demanding in some countries
than in others. This can create an important competitive
advantage, as it forces companies to be more innovative
and customer-oriented and thus imposes the discipline
necessary for efficiency to be achieved in the market.
Seventh pillar: Labor market efficiency
The efficiency and flexibility of the labor market are
critical for ensuring that workers are allocated to their
most effective use in the economy and provided with
incentives to give their best effort in their jobs. Labor
markets must therefore have the flexibility to shift
workers from one economic activity to another rapidly
and at low cost, and to allow for wage fluctuations
without much social disruption.13 The importance of
well-functioning labor markets has been dramatically
highlighted by last year’s events in Arab countries, where rigid labor markets were an important cause of high
youth unemployment, sparking social unrest in Tunisia
that then spread across the region. Youth unemployment
is also high in a number of European countries, where
important barriers to entry into the labor market remain
in place.
Efficient labor markets must also ensure a clear
relationship between worker incentives and their
efforts to promote meritocracy at the workplace, and
they must provide equity in the business environment
between women and men. Taken together these factors
have a positive effect on worker performance and the
attractiveness of the country for talent, two aspects that
are growing more important as talent shortages loom on
the horizon.

6 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Eighth pillar: Financial market development
The recent economic crisis has highlighted the central
role of a sound and well-functioning financial sector
for economic activities. An efficient financial sector
allocates the resources saved by a nation’s citizens, as
well as those entering the economy from abroad, to their
most productive uses. It channels resources to those
entrepreneurial or investment projects with the highest
expected rates of return rather than to the politically
connected. A thorough and proper assessment of risk is
therefore a key ingredient of a sound financial market.
Business investment is also critical to productivity.
Therefore economies require sophisticated financial
markets that can make capital available for private-sector
investment from such sources as loans from a sound
banking sector, well-regulated securities exchanges,
venture capital, and other financial products. In order to
fulfill all those functions, the banking sector needs to be
trustworthy and transparent, and—as has been made
so clear recently—financial markets need appropriate
regulation to protect investors and other actors in the
economy at large.
Ninth pillar: Technological readiness
In today’s globalized world, technology is increasingly
essential for firms to compete and prosper. The
technological readiness pillar measures the agility with
which an economy adopts existing technologies to
enhance the productivity of its industries, with specific
emphasis on its capacity to fully leverage information
and communication technologies (ICT) in daily activities
and production processes for increased efficiency
and enabling innovation for competitiveness.14 ICT has
evolved into the “general purpose technology” of our
time,15 given the critical spillovers to the other economic
sectors and their role as industry-wide enabling
infrastructure. Therefore ICT access and usage are key
enablers of countries’ overall technological readiness.
Whether the technology used has or has not
been developed within national borders is irrelevant
for its ability to enhance productivity. The central
point is that the firms operating in the country need
to have access to advanced products and blueprints
and the ability to absorb and use them. Among the
main sources of foreign technology, FDI often plays
a key role, especially for countries at a lower stage of
technological development. It is important to note that, in
this context, the level of technology available to firms in
a country needs to be distinguished from the country’s
ability to conduct blue-sky research and develop new
technologies for innovation that expand the frontiers
of knowledge. That is why we separate technological
readiness from innovation, captured in the 12th pillar,
described below.

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Tenth pillar: Market size
The size of the market affects productivity since large
markets allow firms to exploit economies of scale.
Traditionally, the markets available to firms have
been constrained by national borders. In the era of
globalization, international markets can to a certain
extent substitute for domestic markets, especially for
small countries. Vast empirical evidence shows that
trade openness is positively associated with growth.
Even if some recent research casts doubts on the
robustness of this relationship, there is a general sense
that trade has a positive effect on growth, especially
for countries with small domestic markets.16 The case
of the European Union illustrates the importance of the
market size for competitiveness, as important efficiency
gains were realized through closer integration. Although
the reduction of trade barriers and the harmonization of
standards within the European Union have contributed
to raising exports within the region, many barriers to a
true single market, in particular in services, remain in
place and lead to important border effects. Therefore
we continue to use the size of the national domestic and
foreign market in the Index.
Thus exports can be thought of as a substitute for
domestic demand in determining the size of the market
for the firms of a country.17 By including both domestic
and foreign markets in our measure of market size, we
give credit to export-driven economies and geographic
areas (such as the European Union) that are divided into
many countries but have a single common market.
Eleventh pillar: Business sophistication
There is no doubt that sophisticated business practices
are conducive to higher efficiency in the production of
goods and services. Business sophistication concerns
two elements that are intricately linked: the quality of a
country’s overall business networks and the quality of
individual firms’ operations and strategies. These factors are particularly important for countries at an advanced
stage of development when, to a large extent, the
more basic sources of productivity improvements have
been exhausted. The quality of a country’s business
networks and supporting industries, as measured by
the quantity and quality of local suppliers and the extent
of their interaction, is important for a variety of reasons. When companies and suppliers from a particular
sector are interconnected in geographically proximate
groups, called clusters, efficiency is heightened, greater
opportunities for innovation in processes and products
are created, and barriers to entry for new firms are
reduced. Individual firms’ advanced operations and
strategies (branding, marketing, distribution, advanced
production processes, and the production of unique and
sophisticated products) spill over into the economy and
lead to sophisticated and modern business processes
across the country’s business sectors.

Twelfth pillar: Innovation
Innovation can emerge from new technological and nontechnological knowledge. Non-technological innovations are closely related to the know-how, skills, and working
conditions that are embedded in organizations and
are therefore largely covered by the eleventh pillar of
the GCI. The final pillar of competitiveness focuses on
technological innovation. Although substantial gains
can be obtained by improving institutions, building
infrastructure, reducing macroeconomic instability, or
improving human capital, all these factors eventually
seem to run into diminishing returns. The same is true for
the efficiency of the labor, financial, and goods markets.
In the long run, standards of living can be largely
enhanced by technological innovation. Technological
breakthroughs have been at the basis of many of the
productivity gains that our economies have historically
experienced. These range from the industrial revolution
in the 18th century and the invention of the steam engine
and the generation of electricity to the more recent digital revolution. The latter is transforming not only the way
things are being done, but also opening a wider range
of new possibilities in terms of products and services.
Innovation is particularly important for economies as they
approach the frontiers of knowledge and the possibility
of generating more value by only integrating and
adapting exogenous technologies tends to disappear.18
Although less-advanced countries can still improve
their productivity by adopting existing technologies
or making incremental improvements in other areas,
for those that have reached the innovation stage of
development this is no longer sufficient for increasing
productivity. Firms in these countries must design
and develop cutting-edge products and processes to
maintain a competitive edge and move toward highervalue-added activities. This progression requires an environment that is conducive to innovative activity and
supported by both the public and the private sectors. In
particular, it means sufficient investment in research and
development (R&D), especially by the private sector; the
presence of high-quality scientific research institutions
that can generate the basic knowledge needed to build
the new technologies; extensive collaboration in research
and technological developments between universities
and industry; and the protection of intellectual property,
in addition to high levels of competition and access
to venture capital and financing that are analyzed in
other pillars of the Index. In light of the recent sluggish
recovery and rising fiscal pressures faced by advanced
economies, it is important that public and private sectors
resist pressures to cut back on the R&D spending that
will be so critical for sustainable growth going into the
future.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 7

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Figure 1: The Global Competitiveness Index framework

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INDEX

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

Innovation and sophistication
factors subindex
Pillar 11. Business sophistication
Pillar 12. Innovation

Pillar 6. Goods market efficiency
Pillar 7. Labor market efficiency
Pillar 8. Financial market
development
Pillar 9. Technological readiness
Pillar 10. Market size

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.

The interrelation of the 12 pillars
While we report the results of the 12 pillars of
competitiveness separately, it is important to keep
in mind that they are not independent: they tend to
reinforce each other, and a weakness in one area often
has a negative impact in others. For example, a strong
innovation capacity (pillar 12) will be very difficult to
achieve without a healthy, well-educated and trained
workforce (pillars 4 and 5) that is adept at absorbing new
technologies (pillar 9), and without sufficient financing
(pillar 8) for R&D or an efficient goods market that makes
it possible to take new innovations to market (pillar 6).
Although the pillars are aggregated into a single index,
measures are reported for the 12 pillars separately
because such details provide a sense of the specific
areas in which a particular country needs to improve.
The appendix describes the exact composition of
the GCI and technical details of its construction.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE WEIGHTED
INDEX
While all of the pillars described above will matter to a
certain extent for all economies, it is clear that they will affect them in different ways: the best way for Cambodia
to improve its competitiveness is not the same as the

8 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

best way for France to do so. This is because Cambodia
and France are in different stages of development: as
countries move along the development path, wages tend
to increase and, in order to sustain this higher income,
labor productivity must improve.
In line with the economic theory of stages of
development, the GCI assumes that economies in the
first stage are mainly factor-driven and compete based
on their factor endowments—primarily low-skilled labor
and natural resources.19 Companies compete on the
basis of price and sell basic products or commodities,
with their low productivity reflected in low wages.
Maintaining competitiveness at this stage of development
hinges primarily on well-functioning public and private
institutions (pillar 1), a well-developed infrastructure
(pillar 2), a stable macroeconomic environment (pillar 3), and a healthy workforce that has received at least a
basic education (pillar 4).
As a country becomes more competitive,
productivity will increase and wages will rise with
advancing development. Countries will then move
into the efficiency-driven stage of development, when
they must begin to develop more efficient production
processes and increase product quality because
wages have risen and they cannot increase prices. At

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 1: Subindex weights and income thresholds for stages of development

S TAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
Stage 1:
Factor-driven

Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2

Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven

Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3

17,000

Weight for basic requirements subindex

60%

40–60%

40%

20–40%

20%

Weight for efficiency enhancers subindex

35%

35–50%

50%

50%

50%

5%

5–10%

10%

10–30%

30%

GDP per capita (US$) thresholds*

Weight for innovation and sophistication factors

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.

this point, competitiveness is increasingly driven by
higher education and training (pillar 5), efficient goods
markets (pillar 6), well-functioning labor markets (pillar 7), developed financial markets (pillar 8), the ability to
harness the benefits of existing technologies (pillar 9),
and a large domestic or foreign market (pillar 10).
Finally, as countries move into the innovation-driven
stage, wages will have risen by so much that they are
able to sustain those higher wages and the associated
standard of living only if their businesses are able to
compete with new and/or unique products, services,
models, and processes. At this stage, companies
must compete by producing new and different goods
through new technologies (pillar 12) and/or the most
sophisticated production processes or business models
(pillar 11).
The GCI takes the stages of development into
account by attributing higher relative weights to those
pillars that are more relevant for an economy given its
particular stage of development. That is, although all
12 pillars matter to a certain extent for all countries, the relative importance of each one depends on a country’s
particular stage of development. To implement this
concept, the pillars are organized into three subindexes,
each critical to a particular stage of development.
The basic requirements subindex groups those
pillars most critical for countries in the factor-driven
stage. The efficiency enhancers subindex includes
those pillars critical for countries in the efficiency-driven stage. And the innovation and sophistication factors
subindex includes the pillars critical to countries in the
innovation-driven stage. The three subindexes are shown
in Figure 1.
The weights attributed to each subindex in every
stage of development are shown in Table 1. To obtain
the weights shown in the table, a maximum likelihood
regression of GDP per capita was run against each
subindex for past years, allowing for different coefficients for each stage of development.20 The rounding of these
econometric estimates led to the choice of weights
displayed in Table 1.

Implementation of stages of development
Two criteria are used to allocate countries into stages of
development. The first is the level of GDP per capita at
market exchange rates. This widely available measure
is used as a proxy for wages, because internationally
comparable data on wages are not available for all
countries covered. The thresholds used are also shown
in Table 1. A second criterion is used to adjust for
countries that are wealthy, but where prosperity is based
on the extraction of resources. This is measured by the
share of exports of mineral goods in total exports (goods
and services), and assumes that countries that export
more than 70 percent of mineral products (measured
using a five-year average) are to a large extent factor
driven.21
Any countries falling in between two of the three
stages are considered to be “in transition.” For these
countries, the weights change smoothly as a country
develops, reflecting the smooth transition from one
stage of development to another. This allows us
to place increasingly more weight on those areas
that are becoming more important for the country’s
competitiveness as the country develops, ensuring that
the GCI can gradually “penalize” those countries that
are not preparing for the next stage. The classification
of countries into stages of development is shown in
Table 2.
DATA SOURCES
To measure these concepts, the GCI uses statistical
data such as enrollment rates, government debt, budget
deficit, and life expectancy, which are obtained from
internationally recognized agencies, notably the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), the IMF, and the World Health Organization
(WHO). The descriptions and data sources of all these
statistical variables are presented in the Technical Notes
and Sources at the end of this Report. Furthermore,
the GCI uses data from the World Economic Forum’s
annual Executive Opinion Survey (Survey) to capture
concepts that require a more qualitative assessment
or for which internationally comparable statistical data

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 9

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 2: Countries/economies at each stage of development

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
Côte d’Ivoire
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

are not available for the entire set of economies. The
Survey process and the statistical treatment of data are
described in detail in Chapter 1.3 of this Report.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE GCI
A few minor adjustments have been made to the
GCI structure this year. Within the macroeconomic
environment pillar (3rd), the interest rate spread has
been removed from the Index because of limitations
in the international comparability of these data.
Furthermore, mobile broadband was added to the
technological readiness (9th) pillar in order to take into
account the rapidly expanding access to the Internet
via mobile devices. And a variable capturing the extent
to which governments provide services to the business
community, which has been collected through the
Executive Opinion Survey, was added to the institutions
pillar (1st). For the patent indicator in the innovation pillar

10 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

(12th), the source has been changed to include data
based on the Patents Co-operations Treaty instead of
the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which
had been used until now. These data are collected
and published jointly by the World Intellectual Property
Organization and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They record patent applications globally, not just in the United States,
therefore eliminating a possible geographical bias.22
Finally, the Rigidity of Employment Index was dropped
from the labor market efficiency pillar (7th), as the World
Bank ceased to provide this indicator.23
COUNTRY COVERAGE
The coverage of this year has increased from 142 to 144
economies. The newly covered countries are Gabon,
Guinea, Liberia, Seychelles, and Sierra Leone. Libya
was re-included after a year of absence as we were

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

not able to conduct the Survey because of civil unrest
in 2011. Three previously covered countries had to be
excluded from this year’s Report. Survey data could not
be collected in Belize and Angola; in Syria, the security
situation did not allow the Survey to be carried out. In the case of Tunisia we decided not to report the results this
year because an important structural break in the data
makes comparisons with past years difficult. We hope to
re-include these countries in the future.
THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2012–2013
RANKINGS
Tables 3 through 7 provide the detailed rankings of
this year’s GCI. The following sections discuss the
findings of the GCI 2012–2013 for the top performers
globally, as well as for a number of selected economies
in each of the five following regions: Europe and North
America, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the
Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and subSaharan Africa. Box 1 presents a comparative study of the GCI results, highlighting the profound and persisting
competitiveness divide across and within the different
world regions.
Top 10
As in previous years, this year’s top 10 remain dominated
by a number of European countries, with Switzerland,
Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, and the
United Kingdom confirming their place among the
most competitive economies. Along with the United
States, three Asian economies also figure in top 10,
with Singapore remaining the second-most competitive
economy in the world, and Hong Kong SAR and Japan
placing 9th and 10th.
Switzerland retains its 1st place position again this
year as a result of its continuing strong performance
across the board. The country’s most notable
strengths are related to innovation and labor market
efficiency, where it tops the GCI rankings, as well as the
sophistication of its business sector, which is ranked
2nd. Switzerland’s scientific research institutions are
among the world’s best, and the strong collaboration
between its academic and business sectors, combined
with high company spending on R&D, ensures that
much of this research is translated into marketable
products and processes reinforced by strong intellectual
property protection. This robust innovative capacity is
captured by its high rate of patenting per capita, for
which Switzerland ranks a remarkable 2nd worldwide.
Productivity is further enhanced by a business sector
that offers excellent on-the-job-training opportunities,
both citizens and private companies that are proactive
at adapting the latest technologies, and labor markets
that balance employee protection with the interests of
employers. Moreover, public institutions in Switzerland
are among the most effective and transparent in the

world (5th). Governance structures ensure a level playing
field, enhancing business confidence; these include
an independent judiciary, a strong rule of law, and a
highly accountable public sector. Competitiveness
is also buttressed by excellent infrastructure (5th),
well-functioning goods markets (7th), and highly
developed financial markets (9th). Finally, Switzerland’s
macroeconomic environment is among the most stable
in the world (8th) at a time when many neighboring
economies continue to struggle in this area.
While Switzerland demonstrates many competitive
strengths, maintaining its innovative capacity will require
boosting university enrollment, which continues to lag
behind that of many other high-innovation countries,
although this has been increasing in recent years.
Singapore retains its place at 2nd position as
a result of an outstanding performance across the
entire Index. The country features in the top 3 in
seven of the 12 categories of the Index and appears
in the top 10 of three others. Its public and private
institutions are rated as the best in the world for the
fifth year in a row. It also ranks 1st for the efficiency
of its goods and labor markets, and places 2nd in
terms of financial market development. Singapore also
has world-class infrastructure (2nd), with excellent
roads, ports, and air transport facilities. In addition,
the country’s competitiveness is reinforced by a strong
focus on education, which has translated into a steady
improvement in the higher education and training pillar
(2nd) in recent years, thus providing individuals with the
skills needed for a rapidly changing global economy.
Finland moves up one place since last year to
reach 3rd position on the back of small improvements
in a number of areas. Similar to other countries in
the region, the country boasts well-functioning and
highly transparent public institutions (2nd), topping
several indicators included in this category. Its private
institutions, ranked 3rd overall, are also seen to be
among the best run and most ethical in the world.
Finland occupies the top position both in the health
and primary education pillar as well as the higher
education and training pillar, the result of a strong focus
on education over recent decades. This has provided
the workforce with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to
a changing environment and has laid the groundwork
for high levels of technological adoption and innovation.
Finland is one of the most innovative countries in
Europe, ranking 2nd, behind only Switzerland, on the
related pillar. Improving the country’s capacity to adopt
the latest technologies (ranked 25th) could lead to
important synergies that in turn could corroborate the
country’s position as one of the world’s most innovative economies. Finland’s macroeconomic environment
weakens slightly on the back of rising inflation (above 3
percent), but fares comparatively well when contrasted
with other euro-area economies.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 11

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 1: Competitiveness from above: The GCI heat map

Figure 1: The GCI heat map

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.

Figure 1 identifies the competitiveness “hotspots” and the regions or countries with weak performance according to the
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). The 10 best-performing
countries are shaded dark red. The remaining countries
are colored in intermediate tones moving from orange, the
second-best performing group, through yellow, light blue,
medium blue, and dark blue; this last color identifies the leastcompetitive nations according to the GCI. The map reveals that the hotspots remain concentrated
in Europe, North America, and a handful of advanced
economies in Asia and the Pacific. Despite decades of brisk
economic growth in some developing regions (such as Latin
America and Africa), the map reveals that the profound
competitiveness gap of these regions with more advanced
economies persists. This competitiveness deficit in vast
swaths of the developing world raises questions about the
sustainability of growth patterns.
Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, continues to face the
biggest competitiveness challenges of all regions (see Box
5). As shown on the map, a vast majority of the continent’s countries covered in this Report fall into the group of leastcompetitive economies (dark blue). Out of the region’s 32 countries included in the GCI, only Botswana, Gabon,

Namibia, the Seychelles (medium blue), Mauritius, Rwanda,
and South Africa (light blue) are in the next higher categories. With six of the ten best-performing countries, Northern
and Western Europe is a competitiveness hotspot. The
assessment is considerably bleaker when looking at
Southern and Eastern Europe. On the map, the patchwork of
colors—ranging from dark red to medium blue—reveals the

12 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

“competitiveness divide” within Europe. Indeed, the lack of competitiveness of several of its members is among the root
causes of the current difficulties in the euro zone (see Box 2). The map also shows that within the European Union the
traditional distinction made between the 15 original members and the 12 countries that joined after 2004 does not hold
from a competitiveness point of view.
The map draws a mixed picture of Asia, too. Scattered
across the region, the Asian Tigers and Japan can be
considered competitiveness hotspots. Within this group of
five advanced economies, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, and
Japan enter the top 10, and Taiwan (China), and the Republic of Korea rank only a few notches behind. The developing
nations of Southeast Asia are not yet competitiveness
champions, but their group performance is quite remarkable.
Led by Malaysia, all these economies achieve a GCI score
above 4.0, the theoretical average of the GCI, and none of
them falls into the lowest, dark-blue category. This contrasts starkly with the situation in South Asia, where bestperforming India ranks a middling 59th and several countries appear in dark blue, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Israel and the six
members of the Gulf Cooperation Council perform strongly.
But elsewhere in the region, the lack of competitiveness of the Levantine and North African countries is worrisome. Finally, the map also reveals that the BRICS do not form a uniform
group in terms of competitiveness, as seen on the map where
China is the only member appearing in a relatively strong
yellow.

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 3: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013 rankings and 2011–2012 comparisons GCI 2012–2013

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 2012–2013

Rank among
Score GCI 2011–2012
(1–7)
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 2011–2012
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
Côte d’Ivoire
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 2011–2012
(1–7)
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 2011–2012
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

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 13

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 4: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

SUBINDEXES
OV ERALL 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

Ef ficiency 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
(Cont’d.)

14 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 4: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013 (cont’d.)

SUBINDEXES
OV ERALL 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
Côte d’Ivoire
Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso
Mauritania
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Lesotho
Mozambique
Chad
Yemen
Guinea
Haiti
Sierra Leone
Burundi

Basic requirements

Ef ficiency 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.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 15

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 5: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013: Basic requirements

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
Côte d’Ivoire
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
(Cont’d.)

16 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 5: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013: Basic requirements (cont’d.)

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.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 17

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 6: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013: Efficiency enhancers

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
Côte d’Ivoire
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
(Cont’d.)

18 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 6: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013: Efficiency enhancers (cont’d.)

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.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 19

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 7: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013: 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
Côte d’Ivoire
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

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

Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.

20 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

INNOVATION AND
SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS

12.
Innovation
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

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

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Sweden, overtaken by Finland, falls one place to
4th position. Like Switzerland, the country has been
placing significant emphasis on creating the conditions
for innovation-led growth. The quality of its public
institutions remains first-rate, with a very high degree of
efficiency, trust, and transparency. Private institutions
also receive excellent marks, with firms that demonstrate
excellent ethical behavior. Nevertheless, we registered
a slight but consistent deterioration in the country’s
institutional framework over the past three years.
Additional strengths include goods and financial markets
that are very efficient, although the labor market could
be more flexible (ranking 92nd on the flexibility subpillar). Combined with a strong focus on education over the
years and a high level of technological readiness (1st),
Sweden has developed a very sophisticated business
culture (5th) and is one of the world’s leading innovators (4th). Last but not least, the country boasts a stable
macroeconomic environment (13th), with a balanced
budget and manageable public debt levels. These
characteristics come together to make Sweden one of
the most productive and competitive economies in the
world.
The Netherlands continues to progress in
the rankings, moving up to 5th place this year. The
improvement reflects a continued strengthening of its
innovative capacity as well as the heightened efficiency
and stability of its financial markets. Overall, Dutch
businesses are highly sophisticated (4th) and innovative
(9th), and the country is rapidly and aggressively
harnessing new technologies for productivity
improvements (9th). Its excellent educational system
(ranked 5th for health and primary education and
6th for its higher education and training) and efficient
markets—especially its goods market (6th)—are highly
supportive of business activity. And although the country
has registered fiscal deficits in recent years (5.0 percent
of GDP in 2011), its macroeconomic environment is
more stable than that of a number of other advanced
economies. Last but not least, the quality of its
infrastructure is among the best in the world, reflecting
excellent facilities for maritime, air, and railroad transport, ranked 1st, 4th, and 9th, respectively.
Germany maintains its position at 6th place this
year. The country is ranked an excellent 3rd for the
quality of its infrastructure, boasting in particular firstrate facilities across all modes of transport. The goods market is quite efficient, characterized by intense local
competition (8th) and low market dominance by large
companies (2nd). Germany’s business sector is very
sophisticated, especially when it comes to production
processes and distribution channels, and German
companies are among the most innovative in the
world, spending heavily on R&D (4th) and displaying
a high capacity for innovation (3rd)—traits that are
complemented by the country’s well-developed ability

to absorb the latest technologies at the firm level (16th).
These attributes allow Germany to benefit greatly from its
significant market size (5th), which is based on both its
large domestic market and its strong exports. On a less
positive note and despite some efforts, Germany’s labor
market remains rigid (119th for the labor market flexibility subpillar), where a lack of flexibility in wage determination and the high cost of firing hinder job creation, particularly during business cycle downturns. In addition, improving

the quality of the educational system—where the
country continues to trail its top 10 peers at 28th
place—could serve as an important basis for sustained
innovation-led growth. In view of continued economic
difficulties in the euro area, Germany’s performance in
the macroeconomic pillar remains remarkably stable,
with the country even registering a reduction in the
fiscal deficit to –1 percent of GDP, but concerns about
potential effects of the European sovereign debt crisis
are reflected in the downgrading of the country’s credit
rating.
The United States continues the decline that
began a few years ago, falling two more positions
to take 7th place this year. Although many structural
features continue to make its economy extremely
productive, a number of escalating and unaddressed
weaknesses have lowered the US ranking in recent
years. US companies are highly sophisticated and
innovative, supported by an excellent university system
that collaborates admirably with the business sector in
R&D. Combined with flexible labor markets and the scale
opportunities afforded by the sheer size of its domestic
economy—the largest in the world by far—these qualities
continue to make the United States very competitive.
On the other hand, some weaknesses in particular
areas have deepened since past assessments. The
business community continues to be critical toward
public and private institutions (41st). In particular, its trust in politicians is not strong (54th), perhaps not surprising
in light of recent political disputes that threaten to push
the country back into recession through automatic
spending cuts. Business leaders also remain concerned
about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length
relationships with the private sector (59th), and consider
that the government spends its resources relatively
wastefully (76th). A lack of macroeconomic stability
continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness
(111th, down from 90th last year). On a more positive
note, measures of financial market development continue
to indicate a recovery, improving from 31st two years
ago to 16th this year in that pillar, thanks to the rapid
intervention that forced the deleveraging of the banking
system from its toxic assets following the financial crisis. The United Kingdom (8th) continues to make up
lost ground in the rankings this year, rising by two more
places and now settling firmly back in the top 10. The
country improves its performance in several areas,

