Б. О. Джолдошев а из Института автоматики и информационных технологий нан кр, г. Бишкек; «Cинтез кибернетических автоматических систем с использованием эталонной модели»

Institutions scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: excessive bureaucracy and red tape (de Soto and Abbot, 1990), overregulation, corruption, dishonesty in dealing with public contracts, lack of transparency and trustworthiness, and the political dependence of the judicial system, and also improper management of the public finances. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,11 score, and this corresponds the Egypt (4.13) ranked 70^th;

- mode is 3,24 score, and this corresponds Philippines ranked 88^th; Serbia ranked 93^rd; Cameroon ranked 111^st; Madagascar ranked 120^th and Timor-Leste ranked 26^th;

- maximum is 6,15 score, and this corresponds Singapore ranked 3^rd;

- minimum is 2,39 score, and this corresponds Venezuela ranked 113^rd. Then interval is 3,76 score, also note that Germany (16^th) is 5,6; for United States (34^th) – 4,81; Kazakhstan (86^th) – 3,64 and Turkey (95^th) – 3,49 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,52, and this appropriate distribution of the institutions scores shift the mean significance to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is 0,63, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the upright.

Infrastructure scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: ineffective modes of transport for goods, people, and services – such as quality roads, railroads, ports, and air transport, electricity shortages and also bad telecommunications network. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mode is 2,91 score, and this corresponds Peru ranked 78^th; Algeria ranked 82^nd; Philippines ranked 88^th and Ecuador ranked 104^th;

- maximum is 6,59 score, and this corresponds Germany ranked 7^th;

- minimum is 1,9 score, and this corresponds Chad ranked 131^th. Then interval is 4,69 score, also note that Germany (1^st) is 6,39; for United States (8^th) – 5,92; Turkey (62^nd) – 3,92 and Kazakhstan (75^th) – 3,49 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,445, and this appropriate distribution of the infrastructure scores shift the mean significance to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,795, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Macroeconomic stability scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: macroeconomic disarray which harms the economy, high-interest payments, uncontrolled inflation rates. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,598 score, and this corresponds the Colombia (4,59) ranked 69^th;

- mode is 5,24 score, and this corresponds Singapore ranked 3^rd; Canada ranked 9^th; New Zealand ranked 20^th; Russian Federation ranked 63^rd; Morocco ranked 73^rd and Cameroon ranked 111^th;

- maximum is 6,64 score, and this corresponds Brunei Darussalam ranked 32^nd;

- minimum is 1,0 score, and this corresponds Zimbabwe ranked 132^nd. Then interval is 5,64 score, also note that Germany (30^th) is 5,28; Kazakhstan (59^th) – 4,71; Turkey (63^rd) – 4,66 and United States (93^rd) – 4,31 scores;

- skewness coefficient is -0,946, and this appropriate distribution of the macroeconomic stability scores shift the mean significance to the left;

- kurtosis coefficient is 2,499, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the upright.

Health and primary education scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following fact: unavailability or the low quality of basic education, received by the population. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 5,22 score, and this corresponds the Kazakhstan (5,22) ranked 69^th;

- mode is 6,22 score, and this corresponds Singapore ranked 3^rd; Sweden ranked 4^th; Netherlands ranked 10^th and France ranked 17^th;

- maximum is 6,46 score, and this corresponds Finland ranked 6^th;

- minimum is 2,55 score, and this corresponds Chad ranked 131^st. Then interval is 3,91 score, also note that Germany (24^th) is 6,01; United States (35^th) – 5,88; Turkey (74^th) – 5,32 and Kazakhstan (80^th) – 5,22 scores;

- skewness coefficient is -0,968, and this appropriate distribution of the health and primary education scores shift the mean significance to the left;

- kurtosis coefficient is 0,180, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the small upright.

Higher education and training scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: no educated workers, who are unable to adapt rapidly to their changing environment, and also the extent of staff training. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,032 score, and this corresponds the Sri Lanka (4,01) ranked 79^th;

- mode is 2,78 score, and this corresponds Cambodia ranked 110^th; Malawi ranked 121^st and Paraguay ranked 124^th;

- maximum is 5,97 score, and this corresponds Finland ranked 6^th;

- minimum is 2,23 score, and this corresponds Chad ranked 131^st. Then interval is 3,74 score, also note that United States (7^th) – 5,57; Germany (22^nd) is 5,07; Kazakhstan (59^th) – 4,13 and Turkey (73^rd) – 3,88 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,160, and this appropriate distribution of the health and primary education scores shift the mean to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,775, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Goods market efficiency scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: burdensome taxes and discriminatory rules on foreign direct investment, and also government intervention in business activity. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,25 score, and this corresponds the Gambia, The (4,25) ranked 80^th;

