5. Conclusions
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.
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |