全球竞争力报告The Global Competitiveness Report 20092010全球竞争力报告The Global Competitiveness Report 20092010

收藏 分享

资源预览需要最新版本的Flash Player支持。
您尚未安装或版本过低,建议您

The Global Competitiveness Report2009–2010Klaus Schwab, World Economic ForumThe Global Competitiveness Report2009–2010Professor Xavier Sala-i-MartinColumbia UniversityChief Advisor of the Global Competitiveness NetworkWorld Economic ForumGeneva, Switzerland 2009Professor Klaus SchwabWorld Economic ForumEditorThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumWorld Economic ForumGenevaCopyright 2009by the World Economic ForumAll rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,or otherwise without the prior permission ofthe World Economic Forum.ISBN-13 978-92-95044-25-8ISBN-10 92-95044-25-8This book is printed on paper suitable forrecycling and made from fully managed andsustained forest sources.Printed and bound in Switzerland by SRO-Kundig.The Global Competitiveness Report2009–2010 is published by the WorldEconomic Forum within the framework of theGlobal Competitiveness Network.Professor Klaus SchwabExecutive ChairmanProfessor Xavier Sala-i-MartinChief Advisor of the Global CompetitivenessNetworkRobert GreenhillChief Business OfficerGLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS NETWORKJennifer Blanke, Director, Senior Economist,Head of Global Competitiveness NetworkMargareta Drzeniek Hanouz, Director,Senior EconomistIrene Mia, Director, Senior EconomistThierry Geiger, Associate Director,Economist, Global Leadership FellowCiara Browne, Associate DirectorPearl Samandari, Community ManagerEva Trujillo Herrera, Research AssistantCarissa Sahli, CoordinatorWe thank Hope Steele for her superb editingwork and Neil Weinberg for his excellentgraphic design and layout. We are grateful toJoelle Latina for her invaluable researchassistance.The terms country and nation as used in thisreport do not in all cases refer to a territorialentity that is a state as understood by inter-national law and practice. The terms coverwell-defined, geographically self-containedeconomic areas that may not be states butfor which statistical data are maintained on a separate and independent basis.The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumContentsPartner Institutes vPreface xiby Klaus SchwabPart 1 Measuring Competitiveness 11.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010 3Contributing to Long-Term Prosperity amid the Global Economic Crisisby Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Jennifer Blanke, Margareta DrzeniekHanouz, Thierry Geiger, and Irene Mia1.2 The Executive Opinion Survey 49Capturing the Views of the Business Communityby Ciara Browne and Thierry GeigerPart 2 Data Presentation 592.1 Country/Economy Profiles 61How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles ...............................63List of Countries/Economies .........................................................65Country/Economy Profiles .............................................................662.2 Data Tables 333How to Read the Data Tables......................................................335Index of Data Tables....................................................................337Data Tables ..................................................................................339Technical Notes and Sources 473About the Authors 477Acknowledgments 479The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumThe World Economic Forum’s Global CompetitivenessNetwork is pleased to acknowledge and thank the fol-lowing organizations as its valued Partner Institutes,without whom the realization of The GlobalCompetitiveness Report 2009–2010 would not have beenfeasibleAlbaniaInstitute for Contemporary Studies ISBArtan Hoxha, PresidentElira Jorgoni, Senior Expert and Project ManagerDenalada Kuzumi, ResearcherAlgeriaCentre de Recherche en Economie Applique pour le Dveloppement CREADYoucef Benabdallah, Assistant ProfessorYassine Ferfera, DirectorArgentinaIAE- Universidad AustralMara Elina Gigaglia, Project ManagerEduardo Luis Fracchia, ProfessorArmeniaEconomy and Values Research CenterManuk Hergnyan, ChairmanSevak Hovhannisyan, Board Member and Senior AssociateGohar Malumyan, Research AssociateAustraliaAustralian Industry GroupNicholas James, EconomistTony Pensabene, Associate Director, Economics ResearchHeather Ridout, Chief ExecutiveAustriaAustrian Institute of Economic Research WIFOKarl Aiginger, DirectorGerhard Schwarz, Coordinator, Survey DepartmentAzerbaijanAzerbaijan Marketing SocietyFuad Aliyev, Executive DirectorAshraf Hajiyev, Project CoordinatorSaida Talibova, ConsultantBahrainBahrain Competitiveness Council, Bahrain EconomicDevelopment BoardNada Azmi, Business Intelligence Specialist, Economic Planning DevelopmentJawad Habib, Senior Partner, BDO Jawad HabibRima Al Kilani, Director, International MarketingBangladeshCentre for Policy Dialogue CPDKhondaker Golam Moazzem, Senior Research FellowKazi Mahmudur Rahman, Senior Research AssociateMustafizur Rahman, Executive DirectorBarbadosArthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies,University of West Indies UWIAndrew Downes, DirectorBelgiumVlerick Leuven Gent Management SchoolLutgart Van den Berghe, Professor, Executive Director and Chairman, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship,Governance and StrategyBieke Dewulf, Associate, Competence Centre Entrepreneurship,Governance and StrategyWim Moesen, ProfessorBeninMicro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies MIMAP BeninEpiphane Adjovi, Business CoordinatorMaria-Odile Attanasso, Deputy CoordinatorFructueux Deguenonvo, ResearcherBosnia and HerzegovinaMIT Center, School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo,University of SarajevoZlatko Lagumdzija, ProfessorZeljko Sain, Executive DirectorJasmina Selimovic, Assistant DirectorBotswanaBotswana National Productivity CentreJoseph Jonazi, Research Consultant and StatisticianDabilani Buthali, Manager, Information and Research Services DepartmentThembo Lebang, Executive DirectorBrazilFundao Dom CabralCarlos Arruda, Executive Director, International Board and Professor and Coordinator of the Competitiveness and Innovation CenterMarina Arajo, Economist and Researcher of the Competitiveness and Innovation CenterMovimento Brasil Competitivo MBCCludio Leite Gastal, Director PresidentDenise Alves, Projects CoordinatorElisa de Arajo, Projects AssistantBrunei DarussalamMinistry of Industry and Primary ResourcesPehin Dato Yahya Bakar, MinisterDato Paduka Hj Hamdillah Hj Abd Wahab, Deputy MinisterDato Paduka Hamid Hj Mohd Jaafar, Permanent SecretaryBulgariaCenter for Economic DevelopmentAnelia Damianova, Senior ExpertBurkina Fasolnstitut Suprieure des Sciences de la Population ISSP, University of OuagadougouSamuel Kabore, Economist and Head of Development Strategy and Population ResearchvPartner InstitutesPartner InstitutesThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumBurundiUniversity Research Centre for Economic and Social Development CURDES, National University of BurundiRichard Ndereyahaga, Head of CURDESGilbert Niyongabo, Dean, Faculty of Economics ManagementCambodiaEconomic Institute of CambodiaSok Hach, PresidentChan Vuthy, Senior ResearcherPoch Kongchheng, Junior ResearcherCameroonComit de Comptitivit Competitiveness CommitteeLucien Sanzouango, Permanent SecretaryCanadaInstitute for Competitiveness and ProsperityTamer Azer, ResearcherRoger Martin, Chairman and Dean of the Rotman School of Management, University of TorontoJames Milway, Executive DirectorChadGroupe de Recherches Alternatives et de Monitoring du Projet Ptrole-Tchad-Cameroun GRAMP-TCAntoine Doudjidingao, ResearcherGilbert Maoundonodji, DirectorCeline Nnodji Mbaipeur, Programme OfficerChileUniversidad Adolfo IbezIgnacio Briones, Associate Professor of Economics, School of GovernmentLeonidas Montes, Dean, School of GovernmentCamila Chadwick, Project CoordinatorChinaInstitute of Economic System and Management National Development and Reform CommissionZhou Haichun, Deputy Director and ProfessorChen Wei, Research FellowDong Ying, ProfessorChina Center for Economic Statistics Research, Tianjin University of Finance and EconomicsLu Dong, ProfessorJian Wang, Associate ProfessorHongye Xiao, ProfessorBojuan Zhao, ProfessorHuazhang Zheng, Associate ProfessorColombiaNational Planning DepartmentAlvaro Edgar Balcazar, Entrepreneurial Development DirectorCarolina Rentera Rodrguez, General DirectorMauricio Torres Velsquez, AdvisorColombian Council of CompetitivenessHernando Jos Gomez, PresidentCte d’IvoireChambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Cte d’IvoireJean-Louis Billon, PresidentJean-Louis Giacometti, Technical Advisor to the PresidentMamadou Sarr, Director GeneralCroatiaNational Competitiveness CouncilMartina Hatlak, Research AssistantKresimir Jurlin, Research FellowMira Lenardic, General SecretaryCyprusCyprus College Research CenterBambos Papageorgiou, Head of Socioeconomic and Academic ResearchThe Cyprus Development BankMaria Markidou-Georgiadou, Manager, International Banking Services Unit and Business DevelopmentCzech RepublicCMC Graduate School of BusinessTomas Janca, Executive DirectorDenmarkCopenhagen Business School, Department of International Economics and ManagementLise Peitersen, Administrative DirectorCasper Rose, ProfessorEcuadorESPAE Graduate School of Management,Escuela Superior Politcnica del Litoral ESPOLElizabeth Arteaga, Project AssistantVirginia Lasio, Acting DirectorSara Wong, ProfessorEgyptThe Egyptian Center for Economic StudiesHanaa Kheir-El-Din, Executive Director and Director of ResearchNaglaa El Ehwany, Deputy Director and Lead EconomistMalak Reda, Senior EconomistEstoniaEstonian Institute of Economic ResearchEvelin Ahermaa, Head of Economic Research SectorMarje Josing, DirectorEstonian Development FundKitty Kubo, Head of ForesightOtt Prna, Chief Executive OfficerEthiopiaAfrican Institute of Management, Development and GovernanceTegegne Teka, General ManagerFinlandETLAThe Research Institute of the Finnish EconomyPetri Rouvinen, Research DirectorPasi Sorjonen, Head of the Forecasting GroupPekka Yl-Anttila, Managing DirectorFranceHEC School of Management, ParisBertrand Moingeon, Professor and Deputy DeanBernard Ramanantsoa, Professor and DeanGambia, TheGambia Economic and Social Development Research Institute GESDRIMakaireh A. Njie, DirectorGeorgiaBusiness Initiative for Reforms in GeorgiaGiga Makharadze, Founding Member of the Board of DirectorsTamar Tchintcharauli, Executive DirectorMamuka Tsereteli, Founding Member of the Board of DirectorsGermanyWHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management, VallendarRalf Fendel, Professor of Monetary EconomicsMichael Frenkel, Professor, Chair of Macroeconomics and International EconomicsGhanaAssociation of Ghana Industries AGICarlo Hey, Project ManagerCletus Kosiba, Executive DirectorTony Oteng-Gyasi, PresidentviPartner InstitutesThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumGreeceSEV Hellenic Federation of EnterprisesMichael Mitsopoulos, Coordinator, Research and AnalysisThanasis Printsipas, Economist, Research and AnalysisGuatemalaFUNDESAEdgar A. Heinemann, President of the Board of DirectorsPablo Schneider, Economic DirectorJuan Carlos Zapata, General ManagerGuyanaInstitute of Development Studies, University of GuyanaKaren Pratt, Research AssociateClive Thomas, DirectorHong Kong SARHong Kong General Chamber of CommerceDavid O’Rear, Chief EconomistFederation of Hong Kong IndustriesAlexandra Poon, DirectorThe Chinese General Chamber of CommerceHungaryKOPINT-TRKI Economic Research Ltd.gnes Nagy, Project Managerva Palcz, Chief Executive OfficerIcelandInnovation Center IcelandKarl Fridriksson, Managing Director of Human Resources and ServicesRosa Signy Gisladottir, Manager, Marketing and Media RelationsThorsteinn I. Sigfusson, DirectorIndiaConfederation of Indian Industry CIIChandrajit Banerjee, Director GeneralTarun Das, Chief MentorVirendra Gupta, Head, International and Trade FairsIndonesiaCenter for Industry, SME Business Competition Studies,University of TrisaktiTulus Tambunan, Professor and DirectorIran, Islamic Republic ofThe Centre for Economic Studies and Surveys CESS, Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and MinesHammed Roohani, DirectorIrelandCompetitiveness Survey Group, Department of Economics,University College CorkEleanor Doyle, Professor, Department of EconomicsNiall O’SullivanBernadette PowerNational Competitiveness CouncilAdrian Devitt, ManagerCaoimhe Gavin, Policy AdvisorGrinne Greehy, Graduate TraineeIsraelManufacturers’ Association of Israel MAIShraga Brosh, PresidentDan Catarivas, DirectorYehuda Segev, Managing DirectorItalySDA Bocconi School of ManagementSecchi Carlo, Full Professor of Economic Policy, Bocconi UniversityPaola Dubini, Associate Professor, Bocconi UniversityFrancesco A. Saviozzi, SDA Assistant Professor, Strategic and Entrepreneurial Management DepartmentJamaicaMona School of Business MSB, The University of the West IndiesPatricia Douce, Project AdministratorEvan Duggan, Executive Director and ProfessorWilliam Lawrence, Director, Professional Services UnitJapanHitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy ICSin cooperation with Keizai Doyukai Keizai Japan Association of Corporate ExecutivesYoko Ishikura, ProfessorKiyohiko Ito, Vice-President and General Manager for PolicyStudies, Keizai DoyukaiJordanMinistry of Planning International CooperationJordan National Competitiveness TeamHiba Abu Taleb, Primary ResearcherHussein Abwini, Primary ResearcherKawthar Al-Zou’bi, Primary ResearcherKazakhstanJSC “National Analytical Centre of the Government and theNational Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan”Ayana Manasova, ChairpersonAibek Baisakalov, Expert AnalystKenyaInstitute for Development Studies, University of NairobiMohamud Jama, Director and Associate ProfessorPaul Kamau, Research FellowDorothy McCormick, Associate ProfessorKorea, Republic ofCollege of Business School, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology – KAISTIngoo Han, Senior Associate Dean and ProfessorRavi Kumar, Dean and ProfessorYoujin Sung, Manager, Exchange ProgrammeKuwaitEconomics Department, Kuwait UniversityAbdullah Alsalman, Assistant ProfessorMohammed El-Sakka, ProfessorReyadh Faras, Assistant ProfessorKyrgyz RepublicEconomic Policy Institute “Bishkek Consensus”Lola Abduhametova, Program CoordinatorMarat Tazabekov, ChairmanLatviaInstitute of Economics, Latvian Academy of SciencesHelma Jirgena, DirectorIrina Curkina, ResearcherLesothoMohloli Chamber of BusinessSemethe Raleche, Chief Executive OfficerLibyaNational Economic Development BoardEntisar Elbahi, Director, Relations and Supported ServicesLithuaniaStatistics LithuaniaOna Grigiene, Head, Economical Survey DivisionAlgirdas ˘Semeta, Director GeneralLuxembourgChamber of Commerce of the Grand Duchy of LuxembourgFranois-Xavier Borsi, Attach, Economic DepartmentMarc Wagener, Attach, Economic DepartmentCarlo Thelen, Chief Economist, Member of the Managing BoardviiPartner InstitutesThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumMacedonia, FYRNational Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness Council NECCDejan Janevski, Project CoordinatorZoran Stavreski, President of the Managing BoardSaso Trajkoski, Executive DirectorMadagascarCentre of Economic Studies, University of AntananarivoPp Andrianomanana, DirectorRazato Raharijaona Simo, Executive SecretaryMalawiMalawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and IndustryChancellor L. Kaferapanjira, Chief Executive OfficerMalaysiaInstitute of Strategic and International Studies ISISTan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerMahani Zainal Abidin, Director-GeneralSteven C.M. Wong, Assistant Director-GeneralMalaysia Productivity Corporation MPCDato’ Nik Zainiah Nik Abd. Rahman, Director GeneralLee Saw Hoon, Senior DirectorMaliGroupe de Recherche en Economie Applique et Thorique GREATMassa Coulibaly, CoordinatorMaltaCompetitive Malta - Foundation for National CompetitivenessMargrith Lutschg-Emmenegger, Vice PresidentAdrian Said, Chief CoordinatorCaroline Sciortino, Research CoordinatorMauritaniaCentre d’Information Mauritanien pour le DveloppementEconomique et Technique CIMDET/CCIAMKhira Mint Cheikhnani, DirectorL Abdoul, Consultant and AnalystHabib Sy, AnalystMauritiusJoint Economic Council of MauritiusRaj Makoond, DirectorBoard of InvestmentDev Chamroo, Director, Planning PolicyManisha Dookhony, Manager, Planning PolicyRaju Jaddoo, Managing DirectorMexicoCenter for Intellectual Capital and CompetitivenessErika Ruiz Manzur, Executive DirectorRen Villarreal Arrambide, President and Chief Executive OfficerJess Zurita Gonzlez, General DirectorInstituto Mexicano para la Competitividad IMCOGabriela Alarcon Esteva, EconomistManuel J. Molano Ruiz, Deputy General DirectorRoberto Newell Garcia, General DirectorMinistry of the EconomyFelipe Duarte Olvera, Undersecretary for Competitiveness and StandardizationGerardo de la Pea, Technical Secretary for CompetitivenessJose Antonio Torre, Chief of Staff, ProMxico Trade InvestmentPaulo Esteban Alcaraz, Research Director, ProMxico Trade InvestmentMongoliaOpen Society Forum OSFMunkhsoyol Baatarjav, Manager of Economic PolicyErdenejargal Perenlei, Executive DirectorMontenegroInstitute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses ISSPMaja Drakic, Project ManagerPetar Ivanovic, Chief Executive OfficerVeselin Vukotic, PresidentMoroccoUniversit Hassan II, LASAAREFouzi Mourji, Professor of EconomicsMozambiqueEconPolicy Research Group, Lda.Peter Coughlin, DirectorDonaldo Miguel Soares, ResearcherEma Marta Soares, AssistantNamibiaNamibian Economic Policy Research Unit NEPRULameck Odada, ConsultantKlaus Schade, Principal ResearcherNepalCentre for Economic Development and Administration CEDARamesh Chandra Chitrakar, Professor and Director of ResearchMenaka Rajbhandari Shrestha, ResearcherSantosh Kumar Upadhyaya, ResearcherNetherlandsErasmus Strategic Renewal Center, Erasmus University RotterdamFrans A. J. Van den Bosch, ProfessorHenk W. Volberda, ProfessorNew ZealandBusiness New ZealandMarcia Dunnett, Manager, Sector GroupsPhil O’Reilly, Chief ExecutiveThe New Zealand InstituteRick Boven, DirectorBenedikte Jensen, Research DirectorNigeriaNigerian Economic Summit Group NESGFelix Ogbera, Associate Director, ResearchSam Ohuabunwa, ChairmanChris Okpoko, Senior Consultant, ResearchNorwayBI Norwegian School of ManagementEskil Goldeng, ResearcherTorger Reve, ProfessorOmanThe International Research FoundationSalem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily, ChairmanMehdi Bin Ali Bin Juma, Expert for Economic Research, the Omani Centre for InvestmentPromotion Export Development OCIPEDPakistanCompetitiveness Support FundArthur Bayhan, Chief Executive OfficerStephen Manuel, Manager Media CommunicationImran Naeem Ahmad, Communication SpecialistParaguayCentro de Anlisis y Difusin de Economia Paraguaya CADEPDionisio Borda, Research MemberFernando Masi, DirectorMara Beln Servn, Research MemberPeruCentro de Desarrollo Industrial CDI, Sociedad Nacional de IndustriasNstor Asto, Project DirectorLuis Tenorio, Executive DirectorviiiPartner InstitutesThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumPhilippinesMakati Business ClubAlberto A. Lim, Executive DirectorMichael B. Mundo, Chief EconomistMark P. Opulencia, Deputy DirectorPolandThe Economic Institute, The National Bank of PolandMateusz Pipien, DirectorZbigniew Zlkiewski, Deputy DirectorPiotr Boguszewski, AdvisorManagement ObservatoryMonika Nowacka, Projects DirectorIreneusz Tomczak, Chairman of the BoardWarsaw School of EconomicsBogdan Radomski, Associate ProfessorPortugalPROFORUM, Associao para o Desenvolvimento da EngenhariaIldio Antnio de Ayala Serdio, Vice President of the Board of DirectorsForum de Administradores de Empresas FAEPedro do Carmo Costa, Member of the Board of DirectorsAdilia Lisboa, General DirectorPuerto RicoPuerto Rico 2000, Inc.Suzette M. Jimenez, PresidentFrancisco Montalvo Fiol, Project CoordinatorQatarQatari Businessmen Association QBAIssa Abdul Salam Abu Issa, Secretary-GeneralAhmed El-Shaffee, EconomistRomaniaGroup of Applied Economics GEAAnca Rusu, Program CoordinatorLiviu Voinea, Executive DirectorRussian FederationBauman InnovationAlexei Prazdnitchnykh, Principal, Associate ProfessorKaterina Marandi, ConsultantStockholm School of Economics, RussiaIgor Dukeov, Area PrincipalCarl F. Fey, Associate Dean of ResearchSaudi ArabiaNational Competitiveness Center NCCAwwad Al-Awwad, Deputy Governor for InvestmentKhaldon Mahasen, Manager, Investment Performance AssessmentSenegalCentre de Recherches Economiques Appliques CREA,University of DakarDiop Ibrahima Thione, DirectorSerbiaCenter for Advanced Economic Studies CEVESJasna Atanasijevic, Member of the CEVES Councilof DirectorsDus˘ ko Vasiljevic, Member of the CEVES Councilof Directors SingaporeEconomic Development BoardLim Hong Khiang, Director Planning 2Chua Kia Chee, Head, Research and Statistics UnitCheng Wai San, Head, PlanningSlovak RepublicBusiness Alliance of Slovakia PASRobert Kicina, Executive DirectorMartin Toth, ResearcherSloveniaInstitute for Economic ResearchPeter Stanovnik, Senior ResearcherUniversity of LjubljanaMateja Drnovs˘ek, Professor, Faculty of EconomicsAles˘ Vahc˘ic˘, Professor, Faculty of EconomicsArt Kovac˘ic˘, Senior Researcher, Faculty of Business SciencesSouth AfricaBusiness Leadership South AfricaFriede Dowie, DirectorMichael Spicer, Chief Executive OfficerBusiness Unity South AfricaJerry Vilakazi, Chief Executive OfficerVic Van Vuuren, Chief Operating OfficerSpainIESE Business School, International Center for CompetitivenessAntoni Subir, ProfessorMara Luisa Blzquez, Research AssociateAlessandro Cembalo, Research AssistantSri LankaInstitute of Policy StudiesManoj Thibbotuwawa, Research OfficerRuwan Jayathilaka, Research OfficerThe Ceylon Chamber of CommerceHarin Malwatte, Secretary GeneralSurinameInstitute for Development Oriented Studies IDOSAshok Hirschfeld, Qualitative ResearchJohn R.P. Krishnadath, PresidentSwedenCenter for Strategy and Competitiveness, Stockholm School of EconomicsChristian Ketels, Senior Research Fellowrjan Slvell, ProfessorSwitzerlandUniversity of St. Gallen, Executive School of Management,Technology and Law ES-HSGFranz Jaeger, ProfessorBeat Bechtold, Project ManagerSyriaMinistry of Economy and TradeAmer Housni Louitfi, Minister of Economy and TradeState Planning CommissionTayseer Al-Ridawi, Head of State Planning CommissionSyrian Enterprise Business Center SEBCTamer Abadi, DirectorTaiwan, ChinaCouncil for Economic Planning and Development, Executive YuanTain-Jy Chen, ChairmanJ. B. Hung, Director, Economic Research DepartmentChung Chung Shieh, Researcher, Economic Research DepartmentTajikistanThe Center for Sociological Research “Zerkalo”Qahramon Baqoev, DirectorOl’ga Es’kina, ResearcherAlikul Isoev, Sociologist and EconomistTanzaniaResearch on Poverty Alleviation REPOAJoseph Semboja, Professor and Executive DirectorLucas Katera, Director, Commissioned ResearchCornel Jahari, Researcher, Commissioned Research DepartmentixThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumThailandSasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration, Chulalongkorn UniversityPongsak Hoontrakul, Senior Research FellowToemsakdi Krishnamra, Director of SasinPiyachart Phiromswad, Faculty of EconomicsThailand Development Research Institute TDRISomchai Jitsuchon, Research DirectorChalongphob Sussangkarn, Distinguished FellowYos Vajragupta, Senior ResearcherTimor-LesteTimor-Leste Development Agency ETDAHarun Y. Boavida, Survey Field OfficerJanuario Mok, Survey SupervisorPalmira Pires, DirectorTrinidad and TobagoArthur Lok Jack Graduate School of BusinessMiguel Carillo, Executive DirectorBalraj Kistow, LecturerThe Competitiveness CompanyRolph Balgobin, DirectorTunisiaInstitut Arabe des Chefs d’EntreprisesMajdi Hassen, Executive CounsellorChekib Nouira, PresidentTurkeyTUSIAD Sabanci University Competitiveness ForumDilek Cetindamar, Director and ProfessorFunda Kalemci, Project SpecialistUgandaMakerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere UniversityRobert Apunyo, Research AssociateDelius Asiimwe, Senior Research FellowCatherine Ssekimpi, Research AssociateUkraineCASE Ukraine, Center for Social and Economic ResearchDmytro Boyarchuk, Executive DirectorVladimir Dubrovskiy, Leading EconomistUnited Arab EmiratesEconomic Policy Research Unit EPRU, Zayed UniversityNico Vellinga, ProfessorDubai Competitiveness CouncilAdel Alfalasi, Executive DirectorKhawla Belqazi, Special Projects ManagerUnited KingdomLSE Enterprise Ltd, London School of Economics and Political ScienceAdam Austerfield, Project DirectorJane Lac, Project CoordinatorRobyn Klingler, Graduate ResearcherUruguayUniversidad ORTIsidoro Hodara, ProfessorVenezuelaCONAPRI - Venezuelan Council for Investment PromotionGladis Genua, Executive DirectorLitsay Guerrero, Manager, Economic AffairsVietnamCentral Institute for Economic Management CIEMDinh Van An, PresidentPhan Thanh Ha, Deputy Director, Department of Macroeconomic ManagementPham Hoang Ha, Senior Researcher, Department ofMacroeconomic ManagementInstitute for Development Studies in HCMC HIDSNguyen Trong Hoa, Professor and PresidentDu Phuoc Tan, Head of DepartmentTrieu Thanh Son, ResearcherZambiaInstitute of Economic and Social Research INESOR, University of ZambiaMutumba M. Bull, DirectorPatricia Funjika, Staff Development FellowJolly Kamwanga, CoordinatorZimbabweGraduate School of Management, University of ZimbabweA.M. Hawkins, ProfessorBolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Honduras, Nicaragua, PanamaINCAE Business School, Latin American Center forCompetitiveness and Sustainable Development CLACDSArturo Condo, RectorLawrence Pratt, Director, CLACDSLuis Reyes, Project Manager, CLACDSMarlene de Estrella, Director of External RelationsLatvia, LithuaniaStockholm School of Economics in RigaKarlis Kreslins, Executive MBA Programme DirectorAnders Paalzow, RectorxPartner InstitutesThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumPrefacexiThis year’s Global Competitiveness Report is publishedagainst the backdrop of the deepest global economicslowdown in generations.What began as a financial cri-sis in a handful of industrialized economies continues tospill over into the real economy, engendering massivecontractions in consumer demand, rising unemploy-ment, and mounting protectionist pressures worldwide.Developing countries have not been spared from its fallout; many are now facing slumping demand for theirexport products along with falling commodity prices,significant reductions in foreign investment and remit-tances, and a more general liquidity shortage.The stronginterdependence among the worlds’ economies makesthis a truly global economic crisis in every sense.Policymakers are presently struggling with ways of managing these new economic challenges whilepreparing their economies to perform well in a futureeconomic landscape characterized by growing uncer-tainty. In a difficult global economic environment, it ismore important than ever for countries to put into placestrong fundamentals underpinning economic growth anddevelopment.The World Economic Forum has, for thepast 30 years, played a facilitating role in this process byproviding detailed assessments of the productive potentialof nations worldwide.The Report is a contribution toenhancing the understanding of the key factors deter-mining economic growth and to explaining why somecountries are more successful than others in raisingincome levels and opportunities for their respectivepopulations; hence it offers policymakers and businessleaders an important tool in the formulation ofimproved economic policies and institutional reforms.This year’s Report features a total of 133 economies,thus providing the most comprehensive assessment of itskind.The Report contains a detailed profile for each of theeconomies featured in the study as well as an extensivesection of data tables with global rankings covering over100 indicators.This Report remains the flagship publication withinthe Forum’s Global Competitiveness Network, whichproduces a number of research studies that truly mirrorthe increased integration and complexity of the worldeconomy. Concurrent complementary publicationsinclude The Financial Development Report,The GlobalEnabling Trade Report,The Global Gender Gap Report,TheGlobal Information Technology Report, and The Travel Tourism Competitiveness Report, as well as various regionaland country studies.The Global Competitiveness Report could not havebeen put together without the thought leadership ofProfessor Xavier Sala-i-Martin, at Columbia University,who has provided ongoing intellectual support of ourcompetitiveness research.Appreciation also goes toRobert Greenhill, Chief Business Officer at the Forum,and Jennifer Blanke, Head of the Global CompetitivenessNetwork, as well as team members Ciara Browne,Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz,Thierry Geiger, Irene Mia,Carissa Sahli, Pearl Samandari, and Eva Trujillo Herrera.We thank the Africa Commission and FedEx, our part-ners in this Report, for their support in this importantventure. In addition, this Report would have not beenpossible without the hard work and enthusiasm of ournetwork of over 150 Partner Institutes worldwide whocarry out the Executive Opinion Survey, which providesthe basis of this Report. Finally, we would like to conveyour sincere gratitude to all the business executivesaround the world who took the time to participate inour Executive Opinion Survey and whose valuableinput made the publication of this Report possible.PrefaceKLAUS SCHWABExecutive Chairman, World Economic ForumThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumPart 1 Measuring CompetitivenessThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumCHAPTER 1.1The Global CompetitivenessIndex 2009–2010 Contributingto Long-Term Prosperity amidthe Global Economic CrisisXAVIER SALA-I-MARTINJENNIFER BLANKEMARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZTHIERRY GEIGERIRENE MIAWorld Economic ForumThe global economy continues to weather the most difficult climate in generations.What