Europe
The Nordic countries continue
to hold prominent positions in the rankings among the
top 10 most competitive economies this year, with Finland
(1), Sweden (3), Denmark
(4), Iceland (7) and Norway
(9) all in privileged places. The Nordics are challenging
the conventional wisdom that high taxes and large safety
nets undermine competitiveness, suggesting that what is
important is how well government revenues are spent, rather
than the overall tax burden per se. Elsewhere in Europe
the most notable developments are the improvement in the
relative position of Ireland,
which has moved up 4 places to 26 in the overall rankings;
the improvement of Poland,
which has moved up 9 places to 51st place in the rankings,
the significant decline of Greece
(ranked 46, compared to 37 last year), which now has joined
Italy (ranked 47) as the
two lowest-ranking countries among the EU-25, bar Poland.
Asia
Pacific
- Leading
within Asia are Taiwan
and Singapore, ranked 5th
and 6th respectively, some places ahead of the next
Asian country covered by the GCI, Japan,
ranked 12th. The distance between these top-ranked economies
and Japan has increased since last year, reflecting
Japan's relatively poor macroeconomic performance, particularly
as regards management of the public finances. Compared
with the other tigers, Hong Kong
is ranked much lower at 28th place, having dropped 7
places since last year. Hong Kong saw a weakening in
perceived judicial independence, the protection of property
rights and in government favouritism in policy-making.
Hong Kong's ranks on irregular payments (corruption)
have also fallen well below its previously excellent
performance.
Australia,
in 10th place, has moved up 4 places since last year,
with improvements across many of the institutional and
technology indicators measured by the index.
The
American continent
The United States, as last
year, is ranked second: the country demonstrates overall
technological supremacy, with a very powerful culture
of innovation. However, technological prowess is partly
offset by a weaker performance in other areas measured
by the index the US has a relatively low rank of
20 for the contracts and law indicator, with particular
concerns on the part of the business community about the
government's ability to maintain arm's-length relationships
with the private sector. The country's greatest weakness
concerns the health of its macroeconomic environment,
where it ranks a low 47th overall.
As
in previous years, Chile,
ranked 23rd, leads the way in Latin America by a wide
margin. Chile continues to benefit from a combination
of remarkably competent macroeconomic management and public
institutions, which have achieved EU levels of transparency
and efficiency.
Mexico
has fallen 7 places since last year to 55th, ceding its
second spot in the regional ranking to Uruguay,
while Brazil fell 8 places
to 65th position. Venezuela,
which had a ranking of 62 in 2001, continues its precipitous
decline to the bottom of the rankings, falling another
4 places to 89th position overall this year. Widespread
mismanagement has led to strong deterioration in all areas
measured by the index and the macroeconomic environment
has become highly unstable.
Middle
East and North Africa (MENA)
- Within
the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the
small Gulf States perform quite well in the overall
GCI rankings. The United Arab
Emirates (UAE) and Qatar
are ranked 18th and 19th, respectively.
Sub-Saharan
African region
- While
most of the countries of the sub-Saharan African region
are less competitive, the region does have a number
of relative success stories. This includes South
Africa (42nd), Botswana
(48th), Mauritius (52nd)
and Ghana (59th), the latter's
competitiveness performance being even more notable,
having improved by 9 places since 2004. Tanzania
has also seen a significant improvement over the past
year, moving up 11 places in the overall rankings. On
the other hand, Namibia,
a relatively good performer overall, lost 11 places
over the past year, as, predictably, did Madagascar
and Zimbabwe, losing 11
and 10 places, respectively. Zimbabwe has the worst
ranking (117) for the quality of its macroeconomic environment.
|
|