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 21

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

benefitting from clear strengths such as the efficiency
of its labor market (5th), in sharp contrast to the rigidity of those of many other European countries. The United
Kingdom continues to have sophisticated (8th) and
innovative (10th) businesses that are highly adept at
harnessing the latest technologies for productivity
improvements and operating in a very large market (it
is ranked 6th for market size). The financial market also
continues its recovery, ranked 13th, up from 20th last
year. All these characteristics are important for spurring
productivity enhancements. On the other hand, the
country’s macroeconomic environment (110th, down
from 85th last year) represents the greatest drag on its
competitiveness, with a fiscal deficit nearing 9 percent in
2011, an increase of 5 percentage points in public debt
amounting to 82.5 percent of GDP in 2011 (127th) and a
comparatively low national savings rate (12.9 percent of
GDP in 2011, 113th).
As the second-placed Asian economy behind
Singapore (2nd), Hong Kong SAR rises to 9th position
while slightly improving its score. The territory’s
consistently good performance is reflected in very
good showing across most of the areas covered by
the GCI. As in previous years, Hong Kong tops the
infrastructure pillar, reflecting the outstanding quality
of its facilities across all modes of transportation and
its telephony and electricity infrastructure. Moreover,
the economy’s financial markets are second to none,
revealing high efficiency and trustworthiness and stability
of the banking sector. The dynamism and efficiency of
Hong Kong’s goods market (2nd) and labor market (3rd)
further contribute to the economy’s very good overall
positioning. To maintain and enhance its competitiveness
going forward, continued improvements in two important
areas—higher education (22nd) and innovation (26th)—
will be necessary. Although the quality of education
in Hong Kong is good (12th), participation remains
below levels found in other advanced economies
(53rd). Improving educational outcomes will also help
boost Hong Kong’s innovative capacity, which remains
constrained by the limited availability of scientists and
engineers (36th), among other things.
Japan falls one place to rank 10th this year, with a
performance similar to that of last year. The country
continues to enjoy a major competitive edge in business
sophistication and innovation, ranking 1st and 5th,
respectively, in these two pillars. Company spending on
R&D remains high (2nd) and Japan benefits from the
availability of many scientists and engineers buttressing a
strong capacity for innovation. Indeed, in terms of
innovation output, this pays off with the fifth-highest
number of patents per capita. Further, companies
operate at the highest end of the value chain, producing
high-value-added goods and services. The country’s
overall competitive performance, however, continues to
be dragged down by severe macroeconomic

22 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

weaknesses (124th), with the second-highest budget
deficit in this year’s sample (143th). Repeated over
recent years, this has led to the highest public debt
levels in the entire sample (nearly 230 percent of GDP
in 2011). In addition, we observe a downward
assessment of labor market efficiency (from 13th two
years ago to 20th place this year), with the business
sector perceiving the alignment between pay and
productivity, hiring and firing practices, and brain drain
less favorably than in previous years.
Europe and North America
European economies have faced a number of challenges
in the past few years. Although they had been recovering
from the significant difficulties brought about by the
global economic crisis, rising concerns about the
sustainability of sovereign debt in Greece and a number
of other European countries continue to raise questions
about the viability of the euro. Most recently this has
led to a double-dip recession in several countries in
the region, rising inflation, and great concern about
the effects of these difficulties on other parts of the
world. Despite these challenges, several European
countries continue to feature prominently among the
most competitive economies in the world. As described
above, six of them are among the top 10. In total, ten are
among the top 20, as follows: Switzerland (1st), Finland
(3rd), Sweden (4th), the Netherlands (5th), Germany
(6th), the United Kingdom (8th), Denmark (12th), Norway
(15th), Austria (16th), and Belgium (17th). However,
Europe is also a region with significant disparities in
competitiveness (Box 2),24 with several countries from
the region significantly lower in the rankings (with Spain
at 36th, Italy at 42nd, Portugal at 49th, and Greece at
96th). As in previous years, the two countries from North
America feature among the most competitive economies
worldwide, with the United States occupying the 7th
position and Canada the 14th.
Denmark loses four positions this year, placing 12th,
with a weakening in the assessments of its institutions
and financial markets. Similar to its Nordic neighbors, the
country benefits from one of the best functioning and
most transparent institutional frameworks in the world
(14th), although there has been some decline in this area
since last year. Denmark also continues to receive a
first-rate assessment for its higher education and training
system (14th), which has provided the Danish workforce
with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to a changing
environment and has laid the ground for their high levels
of technological adoption and innovation. A continued
strong focus on education would help to reverse the
downward trend (from 3rd place in 2010 to 14th this
year) and to maintain the skill levels needed to provide
the basis for sustained innovation-led growth. A marked
difference from the other Nordic countries relates to
labor market flexibility, where Denmark (8th) continues to

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

distinguish itself as having one of the most efficient labor markets internationally, with more flexibility in setting
wages, firing, and therefore hiring, more workers than
in the other Nordics and than most European countries
more generally.
Canada falls two positions to 14th place in this
year’s rankings. Although Canada continues to benefit
from highly efficient markets (with its goods, labor,
and financial markets ranked 13th, 4th, and 11th,
respectively), well-functioning and transparent institutions (11th), and excellent infrastructure (13th), it is being
dragged down by a less favorable assessment of the
quality of its research institutions and the government’s
role in promoting innovation through procurement
practices. In a similar fashion, although Canada has
been successful in nurturing its human resources
compared with other advanced economies (it is ranked
7th for health and primary education and 15th for
higher education and training), the data suggest a slight
downward trend of its performance in higher education
(ranking 8th place on higher education and training two
years ago), driven by lower university enrollment rates
and a decline in the extent to which staff is being trained
at the workplace.
Norway is ranked 15th this year, up by one
place and showing progress in a number of areas.
Specifically, the country features a notable improvement
in its innovative capacity (up from 20th to 15th place),
driven by improved R&D spending by business, a
better collaboration between the business sector and
academia, and increased government procurement of
advanced technological products. However, looking
forward, reversing the downward trend in the availability
of scientists and engineers (from 18th two years ago to
42nd in 2011) will be critical to maintain the country’s
high level of innovative activity. Similar to the other
Nordic countries, Norway is further characterized by
well-functioning and transparent public institutions;
private institutions also get admirable marks for
ethics and accountability. Markets in the country are
efficient, with labor and financial markets ranked 18th
and 7th, respectively. Productivity is also boosted
by a good uptake of new technologies, ranked 13th
overall for technological readiness. Moreover, Norway’s
macroeconomic environment is ranked an impressive
3rd out of all countries (up from 4th last year), driven
by windfall oil revenues combined with prudent
fiscal management. On the other hand, Norway’s
competitiveness would be further enhanced
by continuing to upgrade its infrastructure (27th),
fostering greater goods market efficiency and
competition (28th), and further improving its environment
for research and development.
Austria is ranked 16th this year, up three places
since last year, with small improvements across a
number of areas. The country benefits from excellent

infrastructure (15th) and registers improvements in its
innovation capacity (up three places from last year) on
the back of resilient R&D spending and improvements
in the business sophistication pillar (up one place for
business sophistication). Education and training also
gets strong marks, particularly for on-the-job training
(3rd). Austria’s competitiveness would be further
enhanced by greater flexibility in the labor market
(the country is ranked 72nd in this subpillar), and by
continuing to improve the already excellent educational
system.
Belgium is ranked 17th, down two ranks since
last year. The country has outstanding health indicators
and a primary education system that is among the best
in the world (2nd). Belgium also boasts an exceptional
higher education and training system (4th), with excellent
math and science education, top-notch management
schools, and a strong propensity for on-the-job training
that contribute to an overall high capacity to innovate
(11th). Its goods market is characterized by high levels
of competition and an environment that facilitates
new business creation. Business operations are also
distinguished by high levels of sophistication and
professional management. On the other hand, there are
some concerns about government inefficiency (55th)
and its highly distortionary tax system (140th), and its
macroeconomic environment is burdened by persistent
deficit spending and high public debt.
France is ranked 21st, down three places from
last year on the back of falling confidence in public and
private institutions (down four places) and the financial
sector (down 13 places in trustworthiness). On a positive
note, the country’s infrastructure is among the best in
the world (4th), with outstanding transport links, energy
infrastructure, and communications. The health of the
workforce and the quality and quantity of education
are other strengths (ranked 21st for health and primary
education and 27th for higher education and training).
These elements have provided the basis for a business
sector that is aggressive in adopting new technologies
for productivity enhancements (France is ranked 14th for
technological readiness). In addition, the sophistication
of the country’s business culture (21st in the business
sophistication pillar) and its good position in innovation
(17th in the innovation pillar, particularly in certain
science-based sectors), bolstered by a well-developed
financial market (27th) and a large market more generally
(8th), are important attributes that help to boost the
country’s growth potential. On the other hand, France’s
competitiveness would be enhanced by injecting more
flexibility into its labor market, which is ranked a low
111th both because of the strict rules on firing and hiring
and the rather conflict-ridden labor-employer relations
in the country. The tax regime in the country is also
perceived as highly distortive to business decisions
(128th).

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 23

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

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 Italy’s and Portugal’s 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 economies—except 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
non–euro 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

and economic crisis. This trend is exacerbating social and
political tensions, and there is little sign of improvement. Although the origins of these crises are diverse, one shared feature at the heart of the current situation in all these
economies is their persistent lack of competitiveness and,
therefore, their inability to maintain high levels of prosperity. Overall, low levels of productivity and competitiveness do not warrant the salaries that workers in Southern Europe enjoy
and have led to unsustainable imbalances, followed by high
and rising unemployment. The map and chart in Figures 2
and 3 reveal the dynamics of the competitiveness divide in
the European Union (EU), with Southern, Central, and Eastern European countries as the least competitive economies.
In order to escape this downward spiral and return
Southern Europe to a positive growth trajectory, a holistic
set of competitiveness-enhancing measures that can bring
confidence and strengthen the economic fundamentals of
these economies will be required. These measures include
(1) regaining financial stability by recognizing and resolving the weaknesses of the banking system and enhancing the
financial liquidity of households and enterprises; (2) regaining macroeconomic stability by ensuring fiscal discipline and
engaging in structural reforms that can reduce public
spending in the medium to longer term; and (3) introducing
labor market reforms, fostering competition, and making
more and better investments in growth-enhancing areas
such as education, technology, and innovation. Some of
these measures may have impacts only in the medium to
longer run. However, all of them must be adopted sooner
rather than later, as they are closely interrelated. An effective implementation will require strong political leadership so that a clear roadmap and efficient communication can be prepared
to build public support for the reforms. Only then will these economies find a sustainable exit to the sovereign debt crisis.

Figure 1: Current account balance, percent GDP, 2001–11 (quarterly data) 15
10

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.
(Cont’d.)

24 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 2: Sovereign debt crisis, macroeconomic imbalances, and the lack of competitiveness in Southern Europe (cont’d.)

Figure 2: Competitiveness in the European Union: The GCI heat map

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.

Figure 3: Dynamics of the competitiveness divide in Western and Southern Europe 5.5

GCI score (1–7)

5.0

4.5

EU-11
Southern Europe

4.0

3.5
2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

2011–2012

2012–2013

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.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 25

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Ireland moves up by two positions to 27th place
this year after falling in recent editions of the Report. The country continues to benefit from a number of strengths,
including its excellent health and primary education (12th)
and strong higher education and training (20th), along
with its well-functioning goods and labor markets, ranked
9th and 16th, respectively. These attributes have fostered
a sophisticated and innovative business culture (ranked
18th for business sophistication and 21st for innovation).
Yet the country’s macroeconomic environment continues
to raise significant concern (131st), although matters
seem to be moving in the right direction following the
government’s massive bailout of the banking sector. Of
related and continuing concern is also Ireland’s financial market (108th), although this seems to be tentatively
recovering since the trauma faced in recent years.
Iceland maintains its place at 30th position
this year. Despite difficulties in recent years, Iceland
continues to benefit from a number of clear competitive
strengths in moving to a more sustainable economic
situation. These include the country’s top-notch
educational system at all levels (6th and 13th in the
health and primary education and higher education and
training pillars, respectively) coupled with an innovative
business sector (20th) that is highly adept at adopting
new technologies for productivity enhancements (8th).
Business activity is further supported by an extremely
flexible labor market (12th) and well-developed
infrastructure (20th). On the other hand, a weakened
macroeconomic environment (123rd) and financial
markets (97th) remain areas of concern.
Despite its very delicate macroeconomic situation
and the well-known difficulties of its banking system that
restricts the access to financing for local firms, Spain
remains stable at 36th place. The country continues to
benefit from world-class transport infrastructure facilities (10th) and a good use of ICT (24th). It also has one of
the highest tertiary education enrollment rates (18th),
which provides a large pool of skilled labor force that,
if properly mobilized, could help the country’s muchneeded economic transition toward higher-value-added activities. Notwithstanding these strengths, Spain’s
competitive edge is hampered by its macroeconomic
imbalances. Its difficulties in curbing the public deficit
(135th), which continue to add to the already high public
debt (112th), in addition to the severe difficulties of a
segment of the banking system (109th), have resulted
in a lack of confidence in the financial markets and the
country’s ability to access affordable financing from the
international markets. The bond spread against stronger
economies has relentlessly continued to grow, hindering
the capacity of the country, its banking system, and
finally its business sector to access affordable sources
of financing (122nd). In addition, Spain’s labor markets,
while improving slightly, remain too rigid (123rd). The
recently adopted structural reforms, both in the banking

26 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

system and the labor market, should help in addressing
these weaknesses once implemented. However, recent
cuts in public research and innovation, coupled with the
increasing difficulties of the private sector in obtaining
funding for research and development activities, could
continue to hold back the capacity of local firms to
innovate (44th), which will be crucial to facilitate the
economic transformation of the country.
Estonia and the Czech Republic remain the best
performers within Eastern Europe, ranking 34th and
39th, respectively. As in previous years, the countries’
competitive strengths are based on a number of
common features. They rely on excellent education
and highly efficient and well-developed goods and
financial markets, as well as their strong commitment
to advancing technological readiness, particularly in
the case of Estonia. In addition, Estonia’s 20th rank
on macroeconomic stability reflects its relatively well
managed public finances. The country’s margin ahead
of the rest of the region also reflects its more flexible and efficient labor markets (10th), which continue to be rigid
in other countries, including in the Czech Republic (75th).
Poland reaffirms its 41st position this year. The
country displays a fairly even performance across all 12
pillars of competitiveness. Notable strengths include its
large market size (19th) and high educational standards,
in particular its high enrollment rates (it is ranked 20th on the quantity of education subpillar). The financial sector
is well developed (37th), and confidence in this sector
has been increasing for a number of years to rank 14th
this year. Indeed, banks are assessed as more sound
than they were only three years ago, although additional
strengthening will be necessary given the country’s still
mediocre 57th rank on this indicator. Further enhancing
competitiveness will require a significant upgrading
of transport infrastructure, which trails international
standards by a considerable margin (ranked 103rd).
Although some progress has been made in this area
in the run up to the European Football Championships
in 2012, it is not sufficient to create the step change
necessary to better connect the different parts of the
country. The business sector remains very concerned
about some aspects of the institutional framework,
including the overall efficiency of government (116th) and
government regulation (131st). As Poland transitions to
the innovation-driven stage of development, it will have
to focus more strongly on developing capacities in R&D
and business sophistication. Stronger R&D orientation
of companies, easier access to venture capital, and
intensified collaboration between universities and the
private sector would help the country to move toward a
more future-oriented development path.
Italy moves up by one place to reach the 42nd
position this year. The country continues to do well in
some of the more complex areas measured by the GCI,
particularly the sophistication of its businesses, where it

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

is ranked 28th, producing goods high on the value chain
with one of the world’s best business clusters (2nd). Italy also benefits from its large market size—the 10th largest
in the world—which allows for significant economies
of scale. However, Italy’s overall competitiveness
performance continues to be hampered by some critical
structural weaknesses in its economy. Its labor market
remains extremely rigid—it is ranked 127th for its labor
market efficiency, hindering employment creation.
Italy’s financial markets are not sufficiently developed to provide needed finance for business development (111th).
Other institutional weaknesses include high levels of
corruption and organized crime and a perceived lack of
independence within the judicial system, which increase
business costs and undermine investor confidence—Italy
is ranked 97th overall for its institutional environment.
The efforts being undertaken by the present government
to address such concerns, if successful, will be an
important boost to the country’s competitiveness.
Turkey moves up by 16 places this year to attain the
43rd spot. The country’s economy grew by 8.4 percent
in 2011 and benefits from considerable progress in a
number of areas covered by the GCI. Macroeconomic
stability has improved and the financial sector is
assessed as more trustworthy and finance as more
easily accessible for businesses. Improvements to the
institutional framework and greater competition in local
markets have also been registered; these will further
strengthen the country’s competitive position. Turkey’s
vibrant business sector derives important efficiency gains
from its large domestic market (ranked 15th), which is
characterized by intense local competition (16th). Turkey
also benefits from its reasonably developed infrastructure
(51st), particularly roads and air transport, although ports and the electricity supply require additional upgrading.
In order to further enhance its competitiveness, Turkey
must focus on building up its human resources base
through better primary education and healthcare (63rd)
and higher education and training (74th), increasing the
efficiency of its labor market (124th), and reinforcing
the efficiency and transparency of its public institutions
(67th).
Portugal falls by four places in the rankings
to 49th position. As in the case of other Southern
European economies, Portugal continues to suffer from
a deteriorating macroeconomic environment (116th)—
despite the recent progress in curbing public deficits—
and a worrisome state of the banking system (119th) that
has shut down access to affordable financing, affecting
the capacity of local firms to obtain loans (109th), equity
(97th), or venture capital (97th) for their investment
projects. In addition, labor markets are considered
too rigid (137th) and the level of local competition low
(82nd), mainly the result of a lack of liberalization in some services. Several of the structural reforms that Portugal
has recently implemented are directed to addressing all

these weaknesses. Ensuring their proper implementation
will be crucial to increasing Portugal’s competitive edge
and leveraging its traditional strengths in terms of highquality infrastructure (11th) and the highly educated population (29th). However, as for Spain, cuts in research
and innovation and a drop in corporate innovationrelated investments could continue to affect the capacity of firms to innovate (40th) and therefore the capacity of
the country to transform its economy and move toward
higher-value-added activities.
Following a protracted economic crisis, Ukraine
bounces back to 73rd position in this year’s GCI. The
country’s competitiveness benefits notably from a
healthier macroeconomic environment than in previous
years. The budget deficit was cut to 2.7 percent of
GDP in 2011, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell somewhat, and
inflation was reduced, although it still remains fairly
high at almost 8 percent. Overall, Ukraine maintains
its competitive strengths; these result from its large
market size (38th) and a solid educational system that
provides easy access to all levels of education (ranked
47th on higher education and training and 54th on
primary education). The good educational outcomes
provide a basis for further developing the innovation
capacity of the country (71st). Putting economic growth
on a more stable footing in future will require Ukraine to
address important challenges. Arguably, the country’s
most important challenge is the needed overhaul of
its institutional framework, which cannot be relied on
because it suffers from red tape, lack of transparency,
and favoritism. Ukraine could realize further efficiency
gains from instilling more competition into the goods and
services markets (117th) and continuing the reform of the
financial and banking sector (114th).
Kazakhstan moves back up to 51st, a similar
position to the one it held a few years ago. This
improvement reflects progress in a number of areas, but
most importantly in macroeconomic stability, where the
country ranks 16th, and technological readiness, where
it advances from 87th to 55th. Despite the progress
achieved, important challenges related to health and
primary education (92nd), business sophistication (99th),
and innovation (103rd) remain.
The Russian Federation, at 67th place, drops
one position since last year. A sharp improvement in
the macroeconomic environment—up from 44th to
22nd position because of low government debt and a
government budget that has moved into surplus—has
not been enough to allow the country to compensate
for the poorer assessment of its already weak public
institutions (133rd) and the innovation capacity of
the country (85th this year, down from 57th in the
2010–2011 edition of the GCI). The country suffers
from inefficiencies in the goods (134th), labor (84th),
and financial (130th) markets, where the situation is
deteriorating for the second year in a row. The weak

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 27

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

level of competition (136th)—caused by inefficient antimonopoly policies (124th) and high restrictions on trade and foreign ownership as well as the lack of trust in the
financial system (134th)—contributes to this inefficient
allocation of Russia’s vast resources, hampering
higher levels of productivity in the economy. Moreover,
as the country moves toward a more advanced
stage of economic development, its lack of business
sophistication (119th) and low rates of technological
adoption (137th) will become increasingly important
challenges for its sustained progress. On the other
hand, its high level of education enrollment, especially
at the tertiary level; its fairly good infrastructure; and its large domestic market (7th) represent areas that can be
leveraged to improve Russia’s competitiveness.
This year Greece falls another six places in the
rankings to 96th, remaining the lowest-ranked country
of the European Union. In the context of the ongoing
sovereign debt crisis, Greece continues to fall in the
macroeconomic environment pillar, dropping to rock
bottom 144th position this year. Similarly, Greece’s
financial markets are assessed more poorly than in
the past, down to 132nd from 110th last year, showing
particularly low confidence on the part of investors.
The evaluation of public institutions (e.g., government
efficiency, corruption, undue influence) continues to
suffer and is ranked a low 111th overall. Another major
area of concern is the country’s inefficient labor market
(133th), which continues to constrain Greece’s ability
to emerge from the crisis, highlighting the importance
of recent efforts to increase the retirement age and
increase labor market flexibility. In working to overcome
the present difficulties, Greece has a number of
strengths on which it can build, including a reasonably
well educated workforce that is adept at adopting new
technologies for productivity enhancements. With the
correct growth-enhancing reforms, there is every reason
to believe that Greece will improve its competitiveness in
the coming years.
Asia and the Pacific
As in previous years, the Asia and Pacific remains among
the fastest-growing regions worldwide, and many of its
economies have greatly improved their competitiveness
over the past years. The excellent performance of some
of the regional champions is reflected in the presence
of six economies—Singapore; Hong Kong SAR; Japan;
Taiwan, China; the Republic of Korea; and Australia—
within the top 20. However, significant and growing
differences persist in terms of the competitiveness
performance within the region, with countries such as
Bangladesh (118th), Pakistan (124th), and Nepal (125th)
lagging further and further behind.
Taiwan, China, maintains its 13th position for
the third year in a row. Its competitiveness profile is
essentially unchanged and consistently strong. Notable

28 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

strengths include its highly efficient markets for goods,
where the economy ranks 8th; its solid educational
performance (9th); and its sophisticated business sector
(13th), which is inclined to innovate (14th). Strengthening
competitiveness will require continued improvements
to the economy’s institutional framework as well as
stabilizing its macroeconomic environment, which would
require fiscal consolidation to reduce the budget deficit.
Reversing the negative trend of recent years, the
Republic of Korea (19th) advances five positions and
re-enters the top 20. Despite this clear improvement,
the assessment remains uneven across the 12 pillars of
the Index. The country boasts outstanding infrastructure
(9th) and a sound macroeconomic environment (10th),
with a government budget surplus above 2 percent of
GDP and low level of public indebtedness. Furthermore,
primary education (11th) and higher education (17th) are
universal and of high quality. These factors, combined
with the country’s high degree of technological
readiness (18th), partly explain the country’s remarkable
capacity for innovation (16th). However, three concerns
persist—namely, the quality of its institutions (62nd),
its labor market efficiency (73rd), and its financial
market development (71th), even though Korea posts
improvements in all three areas.
After losing four positions to faster-improving
economies last year, Australia retains its rank of
20th and score of 5.1, just behind Korea. Among the
country’s most notable advantages is its efficient and
well-developed financial system (8th), supported by a
banking sector that counts as among the most stable
and sound in the world, ranked 5th. The country earns
very good marks in education, placing 15th in primary
education and 11th in higher education and training.
Australia’s macroeconomic situation is satisfactory in the current context (26th). Despite repeated budget deficits,
its public debt amounts to a low 23 percent of GDP,
the third lowest ratio among the advanced economies,
behind only Estonia and Luxembourg. The main area
of concern for Australia is the rigidity of its labor market (42nd). Indeed, the business community cites the labor
regulations as being the most problematic factor for
doing business, ahead of red tape. In addition, although
the situation has improved since last year, transport
infrastructure continues to suffer bottlenecks owing to
the boom in commodity exports.
Following improvements in last year’s Report,
Malaysia maintains its score but drops four places
as other economies move ahead. The most notable
advantages are found in Malaysia’s efficient and
competitive market for goods and services (11th) and
its remarkably supportive financial sector (6th), as well
as its business-friendly institutional framework. In a
region where many economies suffer from the lack of
transparency and the presence of red tape, Malaysia
stands out as particularly successful at tackling those