began as a financialcrisis in the United States and the United Kingdomquickly turned into the largest global recession indecades.World GDP is expected to contract by a record2.5 percent in 2009 as the financial crisis continues tospill over into the real economy,1engendering massivedeclines in consumer demand, rising unemployment,and mounting protectionist pressures worldwide.Although the developing world at first seemed to bespared from the fallout of this crisis, many countries arenow facing slumping demand for their export products;this decline is coupled with falling commodity pricesand significant reductions in foreign investment andremittances. Moreover, a global liquidity shortage hasnegatively impacted access to finance for companies andgovernments alike.In this context, policymakers are being confrontedwith new economic management challenges.All overthe world governments have taken an active stance inaddressing the crisis and the ensuing recession. Bankshave been bailed out or nationalized on an unprece-dented scale to buffer the immediate impact of thefinancial system’s collapse.These emergency measureshave been complemented by large stimulus packagesand countercyclical policies intended to support theeconomy and facilitate recovery.These developmentshave led observers to question the prevailing paradigmregarding the optimal level of state involvement in theeconomy.Today’s difficult economic environment under-scores the importance of not losing sight of long-termcompetitiveness fundamentals amid short-term urgencies.Competitive economies are those that have in place factorsdriving the productivity enhancements on which theirpresent and future prosperity is built.A competitiveness-supporting economic environment can help nationaleconomies to weather business cycle downturns andensure that the mechanisms enabling solid economicperformance going into the future are in place.For the past three decades, the World EconomicForum’s annual competitiveness reports have examinedthe many factors enabling national economies to achievesustained economic growth and long-term prosperity.Our goal over the years has been to provide bench-marking tools for business leaders and policymakers toidentify obstacles to improved competitiveness, thusstimulating discussion on strategies to overcome them.In the current challenging economic environment, ourwork serves as a critical reminder of the importance oftaking into account the consequences of our presentactions on future prosperity.Since 2005, the World Economic Forum has based itscompetitiveness analysis on the Global CompetitivenessIndex GCI, a highly comprehensive index, which cap-tures the microeconomic and macroeconomic foundationsof national competitiveness.31.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumWe define competitiveness as the set of institutions,policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. The level of productivity, in turn, sets the sus-tainable level of prosperity that can be earned by aneconomy. In other words, more-competitive economiestend to be able to produce higher levels of income fortheir citizens.The productivity level also determines therates of return obtained by investments in an economy.Because the rates of return are the fundamental driversof the growth rates of the economy, a more-competitiveeconomy is one that is likely to grow faster in the medi-um to long run.The concept of competitiveness thus involves staticand dynamic components although the productivity ofa country clearly determines its ability to sustain its levelof income, it is also one of the central determinants ofthe returns to investment, which is one of the key fac-tors explaining an economy’s growth potential.The 12 pillars of competitivenessThe determinants of competitiveness are many andcomplex. Economists have long tried to understandwhat determines the wealth of nations.This attempt has ranged from Adam Smith’s focus on specializationand the division of labor to neoclassical economists’emphasis on investment in physical capital and infra-structure and, more recently, to interest in other mechanisms such as education and training, techno-logical progress whether created within the country or adopted from abroad,2macroeconomic stability,good governance, the rule of law, transparent and well-functioning institutions, firm sophistication, demandconditions, market size, and many others. Each of theseconjectures rests on solid theoretical foundations.Thecentral point, however, is that they are not mutuallyexclusivetwo or more of them could be true at thesame time. Hundreds of econometric studies show thatmany of these conjectures are, in fact, simultaneouslytrue.3This also can partly explain why, despite the presentglobal economic crisis, we do not necessarily see largeswings in comp-etitiveness rankings, particularly amongcountries that have already put into place many of theelements driving productivity.The GCI captures this open-ended dimension by providing a weighted average of many different components, each of which reflects one aspect of thecomplex concept that we call competitiveness.We group all these components into 12 pillars of competitivenessFirst pillar InstitutionsThe institutional environment is determined by thelegal and administrative framework within which individuals, firms, and governments interact to generateincome and wealth in the economy.The importance ofa solid institutional environment has become even moreapparent during the current crisis, given the increasinglydirect role played by the state in the economy of manycountries.The quality of institutions has a strong bearing oncompetitiveness and growth.4It influences investmentdecisions and the organization of production and plays acentral role in the ways in which societies distribute thebenefits and bear the costs of development strategies andpolicies. For example, owners of land, corporate shares,or intellectual property are unwilling to invest in theimprovement and upkeep of their property if their rightsas owners are insecure.5The role of institutions goes beyond the legalframework. Government attitudes toward markets andfreedoms, and the efficiency of its operations, are alsovery important excessive bureaucracy and red tape,6overregulation, corruption, dishonesty in dealing withpublic contracts, lack of transparency and trustworthi-ness, and the political dependence of the judicial systemimpose significant economic costs to businesses and slowthe process of economic development.7Proper manage-ment of the public finances is also critical to ensuringtrust in the national business environment.We includeindicators capturing the quality of government manage-ment of the public finances to complement the meas-ures of macroeconomic stability captured by pillar 3below.Although the economic literature has mainly focusedon public institutions, private institutions are also animportant element in the process of wealth creation.The recent global financial crisis, along with numerouscorporate scandals, has highlighted the relevance ofaccounting and reporting standards and transparency forpreventing fraud and mismanagement, ensuring goodgovernance, and maintaining investor and consumerconfidence.An economy is well served by businessesthat are run honestly, where managers abide by strongethical practices in their dealings with the government,other firms, and the public.8Private-sector transparencyis indispensable to business, and can be brought aboutthrough the use of standards as well as auditing andaccounting practices that ensure access to information in a timely manner.9Second pillar InfrastructureExtensive and efficient infrastructure is an essential driverof competitiveness. It is critical for ensuring the effectivefunctioning of the economy, as it is an important factordetermining the location of economic activity and thekinds of activities or sectors that can develop in a partic-ular economy.Well-developed infrastructure reduces theeffect of distance between regions, with the result oftruly integrating the national market and connecting itat low cost to markets in other countries and regions.In addition, the quality and extensiveness of infrastruc-ture networks significantly impact economic growth andreduce income inequalities and poverty in a variety of41.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forumways.10In this regard, a well-developed transport andcommunications infrastructure network is a prerequisitefor the ability of less-developed communities to connectto core economic activities and basic services.Effective modes of transport for goods, people, andservicessuch as quality roads, railroads, ports, and airtransportenable entrepreneurs to get their goods andservices to market in a secure and timely manner, andfacilitate the movement of workers to the most suitablejobs. Economies also depend on electricity supplies thatare free of interruptions and shortages so that businessesand factories can work unimpeded. Finally, a solid andextensive telecommunications network allows for a rapidand free flow of information, which increases overalleconomic efficiency by helping to ensure that businessescan communicate, and that decisions made by economicactors take into account all available relevant informa-tion.This is an area where the crisis may prove to havepositive longer-term effects, given the central role ofinfrastructure development in many of the nationalstimulus packages in countries such as the United Statesand China.Third pillar Macroeconomic stabilityThe stability of the macroeconomic environment isimportant for business and, therefore, is important forthe overall competitiveness of a country.11Although it iscertainly true that macroeconomic stability alone cannotincrease the productivity of a nation, it is also recognizedthat macroeconomic disarray harms the economy.Thegovernment cannot provide services efficiently if it has to make high-interest payments on its past debts.Running fiscal deficits limits the government’s futureability to react to business cycles. Firms