- mode is 4,24 score, and this corresponds Kuwait ranked 39^th; Romania ranked 64^th and Nigeria ranked 99^th;

- maximum is 5,77 score, and this corresponds Singapore ranked 3^rd;

- minimum is 2,88 score, and this corresponds Chad ranked 131^st. Then interval is 2,89 score, also note that United States (12^th) – 5,13; Germany (18^th) is 5,01; Turkey (56^th) – 4,30 and Kazakhstan (83^rd) – 4,00 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,158, and this appropriate distribution of the goods market efficiency scores shift the mean to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,342, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Labor market efficiency scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: no flexibility of labor markets to shift workers from one economic activity to another rapidly and at low cost, and to allow for wage fluctuations without much social disruption, and also unavailability of clear relationship between worker incentives and their efforts and unavailability of equity in the business environment between women and men. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,38 score, and this corresponds the El Salvador (3,36) ranked 77^th;

- mode is 4,33 score, and this corresponds Germany ranked 7^th; Saudi Arabia ranked 28^th and Jamaica ranked 91^st;

- maximum is 5,91 score, and this corresponds Singapore ranked 3^rd;

- minimum is 2,91 score, and this corresponds Venezuela ranked 113^rd. Then interval is 3,00 score, also note that United States (3^th) – 5,76; Kazakhstan (18^th) – 4,93; Germany (70^th) is 4,33 and Turkey (120^th) – 3,65 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,080, and this appropriate distribution of the labor market efficiency scores shift the mean to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is 0,378, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the upright.

Financial market sophistication scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: no trustworthy and nontransparent of the banking sector, unavailability appropriate regulation of financial markets for protection of investors. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,23 score, and this corresponds the Guatemala (4,23) ranked 81^st;

- mode is 4,40 score, and this corresponds Taiwan, China ranked 12^nd; Romania ranked 64^th and Malawi ranked 121^st;

- maximum is 5,95 score, and this corresponds Hong Kong SAR ranked 11^nd;

- minimum is 2,68 score, and this corresponds Burundi ranked 133^rd. Then interval is 3,27 score, also note that United States (20^th) – 4,96; Germany (36^th) is 4,68; Turkey (81^st) – 4,07 and Kazakhstan (112^th) – 3,48 scores;

- skewness coefficient is -0,035, and this appropriate distribution of the financial market sophistication scores shift the mean to the left;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,429, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Technological readiness scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: the low level of technological readiness, and also shortages in finance and a more risk averse attitude of businesses. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 3,827 score, and this corresponds the Turkey (3,83) ranked 62^nd;

- mode is 3,53 score, and this corresponds Mexico ranked 60^th; Kazakhstan ranked 67^th and Guatemala i ranked 81^th;

- maximum is 6,15 score, and this corresponds Sweden ranked 11^rd;

- minimum is 2,19 score, and this corresponds Timor-Leste ranked 126^th. Then interval is 3,96 score, also note that Germany (11^th) is 5,63; United States (13^rd) – 5,61; Turkey (54^th) – 3,83 and Kazakhstan (70^th) – 3,53 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,525, and this appropriate distribution of the financial market sophistication scores shift the mean significance to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,860, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Market size scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: lack of trade and export, and also the barriers to trade. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,35 score, and this corresponds the Puerto Rico (3,79) ranked 42^nd;

- mode is 3,53 score, and this corresponds Norway ranked 14^th; Hungary ranked 57^th and Peru ranked 78^th;

- maximum is 6,93 score, and this corresponds United States ranked 2^nd;

- minimum is 1,30 score, and this corresponds Timor-Leste ranked 126^th. Then interval is 5,63 score, also note that United States (1^st) – 6,93; Germany (5^th) is 6,02; Turkey (15^th) – 5,22 and Kazakhstan (55^th) – 4,17 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,197, and this appropriate distribution of the market size scores shift the mean to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,365; and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Business sophistication scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: barriers to entry to the market for new firms, unavailability of opportunities for innovation, and also the low quality of a country’s business networks and supporting industries. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 4,117 score, and this corresponds the Mexico (4,15) ranked 60^th;

- mode is 4,64 score, and this corresponds New Zealand ranked 20^th; Slovenia ranked 37^th and Brazil ranked 56^th;

- maximum is 5,89 score, and this corresponds Japan ranked 8^th;

- minimum is 2,97 score, and this corresponds Timor-Leste ranked 126^th. Then interval is 2,92 score, also note that Germany (2^nd) is 5,82; United States (5^th) – 5,65; Turkey (53^rd) – 4,28 and Kazakhstan (88^th) – 3,70 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 0,527, and this appropriate distribution of the business sophistication scores shift the mean significance to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,540, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

Innovation scores misalignment arose from the inhomogeneity and heterogeneity of the following facts: insufficient investment in research and development, and also absence of high-quality scientific research institutions. Indeed, based on analysis of data of the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 we obtain the following:

- mean is 3,369 score, and this corresponds the Italy (3,38) ranked 47^th;

- mode is 2,95 score, and this corresponds Mauritius ranked 58^th; Argentina ranked 85^th; Trinidad and Tobago ranked 86^th and Madagascar ranked 120^th;

- maximum is 5,77 score, and this corresponds United States ranked 2^nd;

- minimum is 2,97 score, and this corresponds Paraguay ranked 124^th. Then interval is 3,63score, also note that United States (1^st) – 5,77; Germany (7^th) is 5,11; Kazakhstan (64^th) – 3,15 and Turkey (69^th) – 3,13 scores;

- skewness coefficient is 1,137, and this appropriate distribution of the innovation scores shift the mean significance to the right;

- kurtosis coefficient is -0,540, and this appropriate distribution relatively normal distribution is the horizontally direction.

This study shows that the statistical analysis of empirical data Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 is subjected to varying degrees of inhomogeneity and heterogeneity that determines the misalignment of the GCI.

The value distribution of score indicators of competitiveness directed to the left are:

- Macroeconomic stability,

- Health and primary education,

- Financial market sophistication. Them here relatively normal distribution the upright is:

- Macroeconomic stability, as normal distribution is:

- Health and primary education. And normal distribution the horizontally direction is:

- Financial market sophistication.

The value distributions of score indicators of competitiveness to the not significance directed are:

- Higher education and training,

- Goods market efficiency,

- Labor market efficiency,

- Market size. Them here relatively normal distribution the upright is:

- Labor market efficiency. And normal distribution the horizontally direction are:

- Higher education and training,

- Goods market efficiency,

- Market size.

The value distribution of score indicators of competitiveness directed to the right are:

- Institutions,

- Infrastructure,

- Technological readiness,

- Business sophistication,

- Innovation. Them here relatively normal distribution the upright is:

- Innovation. And normal distribution the horizontally direction are:

- Institutions,

- Infrastructure,

- Technological readiness,

- Business sophistication.

Thus, this statistical analysis shows that the measures of competitiveness factor and a statistical analysis methods have significant negative impact, while these characteristics, as inhomogeneity and heterogeneity, and the underlying theoretical models of competitive factors all have significant positive impact on measures misalignment of the GCI.

Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. Robinson. 2001. “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.” American Economic Review 91: 1369–1401.

Aghion P. and P. Howitt. 1992. “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction.” Econometrica LX: 323–51.

Aghion P. and P. Howitt. 1992. “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction.” Econometrica LX: 323–51.

Alesina, A., E. Spolaore, and R. Enrico. 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. 1499–1542.

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

Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-i-Martin. 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.

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: Palgrave Macmillan.

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,

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. w14910. 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.

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

Kaplan, D. 2009. “Job Creation and Labor Reform in Latin America.” Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 91–105.

Kremer, M. 1993. “The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3): 551–75.

Lucas, R. E. 1988. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1): 3–42.

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:

Romer, P. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (October): X71–S102.

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

Structure	Sampling variance	Kurto- sis	Skew- ness	Inter- val	Mini- mum	Maxi- mum
1	7	8	9	10	11	12
l Competitiveness Index (GCI)	0,441	-0,505	0,296	3,02	2,58	5,60
Basic requirements (BAR)	0,659	-0,773	0,162	3,55	2,49	6,04
Efficiency enhances (EFE)	0,480	-0,678	0,279	2,98	2,68	5,66
Innovation and sophistication factors (ISF)	0,571	0,024	0,866	3,08	2,63	5,71
Institutions (INS)	0,834	-0,628	0,520	3,76	2,39	6,15
Infrastructure (INF)	1,449	-0,795	0,445	4,69	1,90	6,59
Macroeconomic stability (MES)	0,846	2,499	-0,946	5,64	1,00	6,64
Health and primary education (HPE)	0,839	0,180	-0,968	3,91	2,55	6,46
Higher education and training (HET)	0,807	-0,775	0,160	3,74	2,23	5,97
Goods market efficiency (GME)	0,343	-0,342	0,158	2,89	2,88	5,77
Labor market efficiency (LME)	0,306	0,378	0,080	3,00	2,91	5,91
Financial market sophistication (FMS)	0,501	-0,429	-0,035	3,27	2,68	5,95
Technological readiness (TCR)	1,184	-0,860	0,525	3,96	2,19	6,15
Market size (MRS)	1,384	-0,361	0,197	5,63	1,30	6,93
Business sophistication (BSS)	0,527	-0,540	0,527	2,92	2,97	5,89
Innovation (INN)	0,669	0,657	1,138	3,63	2,14	5,77

жүктеу/скачать 28,25 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: