Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The Global
Competitiveness Index
20122013: Strengthening
Recovery by Raising
Productivity
XAVIER SALA-I-MARTN
BEAT BILBAO-OSORIO
JENNIFER BLANKE
ROBERTO CROTTI
MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ
THIERRY GEIGER
CAROLINE KO
Basic requirements
subindex
Pillar 1. Institutions
Pillar 2. Infrastructure
Pillar 3. Macroeconomic environment
Pillar 4. Health and primary education
Efficiency enhancers
subindex
Pillar 5. Higher education and
training
Key for
Key for
Key for
factor-driven
efficiency-driven
innovation-driven
economies
economies
economies
Note: See the appendix for the detailed structure of the GCI.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
Stage 1:
Factor-driven
Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2
Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven
Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3
<2,000
2,0002,999
3,0008,999
9,00017,000
>17,000
60%
4060%
40%
2040%
20%
35%
3550%
50%
50%
50%
5%
510%
10%
1030%
30%
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
Note: See individual country/economy profiles for the exact applied weights.
* For economies with a high dependency on mineral resources, GDP per capita is not the sole criterion for the determination of the stage of development. See text for details.
Stage 1:
Factor-driven
(38 economies)
Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2
(17 economies)
Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven
(33 economies)
Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3
(21 economies)
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
(35 economies)
Bangladesh
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chad
Cte dIvoire
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Ghana
Guinea
Haiti
India
Kenya
Kyrgyz Republic
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Moldova
Mozambique
Nepal
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Uganda
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Egypt
Gabon
Honduras
Iran, Islamic rep.
Kuwait
Libya
Mongolia
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
Venezuela
Albania
Armenia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Indonesia
Jamaica
Jordan
Macedonia, FYR
Mauritius
Montenegro
Morocco
Namibia
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Romania
Serbia
South Africa
Suriname
Swaziland
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Ukraine
Argentina
Bahrain
Barbados
Brazil
Chile
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Malaysia
Mexico
Oman
Poland
Russian Federation
Seychelles
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uruguay
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong SAR
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
GCI score*
n [5.39,5.72]
n [5.00,5.39[
n [4.60,5.00[
n [4.20,4.60[
n [3.80,4.20[
n [2.78,3.80[
n Not covered
* The interval [x,y[ is inclusive of x but exclusive of y. Highest value; lowest value.
Table 3: The Global Competitiveness Index 20122013 rankings and 20112012 comparisons
GCI 20122013
Rank among
Score GCI 20112012
Country/Economy
Rank/144 (17) sample
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
1 5.72 1
2 5.67 2
3 5.55 3
4 5.53 4
5 5.50 5
6 5.48 6
7
5.47
7
8
5.45
8
9
5.41
9
10 5.40 10
11 5.38 11
12 5.29 12
13
5.28
13
14 5.27 14
15 5.27 15
16 5.22 16
17 5.21 17
18
5.19
18
19
5.12
19
20 5.12 20
21 5.11 21
22 5.09 22
23
5.09
23
24
5.07
24
25 5.06 25
26 5.02 26
27 4.91 27
28
4.87
28
29 4.83 29
30 4.74 30
31
4.67
31
32 4.65 32
33 4.65 33
34 4.64 34
35 4.63 35
36 4.60 36