cannot operateefficiently when inflation rates are out of hand. In sum,the economy cannot grow in a sustainable manner unlessthe macro environment is stable. It is important to notethat this pillar focuses only on macroeconomic stability,so it does not directly take into account the way inwhich public accounts are managed by the government.This qualitative dimension is captured in the publicinstitutions subpillar described above.Fourth pillar Health and primary educationA healthy workforce is vital to a country’s competi-tiveness and productivity.Workers who are ill cannotfunction to their potential and will be less productive.Poor health leads to significant costs to business, as sick workers are often absent or operate at lower levelsof efficiency. Investment in the provision of health services is thus critical for clear economic, as well asmoral, considerations.12In addition to health, this pillar takes into accountthe quantity and quality of basic education received bythe population, which is increasingly important intoday’s economy. Basic education increases the efficiencyof each individual worker. Moreover, workers who havereceived little formal education can carry out only simplemanual work and find it much more difficult to adapt tomore advanced production processes and techniques. Lackof basic education can therefore become a constraint onbusiness development, with firms finding it difficult tomove up the value chain by producing more-sophisticatedor value-intensive products.For the longer term, it will be essential to avoid sig-nificant reductions in resource allocation to these criticalareas, given that government budgets in many countrieswill need to be cut to reduce public debt brought aboutby the present stimulus spending.Fifth pillar Higher education and trainingQuality higher education and training is crucial foreconomies that want to move up the value chain beyondsimple production processes and products.13In particu-lar, today’s globalizing economy requires economies tonurture pools of well-educated workers who are able toadapt rapidly to their changing environment.This pillarmeasures secondary and tertiary enrollment rates as wellas the quality of education as assessed by the businesscommunity.The extent of staff training is also taken intoconsideration because of the importance of vocationaland continuous on-the-job trainingwhich is neglectedin many economiesfor ensuring a constant upgradingof workers’ skills to the changing needs of the evolvingeconomy.Sixth pillar Goods market efficiencyCountries with efficient goods markets are well posi-tioned to produce the right mix of products and servicesgiven supply-and-demand conditions, as well as to ensurethat these goods can be most effectively traded in theeconomy. Healthy market competition, both domesticand foreign, is important in driving market efficiencyand thus business productivity, by ensuring that the most efficient firms, producing goods demanded by themarket, are those that thrive.The best possible environ-ment for the exchange of goods requires a minimum ofimpediments to business activity through governmentintervention. For example, competitiveness is hindered bydistortionary or burdensome taxes and by restrictive anddiscriminatory rules on foreign direct investment FDIlimiting foreign ownershipas well as on internationaltrade.The economic slowdown, with the consequentdrop in trade and rise in unemployment, has increased thepressure on governments to adopt measures to protectdomestic firms and jobs.Yet limiting global trade wouldnot only amplify the current downturn, but in thelonger term it would also reduce growthin particularin developing countries.Market efficiency also depends on demand conditionssuch as customer orientation and buyer sophistication.For cultural reasons, customers in some countries maybe more demanding than in others.This can create animportant competitive advantage, as it forces companies51.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forumto be more innovative and customer oriented and thusimposes the discipline necessary for efficiency to beachieved in the market.Seventh pillar Labor market efficiencyThe efficiency and flexibility of the labor market arecritical for ensuring that workers are allocated to theirmost efficient use in the economy and provided withincentives to give their best effort in their jobs. Labormarkets must therefore have the flexibility to shift work-ers from one economic activity to another rapidly andat low cost, and to allow for wage fluctuations withoutmuch social disruption.14Efficient labor markets mustalso ensure a clear relationship between worker incen-tives and their efforts, as well as the best use of availabletalentwhich includes equity in the business environ-ment between women and men.15Eighth pillar Financial market sophisticationThe present economic crisis has highlighted the centralrole of a sound and well-functioning financial sector for economic activity.An efficient financial sector allo-cates the resources saved by a nation’s citizens as well as those entering the economy from abroad to theirmost productive uses. It channels resources to thoseentrepreneurial or investment projects with the highestexpected rates of return, rather than to the politicallyconnected.A thorough and proper assessment of risk istherefore a key ingredient. Business investment is criticalto productivity.Therefore economies require sophisticat-ed financial markets that can make capital available forprivate-sector investment from such sources as loansfrom a sound banking sector, well-regulated securitiesexchanges, venture capital, and other financial products.This has been once again underscored by the liquiditycrunch experienced by businesses and the public sectorin developing and developed countries in recent times.In order to fulfill all those functions, the banking sectorneeds to be trustworthy and transparent, andas hasbeen made so clear recentlyfinancial markets needappropriate regulation to protect investors and otheractors in the economy at large.Ninth pillar Technological readinessThis pillar measures the agility with which an econ-omy adopts existing technologies to enhance the productivity of its industries.16In today’s globalizedworld, technology has increasingly become an importantelement for firms to compete and prosper. In particular,information and communication technologies ICThave evolved into the “general purpose technology”of our time,17given the critical spillovers to the othereconomic sectors and their role as efficient infrastructurefor commercial transactions.Therefore ICT accessincluding the presence of an ICT-friendly regulatoryframework and usage are included in the pillar as essential components of economies’ overall level of technological readiness.In this context, whether the technology used has or has not been developed within national borders isirrelevant for its effect on competitiveness.The centralpoint is that the firms operating in the country haveaccess to advanced products and blueprints and the ability to use them.Among the main sources of foreigntechnology, FDI often plays a key role. In this respect,it is particularly worrisome that, after four years of solidgrowth resulting in a record global FDI stock of US1.9trillion in 2007, FDI has declined by an estimated 15percent in 2008 with further deterioration expected for2009, especially for developing countries.This develop-ment is due to shortages in finance and a more risk-averse attitude of businesses.18It is important to note that, in this context, the levelof technology available to firms in a country needs tobe distinguished from the country’s ability to innovateand expand the frontiers of knowledge.That is why weseparate technological readiness from innovation, whichis captured in the 12th pillar below.Tenth pillar Market sizeThe size of the market affects productivity because large markets allow firms to exploit economies of scale.Traditionally, the markets available to firms have beenconstrained by national borders. In the era of globaliza-tion, international markets have become a substitute fordomestic markets, especially for small countries.There is vast empirical evidence showing that trade openness is positively associated with growth. Even if some recentresearch casts doubts on the robustness of this relation-ship, the general sense is that trade has a positive effecton growth, especially for countries with small domesticmarkets.19Thus, exports can be thought of as a substitute fordomestic demand in determining the size of the marketfor the firms of a country.20In today’s highly interdepend-ent world, recovery from the present downturn willrequire that countries increase the amount of goods thatthey purchase from each other, thus spurring demand.Further lowering barriers to trade would support thisprocess.By including both domestic and foreign markets in our measure of market size, we give credit to export-driven economies and geographic areas such as theEuropean Union that are broken into many countriesbut have one common market.Eleventh pillar Business sophisticationBusiness sophistication is conducive to higher efficiencyin the production of goods and services.This leads, inturn, to increased productivity, thus enhancing a nation’scompetitiveness. Business sophistication concerns thequality of a country’s overall business networks as well as the quality of individual firms’ operations and 61.