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

two issues. Yet, despite the progress achieved, much
remains to be done to put the country on a more solid
growth path. Its low level of technological readiness
(51st) is surprising, especially given its achievements in
other areas of innovation and business sophistication
and the country’s focus on promoting the use of ICT.
Lack of progress in this area will significantly undermine
Malaysia’s efforts to become a knowledge-based
economy by the end of the decade.
China (29th) loses some ground in this year’s
edition of the Report. After five years of incremental
but steady progression, it has now returned to its
2009 level. The country continues to lead the BRICS
economies by a wide margin,25 ahead of second-placed
Brazil (48th) by almost 20 ranks. Although China’s
decline is small—its overall score barely changes—it
affects the rankings of every pillar of the GCI except
market size. The deterioration is more pronounced
in those areas that have become critical for China’s
competitiveness: financial market development (54th,
down 6), technological readiness (88th, down 11),
and market efficiency (59th, down 14). In this latter
pillar, insufficient domestic and foreign competition is
of particular concern, as the various barriers to entry
appear to be more prevalent and more important than
in previous years. On a more positive note, China’s
macroeconomic situation remains very favorable (11th),
despite a prolonged episode of high inflation. China
runs a moderate budget deficit; boasts a low, albeit
increasing, government debt-to-GDP ratio of 26 percent;
and its gross savings rate remains above 50 percent
of GDP. The rating of its sovereign debt is significantly
better than that of the other BRICS and indeed of many
advanced economies. Moreover, China receives relatively
high marks in health and basic education (35th) and
enrollment figures for higher education are also on the
rise, even though the quality of education—in particular
the quality of management schools (68th)—and the
disconnect between educational content and business
needs (57th) in the country remain important issues.
After having fallen for six years in a row, Thailand
(38th) halts the negative trend and improves by one
place in this year’s GCI. Yet the competitiveness
challenges the country is facing remain considerable.
Political and policy instability, excessive red tape,
pervasive corruption, security concerns, and uncertainty
around property rights protection seriously undermine
the quality of the institutional framework on which
businesses rely heavily. The country loses an additional
10 places in this category to rank a low 77th. Poor public
health (71st) and basic education standards (89th), two
other critical building blocks of competitiveness, require
urgent attention. Turning to more sophisticated areas,
which are just as important given Thailand’s stage of
development, technological adoption is generally poor
(84th). Less than a quarter of the population accesses

the Internet on a regular basis, and only a small fraction
has access to broadband. On a more positive note, the
macroeconomic environment continues to improve—
albeit marginally (27th, up one spot)—as the budget
deficit was reduced to less than 2 percent of GDP and
the debt-to-GDP ratio dropped to 42 percent in 2011.
Indonesia drops four places in this year’s edition,
but maintains its score and remains in the top 50 of the
GCI. The country remains one of the best performers
within the developing Asia region, behind Malaysia,
China, and Thailand yet ahead of the Philippines,
Vietnam, and all South Asian nations. The country’s
performance varies considerably across the different
pillars. Some of the biggest shortcomings are found in
the “basic” areas of competitiveness. The institutional
framework (72nd) is undermined by concerns about
corruption and bribery, unethical behavior within the
private sector, and the cost to business of crime and
violence. Yet bureaucracy is less burdensome and
public spending less wasteful than in most countries
in the region, and the situation keeps improving. And
infrastructure remains largely underdeveloped (78th).
Furthermore, the public health situation is a cause of
even more concern (103rd). By contrast, Indonesia
provides almost universal basic education of satisfactory
quality (51st) and the macroeconomic environment is
stable, judging by the country’s 25th rank on the related
pillar. This macroeconomic stability is buoyed by its solid
performance on fundamental indicators: the budget
deficit is kept well below 2 percent of GDP, the public
debt-to-GDP ratio amounts to only 25 percent, and
the savings rate remains high. Inflation was reduced to
around 5 percent in recent years after frequent episodes
of double-digit inflation in the past decade. These
positive developments are reflected in the improving,
although still low, country credit rating.
Because the country has entered the efficiencydriven stage of development, its competitiveness increasingly depends on more complex elements, which
should be addressed on a priority basis. In this context,
addressing the many rigidities (134th) and inefficiencies
of the labor market (70th) would allow for a smoother
transition of the labor force to more productive sectors
of the economy. Additional productivity gains could be
reaped by boosting technological readiness (85th), which
remains low, with the country exhibiting only a slow and
limited adoption of ICT.
India ranks 59th overall, down three places from last
year. Since reaching its peak at 49th in 2009, India has
lost 10 places. Once ahead of Brazil and South Africa,
India now trails them by some 10 places and lags behind
China by a margin of 30 positions. India continues to
be penalized for its disappointing performance in the
areas considered to be the basic factors underpinning
competitiveness. The country’s supply of transport, ICT,
and energy infrastructure remains largely insufficient

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 29

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

and ill-adapted to the needs of the economy (84th).
Indeed, the Indian business community repeatedly cites
infrastructure as the single biggest hindrance to doing
business, well ahead of corruption and bureaucracy.
It must be noted, however, that the situation has been
slowly improving since 2006. The picture is even bleaker
in the health and basic education pillar (101st). Despite
improvements across the board over the past few years,
poor public health and education standards remain a
prime cause of India’s low productivity. Turning to the
country’s institutions, discontent within the business
community remains high about the lack of reforms and
the perceived inability of the government to push them
through. Indeed, public trust in politicians (106th) has
been weakening for the past three years. Once ranked
a satisfactory 37th in this dimension, India now ranks
70th. Meanwhile, the macroeconomic environment (99th)
continues to be characterized by large and repeated
public deficits and the highest debt-to-GDP ratio among
the BRICS. On a more positive note, inflation returned to
single-digit territory in 2011.
Despite these considerable challenges, India does
possess a number of strengths in the more advanced
and complex drivers of competitiveness. This “reversed”
pattern of development is characteristic of India. It can
rely on a fairly well developed and sophisticated financial
market (21st) that can channel financial resources to
good use, and it boasts reasonably sophisticated (40th)
and innovative (41th) businesses.
Ranked 65th, the Philippines is one of the countries
showing the most improvement in this year’s edition.
Indeed, it has advanced 22 places since reaching its
lowest mark in 2009. The Philippines makes important
strides this year in improving competitiveness—albeit
often from a very low base—especially with respect
to its public institutions (94th, up 23 places). Trust in
politicians has made considerable progress (95th, up
33), although significant room for improvement remains.
The perception is that corruption (108th, up 11) and red
tape (108, up 18) are finally being addressed decisively,
even though they remain pervasive. The macroeconomic
environment also exhibits marked improvement (36th
up 18) and represents one of the strongest aspects of
the Philippine’s performance, along with its market size
(35th). In addition, the financial sector has become more
efficient and increasingly supportive of business activity
(58th, up 13). Despite these very positive trends, many
weaknesses remain to be addressed. The country’s
infrastructure is still in a dire state, particularly with
respect to sea (120th) and air transport (112th), with little or no progress achieved to date. Furthermore, various
market inefficiencies and rigidities continue, most notably
in the labor market (103rd).
Vietnam ranks 75th this year and switches positions
with the Philippines. Over the last two editions, Vietnam
has lost 16 places and is now the second-lowest

30 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

ranked among eight members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) covered by the
Report. The country loses ground in 9 of the 12 pillars
of the GCI. It ranks below 50th in all of the pillars, and
dangerously close to the 100th position on a majority
of them. As a sign of its fragility and extreme volatility,
Vietnam plunges 41 places in the macroeconomic
environment pillar to 106th after it had recorded a 20place gain in the previous edition. Inflation approached 20 percent in 2011, twice the level of 2010, and the
country’s sovereign debt rating worsened. In an effort
to stem inflation, the State Bank of Vietnam tightened
its monetary policy, thus making access to credit
more difficult. Infrastructure (95th), strained by rapid
economic growth, remains a major challenge for the
country despite some improvement in recent years, with
particular concerns about the quality of roads (120th)
and ports (113th). Public institutions are characterized
by rampant corruption and inefficiencies of all kinds.
Respect of property rights (113th) and protection of
intellectual property (123rd) are all insufficient according to the business community. Private institutions suffer
from poor ethics and particularly weak accountability
(132nd). Among Vietnam’s few competitive strengths
are its fairly efficient labor market (51st), its large market size (32nd), and a satisfactory performance in the public
health and basic education pillar (64th). The challenges
going forward are therefore numerous and significant
and will require decisive policy action in order to put the
country’s growth performance on a more stable footing.
Latin America and the Caribbean
Latin America and the Caribbean has continued to
grow steadily in the past year at an average rate of 4.5
percent. Strong external demand for local commodities,
especially from China and other Asian economies,
coupled with good macroeconomic management have
allowed the countries in the region to put their short- and
medium-term growth outlooks on a “glide path to steady
growth.”26 With expected growth rates of 3.4 percent
and 4.2 percent for 2012 and 2013, respectively, the
region is expected to continue to outperform the rest of
the world.
Despite this rather optimistic outlook, the region
may face the interrelated potential headwinds of a less
robust recovery in the United States, a deceleration in
the economic growth of China and other Asian emerging
economies, and the sovereign debt crisis in Southern
Europe that is affecting the economic growth forecast in
all of Europe. Against this backdrop, boosting national
competitiveness by raising productivity is the best way
to ensure economic growth over the longer term and
increase the region’s resilience to economic shocks.
Over the past year, although several countries
have once again made good progress in raising
competitiveness, the region as a whole continued to

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

face important competitiveness challenges. These
pertain in particular to a weak institutional set-up with
high insecurity, poor infrastructure, inefficient allocation of production resources caused by insufficient levels
of competition, and a low capacity to generate new
knowledge to strengthen R&D innovation in the region.
Addressing these weaknesses will allow countries in
Latin America and the Caribbean to be better connected
not only among themselves but also to the rest of the
world, and to boost productivity levels (Box 3).
Despite a slight drop of two positions, Chile, at
33rd place, shows a rather stable performance and
remains the most competitive economy in Latin America.
A very solid macroeconomic framework (14th) with
very low levels of public debt (10th) and a government
budget in surplus (21st), coupled with well-functioning
and transparent public institutions (28th) and fairly well
developed transport infrastructures (40th), provide Chile
with a solid foundation on which to build and maintain
its competitiveness leadership in the region. Moreover,
the country’s traditional liberalization policies and its
openness to trade have resulted in flexible and efficient
markets that ensure a good allocation of resources in the
goods (30th), labor (34th), and financial (28th) markets.
Notwithstanding these important strengths, Chile also
presents a number of challenges in terms of improving
the quality of its educational system (91st), which has
created a heated public debate in the country. It also
needs to increase the use of ICT (57th) and strengthen its
national research and innovation system (44th). Further
competitiveness gains will be contingent on successfully
addressing these weaknesses. As the economy steadily
moves toward a higher stage of development, many
economic activities will require higher levels of skills and innovation in order to increase their competitiveness
potential.
Panama, at 40th place and nine ranks up since last
year, continues its steady progress and consolidates its
position as the most competitive economy in Central
America. Panama leverages its traditional strengths with
its very good transport infrastructure (33rd), especially
for ports (4th); its macroeconomic stability (53rd), despite the worrying inflation rate of nearly 6 percent; its efficient financial markets (9th); and its relatively high levels of
competition (31st) and openness to FDI (9th). The country
has also made progress in addressing some of the most
pressing weaknesses that have traditionally hindered
its competitiveness potential. More precisely, Panama
seems to be improving the quality of its educational
system compared with last year, although it still remains
a very important challenge (112th). Corporate R&D
investments (34th) appear now to contribute more to
improving the country’s innovative capacity (94th), which
remains one of the biggest challenges to diversifying the
national economy. However, little progress is observed
in Panama’s institutional set-up, where public trust

Box 3: Connecting the Americas through better
transport, energy, and ICT infrastructure
At the Sixth Summit of the Americas, held in Colombia in
April 2012, many Latin American leaders agreed on the
need to better connect the Americas—while also keeping
the region open to the world—as a way to increase
productivity and competitiveness. Amid the five mandates
that came out of the Summit, two emphasized the
regional commitment to improve the road, rail, and electric
networks on the continent, as well as information and
communication technologies (ICT), where Latin America
and the Caribbean still lag behind.
Transport, energy, and ICT infrastructure is
crucial for boosting competitiveness. Good transport
infrastructure decreases the costs of moving raw materials
and intermediate components to production sites and
from there to consumption markets; integrates national
and regional markets, thus enhancing the efficiency in
the allocation of resources; and reduces the time and
cost for people to travel and interact, thus enhancing
the flow of ideas and tacit knowledge that is crucial
for innovation. Energy networks that provide reliable
and affordable electricity are also essential because
disruptions in the energy supply can impose large costs
on companies, especially large manufacturing electricityintensive businesses, which need to stop and restart their operations after a power interruption. ICT networks have
also become more and more essential for competitiveness,
not only as a way to reduce transaction costs in running
operations and interacting with suppliers, clients, and
the administration, but also—and more importantly—as
a key enabler of innovation when ICT interacts with other
economic activities.

Figure 1: Transport, electricity, and ICT
infrastructures in Latin America and the Caribbean
and the OECD, 2012

Transport Infrastructure
7
6
5
4
3
2

ICT use

Electricity supply

Latin America and the Caribbean
OECD

(Cont’d.)

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 31

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 3: Connecting the Americas through better transport, energy, and ICT infrastructure (cont’d.) 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
other’s capacities and resources, and between national
governments to enhance “connecting the Americas.”

Latin America and the Caribbean has traditionally
lagged behind in building a dense network of transport
and electricity infrastructure (Figure 1). Partly because of its complex geography and partly because of insufficient public
investment and private-sector mobilization, transport and
energy infrastructure has not been sufficiently developed in many countries. This remains one of the key challenges that
hamper the capacity of local firms to reduce production and
distribution costs. During the 1990s and the macroeconomic
stabilization process that took place then, government budget cuts were felt particularly severely in infrastructure investment, which was drastically reduced. This affected the quality
of all transport infrastructure, which trails sharply behind that of more advanced economies. Despite the region’s
rapid economic growth of the past decade, improvements
in transport infrastructure have remained insufficient. This is particularly evident in the poor development of railroad
networks, almost nonexistent in many Latin American
countries, and road networks. Despite the improvements
that have taken place around the biggest cities, the rapid
urbanization and the traditional poor connectivity of rural
areas still pose a severe challenge for competitiveness.
The region also lags behind in ICT use, which shows
no sign of improvement. This situation is widening the digital

Note
1

For a more detailed analysis, consult The Global Information Technology Report 2012, available at www.weforum.org/gitr.

Table 1: Transport, electricity, and ICT infrastructures: Latin America and the Caribbean compared with OECD countries

Indicator

Latin America and the Caribbean

OECD

Gap

3.30

4.96

1.66

Quality of overall infrastructure

3.86

5.53

1.67

Quality of roads

3.58

5.19

1.61

Quality of railroad infrastructure

1.90

4.47

2.57

Quality of port infrastructure

3.93

5.21

1.27

Quality of air transport infrastructure

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

Transport infrastructure

Available airline seat kms/week, millions*
Electricity supply
Quality and reliability of electricity supply
ICT use
Individuals using Internet, %*
Broadband Internet subscriptions/100 pop.*
Int’l Internet bandwidth, kb/s per user*
Mobile broadband Internet subscriptions/100 pop.*
Mobile telephone subscriptions/100 pop.*
Fixed telephone lines/100 pop.*

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.

32 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

in politicians (101st) is low, security (96th) remains a
general concern, and judicial independence is deemed
one of the lowest in the region (132nd). Strengthening
the functioning of the institutions and persisting with
improvements to its education, research, and innovation
systems will be crucial for Panama to continue raising its
competitiveness performance.
The continued deterioration of the macroeconomic
framework has led Barbados to fall two notches in the
rankings, to 44th place. With one of the lowest national
savings rates (136th) and one of the highest government
debt levels (139th), the macroeconomic conditions in the
country (134th) are strangling the access of businesses
to financing through local equity markets (92nd), loans
(79th), or venture capital (94th). As a result, the business community continues to face important challenges in
engaging in new investment projects. Notwithstanding
these serious weaknesses, which sharply affect
economic activity, the country still benefits from wellfunctioning institutions (24th) and good infrastructure (22nd). Moreover, a very high quality educational system
(11th), a high use of ICT (32nd), and a fairly sophisticated business community (36th) help foster innovation in
a service-oriented economy despite the low R&D
investment (72nd) and technological innovation capacity
(91st).
Entering the top 50, Brazil goes up five positions to
attain 48th place on the back of a relative improvement
in its macroeconomic condition—despite its still-high
inflation rate of nearly 7 percent—and the rise in the
use of ICT (54th). Overall, Brazil’s fairly sophisticated
business community (33rd) enjoys the benefits of one of
the world’s largest internal markets (7th), which allows
for important economies of scale and continues to have
fairly easy access to financing (40th) for its investment
projects. Notwithstanding these strengths, the country
also faces important challenges. Trust in politicians
remains low (121st), as does government efficiency
(111th) because of excessive government regulation
(144th) and wasteful spending (135th). The quality of
transport infrastructure (79th) remains an unaddressed
long-standing challenge and the quality of education
(116th) does not seem to match the increasing need
for a skilled labor force. Moreover, despite increasing
efforts to facilitate entrepreneurship, especially for small companies, the procedures and time to start a business
remain among the highest in the sample (130th and
139th, respectively) and taxation is perceived to be too
high and to have distortionary effects (144th).
Mexico, at 53rd place, moves up five positions
and consolidates last year’s positive trend, with small
improvements in seven of the 12 pillars. Overall, the
country boasts several competitiveness strengths,
including its large and deep internal market (11th), a
sound macroeconomic framework (40th), fairly good
transport infrastructure (41st), and fairly sophisticated

businesses (44th). Notwithstanding these strengths,
Mexico still faces persistent structural challenges that
will need to be addressed in order to continue improving
the competitive edge of the economy. The functioning of
public institutions is still poorly assessed (100th) because of the high costs associated with the lack of security
(137th) and the low trust of the business community in
politicians (97th). The functioning of the labor market
is considered inefficient (102nd) because of rigidities
in hiring and firing practices (113th) and the relatively
low female participation (121st). The lack of effective
competition (100th), especially in some key strategic
sectors, also hinders an efficient allocation of resources
that spills over into most sectors of the economy.
Finally, Mexico’s innovative potential is hampered by
the low quality of education (100th) especially in math
and science (124th), the low use of ICT (81st), and the
low uptake by businesses of new technology to spur
productivity improvements and innovation (75th).
Costa Rica bounces back four positions to 57th
place. An improvement in the macroeconomic conditions
of the country thanks to a lower budget deficit and
decreasing government debt, coupled with an increase
in ICT use, have allowed Costa Rica to obtain this better
result. The country leverages its well-functioning public
institutions (55th) despite the high costs associated with
crime (85th) endemic in the region, the perception of
high wastefulness of government spending (105th), and
falling trust in politicians (64th). Moreover, Costa Rica
has one of the highest innovation potentials in the region
thanks to a high-quality educational system (21st), an
acceptable use of ICT (58th), and an above-average
capacity to innovate and use available technology (39th).
Notwithstanding these strengths, the country still faces
significant challenges that it must address to improve its
competitive edge. The quality of transport infrastructure
is poor (116th), procedures to start a business are
lengthy (130th), and available financing for businesses—
especially through local equity markets—is scarce
(122nd), affecting the conditions for entrepreneurship.
Continuing its rise of the past several years, Peru
climbs six positions in the rankings to reach 61st
place. Further improvements to the already-good
macroeconomic situation of the country (where it ranks
21st)—despite a rise in inflation—have buttressed this
upward trend, while the situation in most of the other
pillars has remained stable or slightly deteriorated.
Overall Peru continues to enjoy the benefits of its
liberalization policies that have supported the high
levels of efficiency in the goods (53rd), labor (45th), and
financial markets (45th). However, the country still faces
important challenges for strengthening the functioning of
its public institutions (118th), where government efficiency (100th) caused by excessive red tape (128th) and weak
judicial independence are questioned. Moreover, the
quality of its transport infrastructure (97th) needs to

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 33

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

be improved. Furthermore, as the economy moves
to higher levels of development and explores ways to
diversify away from its large mining sector, its low quality of education (132nd), poor use of ICT (89th), and low
R&D and technological capacity (118th) work against
developing the country’s overall capacity to innovate and
move toward higher-value-added activities.
Despite the slight decline of one position, Colombia
shows a relatively stable picture at 69th place. An
improvement in macroeconomic conditions (34th) thanks
to the reduction of the government deficit and debt
values has compensated for slight drops in those pillars
that have traditionally represented competitiveness
challenges: weak public institutions (122nd), the poor
quality of its transport infrastructure (114th), the poor
quality of education in the country (77th), and its low
research and innovation capacity (70th). As the economy
continues to improve steadily, with a growth rate of 4.5
percent, unaddressed challenges in these areas that
hinder the competitive edge of national businesses
seem to become more evident, despite recent policy
efforts to address them. In order to further improve
competitiveness, Colombia should address these
weaknesses and further leverage its strengths in terms of
the already-mentioned macroeconomic stability, its large
and increasing domestic market (27th), and its relatively
efficient financial market (55th).
Uruguay sustains one of the region’s sharpest
drops, falling 11 places in the rankings to 74th position.
Despite important gains in reducing the procedures
and time needed to start a business (29th and 25th,
respectively) and slight increases in ICT use (46th) and
market size (86th), Uruguay drops systematically in all
the remaining eight pillars that drive competitiveness.
Worrying inflationary pressures above 8 percent coupled
with relatively high government debt (101th) have
deteriorated the macroeconomic conditions (63rd) of the
country and cast some doubt about the sustainability of
recent growth rates. Although Uruguay still benefits from
one of the best functioning institutional set-ups in the
region (36th), there are rising concerns about excessive
red tape (89th) and wasteful government spending
(95th), as well as about the business cost of crime and
violence (88th). Labor markets are considered very
rigid (139th), with some of the world’s most restrictive
hiring and firing practices (138th) and a lack of flexibility in wage determination (144th) that does not match pay
to productivity (143rd). As Uruguay’s economy moves
toward higher levels of development, some doubts arise
about the ability of the traditionally praised educational
system to generate the skills that businesses require
(107th), the overall availability of scientist and engineers (117th), and the innovation capacity of the country
more broadly (69th). Improving the macroeconomic
management of the country while addressing its labor
market conditions, along with enhancing its innovation

34 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

capacity by improving the quality of its educational
system and the technological capacity of indigenous
firms, will be crucial to shift the declining trend.
In the bottom half of the rankings, at 83rd place,
Guatemala goes up by one place this year. The country
boasts some relative competitiveness strengths in terms
of flexible labor regulations for hiring and firing staff (54th) and wage determination (43rd), efficient financial market
development (41st), and the intensity of local competition
(46th). However, its competitiveness is hampered by a
weak public institutional set-up (130th) and hindered by
the very high costs of crime and violence (144th) and low
trust of the business community in politicians (122nd).
Guatemala’s very low level of innovation capacity is
the result of a low-quality educational system (130th),
scarce use of ICT (99th), and low R&D-related innovation
investments (90th). The weak quality of its transport
infrastructure (93rd) also negatively affects its national
competitiveness.
Falling 10 places, Argentina drops to 94th position
this year. The continued deterioration of the country’s
macroeconomic conditions (94th) coupled with a very
negative assessment of the institutional set-up (138th)
and the inefficient functioning of the goods (140th),
labor (140th), and financial markets (131st) are the main
reasons for this poor evaluation. It appears that the
country fails to leverage the important competitiveness
potential provided by its large domestic market (21st)
that allows for important economies of scale, its relatively high levels of ICT use (56th), and its high number of
university enrollment rates (20th) that should provide
local firms with a skilled labor force. Argentina’s weak
government efficiency (142nd) and high levels of undue
influence (140th), along with one of the lowest ratings
in terms of trust in politicians (143rd), result in a poor
evaluation of its institutional functioning. Structural
reforms to improve the functioning of the goods markets
by increasing domestic competition (143rd) and reducing
the barriers to entrepreneurship, increase the flexibility
of the labor markets (142nd), and ease access to
financing by deepening the financial market could result
in important efficiency gains that could boost Argentina’s productivity.
Venezuela, at 126th place, falls two positions in
the rankings. As it did last year, the country continues
to rank last in terms of the functioning of public
institutions (144th), with a very low trust of the business
community in politicians or in judicial independence.
This, coupled with weak macroeconomic management
(126th) resulting in inflation rates above 20 percent and a
budget deficit above 5 percent of national GDP, as well
as poor transport infrastructure (135th), hampers the
capacity of the country to count on a solid foundation
for enhancing competitiveness. In addition, weaknesses
in the functioning of the goods market do not allow
for an efficient allocation of resources. Low domestic

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

competition (144th), excessive red tape when starting
a business (141st), and high trade tariffs (125th) as well
as rules and regulations that deter FDI (144th) limit the
efficiency of good markets. Rigidities in the labor market
(144th) and weak financial development (133rd) also
affect the development of business opportunities. Finally,
although tertiary education enrollment is one of the
highest in the world (11th), the quality of the educational
system is assessed as poor (122nd). This and the low
R&D spending (127th) contribute to the low innovation
capacity of the country (134th).
The Middle East and North Africa
The Middle East and North Africa region continues to
be affected by political turbulence that has impacted
individual countries’ competitiveness. Countries that
embarked on partial reforms such as Jordan and
Morocco move up in the rankings, while economies that
were more significantly affected by unrest and political
transformations tend to drop or stagnate in terms of
national competitiveness. Addressing the unemployment
challenge will remain the key economic priority of the
region as a whole for the foreseeable future. Box 4
discusses how unemployment in the region interacts
with competitiveness.
Qatar reaffirms once again its position as the most
competitive economy in the region by moving up three
places to 11th position, sustained by improvements in
its macroeconomic environment, the efficiency of its
markets for goods and services, and its institutional
framework. Its strong performance in terms of
competitiveness rests on solid foundations made
up of a high-quality institutional framework, a stable
macroeconomic environment (2nd), and an efficient
goods market (10th). Low levels of corruption and undue
influence on government decisions, high efficiency of
government institutions, and high levels of security are
the cornerstones of the country’s very solid institutional framework, which provides a good foundation for
heightening efficiency. Going forward, as noted in
previous editions of this Report, reducing the country’s
vulnerability to commodity price fluctuations will require
diversification into other sectors of the economy and
reinforcing some areas of competitiveness. Qatar’s
efforts to strengthen its financial sector appear to be
paying off, as the trustworthiness and confidence in
the country’s financial markets improved from 80th to
44th this year. However, the legal rights of borrowers
and lenders remain underprotected (99th). Given its
high wage level, diversification into other sectors will
require the country to raise productivity by continuing
to promote a greater use of the latest technologies
(27th) and by fostering more openness to foreign
competition—currently ranked at 42nd, reflecting barriers
to international trade and investment.

Saudi Arabia maintains the second-best place in
the region and falls by one position from 17th to 18th
position overall. The country has seen a number of
improvements to its competitiveness in recent years
that have resulted in a solid institutional framework,
efficient markets, and sophisticated businesses. Higher
macroeconomic stability (6th) and more prevalent
use of ICT for productivity improvements contribute
to maintaining Saudi Arabia’s strong position in the
GCI. Its macroeconomic environment benefits from
rising energy prices, which buoyed the budget balance
into an even higher surplus in 2011. As much as the
recent developments are commendable, the country
faces important challenges going forward. Health
and education do not reach the standards of other
countries at similar income levels. Although some
progress is visible in health outcomes, improvements
are being made from a low level. As a result, the country
continues to occupy low ranks in the health and primary
education pillar (58th), and room for improvement
remains on the higher education and training pillar (40th)
as well. Boosting these areas, in addition to fostering
a more efficient labor market (59th), will be of great
significance to Saudi Arabia given its growing number
of young people who will enter the labor market over
the next several years. More efficient use of talent will
increase in importance as global talent shortages loom
on the horizon and the country attempts to diversify
its economy, which will require a more skilled and
educated workforce. Last but not least, although some
progress has been recorded over the past years, the
use of the latest technologies can be enhanced further
(35th), especially as this is an area where Saudi Arabia
continues to lag behind other Gulf economies.
The United Arab Emirates gains three places in
the GCI to take the 24th position. The improvement
reflects a better institutional framework as well as
greater macroeconomic stability. Higher oil prices
buoyed the budget surplus and allowed the country to
reduce public debt and raise the savings rate. Overall,
the country’s competitiveness reflects the high quality
of its infrastructure, where it ranks a very good 8th, as
well as its highly efficient goods markets (5th). Strong
macroeconomic stability (7th) and some positive aspects
of the country’s institutions—such as an improving public trust in politicians (3rd) and high government efficiency
(7th)—round up the list of competitive advantages.
Going forward, putting the country on a more stable
development path will require further investment to boost
health and educational outcomes. Raising the bar with
respect to education will require not only measures to
improve the quality of teaching and the relevance of
curricula, but also incentivizing the population to attend
schools at the primary and secondary levels.
Israel falls by four places to 26th in this year’s
GCI, reversing its upward trend of previous years. The

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 35

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 4: The employment challenge in the Arab world
the untapped potential of domestic and export markets,
higher productivity can be expected to also translate into
increased employment over the longer term, in addition to
leading to wage increases and rising standards of living.

