Structure
|
Factor-driven stage (%)
|
Efficiency-driven stage (%)
|
Innovation driven stage (%)
|
Basic requirements
|
60
|
40
|
20
|
Efficiency enhancers
|
35
|
50
|
50
|
Innovation and sophistication factors
|
5
|
10
|
30
|
Table 2: Structure__Basic_requirements_weights_(%)__Institutions'>Structure and weights of the Basic requirements
Structure
|
Basic requirements weights (%)
|
Institutions
|
25
|
Infrastructure
|
25
|
Macroeconomic stability
|
25
|
Health and primary education
|
25
|
Table 3: Structure and weights of the Efficiency enhancers
Structure
|
Efficiency enhancers weights (%)
|
Higher education and training
|
16,67
|
Goods market efficiency
|
16,67
|
Labor market efficiency
|
16,67
|
Financial market sophistication
|
16,67
|
Technological readiness
|
16,67
|
Market size
|
16,67
|
Table 4: Structure and weights of the Innovation and sophistication factors
Structure
|
Innovation and sophistication factors weights (%)
|
Business sophistication
|
50
|
Innovation
|
50
|
In this study the GCI captures by providing a weighted average of three groups of indicators: Basic requirements, Efficiency enhancers, Innovation and sophistication factors. Turn, they consist of 12 components: Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic stability, Health and primary education, Higher education and training, Goods market efficiency, Labor market efficiency, Financial market sophistication, Technological readiness, Market size, Business sophistication, Innovation. Each of which reflects one aspect of the complex concept that It's called competitiveness. The structure and weight of the indicators for the GCI and this group of indicators are presented in Tables 1-4. (Sala-i-Martin and Artadi, 2004; Sala-i-Martin et al., 2008; Sala-i-Martin et al., 2009).
2. Basic requirements
2.1 Institutions. The institutional environment is determined by the legal and administrative framework within which individuals, firms, and governments interact to generate income and wealth in the economy. The quality of institutions influences investment decisions and the organization of production and plays a central role in the ways in which societies distribute the benefits and bear the costs of development strategies and policies (Easterly and Levine, 1997; Acemoglu et al., 2001; Rodrik et al., 2002; and Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian, 2003; Shleifer and Vishny, 1997; Zingales, 1998).
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 70th;
- mode is 3,24 score, and this corresponds Philippines ranked 88th; Serbia ranked 93rd; Cameroon ranked 111st; Madagascar ranked 120th and Timor-Leste ranked 26th;
- maximum is 6,15 score, and this corresponds Singapore ranked 3rd;
- minimum is 2,39 score, and this corresponds Venezuela ranked 113rd. Then interval is 3,76 score, also note that Germany (16th) is 5,6; for United States (34th) – 4,81; Kazakhstan (86th) – 3,64 and Turkey (95th) – 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.
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |