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forumstrategies. It is particularly important for countries at an advanced stage of development, when the morebasic sources of productivity improvements have beenexhausted to a large extent.The quality of a country’sbusiness networks and supporting industries, which we capture by using indicators of the quantity and quality of local suppliers and the extent of their inter-action, is important for a variety of reasons.When companies and suppliers from a particular sector areinterconnected in geographically proximate groups“clusters”, efficiency is heightened, greater opportun-ities for innovation are created, and barriers to entry for new firms are reduced. Individual firms’ operationsand strategies branding, marketing, the presence of avalue chain, and the production of unique and sophisti-cated products all lead to sophisticated and modernbusiness processes.Twelfth pillar InnovationThe final pillar of competitiveness is innovation.Althoughsubstantial gains can be obtained by improving institu-tions, building infrastructure, reducing macroeconomicinstability, or improving human capital, all these factorseventually seem to run into diminishing returns.Thesame is true for the efficiency of the labor, financial,and goods markets. In the long run, standards of livingcan be expanded only with innovation. Innovation isparticularly important for economies as they approachthe frontiers of knowledge and the possibility of inte-grating and adapting exogenous technologies tends todisappear.21Although less-advanced countries can still improvetheir productivity by adopting existing technologies ormaking incremental improvements in other areas, forthose that have reached the innovation-driven stage of development, this is no longer sufficient to increaseproductivity. Firms in these countries must design anddevelop cutting-edge products and processes to maintaina competitive edge.This requires an environment that isconducive to innovative activity, supported by both thepublic and the private sectors. In particular, this meanssufficient investment in research and developmentRD especially by the private sector, the presence ofhigh-quality scientific research institutions, extensivecollaboration in research between universities and indus-try, and the protection of intellectual property. In thistime of crisis, it will be important to resist pressures tocut back on the RD spending both at the private andpublic levels that will be so critical for sustainablegrowth going into the future.The interrelation of the 12 pillarsAlthough the 12 pillars of competitiveness are describedseparately, this should not obscure the fact that they are not independent not only are they related to eachother, but they tend to reinforce each other. For example, innovation 12th pillar is not possible in aworld without institutions 1st pillar that guaranteeintellectual property rights, cannot be performed incountries with a poorly educated and poorly trainedlabor force 5th pillar, and is more difficult ineconomies with inefficient markets 6th, 7th, and 8thpillars or without extensive and efficient infrastructure2nd pillar.Although the actual construction of theIndex will involve the aggregation of the 12 pillars intoa single index, measures are reported for the 12 pillarsseparately because offering a more disaggregated analysiscan be more useful to countries and practitioners suchan analysis gets closer to the actual areas in which a particular country needs to improve.Appendix A describes the exact composition of theGCI and technical details of its construction.To discern the extent to which the global recessionis affecting the longer-term competitiveness of countries,the World Economic Forum carried out a survey ofselected experts.The results of this survey are describedin Box 1.Stages of development and the weighted IndexIt is clear that different pillars affect different countriesdifferently the best way for Burkina Faso to improve its competitiveness is not the same as the best way forSwitzerland.This is because Burkina Faso and Switzerlandare in different stages of development as countries movealong the development path, wages tend to increase and,in order to sustain this higher income, labor productivitymust improve.22According to the GCI, in the first stage, the economy is factor-driven and countries compete based on their factor endowments primarily unskilled laborand natural resources. Companies compete on the basisof price and sell basic products or commodities, withtheir low productivity reflected in low wages. Main-taining competitiveness at this stage of developmenthinges primarily on well-functioning public and privateinstitutions pillar 1, well-developed infrastructure pillar2, a stable macroeconomic framework pillar 3, and ahealthy and literate workforce pillar 4.As wages rise with advancing development,countries move into the efficiency-driven stage of develop-ment, when they must begin to develop more efficientproduction processes and increase product quality.Atthis point, competitiveness is increasingly driven byhigher education and training pillar 5, efficient goodsmarkets pillar 6, well-functioning labor markets pillar7, sophisticated financial markets pillar 8, a largedomestic and/or foreign market pillar 10, and the ability to harness the benefits of existing technologiespillar 9.Finally, as countries move into the innovation-drivenstage, they are able to sustain higher wages and the associated standard of living only if their businesses areable to compete with new and unique products.At this71.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum81.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010Figure 1 The 12 pillars of competitivenessBasic requirements Institutions Infrastructure Macroeconomic stability Health and primary educationEfficiency enhancers Higher education and training Goods market efficiency Labor market efficiency Financial market sophistication Technological readiness Market sizeInnovation and sophistication factors Business sophistication InnovationKey forfactor-driveneconomiesKey forefficiency-driveneconomiesKey forinnovation-driveneconomiesstage, companies must compete through innovation pillar 12, producing new and different goods using the most sophisticated production processes pillar 11.The concept of stages of development is integrated intothe Index by attributing higher relative weights to those pillars that are relatively more relevant for a countrygiven its particular stage of development.That is,although all 12 pillars matter to a certain extent for all countries, the relative importance of each onedepends on a country’s particular stage of development.To take this into account, the pillars are organized intothree subindexes, each critical to a particular stage ofdevelopment.The basic requirements subindex groups those pillars most critical for countries in the factor-drivenstage.The efficiency enhancers subindex includes those pillars critical for countries in the efficiency-drivenstage.And the innovation and sophistication factors subindexincludes the pillars critical to countries in the innova-tion-driven stage.The three subindexes are shown inFigure 1.The specific weights we attribute to each subindexin every stage of development are shown in Table 1.Table 1 Weights of the three main subindexes at eachstage of developmentFactor- Efficiency- Innovation-driven driven drivenSubindex stage stage stage Basic requirements 60 40 20Efficiency enhancers 35 50 50Innovation and sophistication factors 5 10 30To obtain the precise weights, a maximum likeli-hood regression of GDP per capita was run against eachsubindex for past years, allowing for different coeffi-cients for each stage of development.23The rounding of these econometric estimates led to the choice ofweights displayed in Table 1.Implementation of stages of development Smooth transitionsCountries are allocated to stages of development basedon two criteria.The first is the level of GDP per capitaat market exchange rates.This widely available measureis used as a proxy for wages, as internationally compar-able data for the latter are not available for all countriescovered.The precise thresholds are shown in Table 2.Asecond criterion measures the extent to which countriesare factor driven.We proxy this by the share of exportsof mineral goods in total exports goods and servicesThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumBox 1 An expert assessment of national competitiveness prospectsThe concept of competitiveness captures the medium- to long-term productivity and growth prospects of national economies.In other words, although business cycle movements affectcountries’ short-term growth prospects, as witnessed in thepresent economic downturn, they should have no impact oncompetitiveness assessments unless they have longer-termconsequences for the competitiveness drivers discussed in this chapter.In order to get a sense of the extent to which the globalrecession is affecting the longer-term competitiveness of countries, the World Economic Forum carried out a survey ofselected leading macro and business economists from theForum’s economy-related Global Agenda Councils,1along withfour international associations of business economists.2A totalof 16 leading economists were surveyed. The survey is intendedto complement the analysis of the Global Competitiveness IndexGCI by providing the insight of experts on the matter.Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they believe the present global recession will have a positive ornegative impact, on a scale of 1 negative to 7 positive, onselected countries, with 4 the central value indicating that the recession will have no impact. They were also asked todescribe the mechanisms by which the recession would havepositive or negative impacts on countries. The 37 countriesincluded were those ranked in the top 20 of last year’s GCI, andother key regional economies.Figure 1 shows the average score for each economy covered by the exercise shown by a white dot, as well as the spread in scores the highest and lowest scores given,shown by the blue line. Economies have been grouped in anumber of different clusters according to the perceived impactof the crisis on their competitiveness perspective ranging from slightly positive to negative. In addition, the last columnsdisplay each country’s GCI rank for this year, as well aschanges to the competitiveness rankings since last year forevery economy considered improvements are indicated by anupward arrow, declines are represented by downward arrows,and sideways arrows indicate no change.The first point to note about the survey results shown inthe figure is that the average assessments are skewed down-ward, with only five economies above the “no impact” value of4. In other words, of all countries considered, the experts onaverage believe that only Brazil, India, and China the threelargest BRIC economies, along with Australia and Canada, are likely to see their competitiveness improving slightly as aconsequence of the global recession. A further two economiesare expected, on average, to see no impact on their competi-tiveness from the recession Norway and Hong Kong. For theremaining 30 economies covered, the average assessmentranges from slightly negative to negative.Taking into account the general downward bias of theresults, the average responses to the survey are broadly in line with the changes in the GCI rankings since last year, withsome exceptions. In particular, Brazilperceived by the expertsas the country that will likely see its competitiveness mostfavorably affected by the crisisimproved 8 places since lastyear, continuing to build on an upward trend started in 2007 andnarrowing the competitiveness gap vis--vis fellow BRICeconomies India and China. Indeed, all countries in the slightlypositive or no impact groups at the top of the figure eitherimprove in rank India, China, Australia, Canada, and Norway,or remain stable Hong Kong. The remaining BRIC economy,Russia, lost 12 places in the GCI assessment; it is also rated as one of the countries most likely to be negatively affected bythe global crisis. The recession is expected to be particularlyharmful for the competitiveness of Iceland and Spain, the twocountries receiving the lowest average scores in the sample,both of which also drop in the GCI ranking this year. Yet, for ahandful of countries, the GCI and the economists’ assessmentdiverges. This is particularly noticeable within the “negative”category for Argentina, Hungary, Italy, and Japan, although the improvements in the GCR ranking since last year remainsomewhat small in all cases.Another important characteristic of the survey results isthe great variation in responses concerning the likely impact of the global recession on each country. The blue bars in thefigure show the range of the lowest and highest responses. Thecountry engendering the greatest agreement, Switzerland, stillincludes assessments that range from 2 negative to 4 noimpact. The largest variations are for Latin American countriesthe results for Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela range from theworst possible value 1 to the second-to-highest possible value6.This demonstrates the extent of uncertainty even amongexpert economists on the longer-term impacts of the crisis.When asked to describe their reasons for pessimism andoptimism for the longer-term outlook, the experts highlighted anumber of factors that could have either positive or negativeimpacts on longer-term competitiveness. The reasons for pes-simism were related primarily to concerns about excessive gov-ernment intervention and lack of access to credit. Specific-ally,experts mentioned enhanced government intervention com-bined with blurred boundaries among institutions and rules; the non-optimal allocation of resources to education and transportation infrastructure through stimulus packages;massive debts accrued, especially in the West, likely promptingeither sharp public-sector spending cuts or tax increases; thepush for harsher financial regulations that would further hinderallocation of credit and risk new business investment; and more general difficulties in obtaining capital for pro-growthinvestment.On the other hand, a number of positive implications forlonger-term competitiveness potential were also noted by theexperts. These include the possible reorientation of export-ledeconomies to domestic demand and neutral exchange rates;increased awareness of the need of investment in pro-growthareas, notably education; lagging institutions brought into inter-national compliance; a rethinking of the US dollar’s impact andof the consequences of focusing only on the US markets formany exporters; enhanced incentives to clean up non-competi-tive enterprises and all sectors that had been kept alive duringthe boom period; and a potential push to fix long- overduestructural problems.Cont’d.91.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum101.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The data also reveal a difference in the level of pessimismor optimism of the macroeconomists, who constitute the aca-demic respondents, compared with the business economists,who are practitioners involved in business activities. As Table 1 shows, the business economists remain measurably morepessimistic than the academic economists about the impact of the present crisis on longer-term national competitiveness.Specifically, while the macroeconomists are on average moreoptimistic about the impact on the competitiveness outlook for 25 countries, the business economists are more optimistic in only 7 cases. The two groups share the same opinion onaverage in 5 cases.The results of the survey highlight the extent to whichcompetitiveness is a complex phenomenon that is difficult toquantify precisely. Importantly, the potential positive effects of the crisis described by the experts underline the ways inwhich countries now have an opportunity to implement reformsthat will place them on a stronger footing to ride out the nexteconomic crisis and to ensure strong competitiveness goingforward.Box 1 An expert assessment of national competitiveness prospects cont’d.Figure 1 Survey of experts results and GCI variation 2009–2010GCICountry/Economy 1 4 7 Impact Rank ChangeBrazil 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 8India 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1China 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Australia 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 3Canada 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Norway 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Hong Kong SAR 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .Singapore 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 2Finland 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .Indonesia 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Saudi Arabia 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 1Denmark 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 2Taiwan, China 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 5Netherlands 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 2Switzerland 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Korea, Rep. 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 6Sweden 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .Egypt 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 7Turkey 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 2United Arab Emirates 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 8South Africa 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .Austria 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 3Belgium 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1France 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .Germany 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .Mexico 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIforward. . . .United States 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 1Poland 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 7Italy 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Hungary 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 4Russian Federation 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . 12United Kingdom 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 1Argentina 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 3Japan 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIup. . . . 1Venezuela 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 8Spain 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 4Iceland 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UIdown. . . . 6Note UIforwardindicates that there has been no change since last year; UIupindicates a positive change; UIdownindicates a negative change.NONECont’d.SLIGHTLY POSITIVENEGATIVESLIGHTLY NEGATIVEThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumBox 1 An expert assessment of national competitiveness prospects cont’d.Table 1 Comparison of responses from business economists and macroeconomistsBusiness Macro- Country/Economy economists economists DifferenceAustria 2.83 3.57 –0.74Belgium 3.00 3.43 –0.43Denmark 3.43 3.71 –0.29Finland 3.71 3.57 0.14France 3.13 3.29 –0.16Germany 3.13 3.29 –0.16Hungary 2.29 3.29 –1.00Iceland 1.57 2.43 –0.86Italy 2.63 3.00 –0.38Netherlands 3.63 3.43 0.20Norway 4.00 4.00 0.00Poland 2.57 3.43 –0.86Russia 2.56 3.00 –0.44Spain 2.00 2.71 –0.71Sweden 3.00 3.71 –0.71Switzerland 3.43 3.43 0.00Turkey 3.00 3.57 –0.57United Kingdom 2.50 3.00 –0.50Argentina 2.25 3.33 –1.08Brazil 4.50 4.33 0.17Canada 3.88 4.33 –0.46Mexico 2.56 3.83 –1.28United States 2.89 3.29 –0.40Venezuela 2.50 2.83 –0.33Australia 4.38 4.14 0.23China 4.33 4.29 0.05Hong Kong SAR 4.00 4.00 0.00India 4.50 4.29 0.21Indonesia 3.43 3.86 –0.43Japan 2.29 3.14 –0.86Korea, Rep. 3.43 3.43 0.00Singapore 3.86 4.00 –0.14Taiwan, China 3.57 3.57 0.00Egypt 3.17 3.50 –0.33Saudi Arabia 3.33 3.83 –0.50South Africa 3.33 3.17 0.17United Arab Emirates 3.00 3.67 –0.67Notes1 More information on the Global Agenda Councils can be found at http//www.weforum.org/en/about/GlobalAgendaCouncils/index.htm.2 The groups surveyed are the Conference of Business Economists, the National Business Economic Issues Council, the European Council ofEconomists, and the Harvard Industrial Economists Group.and assume that countries that export more than 70percent of mineral products measured using a five-yearaverage are to a large extent factor driven.24Table 2 Income thresholds for establishing stages ofdevelopmentStage of development GDP per capita in USStage 1 Factor driven 17,000Countries falling in between two of the three stagesare considered to be “in transition.” For these countries,the weights change smoothly as a country develops,reflecting the smooth transition from one stage of devel-opment to another. By introducing this type of transi-tion between stages into the modelthat is, by placingincreasingly more weight on those areas that are becomingmore important for the country’s competitiveness as itdevelopsthe Index can gradually “penalize” thosecountries that are not preparing for the next stage.Theclassification of countries into stages of development isshown in Table 3.111.