37 4.56 37
38 4.52 38
39
4.51
39
40 4.49 40
41 4.46 41
42 4.46 42
43 4.45 43
44 4.42 44
45 4.41 45
46 4.41 46
47 4.41 47
48 4.40 48
49 4.40 49
50 4.40 50
51 4.38 51
52
4.37
52
53 4.36 53
54 4.35 54
55 4.35 55
56 4.34 56
57
4.34
57
58 4.32 58
59 4.32 59
60 4.30 60
61 4.28 61
62 4.27 62
63 4.24 63
64 4.23 64
65 4.23 65
66
4.22
66
67
4.20
67
68
4.19
68
69 4.18 69
70 4.15 70
71
4.14
71
72 4.14 72
GCI 20112012
rank
1
2
4
3
7
6
5
10
11
9
14
8
13
12
16
19
15
17
24
20
18
23
25
27
21
22
29
28
26
30
35
32
31
33
37
36
34
39
38
49
41
43
59
42
44
55
51
53
45
46
72
50
58
54
64
57
61
47
56
48
67
74
70
71
75
62
66
52
68
73
69
60
GCI 20122013
Rank among
Score GCI 20112012
Country/Economy
Rank/144 (17) sample
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vietnam
Seychelles
Georgia
Romania
Botswana
Macedonia, FYR
Croatia
Armenia
Guatemala
Trinidad and Tobago
Cambodia
Ecuador
Moldova
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Albania
Honduras
Lebanon
Namibia
Mongolia
Argentina
Serbia
Greece
Jamaica
Gambia, The
Gabon
Tajikistan
El Salvador
Zambia
Ghana
Bolivia
Dominican Republic
Kenya
Egypt
Nicaragua
Guyana
Algeria
Liberia
Cameroon
Libya
Suriname
Nigeria
Paraguay
Senegal
Bangladesh
Benin
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Cape Verde
Uganda
Pakistan
Nepal
Venezuela
Kyrgyz Republic
Mali
Malawi
Madagascar
Cte dIvoire
Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso
Mauritania
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Lesotho
Mozambique
Chad
Yemen
Guinea
Haiti
Sierra Leone
Burundi
73 4.14 73
74 4.13 74
75 4.11 75
76 4.10 n/a
77 4.07 76
78 4.07 77
79 4.06 78
80
4.04
79
81 4.04 80
82 4.02 81
83 4.01 82
84
4.01
83
85 4.01 84
86 3.94 85
87 3.94 86
88
3.93
87
89 3.91 88
90 3.88 89
91 3.88 90
92 3.88 91
93 3.87 92
94 3.87 93
95 3.87 94
96 3.86 95
97 3.84 96
98
3.83
97
99 3.82 n/a
100 3.80 98
101
3.80
99
102 3.80 100
103 3.79 101
104 3.78 102
105
3.77
103
106 3.75 104
107 3.73 105
108 3.73 106
109 3.73 107
110 3.72 108
111 3.71 n/a
112 3.69 109
113 3.68 n/a
114 3.68 110
115 3.67 111
116 3.67 112
117 3.66 113
118 3.65 114
119 3.61 115
120 3.60 116
121 3.55 117
122
3.55
118
123 3.53 119
124 3.52 120
125 3.49 121
126 3.46 122
127
3.44
123
128 3.43 124
129 3.38 125
130 3.38 126
131
3.36
127
132 3.34 128
133
3.34
129
134 3.32 130
135 3.28 131
136 3.27 132
137 3.19 133
138 3.17 134
139 3.05 135
140 2.97 136
141 2.90 n/a
142 2.90 137
143
2.82
n/a
144 2.78 138
GCI 20112012
rank
82
63
65
n/a
88
77
80
79
76
92
84
81
97
101
93
100
78
86
89
83
96
85
95
90
107
99
n/a
105
91
113
114
103
110
102
94
115
109
87
n/a
116
n/a
112
127
122
111
108
104
120
106
119
121
118
125
124
126
128
117
130
129
132
136
137
134
131
135
133
142
138
n/a
141
n/a
140
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
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 Score
1 5.72
2 5.67
3 5.55
4 5.53
5 5.50
6 5.48
7 5.47
8 5.45
9 5.41
10 5.40
11 5.38
12 5.29
13 5.28
14 5.27
15 5.27
16 5.22
17 5.21
18 5.19
19 5.12
20 5.12
21 5.11
22 5.09
23 5.09
24 5.07
25 5.06
26 5.02
27 4.91
28 4.87
29 4.83
30 4.74
31 4.67
32 4.65
33 4.65
34 4.64
35 4.63
36 4.60
37 4.56
38 4.52
39 4.51
40 4.49
41 4.46
42 4.46
43 4.45
44 4.42
45 4.41
46 4.41
47 4.41
48 4.40
49 4.40
50 4.40
51 4.38
52 4.37
53 4.36
54 4.35
55 4.35
56 4.34
57 4.34
58 4.32
59 4.32
60 4.30
61 4.28
62 4.27
63 4.24
64 4.23
65 4.23
66 4.22
67 4.20
68 4.19
69 4.18
70 4.15
71 4.14
72 4.14
Rank Score
2 6.22
1 6.34
4 6.03
6 6.01
10 5.92
11 5.86
33 5.12
24 5.51
3 6.14
29 5.30
7 5.96
16 5.68
17 5.67
14 5.71
9 5.95
20 5.63
22 5.52
13 5.74
18 5.66
12 5.75
23 5.52
8 5.96
19 5.65
5 6.03
27 5.38
37 5.10
35 5.11
21 5.56
31 5.25
30 5.27
48 4.86
15 5.69
28 5.35
26 5.47
25 5.47
36 5.11
32 5.21
45 4.89
44 4.89
50 4.83
61 4.66
51 4.81
57 4.75
38 5.09
49 4.84
56 4.76
34 5.12
73 4.49
40 4.96
58 4.74
47 4.86
84 4.28
63 4.64
52 4.80
54 4.79
39 5.05
67 4.61
42 4.94
85 4.26
55 4.78
69 4.57
65 4.63
70 4.56
66 4.61
80 4.35
59 4.69
53 4.79
72 4.50
77 4.40
68 4.60
62 4.64
74 4.49
Rank Score
5 5.48
1 5.65
9 5.30
8 5.32
7 5.35
10 5.27
2 5.63
4 5.50
3 5.54
11 5.27
22 4.93
15 5.15
12 5.24
6 5.41
16 5.15
19 5.01
17 5.09
26 4.84
20 5.00
13 5.20
18 5.04
24 4.87
14 5.16
21 4.94
23 4.89
27 4.79
25 4.85
68 4.05
30 4.64
36 4.54
33 4.61
45 4.40
32 4.63
31 4.63
35 4.58
29 4.67
75 3.98
47 4.38
34 4.59
50 4.36
28 4.69
41 4.44
42 4.42
49 4.37
46 4.38
67 4.05
40 4.46
38 4.52
44 4.40
58 4.20
56 4.24
37 4.53
53 4.31
62 4.14
48 4.37
55 4.25
60 4.18
43 4.41
39 4.48
52 4.32
57 4.23
59 4.18
94 3.77
70 4.03
61 4.17
90 3.81
54 4.26
77 3.96
63 4.13
79 3.94
51 4.33
74 3.99
Innovation and
sophistication factors
Rank Score
1 5.79
11 5.27
3 5.62
5 5.56
6 5.47
4 5.57
7 5.42
9 5.32
22 4.73
2 5.67
15 5.02
12 5.24
14 5.08
21 4.74
16 5.00
10 5.30
13 5.21
29 4.47
17 4.96
28 4.56
18 4.96
19 4.89
27 4.60
25 4.64
23 4.70
8 5.33
20 4.87
62 3.64
34 4.05
24 4.69
26 4.64
44 3.91
45 3.87
33 4.06
53 3.74
31 4.14
86 3.36
55 3.72
32 4.13
48 3.83
61 3.66
30 4.24
50 3.79
38 3.97
47 3.83
57 3.68
46 3.85
39 3.97
37 4.01
40 3.96
104 3.25
42 3.94
49 3.79
63 3.63
68 3.57
36 4.02
35 4.04
51 3.77
43 3.94
58 3.68
94 3.31
97 3.30
60 3.66
52 3.74
64 3.60
77 3.46
108 3.16
41 3.96
66 3.58
84 3.38
74 3.50
69 3.57
(Contd.)
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
Country/Economy
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vietnam
Seychelles
Georgia
Romania
Botswana
Macedonia, FYR
Croatia
Armenia
Guatemala
Trinidad and Tobago
Cambodia
Ecuador
Moldova
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Albania
Honduras
Lebanon
Namibia
Mongolia
Argentina
Serbia
Greece
Jamaica
Gambia, The
Gabon
Tajikistan
El Salvador
Zambia
Ghana
Bolivia
Dominican Republic
Kenya
Egypt
Nicaragua
Guyana
Algeria
Liberia
Cameroon
Libya
Suriname
Nigeria
Paraguay
Senegal
Bangladesh
Benin
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Cape Verde
Uganda
Pakistan
Nepal
Venezuela
Kyrgyz Republic
Mali
Malawi
Madagascar
Cte dIvoire
Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso
Mauritania
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Lesotho
Mozambique
Chad
Yemen
Guinea
Haiti
Sierra Leone
Burundi
Rank Score
73 4.14
74 4.13
75 4.11
76 4.10
77 4.07
78 4.07
79 4.06
80 4.04
81 4.04
82 4.02
83 4.01
84 4.01
85 4.01
86 3.94
87 3.94
88 3.93
89 3.91
90 3.88
91 3.88
92 3.88
93 3.87
94 3.87
95 3.87
96 3.86
97 3.84
98 3.83
99 3.82
100 3.80
101 3.80
102 3.80
103 3.79
104 3.78
105 3.77
106 3.75
107 3.73
108 3.73
109 3.73
110 3.72
111 3.71
112 3.69
113 3.68
114 3.68
115 3.67
116 3.67
117 3.66
118 3.65
119 3.61
120 3.60
121 3.55
122 3.55
123 3.53
124 3.52
125 3.49
126 3.46
127 3.44
128 3.43
129 3.38
130 3.38
131 3.36
132 3.34
133 3.34
134 3.32
135 3.28
136 3.27
137 3.19
138 3.17
139 3.05
140 2.97
141 2.90
142 2.90
143 2.82
144 2.78
Rank Score
79 4.35
43 4.91
91 4.22
46 4.86
64 4.63
90 4.22
78 4.38
71 4.52
60 4.68
76 4.41
88 4.23
41 4.95
97 4.14
75 4.42
93 4.16
81 4.33
87 4.24
101 4.08
116 3.79
82 4.33
92 4.17
96 4.15
95 4.15
98 4.13
114 3.82
103 4.01
86 4.25
105 3.97
99 4.13
108 3.92
112 3.85
94 4.15
111 3.88
123 3.62
110 3.91
104 3.99
107 3.93
89 4.22
109 3.92
115 3.80
102 4.06
83 4.29
130 3.52
106 3.94
120 3.68
119 3.72
113 3.83
122 3.65
118 3.74
100 4.08
132 3.48
134 3.41
121 3.65
126 3.54
128 3.52