Despite their diversity in terms of national competitiveness, economies of the Arab world share one common challenge:
the need to create gainful and sustainable employment for
their rising populations. Over the past several decades most countries in the Arab world have relied on the government
and state enterprises for employment creation. Although
this was an expedient way to create jobs in the shorter term, over the longer term rapid population growth has made it
impossible for the public sector to provide a sufficient number of jobs, particularly for the young people entering the labor market. Nor has the private sector been able to fill the gap in most of the countries, as it has remained stifled by a business environment that did not encourage private-sector growth.

As a result, unemployment has risen in many countries in
the Middle East over recent decades. Currently, the regional unemployment rate of 10.3 percent is the highest among all
the regions, with women and youth most severely affected.1
For example, according to the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), Middle East and North African oil importers need
to create 18.5 million full-time jobs over the next decade.
Countries in the region will have to grow significantly above historical levels in order to meet their job creation targets. While the Middle East and North Africa region is the secondfastest growing region after sub-Saharan Africa according to IMF estimates, this growth is primarily based on the rise in energy prices. The energy sector is highly capital intensive and is not sufficient to create jobs in the region. In this

context, what measures can the region explore to create jobs, in particular for young people?
Boosting private-sector growth. The Arab region is in
need of economic growth based on a vibrant and growing
private sector if it is to attain durably higher levels of gainful, sustainable employment. The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) sheds light on some of the major stumbling
blocks to energizing the private sector, as more competitive economies are those that have in place those factors, policies, and institutions that enable higher productivity.
The latter in turn tends to translate into higher growth that is necessary for higher employment. In the region, given

country’s main strengths remain its world-class capacity
for innovation (3rd), which rests on highly innovative
businesses that benefit from the presence of the world’s
best research institutions geared toward the needs
of the business sector. Israel’s excellent innovation
capacity, which is supported by the government’s
public procurement policies, is reflected in the country’s high number of patents (4th). Its favorable financial
environment, particularly evident in the ease of access
to venture capital (3rd), has contributed to making Israel
an innovation powerhouse. Challenges to maintaining
and improving national competitiveness relate to the
need for the continued upgrading of institutions (34th)
and a renewed focus on raising the bar in terms
of the quality of education. If not addressed, poor
educational quality—particularly in math and science
(89th)—could undermine the country’s innovation-driven

36 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

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 region’s employers.

Indeed, when asked whether their country’s 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

See ILO 2012.

competitiveness strategy over the longer term. As in
previous years, the security situation remains fragile
and imposes a high cost on business (65th). Room
for improvement also remains with respect to the
macroeconomic environment (64th), where increased
budgetary discipline with a view to reducing debt levels
(121st) would help the country maintain stability and
support economic growth going into the future.
Jordan improves by seven positions to 64th rank.
The country was considerably affected by the global
financial and economic crisis in recent years. GDP
growth slowed down to 2.3 percent annually in 2010 and
has not returned to pre-crisis levels since (GDP growth
was 8.2 percent in 2007). These growth rates are not
sufficient to create the employment necessary to absorb
the about 60,000 new entrants into the Jordanian
labor market every year.27 Boosting growth over the

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

longer term to levels that would result in sustainable job
creation will require Jordan’s policymakers to address a
number of challenges. Stabilizing the macroeconomic
environment should remain on the agenda and should
be accompanied by growth-enhancing structural
reforms. According to the GCI, there is significant room
for improvements in terms of labor market efficiency and
the full potential of ICT for productivity improvements
has not yet been exploited, as reflected in the 90th
rank on ICT use. Jordan could also benefit from more
openness to international trade and investment, which
would trigger efficiency gains in the domestic economy
as well as transfer of knowledge and technology. Tariff
barriers remain high in international comparison (104th)
and regulatory barriers to FDI remain in place (70th). And
although financing appears to be more easily available
than in many other countries (i.e., 45th on ease of access
to loans) and efforts to further stabilize the banking
sector should be continued (90th).
Egypt drops by 13 positions to reach 107th place
in this year’s GCI. This assessment was arguably
influenced by the uncertainty caused by the political
transition the country has experienced since the
events of the Arab Spring. According to the business
community, government efficiency has deteriorated
by 22 positions to 106th and the security situation,
which was particularly affected by the events, has
dropped 40 ranks to 128th. At the same time, the
country has improved in individual areas captured
by the institutions pillar, such as less favoritism being
displayed by government officials (up by 31 ranks) and
stronger corporate ethics (up by 17), suggesting the
potential for further positive developments in the future.
Many economic policy challenges lie ahead for the
new government to put the country on a sustainable
and equitable growth path. For Egypt to more fully
benefit from the considerable potential that lies in its
large market size and proximity to key global markets,
the country will have to raise its productive potential
across the domestic economy. According to the GCI,
three areas are of particular importance. First, the
macroeconomic environment has deteriorated over
recent years to reach 138th position mainly because
of widening fiscal deficit, rising public indebtedness,
and persisting inflationary pressures. A credible fiscal
consolidation plan will be necessary in order to maintain
macroeconomic stability in the country. This may prove
difficult in times of rising energy prices, as energy
subsidies account for a considerable share of public
expenditure. However, better targeting of subsidies
could allow for fiscal consolidation while protecting
the most vulnerable. Second, measures to intensify
domestic competition would result in efficiency gains
and contribute to energizing the economy by allowing for
new entrants. And third, making labor markets flexible

(135th) and more efficient (141st) would allow the country
to increase employment in the medium term.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa has grown impressively over the
last 15 years: registering growth rates of over 5 percent
in the past two years, the region continues to exceed
the global average and to exhibit a favorable economic
outlook. Indeed, the region has bounced back rapidly
from the global economic crisis, when GDP growth
dropped to 2.8 percent in 2009. These developments
highlight its simultaneous resilience and vulnerability to
global economic developments, with regional variations.
Although growth in sub-Saharan middle-income
countries seems to have followed the global slowdown
more closely (e.g., South Africa), lower-income and
oil-exporting countries in the region have been largely
unaffected. These regional variations are reflected in this
year’s rankings. While some African economies improve
with respect to national competitiveness this year,
South Africa and Mauritius, the two African countries
in the top half of the rankings, remain stable. However,
other countries that were previously striding ahead are
registering significant declines (Box 5). More generally,
sub-Saharan Africa as a whole lags behind the rest of
the world in competitiveness, requiring efforts across
many areas to place the region on a firmly sustainable
growth and development path going forward.
South Africa is ranked 52nd this year, remaining the
highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa and the
third-placed among the BRICS economies. The country
benefits from the large size of its economy, particularly
by regional standards (it ranks 25th in the market size
pillar). It also does well on measures of the quality of its institutions and on factor allocation, such as intellectual
property protection (20th), property rights (26th), the
accountability of its private institutions (2nd), and its
goods market efficiency (32rd). Particularly impressive
is the country’s financial market development (3rd),
indicating high confidence in South Africa’s financial
markets at a time when trust is returning only slowly in
many other parts of the world. South Africa also does
reasonably well in more complex areas such as business
sophistication (38th) and innovation (42nd), benefitting
from good scientific research institutions (34th) and
strong collaboration between universities and the
business sector in innovation (30th).
These combined attributes make South Africa the
most competitive economy in the region. However,
in order to further enhance its competitiveness, the
country will need to address some weaknesses.
South Africa ranks 113th in labor market efficiency
(a drop of 18 places from last year), with rigid hiring
and firing practices (143rd), a lack of flexibility in wage
determination by companies (140th), and significant
tensions in labor-employer relations (144th). Efforts

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 37

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 5: Is sub-Saharan Africa’s competitiveness improving?
Sub-Saharan Africa has grown impressively over the past
15 years. Indeed, growth rates of over 5 percent in the past two years have made it one of the fastest-growing regions in the world, far exceeding the global average. The region has
also bounced back rapidly from the global economic crisis,
when GDP regional growth dropped to 2.8 percent in 2009.
These developments highlight both Africa’s resilience as well as its vulnerability to global economic developments, with the region characterized by wide regional disparities. Although
growth in sub-Saharan African middle-income countries (e.g., South Africa) seems to have declined largely in step with the global slowdown, lower-income countries in the region have
been largely unaffected. In this context, a pertinent question is whether sub-Saharan Africa will be able to maintain these impressive growth rates going forward. In other words, have
African countries been making the types of investments and
policies that will make them competitive and thus place their economies on sustainable growth paths?
Against this backdrop, the GCI provides a useful
diagnostic tool to determine how African countries are faring in putting into place the fundamentals that will keep them
growing quickly. Indeed, these fundamentals can place them
on the higher growth trajectories needed to ensure rapid
increases in living standards, as has been seen in other
developing regions—most notably much of emerging Asia.
Figure 1 shows the trends in average GCI scores based
on the constant sample of African economies that have
been included since the GCI was introduced in 2005. Their
performance is benchmarked against that of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
average, providing a sense of how Africa’s competitiveness has compared over the period with that of the world’s most advanced economies. Further, recognizing the region’s
diversity, the figure breaks down the overall score into three relevant groups, following the International Monetary Fund’s classification of sub-Saharan economies into oil exporters,
middle-income economies, and low-income countries.1
The OECD and sub-Saharan economies continue to
gradually converge, averaging 4.9 (on a 1-to-7 scale) and 3.7, respectively, up from 3.4 for sub-Saharan Africa eight years ago. The data also reveal that sub-Saharan middle-income
countries were catching up with the OECD average prior to
the 2008–09 financial crisis, but these countries have since registered a decline in their competitiveness performances on average. The region’s average score has been dragged down
by South Africa in particular, which—because of its strong links to international trade and finance—has been affected by the global crisis more than other countries in the region. Likewise, low-income economies register a slight decline

in their average competitiveness score this year, following
seven years of small but continuous improvements in their
GCI scores. Finally, oil exporters have seen an improvement
in their competitiveness of 0.23 points since 2005, bouncing back from a global crisis–linked decline two years ago
brought about by the period’s drop in oil prices. The average competitiveness of the oil exporters remains low overall,
which—along with their significant exposure to commodity
prices—demonstrates a need to continue to improve their
competitiveness by diversifying their economies to make them less vulnerable to such shocks in the future.

To gain a better understanding of the drivers of
the region’s competitiveness and future trends, Figure 2
presents the evolution of scores in basic requirements and
the respective disaggregates for 2005–12. It also presents the average regional performance in efficiency enhancers.
The reason for focusing on these two areas is that the GCI
classifies all sub-Saharan economies in the factor-driven
and efficiency-driven stages of development, and these
two subindexes capture those elements most critical for
improving competitiveness in these stages. The graph shows
that gains in competitiveness stem from improvements in
institutional quality, most noticeably in health and primary education, reflecting improved health conditions and gradually higher primary enrollment rates. Macroeconomic stability
also improved in the pre-crisis years, although double-digit inflation in Eastern Africa on the back of increased food prices and higher fiscal deficits/government debt in other parts of the region have led to a deterioration of macroeconomic

stability since 2008. The figure also shows that the region
has registered a persistent and worrisome infrastructure
deficit: despite gradual improvements in the run-up to the
financial crisis, the quality and quantity of infrastructure has largely stagnated at low levels since then, in part due
to a decline in investment following the financial crisis. The infrastructure deficit is particularly striking given gradual improvements across the various efficiency enhancers (e.g.,
market efficiency, technological readiness) in the past years. Removing this bottleneck would boost intra-regional trade
and help the region to further diversify external trade, thereby making it more resilient to external shocks (e.g., decline in demand from the euro area, oil price shocks).
Looking forward, reducing the competitiveness
divide between sub-Saharan economies and advanced
economies will be the single most determining factor that
can launch the region onto a firmly sustainable growth and
development path. This will require effort across many areas. To complement the time-trend analysis, Figure 3 gives an
overview of the 33 sub-Saharan economies covered in this
year’s GCI (compared with 17 countries in the constant
sample). The broader sample allows classification into oil
exporters, middle-income countries, non-fragile low-income
countries, and fragile countries.2 The data suggest that oilexporting economies trail the performance of even fragile economies in all areas in the basic requirements pillar
except for macroeconomic stability, which is bolstered by
oil revenues. They exhibit the largest infrastructure deficit in the region, their institutional quality is similar to that of fragile economies, and they perform considerably worse than other
countries in the region in educating their young population
and providing good conditions for a healthy workforce. This
is also reflected in this year’s rankings where first-time entrant Gabon leads the African oil exporters at 99th place, followed by Cameroon (112th), Nigeria (115th), and Chad at 139th
place. Thus, despite a favorable growth outlook according
to the International Monetary Fund, their economies remain
vulnerable to oil price shocks and they need to improve their competitiveness and encourage greater diversification if they are to place their economies on more sustainable growth
paths.

(Cont’d.)

38 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 5: Is sub-Saharan Africa’s competitiveness improving? (cont’d.)

Figure 1: Trends in GCI scores, 2005–12
5.0

GCI score (1–7)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
2005–2006

2006–2007

2007–2008

2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

2011–2012

2012–2013

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.

Figure 2: Trends in factor-driven and efficiency-driven scores, 2005–12

4.5

GCI score (1–7)

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
2005–2006

2006–2007

2007–2008

2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

2011–2012

2012–2013

GCI edition
Macroeconomic environment
Institutions

Health and primary education
Efficiency enhancers

Basic requirements
Infrastructure

(Cont’d.)

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 39

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 5: Is sub-Saharan Africa’s competitiveness improving? (cont’d.)

Figure 3: Performance of sub-Saharan Africa and subregions in the GCI 2012–2013

7

6

Score (1–7)

5

4

3

2

OECD
Oil exporters

Middle-income countries
Fragile countries

12. Innovation

11. Business sophistication

10. Market size

9. Technological readiness

8. Financial market development

7. Labor market efficiency

6. Goods market efficiency

5. Higher education and training

4. Health and primary education

3. Macroeconomic environment

2. Infrastructure

1. Institutions

1

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, Côte d’Ivoire, 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

5

10

15

20

Percent of responses

(Cont’d.)

40 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Box 5: Is sub-Saharan Africa’s competitiveness improving? (cont’d.) Middle-income economies, all currently in the efficiencydriven stage of development, outperform their regional peers in all areas except for labor market efficiency, market size, and innovative capacity. South Africa and Mauritius

lead the regional rankings this year, placing 52nd and 54th, respectively, followed by the Seychelles at 76th place. Finally, non-fragile low-income economies enter the pillar rankings
as expected, with Rwanda leading at 63rd, and Sierra Leone
closing the regional rankings at 143rd place.
These outcomes are further corroborated by the
perspective of Africa’s business leaders. Figure 4 presents the most problematic factors for doing business in the region, and reveals that access to financing, corruption, and an
inadequate supply of infrastructure are seen to be significant hindrances to doing business in Africa. These are issues that must be tackled in order to encourage the wealth and job
creation that are still so needed in the region.
As to whether or not the region will be able to
continue on a sustainable growth path will depend on
critical improvement across all pillars, with a focus on the infrastructure deficit. Overall, the results provide cause

must also be made to increase the university enrollment
rate in order to better develop its innovation potential.
Combined efforts in these areas will be critical in view
of the country’s high unemployment rate of almost
25 percent in the second quarter of 2012. In addition,
South Africa’s infrastructure, although good by regional
standards, requires upgrading (63rd). The poor security
situation remains another important obstacle to doing
business in South Africa. The high business costs
of crime and violence (134th) and the sense that the
police are unable to provide sufficient protection from
crime (90th) do not contribute to an environment
that fosters competitiveness. Another major concern
remains the health of the workforce, which is ranked
132nd out of 144 economies—the result of high rates of
communicable diseases and poor health indicators more
generally.
Mauritius comes in at 54th this year, the secondhighest ranked country in the region after South Africa. The country benefits from relatively strong and
transparent public institutions (40th), with clear property
rights, strong judicial independence, and an efficient
government. Private institutions are rated as highly
accountable (13th), with effective auditing and accounting
standards and strong investor protection. The country’s
infrastructure is well developed by regional standards,
particularly its ports, air transport, and fixed telephony.
Its health standards are also impressive compared with
those of other sub-Saharan African countries. Further, its
goods markets are efficient (27th). However, efforts are
still required in education. Enrollment rates remain low

for cautious optimism. Africa’s competitiveness has been
improving in recent years in specific areas. However, looking forward, to better enable national economies to ensure solid future economic performance, African economies must
continue to make efforts to develop economic environments
that are based on productivity enhancements. This means
keeping a clear focus on strengthening the institutional,
physical, and human capital prerequisites for a strong and
competitive private-sector led development. Only in this way will Africa be able to sustain and even accelerate its progress in the positive direction that it has taken over the past
decade.
Notes
1

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.

2

See IMF 2012a.

at all levels, and the country’s educational system gets
only mediocre marks for quality. Beyond its educational
weaknesses, its labor markets could be made more
efficient—it has stringent hiring and firing practices
(78th) and wages that are not flexibly determined (108th),
reducing the incentive for job creation in the country.
Rwanda moves up by seven places this year to
63rd position, continuing to place third in the subSaharan African region. As do the other comparatively successful African countries, Rwanda benefits from
strong and relatively well-functioning institutions, with
very low levels of corruption (an outcome that is certainly
related to the government’s non-tolerance policy),
and a good security environment. Its labor markets
are efficient, its financial markets are relatively well
developed, and Rwanda is characterized by a capacity
for innovation that is quite good for a country at its stage of development. The greatest challenges facing Rwanda
in improving its competitiveness are the state of the
country’s infrastructure, its low secondary and university enrollment rates, and the poor health of its workforce.
The Seychelles enters the Index for the first time
this year at 76th position overall, 4th in the region.
The country benefits from strong and well-functioning
institutions by regional standards (47th), with strong
public trust in politicians (38th) and a government that
is seen as efficient (28th). Infrastructure is also relatively well developed (42nd), and the country has impressive
educational outcomes in terms of enrollment rates,
although the quality of education—particularly in math
and science—is perceived to be rather poor by the

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 41

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

business community. Moving forward, the country will
need to improve the efficiency of its markets, particularly
its goods and financial markets (ranked 70th and 94th,
respectively). Further, because the Seychelles is now
approaching the innovation-driven stage of development,
a more innovative business culture will be critical for
ensuring continued productivity enhancements into the
future.
Botswana moves up one place to 79th, one
of the top five economies in the region. Among the
country’s strengths are its relatively reliable and
transparent institutions (33rd), with efficient government
spending, strong public trust in politicians, and low
levels of corruption. Although improving since last year,
Botswana’s macroeconomic environment remains of
some concern and is ranked 81st this year. However,
Botswana’s primary weaknesses continue to be related
to its human resources base. Education enrollment
rates at all levels remain low by international standards,
and the quality of the educational system receives
mediocre marks. Yet it is clear that by far the biggest
obstacle facing Botswana in its efforts to improve its
competitiveness remains its health situation. The rates
of disease in the country remain very high, and health
outcomes are poor despite improvements in fighting
malaria and reducing infant mortality.
Namibia continues its downward trend and falls
nine places this year to 92nd place, with weakening
across most areas measured by the Index. The
country continues to benefit from a relatively well
functioning institutional environment (52nd), with wellprotected property rights, an independent judiciary, and reasonably strong public trust in politicians. The
country’s transport infrastructure is also good by regional standards (59th). Financial markets are developed by
international standards (47th) and buttressed by solid
confidence in financial institutions (23rd), although
their overall assessment has weakened for three years
in a row. With regard to weaknesses, as in much of
the region, Namibia’s health and education indicators
are worrisome. The country is ranked a low 120th on
the health subpillar, with high infant mortality and low
life expectancy—the result, in large part, of the high
rates of communicable diseases. On the educational
side, enrollment rates remain low and the quality of
the educational system remains poor, ranked 127th.
In addition, Namibia could do more to harness new
technologies to improve its productivity levels; it currently shows low penetration rates of new technologies such
as mobile phones and the Internet.
Ghana is ranked 103rd this year, moving up by
an impressive 11 places since last year on the back
of improvements in the basic requirements of its
macroeconomic stability and health and educational
outcomes. Traditionally displaying strong public
institutions and governance indicators, especially in

42 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

regional comparison, along with increased government
regulation and sizeable deteriorations in all indicators
have dragged down the country’s score in the institutions
pillar to 75th place (from 61st last year). Education levels also continue to lag behind international standards
at all levels, labor markets are still characterized by
inefficiencies, and the country is not harnessing new
technologies for productivity enhancements (ICT
adoption rates are very low). On a more positive note,
some aspects of its infrastructure are good by regional
standards, particularly the state of its ports. Financial
markets are also relatively well developed (59th).
Kenya is ranked 106th this year, showing a relatively
steady performance. The country’s strengths continue
to be found in the more complex areas measured by the
GCI. Kenya’s innovative capacity is ranked an impressive
50th, with high company spending on R&D and good
scientific research institutions that collaborate well with
the business sector in research activities. Supporting
this innovative potential is an educational system that—
although educating a relatively small proportion of the
population compared with most other countries—gets
relatively good marks for quality (37th) as well as
for on-the-job training (62nd). The economy is also
supported by financial markets that are well developed
by international standards (24th) and a relatively efficient labor market (39th). On the other hand, Kenya’s overall
competitiveness is held back by a number of factors.
Health is an area of serious concern (115th), with a high
prevalence of communicable diseases contributing to the
low life expectancy of less than 57 years and reducing
the productivity of the workforce. The security situation
in Kenya is also worrisome (125th).
Liberia enters the rankings for the first time at 111th
place. The country’s institutions receive an impressive
assessment (45th), with strong public trust in politicians
(25th) and high marks for the efficiency of government
(30th). Goods markets are also efficient (40th), with
few procedures and low cost to start a business in
the country, and a taxation regime that is not overly
distortive to economic decision making. In order to
enhance Liberia’s competitiveness, the country must
focus on building physical infrastructure and enhancing
human resources by improving the health and education
levels of the country’s workforce, as well as encouraging
the adoption of the latest technologies for productivity
enhancements.
After some deterioration in the rankings over recent
years, Nigeria has moved up to 115th place this year
thanks to improved macroeconomic conditions (reflecting
a positive government balance and a drop in inflation,
although it remains in the double digits) and a financial
sector that is recovering from its 2009 crisis. The country
has a number of strengths on which to build, including
its relatively large market (33rd), which provides its
companies with opportunities for economies of scale.

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Nigeria’s businesses are also sophisticated by regional
standards (66th), with some cluster development,
companies that tend to hire professional managers,
and a willingness to delegate decision-making authority
within the organization. Likewise, the country registers
improvements in its labor market based on more
efficient use of talent. On the other hand, despite a slight improvement since last year, the institutional environment
does not support a competitive economy because
of concerns about the protection of property rights,
ethics and corruption, undue influence, and government
inefficiencies. The security situation in the country
continues to be dire and has worsened since last year
(134th). Additionally, Nigeria receives poor assessments
for its infrastructure (130th) as well as its health and
primary education levels (142nd). Furthermore, the
country is not harnessing the latest technologies for
productivity enhancements, as demonstrated by its low
rates of ICT penetration.
Tanzania is ranked 120th this year. Tanzania
benefits from public institutions characterized by a
relative evenhandedness in the government’s dealings
with the private sector (56th) and government regulation
that is not seen as overly burdensome (58th). In addition,
some aspects of the labor market lend themselves to
efficiency, such as a high female participation in the
labor force (5th) and reasonable redundancy costs.
On the other hand, infrastructure in the country is
underdeveloped (132nd), with low-quality roads and
ports and an unreliable electricity supply. And although
primary education enrollment is commendably high,
providing universal access, enrollment rates at the
secondary and university levels are among the lowest in
the world (both at 137th place). In addition, the quality of the educational system needs upgrading. A related area
of concern is the low level of technological readiness in
Tanzania (122nd), with very low uptake of ICT such as
the Internet and mobile telephony. In addition, the basic
health of its workforce is also a serious concern; the
country is ranked 113th in this area, with poor health
indicators and high levels of diseases.
Zimbabwe remains stable at 132nd position.
Public institutions continue to receive a weak
assessment, particularly related to corruption, security,
and government favoritism, although overall the
assessment of this pillar is better than it was just a few
years ago. On the other hand, some major concerns
linger with regard to the protection of property rights
(137th), where Zimbabwe is among the lowest-ranked
countries, reducing the incentive for businesses to
invest. And despite efforts to improve its macroeconomic
environment—including the dollarization of its economy
in early 2009, which brought down inflation and interest
rates—the situation continues to be bad enough to
place Zimbabwe among the lowest-ranked countries
in this pillar (122nd), demonstrating the extent of efforts

still needed to ensure its macroeconomic stability.
Weaknesses in other areas include health (133rd in the
health subpillar), low education enrollment rates, and
official markets that continue to function with difficulty
(particularly with regard to goods and labor markets,
ranked 133rd and 139th, respectively).
Mozambique ranks 138th this year and needs
improvements across many areas to lift the economy
onto a sustainable growth and development path,
particularly in view of its natural resource potential. The
country’s public institutions receive a weak assessment
on the back of low public trust in politicians, significant
red tape faced by companies in their business dealings,
and the perceived wastefulness of government
spending. Indeed, recurring government deficits are
leading to a rising public debt burden. Macroeconomic
stability is further undermined by double-digit inflation,
although recent efforts seem to be bearing some fruit in
containing price rises. Looking ahead, important reform
efforts will be needed to improve the country’s long-term
competitiveness, including critical investments across
all modes of infrastructure (rank 129th), establishing
a regulatory framework that encourages competition
to foster economic diversification, and developing a
sound financial market (134th). Also critical, in view
of the country’s rapidly growing population and high
unemployment, are investing in the healthcare system
and primary education (137th) as well as higher
education and training (138th).
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has discussed the results of the Global
Competitiveness Index, covering 144 economies
from all of the world’s regions. The GCI aims to
capture the complexity of the phenomenon of national
competitiveness, which can be improved only through an
array of reforms in different areas that affect the longerterm productivity of a country, which is the key factor affecting economic growth performance of economies.
Recent events related to the financial and economic
crisis and the continued uncertain ramifications
within the global economy highlight the importance of
measures to increase competitiveness in order to put
economic growth of countries on a more stable and
more sustainable footing.
Since its introduction in 2005, the GCI has been
used by an increasing number of countries and
institutions to benchmark national competitiveness.
The clear and intuitive structure of the GCI framework
is useful for prioritizing policy reforms because it allows
each country to identify the strengths and weaknesses
of its national competitiveness environment and
pinpoint those factors most constraining its economic
development. More specifically, the GCI provides a
platform for dialogue among government, business,
and civil society that can serve as a catalyst for

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 43

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

productivity-improving reforms, with the aim of boosting
the living standards of the world’s citizens.
Over the years, the GCI has proved to be a very
useful tool for advancing competitiveness across
countries. More recently, in order to better place
the discussion on competitiveness in a societal and
environmental context, the World Economic Forum
has begun exploring the complex relationship between
competitiveness and sustainability as measured by its
social and environmental dimensions. The work carried
out to date on these important aspects of human and
economic development is described in Chapter 1.2.
NOTES
1 The first version of the Global Competitiveness Index was
published in 2004. See Sala-i-Martín and Artadi 2004.
2 Schumpeter 1942; Solow 1956; and Swan 1956.
3 See, for example, Sala-i-Martín et al. 2004 for an extensive list of potential robust determinants of economic growth.
4 See Easterly and Levine 1997; Acemoglu et al. 2001, 2002; Rodrik et al. 2002; and Sala-i-Martín and Subramanian 2003.
5 See de Soto 2000.
6 See de Soto and Abbot 1990.
7 See Shleifer and Vishny 1997; Zingales 1998.
8 See Kaufmann and Vishwanath 2001.
9 See Aschauer 1989; Canning et al. 1994; Gramlich 1994; and Easterly 2002.
10 See Fischer 1993.
11 See Sachs 2001.

20 Some restrictions were imposed on the coefficients estimated. For example, the three coefficients for each stage had to add up to one, and all the weights had to be non-negative.
21 In order to capture the resource intensity of the economy, we use as a proxy the exports of mineral products as a share of overall exports according to the sector classification developed by the International Trade Centre in their Trade Performance Index. In addition to crude oil and gas, this category also contains all metal ores and other minerals as well as petroleum products, liquefied gas, coal, and precious stones. The data used cover the years 2006 through 2010 or most recent year available. Further information on these data can be found at http://www.intracen. org/menus/countries.htm.

All countries that export more than 70 percent of mineral products are considered to be to some extent factor driven. The stage of development for these countries is adjusted downward smoothly depending on the exact primary export share. The higher the

minerals export share, the stronger the adjustment and the closer the country will move to stage 1. For example, a country that exports 95 percent of mineral exports and that, based on the income criteria, would be in stage 3 will be in transition between stages 1 and 2. The income and primary exports criteria are

weighted identically. Stages of development are dictated solely by income for countries that export less than 70 percent minerals. Countries that export only primary products would automatically fall into the factor-driven stage (stage 1).

22 OECD 2012.
23 Further minor adjustments to the data are that the redundancy cost in the labor market efficiency pillar (7th) is now calculated based on a different tenure of the employee than in previous years and that the Internet bandwidth is now indicated per user instead of per capita.

24 See World Economic Forum 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-Martín 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 economy’s 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 Porter’s theory of stages (see Porter 1990). Please see Chapter 1.1 of The Global Competitiveness Report 2007–2008 for a complete description of how we have adapted Michael Porter’s theory for the present application.

44 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. Robinson. 2001. “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.” American Economic Review 91: 1369–401.
— —. 2002. “Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the —
Making of the Modern World Distribution of Income.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (4): 1231–94.
Aghion P. and P. Howitt. 1992. “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction.” Econometrica L X: 323–51.
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. 1499–542.
Almeida, R., and P. Carneiro, 2009. “Enforcement of Labor Regulation and Firm Size.” Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 28–46. Amin, M. 2009. “Labor Regulation and Employment in India’s Retail Stores.” Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 47–61. Aschauer, D. A. 1989. “Is Public Expenditure Productive?” Journal of Monetary Economics 23 (2): 117–200.

Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-i-Martín. 1992. “Convergence.” Journal of Political Economy 100 (April): 223–51.
— —. 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.

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Canning, D., M. Fay, and R. Perotti. 1994. “Infrastructure and Economic Growth.” In M. Baldarassi, L. Paganetto, and E. Phelps, eds., International Differences in Growth Rates. New York: MacMillan. De Soto, H. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.

De Soto, H. and J. Abbot. 1990. The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism. New York: Harper Perennial.
Easterly, W. 2002. The Elusive Quest for Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Easterly W. and R. Levine. 1997. “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics CXII: 1203–50. Feyrer, J. 2009. “Trade and Income: Exploiting Time Series in Geography.” NBER Working Paper No. 14910. Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic Research.
Fischer, S. 1993. “The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth.” Journal of Monetary Economics 32 (3): 485–512.
Frenkel, J. and D. Romer. 1999. “Does Trade Cause Growth?” American Economic Review 89 (3): 379–99.
Gramlich, E. M. 1994. “Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay.” Journal of Economic Literature 32 (3): 1176–96.

Romer, P. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (October): X71–S102.
Rostow, W. W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth, a NonCommunist Manifesto. Cambridge: University Press. Sachs, J. 2001. Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development: Report of the Commission on

Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Sachs, J. and A. Warner. 1995. “Economic Reform and the Process of Economic Integration.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1995 (1): 1–118.

Sala-i-Martín, X. and E. V. Artadi, 2004. “The Global Competitiveness Index.” The Global Competitiveness Report 2004–2005.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 51–80.
Sala-i-Martín X., J. Blanke, M. Drzeniek Hanouz, T. Geiger, I. Mia, and F. Paua. 2007. “The Global Competitiveness Index: Measuring the Productive Potential of Nations.” The Global Competitiveness Report 2007–2008. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 3–50.

Sala-i-Martín, X., G. Doppelhoffer, and R. Miller. 2004. “Cross-Sectional Growth Regressions: Robustness and Bayesian Model Averaging.” American Economic Review 94 (4) September.

Grossman, G. and E. Helpman. 1991. Innovation and Growth in the World Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 3 and 4.

Sala-i-Martín, X. and A. Subramanian. 2003. “Addressing the Natural Resources Curse: An Illustration from Nigeria.” NBER Working Paper No. 9804, June. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.

IADB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2010. The Age of Productivity: Transforming Economies from the Bottom Up. Washington DC:
IADB.

Schultz, T. W. 1961. “Investment in Human Capital.” American Economic Review 1 (2): 1–17.

ILO (International Labour Organization). 2008. L ABORSTA International Labour Office database on labour statistics. Geneva: ILO
Department of Statistics. Available at http://laborsta.ilo.org/. — —. 2012. Global Employment Trends. Geneva: International —
Labour Office. Available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/
wcms_171571.pdf.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2012a. World Economic Outlook database, April. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx.
— —. 2012b. Regional Economic Outlook, Sub-Saharan Africa: —
Sustaining Growth amid Global Uncertainty, April 2012. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/reo/2012/afr/eng/sreo0412. htm.
— —. 2012c. “Jordan: Staff Report for the 2012 Article IV Consultation.” —
IMF Country Report No. 12/119, May. Washington, DC: IMF.
Kaplan, D. 2009. “Job Creation and Labor Reform in Latin America.” Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 91–105.
Kaufmann, D. and T. Vishwanath. 2001. “Toward Transparency: New Approaches and their Application to Financial Markets.” World Bank Observer 16 (1): 41–57.
Kremer, M. 1993. “The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3): 551–75.

Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row; 3rd Edition, 1950.
Shleifer, A. and R. Vishny. 1997, “A Survey of Corporate Governance.” Nobel Symposium on Law and Finance, August, 1995. Journal of Finance 52 (June): 737–83.
Solow, R. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (February): 65–94.
Swan, T. W. 1956. “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation.” Economic Record 32 (2): 334–61.
Trajtenberg, M. 2005. “Innovation Policy for Development: An Overview.” Paper prepared for LAEBA, Second Annual Meeting. November
28–29. Tel Aviv University.
World Economic Forum. 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
— —. 2012a. The Europe 2020 Competitiveness Report: Building a —
More Competitive Europe, 2012 edition. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
— —. 2012b. The Global Information Technology Report 2012. Geneva: —
World Economic Forum.
Zingales, L. 1998. “Corporate Governance.” In P. Newman, ed., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. New York:
Macmillan.

Lucas, R. E. 1988. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1): 3–42.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2012. Patent Database. (June 2012).
— —. OECD.stat, Dataset 11: Government Spending by Function. —
Available at http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx (retrieved on August 12, 2011).
Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
Rodrik, D. and F. Rodriguez. 1999. “Trade Policy and Growth: A Skeptics’ Guide to Cross National Evidence.” NBER Working Paper No. 7081, April. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Rodrik, D., A. Subramanian, and F. Trebbi. 2002. “Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development.” Mimeo, Harvard University, October.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 45

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Appendix:
Computation and structure of the Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

This appendix presents the structure of the Global
Competitiveness Index 2012–2013 (GCI). The numbering
of the variables matches the numbering of the data
tables. The number preceding the period indicates
to which pillar the variable belongs (e.g., variable 1.11
belongs to the 1st pillar and variable 9.04 belongs to the
9th pillar).
The computation of the GCI is based on successive
aggregations of scores from the indicator level (i.e., the
most disaggregated level) all the way up to the overall
GCI score. Unless mentioned otherwise, we use an
arithmetic mean to aggregate individual variables within
a category.a For the higher aggregation levels, we use
the percentage shown next to each category. This
percentage represents the category’s weight within
its immediate parent category. Reported percentages
are rounded to the nearest integer, but exact figures
are used in the calculation of the GCI. For example,
the score a country achieves in the 9th pillar accounts
for 17 percent of this country’s score in the efficiency
enhancers subindex, irrespective of the country’s stage
of development. Similarly, the score achieved on the
subpillar transport infrastructure accounts for 50 percent
of the score of the infrastructure pillar.
Unlike the case for the lower levels of aggregation,
the weight put on each of the three subindexes (basic
requirements, efficiency enhancers, and innovation and
sophistication factors) is not fixed. Instead, it depends
on each country’s stage of development, as discussed
in the chapter.b For instance, in the case of Burundi—a
country in the first stage of development—the score
in the basic requirements subindex accounts for 60
percent of its overall GCI score, while it represents just
20 percent of the overall GCI score of Sweden, a country
in the third stage of development. For countries in
transition between stages, the weighting applied to each
subindex is reported in the corresponding profile at the
end of this volume. For instance, in the case of Algeria,
currently in transition from stage 1 to stage 2, the weight
on each subindex is 59.1 percent, 35.7 percent, and
5.2 percent, respectively, as reported in the country/
economy profile on page 88.
Variables that are not derived from the Executive
Opinion Survey (Survey) are identified by an asterisk
(*) in the following pages. The Technical Notes and

46 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Sources section at the end of the Report provides
detailed information about these indicators. To make the
aggregation possible, these variables are transformed
onto a 1-to-7 scale in order to align them with the
Survey results. We apply a min-max transformation,
which preserves the order of, and the relative distance
between, country scores.c
Indicators that are followed by the designation “1/2”
enter the GCI in two different pillars. In order to avoid
double counting, we assign a half-weight to each
instance.d
Weight (%) within
immediate parent category

BASIC REQUIREMENTS

1st pillar: Institutions ...............................................25% A. Public institutions .................................................... 75% 1. Property rights ....................................................................... 20% 1.01 Property rights

1.02 Intellectual property protection 1/2
2. Ethics and corruption ............................................................. 20% 1.03 Diversion of public funds
1.04 Public trust in politicians
1.05 Irregular payments and bribes
3. Undue influence.....................................................................20% 1.06 Judicial independence
1.07 Favoritism in decisions of government officials
4. Government efficiency............................................................ 20% 1.08 Wastefulness of government spending
1.09 Burden of government regulation
1.10 Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes
1.11 Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regulations 1.12 Transparency of government policymaking
1.13 Provision of government services for improved business
performance
5. Security................................................................................. 20% 1.14 Business costs of terrorism
1.15 Business costs of crime and violence
1.16 Organized crime
1.17 Reliability of police services
B. Private institutions ................................................... 25% 1. Corporate ethics .................................................................... 50% 1.18 Ethical behavior of firms

2. Accountability ........................................................................ 50% 1.19 Strength of auditing and reporting standards
1.20 Efficacy of corporate boards
1.21 Protection of minority shareholders’ interests
1.22 Strength of investor protection*

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

2nd pillar: Infrastructure ..........................................25%

6th pillar: Goods market efficiency .........................17%

A. Transport infrastructure ........................................... 50% 2.01 Quality of overall infrastructure
2.02 Quality of roads
2.03 Quality of railroad infrastructure e
2.04 Quality of port infrastructure
2.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
2.06 Available airline seat kilometers*

A. Competition .............................................................. 67%

B. Electricity and telephony infrastructure ................. 50% 2.07 Quality of electricity supply
2.08 Mobile telephone subscriptions1/2
2.09 Fixed telephone lines1/2

3rd pillar: Macroeconomic environment .................25%
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05

Government budget balance*
Gross national savings*
Inflation* f
Government debt*
Country credit rating*

4th pillar: Health and primary education.................25% A. Health ....................................................................... 50% 4.01 Business impact of malaria g
4.02 Malaria incidence* g
4.03 Business impact of tuberculosis g
4.04 Tuberculosis incidence* g
4.05 Business impact of HIV/AIDS g
4.06 HIV prevalence* g
4.07 Infant mortality*
4.08 Life expectancy*

1. Domestic competition ...................................................... variable h 6.01 Intensity of local competition
6.02 Extent of market dominance
6.03 Effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy
6.04 Extent and effect of taxation1/2
6.05 Total tax rate*
6.06 Number of procedures required to start a business* i
6.07 Time required to start a business* i
6.08 Agricultural policy costs
2. Foreign competition ......................................................... variable h 6.09 Prevalence of trade barriers
6.10 Trade tariffs*
6.11 Prevalence of foreign ownership
6.12 Business impact of rules on FDI
6.13 Burden of customs procedures
6.14 Imports as a percentage of GDP* j
B. Quality of demand conditions ................................. 33% 6.15 Degree of customer orientation
6.16 Buyer sophistication

7th pillar: Labor market efficiency ..........................17% A. Flexibility .................................................................. 50% 7.01 Cooperation in labor-employer relations

7.02 Flexibility of wage determination
7.03 Hiring and firing practices
7.04 Redundancy costs*
6.04 Extent and effect of taxation 1/2

EFFICIENCY ENHANCERS

B. Efficient
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08

5th pillar: Higher education and training.................17%

8th pillar: Financial market development ................17%

A. Quantity of education .............................................. 33% 5.01 Secondary education enrollment rate*
5.02 Tertiary education enrollment rate*

A. Efficiency .................................................................. 50% 8.01 Availability of financial services
8.02 Affordability of financial services
8.03 Financing through local equity market
8.04 Ease of access to loans
8.05 Venture capital availability

B. Primary education ................................................... 50% 4.09 Quality of primary education
4.10 Primary education enrollment rate*

B. Quality of education ................................................ 33% 5.03 Quality of the educational system
5.04 Quality of math and science education
5.05 Quality of management schools
5.06 Internet access in schools
C. On-the-job training .................................................. 33% 5.07 Local availability of specialized research and
training services
5.08 Extent of staff training

use of talent............................................... 50% Pay and productivity
Reliance on professional management 1/2
Brain drain
Female participation in labor force*

B. Trustworthiness and confidence ............................. 50% 8.06 Soundness of banks
8.07 Regulation of securities exchanges
8.08 Legal rights index*

9th pillar: Technological readiness ..........................17% A. Technological adoption ........................................... 50% 9.01 Availability of latest technologies
9.02 Firm-level technology absorption
9.03 FDI and technology transfer
B. ICT use ..................................................................... 50% 9.04 Internet users*
9.05 Broadband Internet subscriptions*
9.06 Internet bandwidth*
9.07 Mobile broadband subscriptions*
2.08 Mobile telephone subscriptions* 1/2
2.09 Fixed telephone lines1/2

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 47

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

10th pillar: Market size............................................17%

covered by the GCI. In some instances, adjustments were made to account for extreme outliers. For those indicators for which a higher value indicates a worse outcome (e.g., disease incidence, government debt), the transformation formula takes the following form, thus ensuring that 1 and 7 still corresponds to the worst and best possible outcomes, respectively:

A. Domestic market size .............................................. 75% 10.01 Domestic market size index* k
B. Foreign market size ................................................. 25% 10.02 Foreign market size index* l

–6 x

INNOVATION AND SOPHISTICATION FACTORS

11th pillar: Business sophistication ........................50% 11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
7.06

Local supplier quantity
Local supplier quality
State of cluster development
Nature of competitive advantage
Value chain breadth
Control of international distribution
Production process sophistication
Extent of marketing
Willingness to delegate authority
Reliance on professional management 1/2

(sum of scores on full-weight variables) 1
(count of full-weight variables) 1

f

NOTES
a Formally, for a category i composed of K indicators, we have: indicatork

k=1

categoryi

K

b As described in the chapter, the weights are as specified below. Refer to Table 2 of the chapter for country classification according to stage of development:
Stage of development
Factor-driven Transition
stage (1)
from stage 1
to stage 2

Efficiencydriven
stage (2)

)

+7

3 (sum of scores on half-weight variables)
3 (count of half-weight variables)

e “n/appl.” is used for economies where the railroad network totals less than 50 kilometers.

Capacity for innovation
Quality of scientific research institutions
Company spending on R&D
University-industry collaboration in R&D
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Availability of scientists and engineers
PCT patent applications
Intellectual property protection 1/2

K

sample maximum – sample minimum

d For those categories that contain one or several half-weight variables, country scores are computed as follows:

12th pillar: R&D Innovation ......................................50% 12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
1.02

(

country score – sample minimum

Transition
from stage 2
to stage 3

Innovationdriven
stage (3)

GDP per capita (US$) thresholds*

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.

g The impact of malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS on
competitiveness depends not only on their respective incidence rates but also on how costly they are for business. Therefore, in order to estimate the impact of each of the three diseases, we combine its incidence rate with the Survey question on its perceived cost to businesses. To combine these data we first take the ratio of each country’s disease incidence rate relative to the highest incidence rate in the whole sample. The inverse of this ratio is then multiplied by each country’s score on the related Survey question. This product is then normalized to a 1-to-7 scale. Note that countries with zero reported incidence receive a 7, regardless of their scores on the related Survey question. In the case of malaria, countries receive a 7 if they have been classified as non-endemic by the World Health Organization (WHO).

h The competition subpillar is the weighted average of two
components: domestic competition and foreign competition. In both components, the included variables provide an indication of the extent to which competition is distorted. The relative importance of these distortions depends on the relative size of domestic versus foreign competition. This interaction between the domestic market and the foreign market is captured by

the way we determine the weights of the two components.
Domestic competition is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and exports (X), while foreign competition is equal to imports (M). Thus we assign a weight of (C + I + G + X)/(C + I + G + X + M) to domestic competition and a weight of M/(C + I + G + X + M) to foreign competition.

2,000–2,999 3,000–8,999 9,000–17,000

>17,000

i

Variables 6.06 and 6.07 combine to form one single variable.

j

+15% to +20%
⇗ GCI score changes by +5% to +15%
⇒ GCI score remains stable between +5% and –5%
⇘ GCI score changes by –5% to –15%
⇓ GCI score changes by < –15% to –20%

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 59

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

high inequality score of 39.5. On the environmental side,
Japan attains a more mixed performance, doing well in
terms of environmental policies (good commitment on
regulation and standards), yet it continues to face high
emissions.
The United States shows middling results in
both social and environmental sustainability, which
results in a slightly lower score in the sustainabilityadjusted GCI than in the GCI itself. The country’s social sustainability score is affected by increasing inequality
and youth unemployment. However, it is the score in
the environmental sustainability–adjusted GCI that is a
concern for the country’s sustainable prosperity. For
example, the United States is among the countries that
have ratified the fewest environmental treaties in the
sample.
Mexico is an economy with somewhat weak
sustainable competitiveness in both dimensions. On the
social side, Mexico’s performance is affected by high
inequality and a large informal economy. Environmentally,
Mexico is penalized for its high and increasing levels of
emissions, relatively intense use of water for agriculture,
and a perception that the natural environment is highly
degraded.
Several other Latin American countries see a
number of weaknesses in both pillars, with Argentina and
the Dominican Republic encountering more concerns
on the environmental side and Peru, Colombia, and
Paraguay with more concerns in the social sustainability
area.
Costa Rica, on the other hand, stands out for its
positive environmental performance. Attaining a better
result in the environmental sustainability–adjusted GCI
than in the underlying GCI, the country could be a
reference for the rest of Latin America. First of all, Costa Rica has low air pollution with levels of particulate matter (PM2.5) and CO2 among the lowest of the countries
studied. The country is actively avoiding deforestation
through one of the world’s most extensive programs of
rainforest conservation. One area of concern remains
overfishing, which would be important to address given
the importance of the fishing industry in the country.
Brazil performs slightly better in the overall
environmental sustainability–adjusted GCI than in the
social sustainability–adjusted GCI. However, Brazil’s
overall relatively good performance masks a number
of environmental concerns—such as the deforestation
of the Amazon—with the country displaying one of the
highest rates of deforestation in the world. And although
Brazil demonstrates an overall reasonable performance
in the social sustainability area, the country’s very high inequality remains an area of concern.
In general, outside of Brazil, the other three
BRICs (Russia, India, and China) all reveal significant
weaknesses in both dimensions of sustainable
competitiveness.

60 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

The Russian Federation does particularly poorly in
terms of environmental sustainability, with some of the
poorest ratings globally for three indicators: the strength
of environmental regulations, the number of international
environmental treaties ratified by the country, and the
quality of the natural environment.
India is the worst performer among the BRICs, with
concerns in both areas of sustainability. On the social
sustainability–adjusted GCI, India is not providing access to some basic services to many of its citizens (only 34
percent of the population has access to sanitation, for
example). The employment of much of the population
is also vulnerable, which—combined with weak official
social safety nets—makes the country vulnerable to
economic shocks. In addition, although no official data
are reported for youth unemployment, numerous studies
indicate that the percentage is very high. In terms of its
environmentally sustainable competitiveness, India also
has some areas of concern such as its high agricultural
water intensity and significant air pollution.
China’s competitiveness performance is notably
weakened once the sustainability measures are taken
into account, especially in terms of environmental
sustainability. Although some political actions toward
environmental improvement (such as afforestation)
have been taken, the country continues to suffer from
high emission levels (high levels of CO2 and particulate
matter) and the agricultural sector places a great deal of
pressure on the environment (China’s water intensity is
very high). Social sustainability is only partially measured for China, as the country does not report data related
to youth unemployment or vulnerable employment.
However, the available indicators show a somewhat
negative picture, with rising inequality and general
access to basic services such as improved sanitation
remaining low.
Among other economies analyzed in this section,
Turkey—one of the countries that improved most in
the GCI rankings this year—does not sustain its good
performance once sustainability matters are taken into
account. High inequality, vulnerable employment, and
a large informal sector place pressure on the country’s
social sustainability. Similarly, high pollution and intensive water use for agriculture, as well as a lack of protected
land area and a low commitment to international
environmental agreements remain areas of concern for
Turkey’s environmentally sustainable competitiveness.
In contrast, New Zealand, with its strongly
articulated political commitment to environmental
stewardship, receives a positive assessment for its
environmentally sustainable competitiveness. It also
performs better than neighboring Australia. The main
differences between the two countries lie in the lower
level of air pollution in New Zealand and the country’s
efforts to set aside protected land areas. Both countries
receive strong assessments for their social sustainability.

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

Box 5: Plea for better sustainability data
Data availability and quality are critical issues for both
research and policymaking, and all projects concerned with
assessing environmental or social conditions are limited by
one or both of these concerns. These limitations make it
difficult to track developments over time or to compare data across countries.
For example, datasets capturing some of the relevant
areas of social sustainability—such as the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s Decent Work initiative (covering indicators such as injuries at work, excessive hours, and numbers of
the working poor)—cover a limited number of countries. And some other indicators are not specific enough. For instance, including the indicator “CO2 emissions to energy use” in the sustainability-adjusted GCI may give an idea of how efficiently economies are using fuels with respect to the associated

emissions, but it also incorporates other factors (such as
the industrial structure, the economic specialization, and the technology used in the country) that make it hard to isolate single elements and compare countries.
The available data concerned with the quality and
use of water comprise another prominent example of data
inadequacy. Although water has possibly one of the biggest
environmental impacts on human life, researchers lack a
globally agreed methodology for defining and measuring
water scarcity and pollution, while data on water withdrawal— despite great efforts to maintain the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Aquastat database—are not updated
regularly. It is, however, precisely the timeliness of data
updates for many of these indicators that is critical for
policymakers. For some indicators it is indeed crucial. Youth unemployment, for instance, is changing relatively quickly
in many economies, especially after an economic crisis. Yet
several datasets on youth unemployment predate the crisis
for some specific countries; using out-of-date figures could be

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Sustainable competitiveness is a nascent area of
research and our initial work has shown that much
of the data for measuring key concepts are not
yet available. We therefore recognize that properly
capturing the concept of sustainable competitiveness
will require a multi-year effort. As more comprehensive
and better data are needed to fully assess sustainable
competitiveness, as noted above, there are a number
of concepts we have not yet been able to capture (see
Boxes 4 and 5).
However, by combining social and environmental
indicators with the GCI we have been able to introduce
the concept and carry out a preliminary analysis of
national and regional social sustainability.
The main and very important finding is that there is
no necessary trade-off between being competitive and
being sustainable (by our definitions). On the contrary,
many countries at the top of the competitiveness
rankings are also the best performers in many areas of
sustainability.

misleading for policymakers, who need to have statistics that accurately reflect the actual current situation in order to gain a sense of the effectiveness of their reform efforts.
Data on social and environmental performances are
particularly complex and intricate, and the challenges and
the investments needed to produce sound indicators should
not be underestimated. For instance, coming back to the
point of the assessment of water pollution, it would be
necessary to identify and agree on the list of substances
and their relative levels that would define a water course as “polluted.” Moreover, developing an aggregation methodology to turn local measurement into national statistics would
be an important milestone. Such a methodology would
help in understanding and monitoring issues that need
to be managed to put economies on a more sustainable
development path, and would provide statistical evidence to
drive the agendas of policymakers.
In order to contribute to such data production and
collection, the World Economic Forum has formed a Global
Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability. The Council
aims to design and nurture one or more global public good
initiatives to meet the needs of policymakers who must
have access to high-quality, verifiable, and readily available contextually specific knowledge and information if they are
to formulate responsible policies. Nonetheless, a wider
international effort is required to overcome the challenge
of measuring sustainability. This challenge can be met by
pooling resources to produce and collect the data and by
defining global measurement standards. The Global Agenda
Council on Measuring Sustainability aims to participate in
this effort by bringing scientists together while focusing
the attention of policymakers on the need to develop new
sustainability indicators.

While creating value and being productive remain
at the basis of economic development, the purpose of
this work is to explore how social and environmental
elements relate to economic progress and prosperity
because the three areas are clearly interlinked. It is highly likely that sustained human progress and prosperity
will depend on balancing economic progress with
social inclusion and good and effective environmental
stewardship.
The work presented in this chapter is the result of an
ongoing process. We will update and refine our thinking
over time, integrating feedback and the latest research
on an ongoing basis. As we have already done over the
past year, we will continue to carry out workshops and
roundtables over the coming year in order to further
refine the concept. We will also continue to seek better
and more complete datasets in collaboration with the
newly created World Economic Forum Global Agenda
Council on Measuring Sustainability.
The Advisory Board on Sustainability and
Competitiveness will continue to deliberate and to work
with the Forum to integrate feedback collected into this

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 61

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

work. The goal is to present an even more complete
measurement of the concept in time for the next Global
Competitiveness Report.
Additionally, because—given its specific economic
and political characteristics—the theme of sustainability
requires a multi-stakeholder approach, the World
Economic Forum will continue to serve the international
community by providing a neutral platform on which
to move ahead in this area. Work on sustainable
competitiveness is one important component of this
platform, and the Forum offers a space for conceptual
discussion as well as assessment and analysis.
NOTES
1 See, for example, Atkinson 2003.

Aghion P., P. Howitt, and F. Murtin. 2009. “The Relationship Between Health and Growth: When Lucas Meets Nelson-Phelps.”
Documents de Travail de l’OFCE no. 2009-28, Observatoire
Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
Alesina, A. and D. Rodrik 1994, “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 109 (2): 465–90. Atkinson, A. B. 2003. “Income Inequality in OECD Countries: Data and Explanations.” CESifo Working Paper Series 881, CESifo Group, Munich.

Baldini M. and S. Toso. 2009. Diseguaglianza, povertà e politiche pubbliche.Il Mulino.
Berg, A. and J. Ostry. 2011. “Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” IMF Staff Discussion Note. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund. Available at http://www.imf.org/ external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf.

Bertola, G. 1993. “Factors Shares and Savings in Endogenous Growth.” American Economic Review 83 (5):1194–98.

2 See, for example, Nordhaus 1994, 2000, 2002; Bovenberg and Smulders 1996; Aghion et al. 1998; and Acemoglu 2002, 2007,
2009.

Bovenberg, A. L. and J. A. Smulders. 1996. “Transitional Impacts of Environmental Policy in an Endogenous Growth Model.” Open
Access publications from Tilburg University, urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-73103, Tilburg University.

3 See, for example, Perotti 1993: Bertola 1993: Alesina and Rodrik 1994: Persson and Tabellini 1994: and Green et al. 2006.

Coman, K. 2011. “Some Unsettled Problems of Irrigation (1911).” American Economic Review 101 (1): 36–48.

4 See the World Economic Forum 2012a for an assessment of how Europe is faring in meeting these goals.

Cowen, T., ed. 1992. Public Goods and Market Failures. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

5 For more information on this index, see www.oecdbetterlifeindex. org/.

Dealkin, S. 2009. “The Evidence-Based Case for Labour Regulation.” Paper prepared for the Regulating Decent Work Conference, ILO, Geneva, July 8.

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.

Driscoll, T., K. Steenland, D. Imel Nelson, and J. Leigh. 2004. Occupational Airborne Particulates: Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease at National and Local Levels. Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 7. Geneva: World Health

Organization.

9 Information about the Global Adaptation Index is available at http://index.gain.org/.

Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.

7 For more information on the EPI, see http://www.epi.yale.edu/.

10 The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators Framework is available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp.

Esteban, J. and D. Ray. 2006. “Inequality, Lobbying and Resource Allocation.” The American Economic Review 96 (1): 257–79.

11 Information about the Decent Work initiative is available at http:// www.ilo.org/integration/themes/mdw/lang--en/index.htm.

Esty, D. C., M. Levy, T. Srebotnjak, and A. de Sherbinin. 2005. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National
Environmental Stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for
Environmental Law & Policy.

12 See, for example, Marshal et al. 1997.
13 Smith 2012.
14 World Economic Forum. 2012b.
15 UN-HABITAT 2010.
16 Countries from the GCI sample were excluded if they were missing a maximum of two indicators considering both sustainability
pillars.
17 See Acemoglu et al. 2012, for example.

REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D. 2002. “Directed Technical Change.” Review of Economic Studies 69 (4): 781–809.
— —. 2007. “Equilibrium Bias of Technology.” Econometrica 75 (5): —
1371–1409.
— —. 2009. Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. New York: —
Princeton University Press.
Acemoglu, D., P. Aghion, L. Bursztyn, and D. Hemous. 2012. “The Environment and Directed Technical Change.” American Economic Review 102 (1): 131–66.
Aghion, P. and P. Howitt. 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

62 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Ewing B., A. Reed, A. Galli, J. Kitzes, and M. Wackernagel. 2010. Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
ILO (International Labour Organization). 2008. Decent Work Indicators for Asia and the Pacific: A Guidebook for Policy-Makers and
Researchers. Geneva: ILO. Available at www.ilo.org/asia/
whatwedo/publications/WCMS_099163/lang--en/index.htm.
IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2011. IOM Case Data Global Figures & Trends: Human Trafficking. Geneva: IOM.
Gleick, P.H. 2003. “Water Use.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28: 275–314.
Green, A., J. Preston, and G. Janmaat. 2006. Education, Equality and Social Cohesion: A Comparative Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamilton, K. and M. Clemens. 1998. “Genuine Savings Rates in Developing Countries.” World Bank Economic Review 13 (2):
333–56.
Hanley, N., J. Shogren, and B. White. 2007. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kutzents, S. 1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality.” American Economic Review 45 (1):1–28.
Marshall, F., M. Ashmore, and F. Hinchcliffe. 1997. A Hidden Threat to Food Production: Air Pollution and Agriculture in the Developing World. Gatekeeper series, NO SA 73. London: International
Institute for Environment and Development.

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

Mercer. 2011. Climate Change Scenarios: Implications for Strategic Asset Allocation. Public Report. Washington DC: Mercer, Carbon Trust, and IFC. Available at www.mercer.com/climatechange.
Meyer, S. 1999. The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulation. MIT Project on Environmental Politics & Policy. Available at http://web. mit.edu/polisci/mpepp/Reports/Econ%20Impact%20 Enviro%20

Reg.pdf.
Nordhaus, W. 1994. “Locational Competition and the Environment: Should Countries Harmonize Their Environmental Policies?“
Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1079, Cowles
Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.

— —. 2012b. Financing Green Growth in a Resource—
Constrained 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/.

— —. 2000. “Alternative Methods for Measuring Productivity Growth,” —
Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1282, Cowles
Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
— —. 2002. “The Health of Nations: The Contribution of Improved —
Health to Living Standards,” NBER Working Paper No. 8818.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Perotti R. 1993. “Political Equilibrium, Income Distribution, and Growth.” Review of Economic Studies 60 (4): 755–76.
Persson, T. and G.Tabellini 1994. “Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? Theories and Evidence.” American Economic Review 84: (1994): 600–21.
Shorrocks, A. 2005. Inequality Values and Unequal Shares. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.
Smith, A. 2012. “U.S. Drought Drives Up Food Prices Worldwide.” CNNMoney, August 9. Available at http://money.cnn.
com/2012/08/09/news/economy/food-prices-index/index.htm.
Stavins, R. 2011. “The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years.” American Economic Review 101 (1): 81–108.
Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. London: HM Treasury.
Stiglitz, J., A. Sen, and J. Fitoussi. 2009. The Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress Revisited: Reflections and Overview. Available at http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/ documents/ overview-eng.pdf.

— —. 2011b. Human Development Report 2011: Sustainability and —
Equity: A Better Future for All. New York: UNDP.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2011a. The Road to Rio + 20. New York and Geneva: UNCTAD.
Issue 1, March. Available at http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php? page=view&type=400&nr=11&menu=45.
— —. 2010b. Overview of the Republic of Korea’s National Strategy —
for Green Growth. Report prepared by the United Nations
Environment Programme as part of its Green Economy
Initiative, April. Available at http://www.unep.org/PDF/
PressReleases/201004_UNEP_NATIONAL_STRATEGY.pdf.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2007. Human
Development Report 2007/2008: Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. New York: UNDP.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2010a. “How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit?” Information Note Paper prepared for the UNEP Governing Council Meeting & Global Ministerial
Environment Forum, February 24–26, Bali, Indonesia. Available at http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/temperature-briefing-2102-10-final-e.pdf. UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). 2010. Bridging the Urban Divide: Sao Paolo: A Tale of Two Cities. Cities & Citizens series. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

Venieris, Y. P. and D. K. Gupta. 1986. “Income Distribution and Sociopolitical Instability as Determinants of Savings: A CrossSectional Model.” Journal of Political Economy 94 (4): 873–83. World Economic Forum. 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Available at http:// www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf.

— —. 2012a. The Europe 2020 Competitiveness Report: Building a —
More Competitive Europe. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 63

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

Appendix A:
Calculation of the sustainability-adjusted GCI

As described in the text, the two areas of sustainability— social and environmental—are treated as independent
adjustments to each country’s performance in the
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). The adjustment is
calculated according to the following steps.
AGGREGATION
In the first step, the individual indicators in each area
are normalized on a 1-to-7 scale and aggregated by
averaging the normalized scores, such that a social
sustainability score and an environmental sustainability
score are calculated for each country.
In the second step, these scores are normalized
again on a 0.8-to-1.2 scale,a which is based on the
distribution of each of the two sustainability components.
The purpose of this methodology is to reward the
countries attaining a relatively good performance on
the two sustainability components while penalizing
those that register a poor performance. Applying this
methodology corresponds to transforming actual
averages into coefficients ranging from 0.8 to 1.2. For
example, the worst performer on the social sustainability
pillar obtains a score of 0.8 and the best performer a 1.2.
The same calculation is conducted for the environmental
sustainability pillar.
Normalizing on a 0.8-to-1.2 scale and using the
actual sample maximum and minimum are corroborated
by the statistical distribution of the data, so as to ensure that the final data are not skewed. In the absence of
empirical evidence, the selection of the impact limits
(0.8–1.2) relies on the best judgment of the authors
and is based on the assumption that countries can
experience either an opportunity if they manage their
resources well or a weakness if they do not.
The selection of this methodology is not intended
to be scientific, but it represents a normative approach
aimed at stimulating discussions on policy priorities and
possibly stimulating scientific research in this field.
In the third step, the GCI score of each country
is multiplied twice: once by its social sustainability
coefficient and once by its environmental sustainability
coefficient, to obtain two separate sustainabilityadjusted GCI scores. Finally, an average of the two scores provides an overall measure of the sustainability
adjustment.

64 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

STRUCTURE OF THE SUSTAINABILITY PILLARS
The computation of the sustainability components is
based on an arithmetic mean aggregation of scores from
the indicator level.b
Variables that are not derived from the Executive
Opinion Survey (Survey) are identified by an asterisk (*) in the following pages. To make the aggregation possible,
these variables are transformed into a 1-to-7 scale in
order to align them with the Survey results. We apply a
min-max transformation, which preserves the order of,
and the relative distance between, country scores.c
Indicators marked with a “(log)” subscript are
transformed applying the logarithm (base 10) to the raw
score.
Social sustainability pillar
S01
Income Gini index*
S02
Youth unemployment*
S03.01 Access to sanitation* d(log)
S03.02 Access to improved drinking water* d
S03.03 Access to healthcared
S04
Social safety net protection
S05
Extent of informal economy
S06
Social mobility
S07
Vulnerable employment*
Environmental sustainability pillar
S08.01 Stringency of environmental regulation e
S08.02 Enforcement of environmental regulation e
S09
Terrestrial biome protection*
S10
No. of ratified international environmental treaties*
S11
Agricultural water intensity*
S12
CO2 intensity*(log)
S13
Fish stocks overexploited*(log)
S14.01 Forest cover change* f
S14.02 Forest loss* f(log)
S15
Particulate matter (2.5) concentration*(log)
S16
Quality of the natural environment

NOTES
a Formally we have
0.4 x

(

country score – sample minimum
sample maximum – sample minimum

)

+ 0.8

The sample minimum and sample maximum are, respectively, the lowest and highest country scores in the sample of economies covered by the sustainability-adjusted GCI in each pillar.

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

b Formally, for a category i composed of K indicators, we have: K

indicatork

k=1

categoryi

K

c Formally, we have:
6x

(

country score – sample minimum
sample maximum – sample minimum

)

+1

The sample minimum and sample maximum are, respectively, the lowest and highest country scores in the sample of economies covered by the sustainability-adjusted GCI. In some instances, adjustments were made to account for extreme outliers. For those indicators for which a higher value indicates a worse outcome (e.g., CO2 emission, income Gini index), the transformation

formula takes the following form, thus ensuring that 1 and 7 still corresponds to the worst and best possible outcomes, best
possible outcomes, respectively:
–6 x

(

country score – sample minimum
sample maximum – sample minimum

)

+7

d Variables S03.01, S03.02, and S03.03 are combined to form one single variable.
e Variables S08.01 and S08.02 are combined to form one single variable.
f

Variables S14.01 and S14.02 are combined to form one single
variable.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 65

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

Appendix B:
Technical notes and sources for sustainability indicators

The data in this Report represent the best available
estimates from various national authorities, international
agencies, and private sources at the time the Report
was prepared. It is possible that some data will have
been revised or updated by the sources after publication.
Throughout the Report, “n/a” denotes that the value is
not available or that the available data are unreasonably
outdated or do not come from a reliable source.
For each indicator, the title appears on the first line,
preceded by its number to allow for quick reference. The
numbering is the same as the one used in Appendix A.
Below is a description of each indicator or, in the case
of Executive Opinion Survey data, the full question and
associated answers. If necessary, additional information
is provided underneath.
S01 Income Gini index
Measure of income inequality [0 = perfect equality; 100 =
perfect inequality] | 2010 or most recent year available
This indicator measures the extent to which the distribution of income among individuals or households within an economy
deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentage of total income received against the cumulative percentage of recipients, starting with the poorest individual. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while a value of 100 implies perfect inequality.

Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators Online
(retrieved June 1, 2012); CIA World Factbook (retrieved June 6, 2012); national sources

S02 Youth unemployment
Youth unemployment measured as the ratio of total
unemployed youth to total labor force aged 15–24 | 2010 or most recent year available.
Youth unemployment refers to the share of the labor force aged 15–24 without work but available for and seeking employment. Source: International Labour Organization, Key Indicators of the Labour Markets Net (retrieved June 5, 2012)

S03.01 Access to sanitation
Percent of total population with access to improved sanitation facilities | 2010 or most recent year available.
Percent of the population with at least adequate access to
excreta disposal facilities that can effectively prevent human, animal, and insect contact with excreta. Improved facilities range from simple but protected pit latrines to flush toilets with a sewerage connection. To be effective, facilities must be correctly constructed and properly maintained. A logarithm transformation is applied to the ratio of these statistics in order to spread the data distribution.

Source: World Health Organization, World Health Statistics 2012 online database (retrieved June 5, 2012)

66 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

S03.02 Access to improved drinking water
Percent of total population with access to improved drinking water | 2010 or most recent year available
Percent of the population with reasonable access to an adequate amount of water from an improved source, such as a household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected well or spring, or rainwater collection. Unimproved sources include vendors, tanker trucks, and unprotected wells and springs. Reasonable access is defined as the availability of at least 20 liters per person per day from a source within 1 kilometer of the dwelling.

Source: World Health Organization, World Health Statistics 2012 online database (retrieved June 5, 2012)

S03.03 Access to healthcare
How accessible is healthcare in your country? [1 = limited— only the privileged have access; 7 = universal—all citizens have access to healthcare] | 2011–12 weighted average
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2011 and 2012 editions

S04 Social safety net protection
In your country, does a formal social safety net provide
protection from economic insecurity due to job loss or
disability? [1 = not at all; 7 = fully] | 2011–12 weighted average Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2011 and 2012 editions

S05 Extent of informal economy
How much economic activity in your country would you
estimate to be undeclared or unregistered? [1 = most economic activity is undeclared or unregistered; 7 = most economic
activity is declared or registered] | 2011–12 weighted average Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2011 and 2012 editions

S06 Social mobility
To what extent do individuals in your country have the
opportunity to improve their economic situation through their personal efforts regardless of the socioeconomic status of
their parents? [1 = little opportunity exists to improve one’s economic situation; 7 = significant opportunity exists to
improve one’s economic situation]
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2012 edition

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

S07 Vulnerable employment
Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment | 2010 or most recent year available
Vulnerable employment refers to the proportion of unpaid
contributing family workers and own-account workers in total employment. Own-account workers are those workers who,
working on their own account or with one or more partners,
hold the type of job defined as a self-employed job and have not engaged on a continuous basis any employees to work for
them during the reference period. A contributing family worker is a person who holds a job in a market-oriented establishment operated by a related person living in the same household and who cannot be regarded as a partner because the degree of his or her commitment to the operation of the establishment, in terms of the working time or other factors to be determined by national circumstances, is not at a level comparable with that of the head of the establishment.

Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators Online
(retrieved June 1, 2012)

S08.01 Stringency of environmental regulation
How would you assess the stringency of your country’s
environmental regulations? [1 = very lax; 7 = among the world’s most stringent] | 2011–12 weighted average
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2011 and 2012 editions

S08.02 Enforcement of environmental regulation
How would you assess the enforcement of environmental
regulations in your country? [1 = very lax; 7 = among the
world’s most rigorous] | 2011–12 weighted average
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2011 and 2012 editions

S09 Terrestrial biome protection
Degree to which a country achieves the target of protecting 17 percent of each terrestrial biome within its borders | 2010 or most recent year available
This indicator is calculated by Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) by
overlaying the protected area mask on terrestrial biome data developed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)’s Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World for each country. A biome is defined as a major regional or global biotic community, such as a grassland or desert, characterized chiefly by the dominant forms of plant life and the prevailing climate. Scores are capped at 17 percent per biome such that higher levels of protection of some biomes cannot be used to offset lower levels of protection of other biomes, hence the maximum level of protection a country can

achieve is 17 percent. CIESIN uses time series of the World
Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) developed by the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in 2011, which provides a spatial time series of protected area coverage from 1990 to 2010. The WCMC considers all nationally designated protected areas whose location and extent is known. Boundaries were defined by polygons

where available; where they were not available, protected-area centroids were buffered to create a circle in accordance with the protected area size. The WCMC removed all overlaps between
different protected areas by dissolving the boundaries to create a protected areas mask.
Source: Yale University and Columbia University, Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 edition, based on WWF World
Wildlife Fund USA and UNEP WCMC data

S10 No. of ratified international environmental treaties
Total number of ratified environmental treaties | 2010
This indicator provides the total number of environmental treaties ratified by a country. It measures the total number of international treaties from a set of 25 for which a state is a participant. A state becomes a “participant” by Ratification, Formal confirmation, Accession, Acceptance, Definitive signature, Approval, Simplified procedure, Consent to be bound, Succession, and Provisional

application (which are here grouped under the term ratification, for reasons of convenience). The treaties included are: the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1948 Washington; the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 London, as amended in
1962 and 1969; the Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 1971 Ramsar; the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972 Paris; the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,

1972 London, Mexico City, Moscow, Washington; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, 1973 Washington; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) as modified
by the Protocol of 1978, 1978 London; the Convention on
the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979
Bonn; the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
1982 Montego Bay; the Convention on the Protection of the
Ozone Layer, 1985 Vienna; the Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1987 Montreal; the Convention on
the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal, 1989 Basel; the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation,
1990 London; the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, 1992 New York; the Convention on Biological
Diversity, 1992 Rio de Janeiro; the International Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly Africa, 1994 Paris; the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December

1982, 1994 New York; the Agreement relating to the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995 New York; the Kyoto

Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on the
Climate Change, Kyoto 1997; the Rotterdam Convention on
the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, 1998 Rotterdam; the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2000 Montreal; the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 London; the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2001 Stockholm; the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2001 Rome; and the International Tropical Timber Agreement 206, 1994 Geneva.

Source: The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Environmental Law Centre ELIS Treaty Database

S11 Agricultural water intensity
Agricultural water withdrawal as a percent of total renewable water resources | 2006 or most recent year available
Agricultural water withdrawal as a percent of total renewable water resources is calculated as: 100 × agricultural water
withdrawal / total renewable water resources. In turn, total renewable = surface renewable water + renewable water resources groundwater – overlap between surface and groundwater. Where available, this indicator includes water resources coming from desalination used for agriculture (as in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Spain).

Source: FAO AQUASTAT database, available at http://www.fao.
org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm (retrieved May 31, 2012)

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 67

1.2: Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations

S12 CO² intensity

S14.02 Forest loss

CO² intensity (kilograms of CO² per kilogram of oil equivalent energy use) | 2008

Forest cover lost over the period 2000–10 based on satellite data | 2010

Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions are those stemming from the
burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of cement. They
include carbon dioxide produced during consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring. Energy use refers to use of primary energy before transformation to other end-use fuels, which is equal to indigenous production plus imports and stock changes, minus exports and fuels supplied to ships and aircraft engaged in international transport. A logarithm transformation is applied to the ratio of these statistics in order to spread the data distribution.

This indicator represents the loss of forest area owing to
deforestation from either human or natural causes, such as forest fires. The University of Maryland researchers used Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) 500-meter
resolution satellite data to identify areas of forest disturbance, then used Landsat data to quantify the area of forest loss. This indicator uses a baseline forest cover layer (forest cover fraction with a 30 percent forest cover threshold) to measure the area under forest cover in the year 2000. It then combines forest loss estimates from Landsat for the periods 2000–05 and 2005–10 to arrive at a total forest cover change amount for the decade. This total is then divided by the forest area estimate for 2000 to come up with a percent change in forest cover over the decade. Further details on the methods used are found in Hansen, M., S. V.

Stehman, and P. V. Potapov. 2010. “Quantification of Global Gross Forest Cover Loss.” Proceedings of the National Academies
of Science, available at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/
pnas.0912668107. A logarithm transformation is applied to these statistics in order to spread the data distribution.

Source: The World Bank, World Development Indicators Online
(retrieved June 1, 2012)

S13 Fish stocks overexploited
Fraction of country’s exclusive economic zone with
overexploited and collapsed stocks | 2006
The Sea Around Us (SAU) project‘s Stock Status Plots (SSPs) are created in four steps (Kleisner and Pauly, 2011). The first step is to define a stock. SAU defines a stock to be a taxon (either at the species, genus, or family level of taxonomic assignment) that occurs in the catch records for at least 5 consecutive years, over a minimum of 10 years, and which has a total catch in an area of at least 1,000 tonnes over the time span. In the second step, SAU assesses the status of the stock for every year relative to the peak catch. SAU defines five states of stock status for a catch time series. This definition is assigned to every taxon meeting the definition of a stock for a particular spatial area considered (e.g., exclusive economic zones, or EEZs). Stock status states are: (1) Developing—before the year of peak catch and less than 50 percent of the peak catch; (2) Exploited—before or after the year of peak catch and more than 50 percent of the peak

catch; (3) Overexploited—after the year of peak catch and less than 50 percent but more than 10 percent of the peak catch;
(4) Collapsed—after the year of peak catch and less than 10 percent of the peak catch; (5) Rebuilding—occurs after the year of peak catch and after the stock has collapsed, when catch
has recovered to between 10 and 50 percent of the peak. In
the third step, SAU graphs the number of stocks by status by tallying the number of stocks in a particular state in a given year and presenting these as percentages. In the fourth step, the cumulative catch of stock by status in a given year is summed over all stocks and presented as a percentage in the catch

by stock status graph. The combination of these two figures
represents the complete Stock Status Plot. The numbers for this indicator are taken from the overexploited and collapsed numbers of stocks over total numbers of stocks per EEZ. A logarithm
transformation is applied to these statistics in order to spread the data distribution.
Source: Yale University and Columbia University, Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 edition based on Sea Around Us
data

S14.01 Forest cover change
Percent change in forest area over the period 1990–10 | 2010 This measure represents the percent change in forest area,
applying a 10 percent crown cover as the definition of forested areas, between time periods. We used total forest extent rather than the extent of primary forest only. The change measure is calculated from forest area data in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. The data are reported by national governments, and therefore methods and data sources may vary from country to country.

Positive values indicate afforestation or reforestation, and negative values represent deforestation.
Source: Yale University and Columbia University, Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 edition based on Sea Around Us
data

68 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Source: Yale University and Columbia University, Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 edition, based on University of Maryland data

S15 Particulate matter (2.5) concentration
Population-weighted exposure to PM2.5 in micrograms per
cubic meter, based on satellite data | 2009
This indicator was developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute in collaboration with Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) and funding from the NASA Applied Sciences Program. Using relationships between

the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and surface PM2.5 concentrations that were modeled by van Donkelaar et al. (2010), annual average MODIS AOD retrievals were used to estimate surface PM2.5
concentrations from 2001 to 2010. These were averaged into
three-year moving averages from 2002 to 2009 to generate
global grids of PM2.5 concentrations. The grids were resampled to match CIESIN’s Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP) 1 kilometer population grid. The population-weighted average of the PM2.5 values were used to calculate the country’s annual average exposure to PM2.5 in micrograms per cubic meter. A logarithm transformation is applied to these statistics in order to spread the data distribution.

