Another rung
|
League tables of competitiveness give an easily comparable ranking of the global economic performance, but they leave underlying questions unanswered. Why are the “poor” countries four times less productive than the “rich” ones, for instance? And what do these rankings say about the role of human capital, or financial markets or physical infrastructure?
In an effort to correct for this, a new study by the OECD Development Centre, The Ladder of Competitiveness: How to Climb it, presents three rankings to emphasise different factors. The standard ranking covers 51 countries and is based on total productivity: Japan comes in first, while Bangladesh is last. One alternative ranking is aimed at firms wanting to invest in a country. On this scale, the US comes first and India last. The third ranking is destined for investors interested in trade: Sweden ranks first and Central African Republic last.
Of the 51 countries ranked, balanced countries like the US, Norway and Sweden still come out on top, yet the authors conclude that in terms of competition, that does not mean a country is not vulnerable. Japan, for instance, comes in first in productivity and ranks second on the “investor” scale, but drops to 24th in “exporter” ranking.
ISBN 9264028277
See the order form or www.oecdbookshop for ordering details.
©OECD Observer No. 258/259, December 2006
Where are we in the current economic crisis?
- Women in work: The Norwegian experience
- Clinical trials for better health policies
- Policy can brighten the economic outlook
- Information society: Which way now?
- Asia’s Challenges
- Study abroad
- The EU fish discard ban: Where’s the catch?
- Homo Economicus: An uncertain guide
- Knowledge is growth
- “Made in the world”