125 3.55
135 3.40
129 3.52
137 3.29
127 3.53
133 3.45
124 3.60
131 3.49
117 3.78
136 3.32
138 3.22
139 3.15
141 3.01
143 2.80
140 3.02
144 2.77
142 2.94
Rank Score
65 4.11
73 4.00
71 4.02
91 3.81
87 3.84
64 4.12
89 3.82
84 3.85
72 4.01
82 3.86
81 3.92
83 3.85
85 3.84
100 3.68
99 3.71
97 3.75
92 3.80
102 3.66
66 4.06
105 3.64
96 3.76
86 3.84
88 3.83
69 4.05
80 3.93
114 3.54
116 3.52
112 3.56
103 3.66
108 3.61
95 3.77
122 3.35
93 3.79
76 3.97
101 3.67
119 3.38
109 3.61
136 3.08
121 3.36
111 3.57
131 3.19
124 3.32
78 3.96
110 3.59
106 3.63
107 3.62
125 3.31
113 3.55
123 3.33
128 3.22
104 3.66
98 3.71
126 3.30
117 3.46
118 3.40
127 3.26
120 3.37
132 3.18
115 3.53
135 3.08
129 3.22
142 2.88
130 3.21
138 2.97
137 3.05
133 3.10
141 2.91
139 2.95
134 3.10
143 2.76
140 2.94
144 2.56
Innovation and
sophistication factors
Rank Score
79 3.43
78 3.46
90 3.32
87 3.36
120 3.00
106 3.20
82 3.40
110 3.13
83 3.39
98 3.29
70 3.56
89 3.33
72 3.53
93 3.32
131 2.85
99 3.28
113 3.11
91 3.32
81 3.41
103 3.25
112 3.11
88 3.35
124 2.96
85 3.37
80 3.41
54 3.74
139 2.64
76 3.46
107 3.16
67 3.57
102 3.27
100 3.28
105 3.25
56 3.68
96 3.31
116 3.05
71 3.54
144 2.31
59 3.67
95 3.31
127 2.92
117 3.01
73 3.53
123 2.97
65 3.59
122 2.98
111 3.12
92 3.32
125 2.96
119 3.01
101 3.27
75 3.47
133 2.82
135 2.78
140 2.63
114 3.11
109 3.16
115 3.08
121 2.99
128 2.90
126 2.94
118 3.01
134 2.80
136 2.73
137 2.72
130 2.89
129 2.89
141 2.50
132 2.82
143 2.41
138 2.69
142 2.42
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
PILLARS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Rank Score
87 4.24
89 4.22
96 4.15
76 4.41
12 5.75
20 5.63
56 4.76
25 5.47
119 3.72
38 5.09
22 5.52
113 3.83
94 4.15
81
4.33
78 4.38
73 4.49
21
5.56
65 4.63
133
3.45
142 2.94
97 4.14
115 3.80
14 5.71
100
4.08
139 3.15
28 5.35
31 5.25
77 4.40
67
4.61
137
3.29
60 4.68
42 4.94
44
4.89
16 5.68
111
3.88
75 4.42
110 3.91
99
4.13
26 5.47
118 3.74
4 6.03
23 5.52
86 4.25
103
4.01
64 4.63
11 5.86
112 3.85
98 4.13
88 4.23
143 2.80
107 3.93
140 3.02
101 4.08
3
6.14
55 4.78
30 5.27
85 4.26
58 4.74
59
4.69
35 5.11
37 5.10
51 4.81
114 3.82
29 5.30
66 4.61
47 4.86
123 3.62
18
5.66
32 5.21
128
3.52
54 4.79
116 3.79
Rank Score
84 3.65
141 2.66
138 2.85
71 3.90
18 5.27
25 5.04
63 3.98
21 5.13
127 3.20
24 5.06
27 5.00
99 3.51
119 3.31
85
3.64
33 4.82
79 3.78
31
4.86
108 3.39
83
3.66
142 2.59
73 3.84
107 3.40
11 5.52
57
4.07
140 2.73
28 4.97
50 4.22
109 3.38
53
4.13
129
3.16
98 3.52
40 4.59
82
3.67
14 5.40
126
3.21
131 3.16
96 3.56
134
3.02
30 4.94
74 3.83
3 6.03
32 4.83
67 3.94
35
4.67
61 4.00
16 5.31
75 3.82
111 3.37
124 3.25
128 3.18
100 3.50
143 2.49
118 3.32
10
5.53
80 3.70
23 5.09
70 3.91
72 3.86
68
3.93
19 5.22
34 4.75
97 3.56
87 3.62
22 5.13
42 4.50
66 3.96
106 3.43
62
3.98
51 4.20
137
2.92
59 4.01
125 3.22
Rank Score
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
3. Macroeconomic
environment
Rank Score
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
4. Health and
primary education
Rank Score
79 5.56
93 5.37
59 5.82
80 5.53
13 6.46
20 6.32
107 5.08
38 6.07
103 5.20
16 6.41
2 6.75
111 4.68
97 5.32
48
5.93
114 4.60
88 5.43
31
6.18
49 5.92
139
3.48
127 4.16
102 5.25
118 4.49
7 6.58
71
5.66
144 2.85
74 5.64
35 6.11
85 5.45
57
5.82
140
3.40
60 5.81
9 6.50
53
5.87
29 6.19
106
5.13
67 5.73
94 5.35
90
5.38
27 6.21
116 4.56
1 6.82
21 6.31
128 4.11
126
4.17
61 5.79
22 6.30
112 4.65
41 6.04
95 5.34
138 3.52
99 5.29
134 3.62
96 5.34
26
6.24
51 5.89
6 6.58
101 5.27
70 5.69
46
5.97
12 6.46
40 6.04
25 6.27
104 5.19
10 6.50
56 5.84
92 5.37
115 4.58
11
6.49
72 5.66
105
5.18
45 5.99
32 6.18
(Contd.)
PILLARS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
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
Rank Score
136 3.32
109 3.92
102 4.06
49 4.84
8 5.96
71
4.52
129 3.52
135 3.40
27 5.38
125 3.55
34 5.12
124 3.60
52 4.80
63 4.64
93 4.16
92 4.17
74 4.49
68 4.60
138 3.22
82 4.33
121 3.65
10 5.92
19
5.65
104 3.99
130 3.52
9 5.95
15 5.69
134 3.41
50 4.83
106 3.94
69 4.57
80 4.35
61 4.66
40 4.96
48
4.86
7 5.96
90 4.22
53
4.79
70 4.56
13
5.74
46 4.86
120 3.68
95 4.15
144
2.77
1 6.34
62
4.64
39 5.05
84
4.28
36 5.11
72
4.50
83 4.29
131 3.49
6 6.01
2 6.22
17
5.67
105 3.97
122 3.65
45 4.89
117 3.78
41
4.95
57 4.75
132 3.48
79 4.35
5
6.03
24
5.51
33
5.12
43 4.91
126 3.54
91 4.22
141 3.01
108 3.92
127 3.53
Rank Score
121 3.30
45 4.31
81 3.69
60 4.01
9 5.60
78
3.80
136 2.94
76 3.82
29 4.94
120 3.31
37 4.61
122 3.29
39 4.59
92 3.59
110 3.38
113 3.34
44 4.38
54 4.12
112 3.35
52 4.19
123 3.26
7 5.72
2
6.06
114 3.34
117 3.33
8 5.66
17 5.29
115 3.34
69 3.92
135 3.00
105 3.44
94 3.57
55 4.11
46 4.28
38
4.61
4 5.77
116 3.33
133
3.09
20 5.20
15
5.35
47 4.25
90 3.60
130 3.16
95
3.56
1 6.07
104
3.44
58 4.05
43
4.42
48 4.25
49
4.24
93 3.59
88 3.61
6 5.73
5 5.75
26
5.00
65 3.96
86 3.62
77 3.82
103 3.45
91
3.59
64 3.98
102 3.49
132 3.13
12
5.50
13
5.41
41
4.59
36 4.63
144 2.36
89 3.61
139 2.77
56 4.09
101 3.50
3. Macroeconomic
environment
Rank Score
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
Rank Score
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
4. Health and
primary education
Rank Score
136 3.54
130 4.10
121 4.40
39 6.05
28 6.20
77
5.59
110 4.68
124 4.30
33 6.16
141 3.36
19 6.34
133 3.88
54 5.85
68 5.71
86 5.44
76 5.60
73 5.65
81 5.53
137 3.52
120 4.44
109 4.69
5 6.60
4
6.63
89 5.43
142 3.20
18 6.34
52 5.88
117 4.52
69 5.70
108 5.03
91 5.38
98 5.31
43 6.03
30 6.19
75
5.61
23 6.29
83 5.51
65
5.75
100 5.27
58
5.82
47 5.95
125 4.23
66 5.73
143
2.95
3 6.73
42
6.03
24 6.29
132
3.93
36 6.09
44
5.99
82 5.52
135 3.57
14 6.46
8 6.54
15
6.45
87 5.43
113 4.60
78 5.56
131 4.09
55
5.85
63 5.78
123 4.35
62 5.78
37
6.08
17
6.39
34
6.11
50 5.90
84 5.49
64 5.77
122 4.39
129 4.11
119 4.47
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
PILLARS
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
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
5. Higher education
and training
Rank
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
Score
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
6. Goods market
efficiency
Rank Score
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
7. Labor market
efficiency
8. Financial market
development
Rank Score
Rank Score
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
9. Technological
readiness
Rank Score
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 2.89
49 4.34
23 4.94
115 2.62
21 5.10
36 4.62
76 3.51
103 2.86
47 4.36
134 1.97
27 4.81
122 2.45
82 3.25
93 3.07
97 2.94
9 5.63
124 2.39
62 3.82
114 2.64
140 1.57
89 3.15
87 3.18
13 5.45
143 1.25
112 2.70
42 4.44
2 6.82
31 4.65
81 3.35
94 3.05
71 3.57
106 2.81
40 4.51
53 4.22
65 3.66
60 3.90
29 4.77
83 3.23
96 2.98
66 3.64
54 4.18
8 5.76
110 2.74
141 1.42
99 2.87
5 6.02
70 3.57
46 4.38
73 3.54
129 2.27
132 2.03
127 2.35
88 3.16
26 4.82
52 4.25
126 2.36
3 6.24
16 5.27
18 5.16
56 4.13
51 4.30
10 5.63
100 2.86
4 6.13
84 3.23
55 4.14
75 3.52
11 5.60
61 3.88
117 2.58
91 3.11
69 3.59
(Contd.)
PILLARS
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
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
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
5. Higher education
and training
Rank
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
Score
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
6. Goods market
efficiency
Rank Score
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
7. Labor market
efficiency
8. Financial market
development
Rank Score
Rank Score
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
9. Technological
readiness
Rank Score
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 1.86
144 1.24
102 2.86
74 3.53
92 3.07
104 2.85
113 2.66
123 2.41
28 4.78
118 2.57
125 2.38
131 2.07
109 2.74
12 5.58
121 2.51
116 2.60
130 2.08
57 4.11
101 2.86
120 2.57
95 2.98
20 5.11
63 3.82
108 2.76
33 4.63
50 4.31
72 3.55
30 4.67
79 3.42
90 3.11
45 4.40
35 4.62
19 5.12
48 4.34
68 3.62
58 4.01
43 4.41
7 5.76
128 2.28
24 4.85
142 1.38
105 2.83
67 3.64
138 1.76
37 4.61
59 4.00
78 3.46
25 4.85
14 5.45
64 3.79
139 1.74
133 2.00
34 4.62
39 4.52
17 5.24
119 2.57
77 3.50
22 5.04
137 1.80
107 2.80
15 5.28
85 3.22
38 4.60
44 4.41
6 5.78
1 6.93
86 3.21
41 4.50
32 4.63
80 3.35
111 2.71
135 1.90
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
Table 7: The Global Competitiveness Index 20122013: Innovation and sophistication factors
INNOVATION AND
SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
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
PILLARS
11. Business
12.
sophistication Innovation
Rank Score
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
INNOVATION AND
SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS
Rank Score
Country/Economy
123 2.63
141 2.09
91 2.98
105 2.89
23 4.51
13 5.07
46 3.45
72 3.13
130 2.47
40 3.56
11 5.09
84 3.01
83 3.01
80 3.09
73 3.13
49 3.42
59 3.31
92 2.98
107 2.87
140 2.17
67 3.19
79 3.09
22 4.64
120 2.68
113 2.74
44 3.50
33 3.85
70 3.17
38 3.61
115 2.71
74 3.12
53 3.36
34 3.81
12 5.08
118 2.69
96 2.96
109 2.84
128 2.54
30 3.93
114 2.73
2 5.75
17 4.91
136 2.35
52 3.38
126 2.60
7 5.42
95 2.96
87 3.00
90 2.98
125 2.62
76 3.11
143 2.05
112 2.80
26 4.37
37 3.61
20 4.68
41 3.56
39 3.61
65 3.25
21 4.66
3 5.57
36 3.73
86 3.00
5 5.54
57 3.32
103 2.92
50 3.41
16 4.94
108 2.84
142 2.08
64 3.25
119 2.68
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Seychelles
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Note: Ranks out of 144 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
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
PILLARS
11. Business
12.
sophistication Innovation
Rank Score
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
Rank Score
138 2.33
54 3.34
129 2.50
43 3.51
18 4.82
110 2.83
106 2.88
99 2.94
25 4.38
88 2.99
48 3.43
121 2.68
98 2.95
56 3.33
135 2.40
100 2.93
60 3.31
97 2.95
122 2.63
101 2.93
133 2.42
9 5.31
24 4.43
116 2.71
78 3.10
15 4.96
47 3.44
77 3.11
45 3.46
132 2.43
117 2.69
94 2.97
63 3.25
31 3.86
27 4.35
19 4.71
102 2.92
85 3.01
51 3.40
29 4.03
93 2.98
62 3.29
111 2.81
139 2.27
8 5.39
89 2.98
32 3.85
42 3.55
35 3.77
58 3.32
124 2.62
137 2.33
4 5.56
1 5.78
14 4.99
66 3.22
75 3.12
68 3.19
134 2.41
104 2.90
55 3.33
82 3.02
71 3.16
28 4.18
10 5.17
6 5.50
69 3.18
131 2.44
81 3.07
144 1.89
61 3.30
127 2.59
Box 2: Sovereign debt crisis, macroeconomic imbalances, and the lack of competitiveness in
Southern Europe
From the beginning of the worst financial and economic
crisis that the Western world has experienced since the
Great Depression, Southern European economies, along
with Ireland, have found themselves in the eye of the storm.
Excessive public spending in the case of Greece, failing
banks in Ireland and more recently Spain following the bursting of a decade-long real estate bubble, and Italys and
Portugals general inability to grow and compete in a globalized environment have brought these economies to the very
edge of sovereign bankruptcy for the first time since the end
of World War II. As a result, these economiesexcept Italy
have been forced to request full or partial international bailouts because of their inability to obtain affordable financing in
the international financial markets.
In parallel with these events, governments in other euro
zone countries (such as Austria, Finland, and Germany) and
noneuro zone countries (such as Sweden, Switzerland, and
the United Kingdom) have benefited from increasingly low,
and sometimes even negative, real interest rates. In some
cases this is the result of the countries traditionally sound
fiscal policies; it is sometimes also a consequence of the high
uncertainty that is driving investors to seek safe locations.
Overall, the sovereign debt crisis reflects the lack of
confidence on the part of the financial markets in the ability
of Southern European economies to balance their public
accounts by curbing public spending and escaping the
vicious circle of high public debt; the need to support banking
systems in difficulties (which can increase national debt); and
diminishing fiscal revenues. The latter are linked to economic
contraction caused by sharp falls in both public and private
consumption and investment, lack of credit, and an inability to
compete internationally as reflected by the persistent current
account deficits (Figure 1).
At present, the vicious cycle seems to be leading these
economies toward a downward spiral of worsening financial
Percent
5
0
5
10
15
20
2002Q1
2003Q1
2004Q1
Netherlands
Germany
2005Q1
2006Q1
Denmark
Italy
2007Q1
2008Q1
Spain
Portugal
2009Q1
2010Q1
2011Q1
Greece
Source: Eurostat.
(Contd.)
Box 2: Sovereign debt crisis, macroeconomic imbalances, and the lack of competitiveness in
Southern Europe (contd.)
GCI score*
n [5.39,5.55]
n [5.00,5.39[
n [4.60,5.00[
n [4.20,4.60[
n [3.86,4.20[
n Non-EU countries
* The interval [x,y[ is inclusive of x but exclusive of y. Highest value; lowest value.
5.0
4.5
EU-11
Southern Europe
4.0
3.5
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
GCI edition
Note: Southern Europe includes Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain; EU-11 includes the original 15 member states except Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.
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 Russias 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 Russias 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, Greeces
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 countrys inefficient labor market
(133th), which continues to constrain Greeces 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 economiesSingapore; 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
Transport Infrastructure
7
6
5
4
3
2
ICT use
Electricity supply
(Contd.)
Box 3: Connecting the Americas through better transport, energy, and ICT infrastructure (contd.)
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 regions
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
Table 1: Transport, electricity, and ICT infrastructures: Latin America and the Caribbean compared with
OECD countries
Indicator
Latin America and the Caribbean
OECD
Gap
Transport infrastructure
3.30
4.96
1.66
3.86
5.53
1.67
Quality of roads
3.58
5.19
1.61
1.90
4.47
2.57
3.93
5.21
1.27
4.44
5.58
1.14
397.33
2,373.87
1,976.53
4.24
6.13
1.89
4.24
6.13
1.89
2.72
5.29
2.57
35.15
75.02
39.87
6.00
26.51
20.51
17.08
83.03
65.95
40.60
5.35
45.96
112.49
118.16
5.68
17.02
41.46
24.45
Note: The scores range from 1 to 7 for those variables that are collected from the Executive Opinion Survey. Those variables marked with an asterisk are collected from other sources
and the values reflect the units indicated in variable. For more information on the definition and sources of these variables, please refer to Part 2.2 of this publication.
(Contd.)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
20052006
20062007
20072008
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
GCI edition
OECD
Sub-Saharan Africa*
Middle-income countries
Low-income countries
Oil exporters
Note: The constant sample includes the following economies: Oil exporters: Cameroon, Chad, and Nigeria; middle-income countries: Botswana, Mauritius, Namibia, and South Africa;
low-income countries: Benin, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
* 2005 constant sample.
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
20052006
20062007
20072008
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
GCI edition
Macroeconomic environment
Institutions
Basic requirements
Infrastructure
(Contd.)
Score (17)
OECD
Oil exporters
Middle-income countries
Fragile countries
12. Innovation
9. Technological readiness
3. Macroeconomic environment
2. Infrastructure
1. Institutions
Non-fragile low-income
countries
Note: The constant sample includes the following economies: Oil exporters: Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, and Nigeria; middle-income countries: Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana,
Lesotho, Mauritius, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zambia; non-fragile low-income economies: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gambia,
Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Uganda; fragile economies: Burundi, Cte dIvoire, Guinea, Liberia, and Zimbabwe.
The blue bars reflect the dispersion in performance across sub-Saharan countries in the 12 dimensions analyzed in the GCR, the end points presenting the highest and
lowest score in the sample, respectively.
Figure 4: The most problematic factors for doing business: Sub-Saharan African average
Access to financing
Corruption
Inadequate supply of infrastructure
Inefficient government bureaucracy
Tax rates
Inadequately educated workforce
Poor work ethic in national labor force
Inflation
Policy instability
Tax regulations
Restrictive labor regulations
Foreign currency regulations
Crime and theft
Government instability/coups
Poor public health
0
10
15
20
Percent of responses
(Contd.)
Originally, sub-Saharan economies were grouped into oil exporters, middle-income countries, non-fragile low-income countries,
and fragile countries. As Zimbabwe is the only country classified
as fragile in the constant sample, we merge fragile and non-fragile
low-income countries into a single group of low-income countries
for purpose of this trend exercise. See IMF 2012a.
25 The BRICS countries are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Africa.
26 IMF 2012b.
27 IMF 2012c.
12 See Schultz 1961; Lucas 1988; Becker 1993; and Kremer 1993.
13 See Almeida and Carneiro 2009; Amin 2009; and Kaplan 2009
for country studies demonstrating the importance of flexible labor
markets for higher employment rates and, therefore, economic
performance.
14 See Aghion and Howitt 1992 and Barro and Sala-i-Martn 2003 for
a technical exposition of technology-based growth theories.
15 A general purpose technology (GPT), according to Trajtenberg
(2005), is one that, in any given period, gives a particular
contribution to an overall economys growth thanks to its ability to
transform the methods of production in a wide array of industries.
Examples of GPTs have been the invention of the steam engine
and the electric dynamo.
16 See Sachs and Warner 1995; Frenkel and Romer 1999; Rodrik
and Rodriguez 1999; Alesina et al. 2005; and Feyrer 2009.
17 This is particularly important in a world in which economic
borders are not as clearly delineated as political ones. In other
words, when Belgium sells goods to the Netherlands, the national
accounts register the transaction as an export (so the Netherlands
is a foreign market for Belgium), but when California sells the
same kind of output to Nevada, the national accounts register
the transaction as domestic (so Nevada is a domestic market for
California).
18 See Romer 1990; Grossman and Helpman 1991; and Aghion and
Howitt 1992.
19 Probably the most famous theory of stages of development was
developed by the American historian W. W. Rostow in the 1960s
(see Rostow 1960). Here we adapt Michael Porters theory of
stages (see Porter 1990). Please see Chapter 1.1 of The Global
Competitiveness Report 20072008 for a complete description
of how we have adapted Michael Porters theory for the present
application.
REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. Robinson. 2001. The Colonial
Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.
American Economic Review 91: 1369401.
. 2002. Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the
Making of the Modern World Distribution of Income. Quarterly
Journal of Economics 117 (4): 123194.
Aghion P. and P. Howitt. 1992. A Model of Growth through Creative
Destruction. Econometrica LX: 32351.
Alesina, A., E. Spolaore, and R. Enrico. 1998. Endogenous Growth.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
. 2005. Trade, Growth and the Size of Countries. In P. Aghion
and S. Durlauf, eds., Handbook of Economic Growth, 1st edition,
volume 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1499542.
Almeida, R., and P. Carneiro, 2009. Enforcement of Labor Regulation
and Firm Size. Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 2846.
Amin, M. 2009. Labor Regulation and Employment in Indias Retail
Stores. Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 4761.
Aschauer, D. A. 1989. Is Public Expenditure Productive? Journal of
Monetary Economics 23 (2): 117200.
Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-i-Martn. 1992. Convergence. Journal of
Political Economy 100 (April): 22351.
. 2003. Economic Growth, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Becker, G. S. 1993. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical
Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, 3rd edition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Appendix:
Computation and structure of the Global Competitiveness Index 20122013
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
A. Competition............................................................... 67%
1. Domestic competition.......................................................variableh
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..........................................................variableh
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
EFFICIENCY ENHANCERS
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
indicatork
k=1
Efficiencydriven
stage (2)
Transition
from stage 2
to stage 3
Innovationdriven
stage (3)
>17,000
4060%
40%
2040%
20%
50%
50%
50%
1030%
30%
3550%
510%
10%
* For economies with a high dependency on mineral resources, GDP per capita is
not the sole criterion for the determination of the stage of development. See text
for details.
c Formally, we have:
6 x
+ 7
NOTES
categoryi
6 x
+ 1
f 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 countrys disease incidence rate relative to
the highest incidence rate in the whole sample. The inverse of
this ratio is then multiplied by each countrys 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.
i Variables 6.06 and 6.07 combine to form one single variable.
j For variable 6.14, imports as a percentage of GDP, we first
apply a log-transformation and then a min-max transformation.
This indicator was formerly numbered 10.04. It still enters the
computation of the market size indexes (see note k).
k The size of the domestic market is constructed by taking the
natural log of the sum of the gross domestic product valued at
purchased power parity (PPP) plus the total value (PPP estimates)
of imports of goods and services, minus the total value (PPP
estimates) of exports of goods and services. Data are then
normalized on a 1-to-7 scale. PPP estimates of imports and exports
are obtained by taking the product of exports as a percentage of
GDP and GDP valued at PPP. The underlying data are reported in
the data tables section (see Tables 10.03, 6.14, and 10.04).
l The size of the foreign market is estimated as the natural log of
the total value (PPP estimates) of exports of goods and services,
normalized on a 1-to-7 scale. PPP estimates of exports are
obtained by taking the product of exports as a percentage of GDP
and GDP valued at PPP. The underlying data are reported in the
data tables.