Source: Yale University and Columbia University, Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 edition based on NASA MODIS
and MISR data (van Donkelaar et al. [2010]), Battelle, and CIESIN

S16 Quality of the natural environment
How would you assess the quality of the natural environment in your country? [1 = extremely poor; 7 = among the world’s most pristine] | 2011–12 weighted average
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2011 and 2012 editions

CHAPTER 1.3

The Executive Opinion
Survey: The Voice of the
Business Community
CIARA BROWNE
THIERRY GEIGER
TANIA GUTKNECHT

World Economic Forum

The Global Competitiveness Report provides a useful
portrait of a nation’s economic environment and its ability to achieve sustained levels of prosperity and growth. In
doing so, the Report continues to be one of the most
respected assessments of national competitiveness.
To mirror countries’ economic performance, the World
Economic Forum draws its data from two sources:
international organizations and national sources, and
its own annual Executive Opinion Survey (Survey).
The Survey is a tool that aims to capture crucial
information that is not otherwise available on a global
scale. The data gathered thus provide a unique
source of insight into each nation’s economic and
business environment. The Survey data are used to
calculate the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and
are also used as a prime data source for the Forum’s
other industry-specific reports, including The Global
Information Technology Report, The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report, The Global Enabling Trade
Report, The Gender Gap Report, and The Financial
Development Report. The data are also employed for
regional studies. Furthermore, the Executive Opinion
Survey data have long served a number of international
and national organizations, government bodies,
academia, and private-sector companies for their policy
or strategy review. For example, the data are used for
the elaboration of the renowned Corruption Perceptions
Index and the International Bribe Payers Index published
by Transparency International as well as a number of
academic publications. Finally, an increasing number of
national competitiveness reports draw on or refer to the
Survey data.
The World Economic Forum has conducted its
annual Survey for over 40 years, modifying it over time
to capture new data points essential to the GCI and
other Forum indexes. It has also expanded the scope of
its sample, achieving this year a record of over 15,000
surveys almost 150 economies between January and
June 2012.
Following the data editing process (see below), a
total of 14,059 surveys were retained.1 This represents
an average of 100 respondents per country. Given the
extent of the Survey’s country coverage and in order
to maximize its outreach, it is translated into over 30
languages.
Geographic expansion
Since the first edition of the World Economic Forum
report on competitiveness in 1979, the country
coverage has expanded from 16 European countries
to 144 economies worldwide, which together account
for 98 percent of the world’s gross domestic product
(see Figure 1). In this edition, five new economies are
included: Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and
Seychelles; also Libya, which has been reinstated
following a year of non-inclusion. On the flip side,

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 69

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

Figure 1: Country/Economy coverage of the Executive Opinion Survey

n Previous coverage
n 2012 additions

Angola and Belize are not included in this year’s edition
because of a lack of a sufficient number of surveys.
Furthermore, it was not possible to conduct the Survey
in Syria because of the difficult security situation in that country. Finally, the World Economic Forum decided not
to use the data collected in Tunisia this year because
of a structural break in the data, making comparisons
with past years impossible. The Forum’s Global
Benchmarking Network hopes to re-include the above
countries in future editions of the Report.
SURVEY STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY
The Survey is divided into 14 sections.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.

About Your Company
Overall Perceptions of Your Economy
Government and Public Institutions
Infrastructure
Innovation and Technology
Financial Environment
Foreign Trade and Investment
Domestic Competition
Company Operations and Strategy
Education and Human Capital
Corruption, Ethics and Social
Responsibility
Travel & Tourism
Environment
Health

70 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Box 1: Example of a typical Survey question

To what extent is the judiciary in your country
independent from influences of members of
government, citizens, or firms?
Heavily influenced < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Entirely independent

Circling 1 ... means you agree completely with the answer
on the left-hand side
Circling 2 ... means you largely agree with the left-hand side Circling 3 ... means you somewhat agree with the left-hand
side
Circling 4 ... means your opinion is indifferent between the two answers
Circling 5 ... means you somewhat agree with the right-hand
side
Circling 6 ... means you largely agree with the right-hand
side
Circling 7 ... means you agree completely with the answer
on the right-hand side

Most questions in the Survey ask respondents to
evaluate, on a scale of 1 to 7, one particular aspect of
their operating environment. At one end of the scale, 1
represents the worst possible situation; at the other end
of the scale, 7 represents the best (see Box 1 for an
example).

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

The yearly administration of the Survey could not
be carried out without the strong network of over 160
Partner Institutes worldwide. The Partner Institutes are
typically recognized research institutes, universities,
business organizations, and in some cases survey
consultancies, which are listed in the front section
of the Report.2 The Partner Institutes are selected
because of their understanding and expertise of the
national business environment as well as their capacity
to reach out to leading business executives and also
for their commitment to the Forum’s research on
competitiveness. The Partner Institutes are tasked to
follow detailed sampling guidelines in view of capturing a
strong and representative sample.
After building a sample frame of potential
respondents, the Partner Institutes administer the
Survey. This valuable collaboration helps to ensure that
the Survey is conducted according to the sampling
guidelines and therefore in a consistent and timely
manner across the globe.
The Survey sampling follows a dual stratification
procedure based on the size of the company and the
sector of activity. Specifically, the Survey sampling
guidelines ask the Partner Institutes to carry out the
following steps:
1.

2.

3.

Prepare a “sample frame,” or large list of potential
respondents, which includes firms representing
the main sectors of the economy (agriculture,
manufacturing industry, non-manufacturing
industry, and services).
Separate the frame into two lists: one that
includes only large firms, and a second list that
includes all other firms (both lists representing the
various economic sectors).3
Based on these lists, and in view of reducing
survey bias, choose a random selection of these
firms to receive the Survey.

Furthermore, the sampling guidelines specify that
the Partner Institute should aim to collect a combination
of random respondents with some repeat respondents
for further comparative analysis.4 The administration
of the Survey may take a variety of formats including
face-to-face interviews, with business executives,
telephone interviews and mailings, with an online survey
as an alternative. Deciding which of these differing
methodologies to use may be based on the particular
country’s infrastructure, distance between cities, cultural preferences, and other such issues.
For energy, time, and cost considerations, the
Forum encourages the use of the online survey tool,
which was available this year in 18 languages. The
share of online participation has significantly increased

over the years and now represents almost 37 percent
of all responses, with an increase of nearly 40 percent
in the last three years. This year, 9 countries used the
online tool for 100 percent of respondents (Argentina,
Belgium, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland,
Israel, Lebanon, and Venezuela), and 28 economies
participated with more than 90 percent online (see
Table 1).
The Partner Institutes also take an active and
essential part in disseminating the findings of The Global
Competitiveness Report and additional reports published
by The Global Benchmarking Network by holding press
events and workshops to highlight the results at the
national level to the business community, the public
sector, and other stakeholders.
The guidelines and Survey administration process
underwent a stringent review in 2007, with the
consultation of a renowned survey consultancy. The
improved sampling guidelines have now been adopted
in all countries for the last five years of the Survey
administration process, implementing a best practice
procedure and thus ensuring greater data accuracy
and allowing for more robust comparison across
economies. The entire Survey process will undergo a
second audit in 2012 with the aim of implementing those
recommendations in the 2013 edition of the Survey.
DATA TREATMENT AND SCORE COMPUTATION
This section details the process whereby individual
survey responses are edited and aggregated in order to
produce the scores of each economy on each individual
question of the Survey. These results, together with other
indicators obtained from other sources, feed into the GCI
and other projects.5
Data editing
Prior to aggregation, the respondent-level data are
subjected to a careful editing process. The first
editing rule consists of excluding those surveys with a
completion rate inferior to 50 percent.6 This is because
a partially completed survey likely demonstrates a lack
of sufficient focus on the part of the respondent. In a
second step, a multivariate outlier analysis is applied
to the data using the Mahalanobis distance technique.
This test assesses whether each individual survey
is representative, given the overall sample of survey
responses in the specific country, and allows for the
deletion of clear outliers.
More specifically, the Mahalonobis distance test
estimates the likelihood that one particular point of N
dimensions belongs to a set of such points. One single
survey made up of N answers can be viewed as the
point of N dimensions, while a particular country sample
c is the set of points. The Mahalanobis distance is
used to compute the probability that any survey i does
not belong to the sample c. If the probability is high

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 71

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

Table 1: Executive Opinion Survey: Descriptive statistics and weightings First component*
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
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
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

Second component: 2012 Survey*
Weight (%)

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

Use of online tool (%)

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
(Cont’d.)

72 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

Table 1: Executive Opinion Survey: Descriptive statistics and weightings (cont’d.) First component*
Country/Economy

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
Grand total/Average

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

Second component: 2012 Survey*
Weight (%)

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

No. of respondents

Use of online tool (%)

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.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 73

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

enough—we use 99.9 percent as the threshold—we
conclude that the survey is a clear outlier and does not
“belong” to the sample. The implementation of this test
requires that the number of responses in a country be
greater than the number of answers, N, used in the test.
The test uses 66 questions, selected by their relevance
and placement in the Survey instrument.
A univariate outlier test is then applied at the
country level for each question of each survey. We use
the standardized score—or “z-score”—method, which
indicates by how many standard deviations any one
individual answer deviates from the mean of the country
sample. Individual answers with a standardized score zi,q,c = greater than 3 are dropped.
Data weighting: Sector-weighted country averages
Once the data have been edited, individual answers
are aggregated at the country level. We compute
sector-weighted country averages to obtain a more
representative average that takes into account the
structure of a country’s economy. The structure is
defined by the estimated contributions to a country’s
gross domestic product of each of the four main
economic sectors: agriculture, manufacturing industry,
non-manufacturing industry, and services (see Table 2).7
An additional step is taken to prevent individual
responses within a sample from receiving an excessive
weight when the structure of the sample and the
underlying economy differ greatly. As an extreme
example, imagine the case of a country where just 3
percent of responses come from the services sector,
but that sector actually represents 90 percent of the
country’s economy. By applying the above sectorweighting scheme, we would be giving a very high weight to a very few surveys. This is avoided by trimming
the sector weights. When for a country the ratio of the
weight of one sector in the economy to the percentage
of surveys from that sector in the country sample
exceeds 5, the sector weight used for the weighted
average is capped to five times the percentage of
surveys from that sector in the sample. The weights of
the other sectors are then adjusted proportionally to their
weight in the country’s GDP.
Formally, the sector-weighted average of a Survey
S
w s,c q i,s,c
indicator i for country c, denoted q i,c =is computed as
,
s
follows:
q i,c =

S
s
S

w s,c

q i,s,c

q i,s,c =

N s,c
j

q i,c = N w s,c q i,s,c
ss,c q
with
i,j,s,c
q i,s,c =
N s,c
j s,c
N
q i,j,s,c
,
q i,s,c =
N s,c
j

74 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

q i,j,s,c
N s,c

where
ws,c is sector s’s 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
σq,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 2012–2013 and for other projects.
This moving average technique, introduced in 2008,
consists of taking a weighted average of the most recent
year’s 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

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

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
Côte d’Ivoire
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.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 75

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

Box 2: Country score calculation
10–11

q i,
This box presents the method applied to compute the country q i,c scores for the vast majority of economies included in
The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 (see text for exceptions). 10–11
q10–11
i,c

q i,

q
q10–11
i,c
For any giveni,Survey question i, country c’s final score, q i,c

2011–12

q i,
q i,c
10–11
q i,2011–12q i,c 2011

2011
, iw cgiven q i,c
s 2011 by:

2012

q i,c

1
–2011
q i,c0–11 q i,c

2012
q i,c

2011–12
q i,c

2012

wc

2011
q i,c
10–11
2012
–2011
2011–12
2011
2012
2012
t
(1)
q2011–12 w2011
0–11
i,c
i,c
i,c
q2011
w2012
q2012
q i,cqq2011–12 qq2012 N ct qq1i,c qq–2011
i,c
c
i,c
c
i,c
10–11
q 2011–12 w c2011 q i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
w c2012 q i,c q
i,c
–2011
q i,c
2011
2012
2011
2011
q 2011–12 q q2012
q 1t0–11 q i,c
q i,n,c
q i,c
i,ci,c
wc
q i,c
wc
q i,c i,
Nc
2011 n=1 i,c
t i,c
–t
where
1
–2011
q 2012
t
2011–12
2011
2011t
2012
2012
q i,n,c2011–12 qqi,c
(1 )
2011
2012
q i,c
q i,c0–11 q i,c
2011
i,c
q i,cqt i,c
wc
q i,c Nt c w c
q i,c
Nc
Nc
q i,c
N ct
i,c
2011
q ti,c
t
Nc
wc
t
qt i,n,c on question i in year t, with2011 q22011 2012, as computed 2011–12 q 2012 q 10–11 q –2011 2011–12
2012
t
10–11
t i,c 2012
2011
N
q i,c
i,c t q is
–t N c score
q i,c (1 w c2011c qNc2011 = w011, q i,c
i,c
i,c
q
2i,c
q i, qqt i,n,c i,c country c’sn=1 ti,n,c
Ni,cc 2012 c
)
q
t
2011
n=1 t
t
q i,c following–ttheN capproach described in the text; c2011 2012 q ti,n,c
(1 )
N 2011 N c
q –ti,c n=1q i,n,c
2011
10–11
cN
i,c
Ntt c
2011
q2012
Nt c2011 2011c2012
N
i,c
q i,
q i,c
w2011 t (1
qN t
) wc
Nc
q i,c
c
i,n,c
q
Nc
w c2011 q i,c
t
N 2 N c Nt c
–t
N ti,n,c
Nt c
a
q tc
) q 2011–12 N c q t2012 q 10–11 q t; and
2011–12 is respondent n’s response (on (1 1–7 scale) to question i in year –2011 q 2011n=1 ct
2012
2c2011
w
2011
2012
2012
2011
q i,c N i,n,c w c2011 i,c i,c N w c2012 q i,c c2011
i,c
i,c
i,c
q
Nc
Nc
N q i,n,c
ct
2012
2012
2011
NN c
2 2012 n=1c i,c
c
c
t
0
1
wc
wc
w
t 10–11
1
2012 c
–2011 –t
2011–12
2011–12
2011
2011
2012
q i,c0–11 q i,c Nq i,c yearqt2011 below). (1 w c)
q i, Nwcti,c is the weight i,c
q c2012
2012
i,n,c ’s scorec in
q applied q i,c country c
q
2011
2012
wct i,c
to
wc
q i,c
wc
q
t
2
i,c
N 2 2012 N i,c(see
Nc
Nc
2011
2011 c
tw
2012
t
2011
2012
N 2011 N 2012 c
q i,c c
2011 2012 t
N
Nc
c
2012 w c
2011
0
1
wc
wc
q i,c w2012 N c
t
N c c N 2011
0
1
wc
wc
c
wc
The weights for each year are i,n,c
t
q tdetermined as follows: c2011 2c2012c2012 2012 w c2012 0 –2011 w c2011 1 2 N N cc
w c2012
N
t
N c 2011–12
10–11
q i,c
t
2011–12
2011
2012
2012
2012
2011
Nc
–t2011 n=1
q i,c2
q q i,n,c w c 10–11 qq i,c
i,c
w c 2011 q i,c w c (1 t ) 2011 2011 2012q2012 wq i,c2011 0q i,c w c 2012 1 2012
t
c
i,c
Nc Nc Nc Nc
q i,n,c i,c q i,
N c2011
N c2012
1 2012
w2011 N
w2012 0
q i,c
2012 w c
2
2012
N ct N c
c
2011
2011
2011
1
2011–122011 1
t
–t
n=1
w
w cc2011 0 )
1
wc 1
w 2011 0
wc c
qw cc20122011 c q i,c
q i,c
t
(1
q i,c q i,c
q i,n,c
(1 )
i,c
q i,c
2012
2011
2012
Nc
t
2
2 wc
2 2012 c2011 N c2012 2011
N
N c2011 N c2012
t
02012 w c N c 1 N c
Nc
Nc
t
N c q i,c
2011
(2a)
and
2012
Nc
0
1
wc
wc
w c (2b)
wc
t
N c2011 2011 1 0 2011–2011 2012N2012
2011
2012
2012
1
1 q t2
1
Nc
2011
2012w
t
2011–12 q 2011–12
2011
2011(1
2012 q2011 2012
N 2011 q d0–11 2011 i,c w 2011c2012 2012
N c2
sample-size weighted average
q2012 20122011–12 q2011c2011 c 2012 i,ciscounted-past cweighted average q2012 q i,cq
N1
q i,c
i,c
i,c
2011–12
i,c
w
c
tq i,cc
i,c
w c –t 12 q i,c i,n,c w)c) q i,ci,c i,c
q
q i,c
NcN Nc
N c N N2012
q2011–12 1 n=1 (1
2011
2012
q i,n,c
(1 )q i,c N c 1 2 2012N 2011 c N 2012 q i,c
i,c q
2011
2012
2011
2012
0
1
wc
wc
N c2011 c2012 c2012
Nc
t
c
c
q 2011
q i,c 2011c2011 22012c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c i,c 2 N ct (1 )
2012
i,c
qN20112012
N2012N N2c N N c2011 c2011c2012 sample-size weighted average c
i,c N
2
N c2011
c
2011 N c N c
2011 weighted average
2011
2012
wqcw 2012
1 N c ddiscounted-pastweighted average
1
2011–12
t
t
0 in i,c weighted average2012
q i,c 2
q year 20111
q
iscounted-pastc
(1 2012)the number of respondents) for 2011 w c 2012 sample-size w ct, with t = 2011, i,c2012. where N c qs thei,csample 2011 N ct (i.e.,
i i,c q
size
country c
i,c
2
2
N
Nc
Nc
Nc
t
Nc
Ndctiscounted-past weighted average 2 2011 2011 c
N 2011
N c2012 N t
2012
2012
sample-size weighted average1 t
2012
2011
2012
2011–12
q i,n,c
c
t
t
0 q i,c w c 1 N 1 –t (1 1 ) 2011 i,c
wc
wc
12011 c 2012 N c q i,c
t
q 2011
t
t
q tc2012
qN 2011 Nt 2012 t q i,c q i,c
–t
wi,cq i,c 1 q
i,c
t
t
Pluggingc Equations (2a) and (2b) into (1) weighted averageN 2012 2 q c 20122w c (1 0 ) weighted average2 i,c yields:
w q i,n,c
2n=1 discounted-past and rearranging 2011 i,c
N2
N cN
(1 ) c
sample-size
q i,c
c
c
Nc
Nc c Nc
c
t
N2012 N c t
2011
Nc
0t
w 2012
w2011 N 2011 N 1 c 1 discounted-past tweighted average 2012 t Nt
Nt
t
c
tw c
1
t
sample-size weighted average
c
c
2012
Nc
Nwc2011t 0 qt i,c w 2011ct tc N tc
N1
qt2012
qti,c
q
(1 ) w2011i,c c
qt i,c –t 1 1
c
t Nt c
12

2012
2011 c t
2012
12
2011–12 t
c
c
q
q t i,c
Ntc2011c Ntc 2012 qti,cq i,c Ntc N c 2011tc 2012ti,c q i,c . N
2 (1(1 ) ) q i,c ti,c
(3)
N
qq i,c 2 1
q i,c qti,c–t
i,ct
2012 c
2
N t c tN N c q i,c
N c N tN ct N q i,c
2
c
qN c2011
q i,c
21
2
N
(1 )
q i,c
t
i,c
2011
2012
2011
N cN t q 2012
Nc
1
1
2011–12
w
2N
N ct 2012cN c1 c t
2
t
1 2012 c
N c 2011 N c2012 w cc2011i,c 0q t
q i,c c q t –t q i,c 1
q ti,c
w tc
(1 )
q i,c
q
q i,c –2006
(1iscounted-pasti,c N 2012average
) N 2011 weighted q i,c
N c2005
N c2006
i,c
d
i,c
–2005
2
2
N 201205–06 N1t
Nt
1
sample-sizeN c q –2005
c
c
20112 c
Nt
2
(1 ) weighted caverage q i,c N ct
qN cc
c
i,c
2005
2006
N ct q i,c t N 2005 N 2006
i,c
Nt
N
t
t
t
1c
2012
2
Nc
c
q c2011 1
qN c
q i,c c
) 2012
q i,cc–t
discounted-past weighted average
wi,c 2012 12006
w c sample-size weighted average(1 2011 2w c q i,c 0
i,c
N c N 2005 2011
Nc N 2
N t N ct
N ct N ct
2011
2012
2012
1
12
2011–12
2006
c
c
1(1 )
05–06
q)i,c q –2005 q i,c q –2006 2 1 2011 N 2005 q i,c q –2005 q i,c c q –2006
q i,c
2012
2011
2012
N c2006 2006 average. The second component
(1
q05–06 first component of –2005 weighting2scheme is the c2005 2011 –2006
–2005
In Equation (3), the 1
the
weighted q –2006
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
2006
1 N c NN2005 discounted-past N2005 N
2012c
c
q –2005
q–2006
(1 )
q i,ci,c2 1 2
0 q i,c N c
N
i,c
i,c
c
c
t cN
1 2 N N 2005 c w Nhalf-weightt w c N2005 c1N c2006 5.70i,c
2
N 2006 q –2005 c each. 2006 2006
N c The
is the sample-size weighted average. i,c average t components are cgivenc c20060.457i,c N6.03 c2005 0.543 valuei,cfor 5.85 0.6, which q –2006 is
c 2005 2005 t
(1 ) t q The
q 05–06 1 2 discounted-past weighted two q i,c 1
t
t –t i,c
N sample-size weighted N c N i,c
q –2005
q –2006 t 1
q i,c
q 05–06 1 (1 )
2 score of ccountry c –2005 average cqN c 2 the –2006
t
corresponds i,c q i,c discount (1 ) of t q i,c That i,cis, i,c N 2011 N ct N c20052011N c2006 N2i,cit s given 2/3 of 012 weight given to the 2012 to a 2 2
factor N i,c 2/3.
2
N ct
q the c
q c011 N c 20052012 2006
q i,c
c
t
t
t
1
1
t
2006
2 it c N
N c N c Nthat
2012
2011
2012
1 that q t prevents
2011–12
c
c
(1 score. q i,c additional2characteristic 62011this qapproach is t 1 5.85 i,cN2011 c N2012 a country sample 2012 isq much2005 )
q i,c –t
N c larger in –2005 yearNfrom
One q i,c q i,c 1
of
one
i,c q
t 5.70
q
c
(1 0.457 q i,c.03 0.543i,cN 05–06 N
) t Nt
–2005 i,c
–2006
–2006
1
i,c
2011
Nc
2
q
q i,c
q i,c
(1 )N c q i,c
c
0.457 6.03 0.543 c5.70 c
2 2 sample from the otherqyear. 2 5.85 N c
N ci,c N c
2005
2006
2005
i,c
overwhelming the smaller 0.457 2011 .03 0.543 20125.70 2
2
Nc
Nc
Nc
N c2006
6
5.85 t
2011
2012
discounted-past weighted average
N
N ct
The formula is easily generalized. For any 01215.70 5.85c
sample-size weighted the Survey, country c’s final score on t
t
1
2t
0.543 two consecutive editions t1t and tt2 of average
q i,c
qt
q i,c
(1 )0.457011 6.03 q i,c 2
q t –t
t
t
N c2005 i,c
N 2006
question i ii,c computed as follows: –2005
s 05–06 2 1
N c–2005 N
10–11
2012
–2011
2011–12
–2006
10–11
2012
–2011
2011–12
1 Nc Nc
2011
2–2006
012 2
lower boundc =200551 –2006 5.85q i,cQR
Q c.70 1.5 I
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c 2005
q i,c
q i,c
(1 )
i,c
2
2 N c2006 c0.457 c2006 .03 0.543 c
N 2005 N 6
N
Nc
Nc
–2005
–2006
–2005
–2006
1
1
05–06
2011
upper bound 2= Q3 – 1.5 IQR
2011
012
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
(1i,c
q i,c
q i,c )
q 2011
2006
2005
2006
10–112005
2
lower bound = N 1 – 1.5 IQR 10–11 t
Q
N ct
q i, 2 q i,c N c
t
t
t
1 lower bound t = Qc1 – 1.5 qIi,QR q i,c N c N c
1N c
t –t
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c .
(4)
(1 )
q i,c
2 lower bound == Q3 – 1.5.70QR N ct N 2005ct
N
N ct N ct2006
2011
2011
upper bound Q0.543 5 I 2QR
I 5.85
1.5
0.457 6.03 1 – –2006
Nc
N cc
N
c
–2005 = Q3 – 1.5
–2005
–2006
1
1QR
05–06
upper) bound
I
q
q2
q i,c
(1
q i,c
))
2005
lower5.85011 i,c2011= Q12011 i,c012
bound
– 1.5 IIQR N 2005 2006 q i,c
2011
2012
2011
2012
–2011
1
2011–12
2012
–2011
2011–12
QR
2
N 2006 1
2011–12
.70 2011–12 2
2012
N cc
N cc 0.457 6.03 0.543 5upper bound = Q3 – 1.5 20122 q 2012c 2011 N c q 2011 q i,cw 2012N c qq2012 c q i,c0–11 q i,c q i,c N
N
q i,c
q i,c0–11 q i,c
q i,c
i,c
wc
q i,c
w c q i,c
i,c w c
i,c
c
i,c
1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2011

2

2

1

1

2
2

2

2

1

2

upper bound = Q3 – 1.5

2012

Exceptions

t
i,c

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

IQR lower bound = Q1 – 1.52011 IQR
q i,c 2006
t
N c2005 N t
–2006
–2005
1
5.70 q5.85 upper bound = Q3 – 1.5 N cIQR

2011
q i,c

–2006
q
1 0.457 6.03 q –2005
05–06
0.543
i,c
c
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c
(1 )
q i,c
i,c
2006 t
2011
2011
2
N 2005 approach
N c2005 c2006
qt
2011
2012
10–11
10–11
Nc
Asqdescribed in the2text, tthere are a numberi,n,c exceptions toc the N cn=1q i,n,c N c describedNabove. In describing them below, we use t
–t
lower bound = q –t – n=1 of IQR
Q1 1.5
q
qi,c
q i,i,
i,c
q
q i,n,c
(1q i,c )
(1 )
N
N
2011
2012
2012
2011
2012
2011
t
t2011 N
actual0years—rather thani,n,c
letters—in i,c
equations for the sake of concreteness. c2012 2011
Nc
Nc
Nc
1 IQR
w cc
w cc
0
1
w
Nc
Nc
lower bound = Q1 –w1.5 upper tbound = Q3 – 1.5 IQR w c2011 wc
2
2
In the case of Survey.457 6.03 that were 5.70 ct 5.85 in 2012, where, by definition, no past data exist, the weight applied is N 0 questions 0.543 introduced
N
c
2
2
10–11
2012
2011 2011
2012
2012
2011–12
bound =
–2011 1 I2012
2011–122011 0
q i,
q i,c upper2011–12 w 0 Q3qqw2011 w.2012 qq 2012 (1) simply is qqi,c2011–12 = qqi,c2012. Thei,c0–11 qqi,c–2011 q10–11 i,cis
1 Equation
w1.5 wccQR i,c2012
q i,c1 same–2011true for those countries that are newly covered (Gabon, q i,c w
q i,c w cc wc2011and i,c cc
i,c
i,c
2
2012
c
i,c
i,c 011
t
t
2012
2012
10–11
wc
Guinea, Liberia,lower bound = Q1 – 1.5 IQR w creinstated (Libya) in 2012. For these countries too we use Seychelles, and Sierra Leone) and 2011
Nc
Nc
q i,
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c2011
0–11
2011–12
2011–12
2012
2012
tq
q 2012 t t N c1i,c
q 2012 q –2011 2012
=2011i,c2012. 2012qci,c10–11 q i,c–201120122011–12
2011
2012
2011
2012
q i,c
Nqct2011qi,c
Nc 2011 i,c
N 2012 bound = Q3 – 1.5 IQR
q i,c 1
i,c
q i,c 1
1
–2011
2011
2011–12
2011 q i,c 2011
2012
N
Nc
cupper
q 2012
q i,c0–11 i,c
2012
2011
2012
2011
q i,c that
q i,c case t 2012
q
w c 2011 qi,c 2012 wq i,c 2011qNNc2011of countriesi,cq i,c failed i,c inter-yearq robustnessc check, the weight2012 0 N c is wN c 1 and w 2012 0 , so that i,c
i,c
the
1
wc
w c w c applied
2011
2011 w c
c
c
2
N cc2011 N cc2012 Inc the 2011Ncc2011ti,n,cNcc2012
Ni,c q i,n,cN
2
N
N
q
q i,c
q–t
N
N
2011–12
2
t t 2011
2011–12
2011
2012i,c n=1
2012
–t
n=1
Equationq(1) simply becomes q i,c (1 =)q i,c2012.2011 qci,c0–11 q i,c of countries that failed the inter-year 2 In c 1 case 10–11
robustness check last year and for
q 2011 2011 the 2012 –2011
qq
(1 ) i,c
q i,n,ci,c
wc
w c q i,c q i,c t t
i,n,c
2012
i,c
i,c
2011
2012
2011
2012
t
q i,c
sample-size weighted average
N
Ncq i,
N
1
w
wc
t sample-size 2011 data
c
N cc lower bound
2011
q i,c
which the weightedNaveragewerew 2011 = Q1 –2011cc theQR
discarded, we 1.5 INSurvey data from 2010 instead, w c combinew c use
and 0
them 1
with those of02012 to c
N
2011
wcc
t t c Nt 2011
Ncc
i,c
2010,2012
2010
2010
2012
2012
N
N cc compute the scores. Equation (1) = Q3q– 1.5 IQR
q i,n,c 2012
2
t
2
upper bound c2011 becomes q i,c
then
.
wc
q i,c
wc
q i,c
(1 )) –t n=1t
N
(1
2011
2011
2012
qti,c
2011
q i,n,c
(1 )
N
N
q i,c N ccN c t t N cc
N 2012 N c2011 2012 10–11 –2011 c2012
N
2011
2011 1 2012
2012
2011–12
2011
2011–12
2012 N c
2012
2011
2011
2011
2012
1 2012 2011
1 q i,c c
2011–12
tt
q i,c q i,c q i,c2011 q i,c 2011
w cc
N
Nc
w
2012
q i,c 2011–12 2011
q i,c q i,c w c q i,c q(1 1 ) w c q i,c q i,c2012 q i,cq i,c q i,c
q i,c c N c2011 (1 2012)
Nq i,n,c
2011
w2
2011
2011
2011
i,c
tt w cc
tt
t
–t 2 n=1 c
N
N cc
t
2 2012
2
Nc
Nc
N
N c2012 N c2012
2
2c
Nc
N c2012
N cq i,c
Nw c
Nc
Ncc
q1
(1t )
tt
t
1i,n,c
2011
c
2 c2011 N c 2011
q i,c
q
q i,c
2011
2012
2012
q i,c
N
tt
tt
t
Example tt N t2011 q i,c
Ni,ct N
N
N
N cc discounted-past weighted average
N cc
2t
N cc N cc 2012 c
2
N
N 2012
Ncc w ccc
N
discounted-past weighted average
2012
2012
2011
2012
2012
2011
t
sample-size weighted average
sample-size weighted average
0
1
w2
w
0
1
wct c
w cc 2012
q i,c w cc
Ntc
Nw c
N cc
N
t
2
c
2011
Nc
For this example, we compute the score2of Australia for indicator 6.01 i,n,c the intensity of local competition, which is not a newly 2011
2012
q on
2011
2012
Nc
t
N cc
N cc
N
N
2011
2012
2011
2012
t
2012
2012
(1 )
1
w
w2011 0 –t n=1cc t test either this year or last year.2012 w
i,n,c w cc
introducedw c2012 0 Also,2011N c1
question. 20112011 2012 did not fail theqinter-year0q i,c
robustness 1
Therefore, the general
wc2012
2011
w Australia
w c2012 0 N c w ccN 20121
cc
2012
Nc
Nc
Nc
0
1
w
wc
wc
22005 case of Equation 2006 applies.cAustralia’s score was 6.03c in 2011 and 5.70 in 2012. 2011 weighting scheme described above 2
(1)
t
2011
2012
2005
2006
N ct w c The t
N ct
Ntct
N ct
N cc
N
N
2011N
2012
N c 22012N
2011
t N 2011 t
t
t
t
1
1
1t
t–
2011
2012
2012 t
–2005
–2005
–2006
1
1
q i,c i,c
q i,c t
q i,c
w c –2006
w ti,c
wc 2005 cc 2006 2011 qi,c –t c1 1 2012
)
indicates how2012 0 two scores are combined. In0 i,c Nc cq i,cw 2012q i,c 1size(1 theNcsample wasq72 in 20112andt 68 in 2012. Using =t 0.6 q i,c the
Australia, the 2011
t
t
t
q i,c1 wwcc2005 0 2006 2011 cq i,c 1 2 2012 (1 w12012 q N c c2011 2 2011 2of ) N ct q i,c N t q i,c
2011
2012
1
2011–12
2011–12
2006
N 2012 c q i,ci,c
Nc 2 Nc Nc Nc
Nc Nc
0 2011 w c2012 1q i,ci,c
w1 c
q
q
q 2012
q i,ci,c
)
(1
2
N cc2005 Nqc2006
N(1 )N cc q i,ci,c 2
2
N 2005 Ncqi,ci,c
Ncc
Nq
c
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011 c
2
2
N
N
N
N
2
2
N c cw t N c c
N cc
N cc
2012
2011
2012
c
Nc
0
1
w c 2012
N c2011 ddiscounted-pastweighted2012
N c2012
N c2011 iscounted-past weightedaverage
N c average 2011w c
2012
2011
2012
2012
2011
2012
1
1
(Cont’d.)
2011
2012
q i,c
q i,ci,c 2012 2011
q
q
q
N q i,ci,c
Nsample-sizeweighted average
sample-size weighted average
2012
c
2011
2012
Nc
Nc
2011–12 i,c 1
(Cont’d.)
2012
2012
2011
2(1 )N c2011q i,cN c2012
2
N c2011 2011 c2012
N
N 2011 N 2012 c 2012
q i,c N c c 1 N c c 2011
q i,c
q i,c
q5.85
2011
2012
5.85 2
i,c
0
1
wc
wc
wc
2
N c N 2011
Nc
N c N 2012
Nc
2005
2 N 2006 N 2005
c
c
2011
2012
2011
2012
1
ighted 2011–12
average 1
N
N c2006
eighted average
c
c
–2005
–2005
–2006
–2005c
–2006
–2005
1 2012
1
q i,c sample-sizei,c weighted05–06
q
q i,c q 05–062011 q –2006 (1 1q i,c
sample-size
average
(1 iscounted-past weighted average weighted average 1 2011 (1 2012 )
q i,c
2012
q i,c
q i,c2011 q0
q i,c
q i,cq i,c
d
)
)
q i,c2
i,c
i,c
2005
2005
2006
i,cN c
2
N c sample-size weighted averagec
wc
2N c
2
N c2005 N c2006
N
2N
2 c2005 N c2006 N c2006
Nw c N c1
c
Nt
Nt
N ctc
N ctc
tt
tt
tt
tt
1
1
1
1
t td–t
–tiscounted-past weighted average
q
q
q
q i,ci,c
q average t t
q i,ci,c
(1 )) q i,ci,c
sample-size tweightedq i,c
q
(1
q i,ci,c
i,c
2
Nt Nt
N N ctct
N
2
2
N ctc N c c
N
2
N c2011
N c2012
2012
2011
1 cc
1
2011–12
q 2011
q i,c
(1
qt0.543 5.70 0.457 ) 6.03 i,c 0.543 q5.70 5.85
N ctct
N ctct
N
N
i,c
2011
2012
2011
i,c
0.457 6.03
5.85
tt
t
t
1
1
2
2
Nc
Nc
Nc
N c2012
q i,ci,c t t t 1 t t
q i,ci,c N ct
qt
qt
Nc
|
Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 t
R t –qqi,ci,c 1 2 76 N tTt heNq ttt
N
2 (1 Nc)c Nci,c
N
011
2012 i,c
2011
2012
q i,cNc c N c c
q2i,c
qt
q i,c t
c
t
t
discounted-past weighted average
2
N ct NN ct
N ct NN ct
sample-size weighted average
R t –t 2
c
c
1
1
qt
qt
qt
qt
2005
2006
2005
2006

2012
2012

N cc
N

2011
2011
c
c

t
Nc

2012
2012
c
c

11

22

11

11

11

22

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

11

11

11 22

11

1

11

2

22
1

22

11

2

2

11

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

22

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

–2006
q i,c

22

22

22

22

2

22

22

11

11

2

1

1

1

11

2012
q i,c

22

22

2

2

2

2012
q i,c

22

2012
q i,c

–2006
q i,c

1
2

t
q i,c –t
1

2

(1

)

t
q i,c

1
2

t
q i,c

1

2

N ct
N c N ct

N ct
N c N ct

1

t1

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

2

t
q i,c
1

2

t1

t
q i,c
2

2

Box 2: Country score calculation (cont’d.)
N c2005
N c2006
–2005
–2006
–2005
1
1
05–06
q i,c
q i,c
q –2006
(1 )
q i,c and applying Equations (2a) and (2b) yields weights of 45.7q percent2005 2011 andi,c54.3 percent for 2012 (see Table 1). The final for 2006
i,c
2005
2006
2
2
Nc
Nc
Nc
Nc
country score for this question is given by Equation (1):
0.457

6.03

0.543

2011

5.70

5.85 .

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.

lower bound = Q1 – 1.5

10–11
q i,c
upper bound = Q3 – 1.5

q i,
2011–12

2011

q i,c

wc

2011

q i,c

2012

wc

IQR
IQR

1
–2011
q i,c0–11 q i,c

2012
q i,c

2011–12
q i,c

2012

q i,c

2011
q i,c
t
t
qhey contain more updated information. That is, we also
Nc
t i,c
2011
qt
N
t
“discount q –t past.” Table 1 reports the exactc weights the n=1 i,n,c
q i,n,c
(1 )
2011
2012
i,c
N
c
N ct
2011
used in the computation of cthe scores of ceachNcountry,
w
t
Nc
2

Based on the IQR test, the 2012 Survey data
collected in Ecuador, Georgia, Rwanda, and Sri
Lanka deviate significantly from the 2011 results. The
subsequent analysis revealed that this departure was not
while Box 2 details the methodology and provides a
t
2012
accompanied by a similar trend in indicators taken from
clarifying example.
wc
Nc
2011
2012
other sources, and the recent developments in these
Nc
Nc
2012
2012
2011
0
1
wc
wc
wc
countries do not seem to provide enough justification
Inter-year robustness test
2
2011
forc2012 1
The two tests described above address variability issues 0
w the large swings observed. For these four countries,
wc
we therefore use only the 2011 Survey data in the
among individual responses in a country. Yet they were
N c2011
N c2012
2011
2012
2011
1
not2011–12 1
designed to track the evolution of country scores
q i,c
q i,c
q i,c computation ofi,c this year’s GCI. While this remains a q 2012
(1 )
q i,c
2011
2012
2011
2
2
Nc
N c2012
remedial measure, we will continue to investigate the
across time. Therefore, we use an additional N c toc
test N
discounted-past
situation
assess the reliability and weighted average of the Survey sample-size weighted average in an effort to improve the reliability of the consistency
Survey data in these countries. Last year, the same
data. The inter-quartile range test, or IQR test, is used
analysis resulted in the Survey data of six countries—
to identify large swings—positive and negative—in the
N ct
N ct
t
t
t
t
t –t
Bosniaqand Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Qatar,
country 1
scores. Moreqspecifically, for 1each country q i,c
q i,c
(1 )
q i,c
i,c
i,c
2
N ct N ct
N ct N ct
2
Saudi Arabia, and Slovenia—not being included in the
we compute c as the average difference in country
analysis. This year, as an intermediate step toward the
scores across all the Survey questions from one year to
re-establishment of the standard computation method,
another. We then compute the inter-quartile range (i.e.,
2005
2006
–2005
–2006
–2006
1
1
05–06
used
thei,c difference between the 25th i,c
percentile and N c 2006 q i,c
the 75th –2005 we N c 2006a weighted average of the Survey data of 2010 q i,c
q
q i,c
(1 )
q
2005
2005
2
2
Nc
Nc
Nc
Nc
and 2012 for these countries.
percentile), denoted iq, of the sample of 144 economies
with respect to the previous year. Any value c lying
0.457 6.03 0.543 5 25th percentile minus
CONCLUSION
outside the range bounded by the.70 5.85
2011
2012
The Executive Opinion Survey remains the largest
1.5 times iq and the 75th percentile plus 1.5 times iq is
poll of its kind, collecting this year the insight of more
identified as a potential outlier. Formally, we have:
than 14,000 executives into their business operating
environment. This scale could not be achieved without
lower bound = Q1 – 1.5 IQR
the tremendous efforts of the Forum’s network of over
upper bound = Q3 – 1.5 IQR
160 Partner Institutes in carrying out the Survey at a
national level. It gathers valuable information on a broad
where
range of variables for which data sources are scarce
Q1 and Q3 correspond to the 25th and 75th
or nonexistent. For this reason, and for the integrity of
percentiles of the sample, respectively, and
our publications and related research, improving the
IQR is the difference between these two
sampling methodology and comparability of data across
values.
the globe remain an essential and ongoing endeavor of
This test is complemented by an analysis of the
The Global Benchmarking Network.
evolution in the results over the past five editions and by
a comparison with the evolution in the data used in the
NOTES
GCI that are not derived from the Survey. In addition,
1 Although data were collected for almost 150 economies in 2012, we examine the latest developments in all the countries
following the editing process we used the 2012 data for 140
identified as outliers by the tests that might help to
economies. Please see the data editing section for further details. explain such large swings.
1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 77

1.3: The Executive Opinion Survey

2 The World Economic Forum’s Global Benchmarking Network
would like to acknowledge e-Rewards Market Research for
carrying out the Executive Opinion Survey 2012 in the United States, collecting over 450 surveys following the detailed sampling guidelines. Furthermore, e-Rewards supplemented the sample in Germany.

3 Company size is defined as the number of employees of the firm in the country of the Survey respondent. The company size value used for delineating the large and small company sample frames varies across countries. The size value tracks closely with the overall size of the economy. Adjustments were made to the value based on searches in company directories and data gathered

through the administration of the Survey in past years.
4 In order to reach the required number of surveys in each country (80 for most economies and 300 for the BRIC countries and the United States), a Partner Institute uses the response rate from previous years.

5 The results are the scores obtained by each economy in the various questions of the Survey. The two terms are used
interchangeably throughout the text.
6 The completion rate is the proportion of answered questions among the 130 core questions in the Survey instrument.
7 In some cases, the information about the company’s sector of activity is missing. In these cases, for any given country when the sample includes at least one survey without sector information, the average response values across the surveys are apportioned to the other sectors according to the sample sizes in those other sectors. This has the effect of including these surveys on a one-for-one basis as they occur in the sample—that is, with no adjustment for sector.

8 Concretely, if the weight of an individual response exceeds 10 percent of the country sample, the sector-weighted average is abandoned for the benefit of a simple average.

78 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Part 2
Data Presentation

2.1
Country/Economy Profiles

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles

The Country/Economy Profiles section presents a twopage profile for each of the 144 economies covered in The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013.

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Albania
Key indicators, 2011

GDP (PPP) per capita (int’l $), 1990–2011

Population (millions) .......................................... 3.3 GDP (US$ billions) .......................................... 12.8 GDP per capita (US$) ................................... 3,992 GDP (PPP) as share (%) of world total ............ 0.03

Albania

20,000

Central and Eastern Europe

15,000
10,000
5,000
0

PAGE 1

Rank
(out of 144)

Key indicators
The first section presents a selection of key indicators for the economy under review:
• Population figures are from the World Population
Prospects: The 2010 Revision, (CD-ROM edition),
published by the United Nations’ Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
The population figure for Taiwan, China, is sourced
from Taiwan’s National Statistics.

• The chart on the upper right-hand side displays the
evolution of GDP per capita at purchasing power
parity (PPP) from 1990 through 2011 (or the period
for which data are available) for the economy under
review (blue line). The black line plots the GDPweighted average of GDP per capita of the group of economies to which the economy under review
belongs. We draw on the IMF classification, which
divides the world into six regions: Central and Eastern
Europe; Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),
which includes Georgia and Mongolia although they
are not members; Developing Asia; Middle East and
North Africa; Sub-Saharan Africa; and Latin America
and the Caribbean. The last group comprises
advanced economies. GDP figures come from the
WEO database. For more information regarding the
classification and the data, visit www.imf.org/weo.
Note that no data are available for Puerto Rico.

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Stage of development

Score
(1–7)

GCI 2012–2013 ...................................................... 89 ..... 3.9

Transition
1–2

1

GCI 2011–2012 (out of 142) ..................................... 78 ......4.1 GCI 2010–2011 (out of 139) ..................................... 88 ......3.9

Factor
driven

Transition
2–3

2

3

Efficiency
driven

Basic requirements (40.0%) .......................................87 ......4.2

Innovation
driven

Institutions

Institutions ................................................................ 84 ......3.6 Infrastructure ............................................................ 91 ......3.5 Macroeconomic environment ................................... 98 ......4.3 Health and primary education ................................... 79 ......5.6

7

Innovation

Infrastructure

6
5

Business
sophistication

Macroeconomic
environment

4
3

Efficiency enhancers (50.0%) .....................................92 ......3.8

2

Higher education and training ................................... 76 ......4.1 Goods market efficiency .......................................... 58 ......4.3 Labor market efficiency ............................................ 68 ......4.4 Financial market development ................................ 120 ......3.4 Technological readiness ............................................ 77 ......3.7 Market size ............................................................... 98 ......2.9

Market size

Health and
primary
education

1

Higher education
and training

Technological
readiness
Financial market
development

Innovation and sophistication factors (10.0%) .........113 ......3.1

Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency

Business sophistication ........................................... 98 ......3.6 Innovation ............................................................... 123 ......2.6

Albania

Efficiency-driven economies

The most problematic factors for doing business
Access to financing ...........................................................23.3 Corruption .........................................................................22.2 Inefficient government bureaucracy ...................................11.6 Tax regulations ....................................................................9.8 Policy instability ...................................................................6.1 Tax rates..............................................................................5.2 Foreign currency regulations ................................................4.3 Crime and theft ...................................................................3.9 Inadequate supply of infrastructure ......................................3.0 Poor work ethic in national labor force ................................3.0 Government instability/coups ..............................................2.5 Inflation ................................................................................2.3 Inadequately educated workforce ........................................2.0 Restrictive labor regulations .................................................0.7 Poor public health ...............................................................0.2 0

• Gross domestic product (GDP) data come from the
April 2012 edition of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF)’s World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database,
with the exception of Puerto Rico, for which figures
were calculated using national sources. Reported
GDP and GDP per capita are valued at current prices.

1991

The Global Competitiveness Index

5

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.

86 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

Global Competitiveness Index
This section details the economy’s performance on the
various components of the Global Competitiveness Index
(GCI). The first column shows the country’s rank among
the 144 economies, while the second column presents
the score. The percentage contribution to the overall GCI
score of each subindex score is reported next to the
subindex name. These weights vary depending on the
country’s stage of development. For more information
on the methodology of the GCI, refer to Chapter 1.1.
On the right-hand side, a chart shows the country’s
performance in the 12 pillars of the GCI (blue line)
measured against the average scores across all the
economies in the same stage of development (black
line).
The most problematic factors for doing business
This chart summarizes those factors seen by business
executives as the most problematic for doing business
in their economy. The information is drawn from the
2012 edition of the World Economic Forum’s Executive
Opinion Survey (Survey). From a list of 16 factors,
respondents were asked to select the five most

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 83

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

problematic and rank them from 1 (most problematic)
to 5. The results were then tabulated and weighted
according to the ranking assigned by respondents. For
Ecuador, Georgia, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka, we use data
from the 2011 edition of the Survey. For these countries,
the list comprises only 15 factors—one less than in
the 2012 edition. See Chapter 1.3 for details. Due to a
logistical issue, the results for Albania were also based
on the same list of 15 factors, although the data were
collected in 2012.

2.1: Country/Economy Profiles

Albania
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR

VALUE RANK/144

1st pillar: Institutions
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

Property rights ....................................................... 3.1 ..........129 Intellectual property protection ............................... 3.0 ..........103 Diversion of public funds ........................................ 2.8 ............97 Public trust in politicians ......................................... 2.6 ............75 Irregular payments and bribes ................................ 3.6 ............84 Judicial independence............................................ 2.6 ..........121 Favoritism in decisions of government officials ....... 2.9 ............84 Wastefulness of government spending ................... 3.3 ............66 Burden of government regulation ........................... 4.1 ............ 26 Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes .... 3.3 ............98 Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regs. ... 3.3 ............93 Transparency of government policymaking............. 4.3 ............67 Gov’t services for improved business performance n/a ...........n/a Business costs of terrorism .................................... 5.6 ............69 Business costs of crime and violence..................... 4.7 ............80 Organized crime ..................................................... 4.7 ............99 Reliability of police services .................................... 4.0 ............77 Ethical behavior of firms ......................................... 3.9 ............71 Strength of auditing and reporting standards ......... 4.2 ..........101 Efficacy of corporate boards .................................. 4.7 ............56 Protection of minority shareholders’ interests ......... 4.2 ............70 Strength of investor protection, 0–10 (best)* .......... 7.3 ............ 16

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09

Quality of overall infrastructure ............................... 4.2 ............77 Quality of roads ...................................................... 4.3 ............59 Quality of railroad infrastructure .............................. 1.2 ..........119 Quality of port infrastructure ................................... 3.7 ............96 Quality of air transport infrastructure....................... 4.8 ............66 Available airline seat kms/week, millions* ............. 22.4 ..........118 Quality of electricity supply ..................................... 4.8 ............71 Mobile telephone subscriptions/100 pop.* ........... 96.4 ............92 Fixed telephone lines/100 pop.* ........................... 10.5 ............91

3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05

Government budget balance, % GDP* ..................-3.5 ............80 Gross national savings, % GDP* .......................... 11.8 ..........116 Inflation, annual % change* .................................... 3.4 ............ 43 General government debt, % GDP* ..................... 58.9 ..........104 Country credit rating, 0–100 (best)* ...................... 38.9 ............81

2nd pillar: Infrastructure

3rd pillar: Macroeconomic environment

PAGE 2
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
This page details the country’s 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 measured—for 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 1–7 scale, with 7 being the most
desirable outcome.
• VALUE: This column reports the country’s score on
each indicator.
• R ANK/144: This column reports the country’s
position among the 144 economies covered by
the GCI 2012–2013. 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 Germany—which is
ranked 6th overall—its 7th rank on indicator 1.06
Judicial independence makes this indicator a
competitive advantage.
For those economies ranked from 11 through 50
in the overall GCI, variables ranked higher than
the economy’s own rank are considered to be
advantages. In the case of Iceland, ranked 30th
overall, its rank of 12 on indicator 7.08 Female
participation in labor force makes this indicator a
competitive advantage.

84 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013

INDICATOR

4th pillar: Health and primary education
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

Business impact of malaria .............................. n/appl. .............. 1 Malaria cases/100,000 pop.* ................................(NE) .............. 1 Business impact of tuberculosis ............................. 6.7 .............. 5 Tuberculosis cases/100,000 pop.* ....................... 14.0 ............ 34 Business impact of HIV/AIDS ................................. 6.6 .............. 4

Cite This Document

Related Documents

  • Thailand’s Competitive Advantage

    ...Thailand’s Competitive Advantage in ASEAN after Asian Crisis: Among the five-selected ASEAN nations: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam Abstract: Analyzing Thailand’s competitive advantage in ASEAN after Asian crisis in 1997 is vital for a nation’s economic development in the region where the neighborhood could ...

    Read More
  • Brazil Country Attractiveness Report

    ...1. Introduction and general country overview Being the fifth largest country in the world by surface area and population, and recently emerging as one of the fastest growing global economies , Brazil can hardly be overlooked as a potential target of investment, especially in the light of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. Nevertheless,...

    Read More
  • Vietnam Competitiveness Report

    ...National Competitiveness: Issues for Vietnam Meeting with Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and his delegation Professor Michael E. Porter Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness Harvard Business School Cambridge, Massachusetts June 24, 2005 This presentation draws on Michael Porter, Klaus Schwab: The Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005, ...

    Read More
  • Go Global- or No?

    ...data analysis package with the global targets. CEO, Greg McNally and other key personnel have realised the competitive threats and need of maintaining company’s competitiveness. For this, there is a dilemma of whether to internationalise the business or to focus on domestic market by exploring potential industries like chemical, petrochemical,...

    Read More
  • Gem Report

    ...Introduction: The GEM research program is an annual assessment of the national level of entrepreneurial ac-tivity. Our group has chosen two reports: one is Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Report for Belgium which is posted on January 2013; the other one is Global Entrepreneurship monitor National Entrepreneurial Assessment for the United ...

    Read More
  • CSR and Competitive Advantage

    ...CSR AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Corporate social responsibility (hereinafter CSR) has become one of the central issues on the agenda of organizations today, but is still a long way from being a centre stage on corporate strategy (Smith, 2003; Stewart, 2006). One of the key problems is the lack of understanding about the impact CSR has o...

    Read More
  • Global Competitiveness of the Indian Paper Industry

    ...52A00087 Global Competitiveness of the Indian Paper Industry Prepared for Central Pulp & Paper Research Institute Final Report Draft September 9, 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from Jaakko Pöyry Consulting. Preface Vantaa September 9, 20...

    Read More
  • Philippines in Global Competitiveness

    ...“Competitiveness is the name of the game in the global economy.” – Manny Villar It is, indeed. Competition may be rude, vulgar and sometimes offensive and yet, it still serves as an effective motivation. As the Philippines currently indulge its current economic achievement, being included for the first time in the top 50% of worl...

    Read More

Discover the Best Free Essays on StudyMode

Conquer writer's block once and for all.

High Quality Essays

Our library contains thousands of carefully selected free research papers and essays.

Popular Topics

No matter the topic you're researching, chances are we have it covered.