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumCountry coverageOne country covered last year, Moldova, is not coveredthis year because of a lack of Survey data.This has led to a decrease in country coverage to a total of 133economies this year.The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010 rankingsThe detailed rankings from this year’s GCI are shown in Tables 4 through 8.As Table 4 shows, all of the coun-tries in the top 10 remain the same as last year, withsome shifts in rank.The following sections discuss thefindings of the GCI 2009–2010 for the top performersglobally, as well as for a number of selected economiesin each of the five following regions Europe, LatinAmerica and the Caribbean,Asia and the Pacific,Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.The reader should note that, as in any benchmarkingexercise of this nature, the data are necessarily subject toa time lag and do not fully capture economic circum-stances at the time of publication. However, this does notsignificantly hinder our ability to assess competitiveness,given its medium- to long-term nature.Top 10The GCI results for the top 10 countries show a meas-urable decline in average score since last year, droppingfrom 5.51 out of a possible maximum score of 7 lastyear to 5.45 this year. In other words, it appears that in121.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010Table 3 List of countries/economies at each stage of developmentStage 1 Transition from 1 to 2 Stage 2 Transition from 2 to 3 Stage 3Bangladesh Algeria Albania Bahrain AustraliaBenin Azerbaijan Argentina Barbados AustriaBolivia Botswana Armenia Chile BelgiumBurkina Faso Brunei Darussalam Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia CanadaBurundi Egypt Brazil Hungary CyprusCambodia Georgia Bulgaria Latvia Czech RepublicCameroon Guatemala China Lithuania DenmarkChad Indonesia Colombia Mexico EstoniaCte d’Ivoire Jamaica Costa Rica Oman FinlandEthiopia Kazakhstan Dominican Republic Poland FranceGambia, The Kuwait Ecuador Romania GermanyGhana Libya El Salvador Russian Federation GreeceGuyana Morocco Jordan Turkey Hong Kong SARHonduras Paraguay Macedonia, FYR Uruguay IcelandIndia Qatar Malaysia IrelandKenya Saudi Arabia Mauritius IsraelKyrgyz Republic Syria Montenegro ItalyLesotho Venezuela Namibia JapanMadagascar Panama Korea, Rep.Malawi Peru LuxembourgMali Serbia MaltaMauritania South Africa NetherlandsMongolia Suriname New ZealandMozambique Thailand NorwayNepal Tunisia PortugalNicaragua Ukraine Puerto RicoNigeria SingaporePakistan Slovak RepublicPhilippines SloveniaSenegal SpainSri Lanka SwedenTajikistan SwitzerlandTanzania Taiwan, ChinaTimor-Leste Trinidad and TobagoUganda United Arab EmiratesVietnam United KingdomZambia United StatesZimbabweThe Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum131.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010Country/Economy Rank Score Rank*Switzerland 1 5.60 2United States 2 5.59 1Singapore 3 5.55 5Sweden 4 5.51 4Denmark 5 5.46 3Finland 6 5.43 6Germany 7 5.37 7Japan 8 5.37 9Canada 9 5.33 10Netherlands 10 5.32 8Hong Kong SAR 11 5.22 11Taiwan, China 12 5.20 17United Kingdom 13 5.19 12Norway 14 5.17 15Australia 15 5.15 18France 16 5.13 16Austria 17 5.13 14Belgium 18 5.09 19Korea, Rep. 19 5.00 13New Zealand 20 4.98 24Luxembourg 21 4.96 25Qatar 22 4.95 26United Arab Emirates 23 4.92 31Malaysia 24 4.87 21Ireland 25 4.84 22Iceland 26 4.80 20Israel 27 4.80 23Saudi Arabia 28 4.75 27China 29 4.74 30Chile 30 4.70 28Czech Republic 31 4.67 33Brunei Darussalam 32 4.64 39Spain 33 4.59 29Cyprus 34 4.57 40Estonia 35 4.56 32Thailand 36 4.56 34Slovenia 37 4.55 42Bahrain 38 4.54 37Kuwait 39 4.53 35Tunisia 40 4.50 36Oman 41 4.49 38Puerto Rico 42 4.48 41Portugal 43 4.40 43Barbados 44 4.35 47South Africa 45 4.34 45Poland 46 4.33 53Slovak Republic 47 4.31 46Italy 48 4.31 49India 49 4.30 50Jordan 50 4.30 48Azerbaijan 51 4.30 69Malta 52 4.30 52Lithuania 53 4.30 44Indonesia 54 4.26 55Costa Rica 55 4.25 59Brazil 56 4.23 64Mauritius 57 4.22 57Hungary 58 4.22 62Panama 59 4.21 58Mexico 60 4.19 60Turkey 61 4.16 63Montenegro 62 4.16 65Russian Federation 63 4.15 51Romania 64 4.11 68Uruguay 65 4.10 75Botswana 66 4.08 56Kazakhstan 67 4.08 66Latvia 68 4.06 54Cont’d.Country/Economy Rank Score Rank*Colombia 69 4.05 74Egypt 70 4.04 81Greece 71 4.04 67Croatia 72 4.03 61Morocco 73 4.03 73Namibia 74 4.03 80Vietnam 75 4.03 70Bulgaria 76 4.02 76El Salvador 77 4.02 79Peru 78 4.01 83Sri Lanka 79 4.01 77Guatemala 80 3.96 84Gambia, The 81 3.96 87Ukraine 82 3.95 72Algeria 83 3.95 99Macedonia, FYR 84 3.95 89Argentina 85 3.91 88Trinidad and Tobago 86 3.91 92Philippines 87 3.90 71Libya 88 3.90 91Honduras 89 3.86 82Georgia 90 3.81 90Jamaica 91 3.81 86Senegal 92 3.78 96Serbia 93 3.77 85Syria 94 3.76 78Dominican Republic 95 3.75 98Albania 96 3.72 108Armenia 97 3.71 97Kenya 98 3.67 93Nigeria 99 3.65 94Tanzania 100 3.59 113Pakistan 101 3.58 101Suriname 102 3.57 103Benin 103 3.56 106Guyana 104 3.56 115Ecuador 105 3.56 104Bangladesh 106 3.55 111Lesotho 107 3.54 123Uganda 108 3.53 128Bosnia and Herzegovina 109 3.53 107Cambodia 110 3.51 109Cameroon 111 3.50 114Zambia 112 3.50 112Venezuela 113 3.48 105Ghana 114 3.45 102Nicaragua 115 3.44 120Cte d’Ivoire 116 3.43 110Mongolia 117 3.43 100Ethiopia 118 3.43 121Malawi 119 3.42 119Bolivia 120 3.42 118Madagascar 121 3.42 125Tajikistan 122 3.38 116Kyrgyz Republic 123 3.36 122Paraguay 124 3.35 124Nepal 125 3.34 126Timor-Leste 126 3.26 129Mauritania 127 3.25 131Burkina Faso 128 3.23 127Mozambique 129 3.22 130Mali 130 3.22 117Chad 131 2.87 134Zimbabwe 132 2.77 133Burundi 133 2.58 132*The 2008–2009 rank is out of 134 countries. One country covered last year,Moldova, had to be excluded this year for lack of Survey data.Table 4 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010 rankings and 2008–2009 comparisonsGCI 2009–2010 GCI 2009–2010GCI 2008–2009 GCI 2008–2009The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum141.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010Table 5 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010SUBINDEXESOVERALL INDEX Basic requirements Efficiency enhancers Innovation factorsCountry/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank ScoreSwitzerland 1 5.60 3 5.98 3 5.39 3 5.68United States 2 5.59 28 5.23 1 5.66 1 5.71Singapore 3 5.55 2 5.99 2 5.61 10 5.15Sweden 4 5.51 5 5.96 7 5.31 4 5.53Denmark 5 5.46 4 5.98 6 5.36 7 5.28Finland 6 5.43 1 6.04 12 5.17 6 5.47Germany 7 5.37 8 5.85 14 5.12 5 5.47Japan 8 5.37 27 5.27 11 5.21 2 5.70Canada 9 5.33 10 5.74 4 5.39 12 4.96Netherlands 10 5.32 12 5.71 10 5.26 9 5.17Hong Kong SAR 11 5.22 6 5.90 5 5.37 23 4.53Taiwan, China 12 5.20 18 5.47 17 5.06 8 5.25United Kingdom 13 5.19 26 5.29 8 5.31 14 4.92Norway 14 5.17 11 5.73 13 5.14 18 4.83Australia 15 5.15 14 5.63 9 5.29 21 4.61France 16 5.13 15 5.60 16 5.08 15 4.90Austria 17 5.13 13 5.70 19 4.98 11 5.00Belgium 18 5.09 20 5.43 18 5.04 13 4.95Korea, Rep. 19 5.00 23 5.40 20 4.92 16 4.88New Zealand 20 4.98 16 5.58 15 5.11 27 4.37Luxembourg 21 4.96 7 5.85 23 4.84 22 4.58Qatar 22 4.95 17 5.57 28 4.67 36 4.10United Arab Emirates 23 4.92 9 5.75 21 4.89 25 4.41Malaysia 24 4.87 33 5.12 25 4.76 24 4.43Ireland 25 4.84 37 5.06 22 4.87 20 4.63Iceland 26 4.80 24 5.36 30 4.64 19 4.70Israel 27 4.80 42 4.88 26 4.72 17 4.87Saudi Arabia 28 4.75 30 5.17 38 4.49 33 4.15China 29 4.74 36 5.09 32 4.56 29 4.23Chile 30 4.70 32 5.14 33 4.55 43 3.96Czech Republic 31 4.67 45 4.78 24 4.78 26 4.40Brunei Darussalam 32 4.64 19 5.44 76 3.94 81 3.42Spain 33 4.59 38 5.06 29 4.66 35 4.14Cyprus 34 4.57 21 5.43 41 4.45 32 4.18Estonia 35 4.56 34 5.10 27 4.69 42 3.98Thailand 36 4.56 43 4.86 40 4.46 47 3.83Slovenia 37 4.55 29 5.18 37 4.49 30 4.23Bahrain 38 4.54 22 5.41 44 4.39 60 3.69Kuwait 39 4.53 40 5.02 63 4.08 64 3.62Tunisia 40 4.50 35 5.09 56 4.14 45 3.94Oman 41 4.49 25 5.30 53 4.18 52 3.75Puerto Rico 42 4.48 44 4.84 36 4.50 31 4.21Portugal 43 4.40 39 5.05 43 4.40 41 3.98Barbados 44 4.35 31 5.16 60 4.11 49 3.81South Africa 45 4.34 77 4.26 39 4.47 39 4.05Poland 46 4.33 71 4.30 31 4.56 46 3.84Slovak Republic 47 4.31 54 4.61 34 4.55 57 3.71Italy 48 4.31 67 4.38 46 4.37 34 4.15India 49 4.30 79 4.18 35 4.52 28 4.24Jordan 50 4.30 46 4.74 66 4.06 51 3.79Azerbaijan 51 4.30 50 4.63 71 4.03 56 3.71Malta 52 4.30 41 4.97 48 4.31 48 3.83Lithuania 53 4.30 47 4.68 47 4.33 53 3.75Indonesia 54 4.26 70 4.30 50 4.24 40 4.03Costa Rica 55 4.25 62 4.44 58 4.13 37 4.08Brazil 56 4.23 91 4.04 42 4.41 38 4.08Mauritius 57 4.22 51 4.63 72 4.01 65 3.59Hungary 58 4.22 58 4.48 45 4.38 61 3.67Panama 59 4.21 55 4.54 70 4.04 54 3.73Mexico 60 4.19 59 4.47 55 4.15 67 3.57Turkey 61 4.16 69 4.34 54 4.16 58 3.70Montenegro 62 4.16 65 4.43 65 4.06 68 3.56Russian Federation 63 4.15 64 4.43 52 4.20 73 3.47Romania 64 4.11 86 4.10 49 4.25 75 3.44Uruguay 65 4.10 49 4.64 82 3.86 77 3.44Botswana 66 4.08 63 4.43 87 3.77 92 3.25Kazakhstan 67 4.08 74 4.27 69 4.04 78 3.43Cont’d.The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumTable 5 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010 cont’d.SUBINDEXESOVERALL INDEX Basic requirements Efficiency enhancers Innovation factorsCountry/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank ScoreLatvia 68 4.06 60 4.45 51 4.21 86 3.36Colombia 69 4.05 83 4.12 64 4.07 62 3.67Egypt 70 4.04 78 4.21 80 3.87 71 3.51Greece 71 4.04 56 4.49 57 4.13 66 3.59Croatia 72 4.03 52 4.62 67 4.05 72 3.49Morocco 73 4.03 57 4.49 91 3.71 88 3.35Namibia 74 4.03 53 4.61 90 3.72 91 3.26Vietnam 75 4.03 92 4.02 61 4.08 55 3.72Bulgaria 76 4.02 80 4.13 62 4.08 89 3.29El Salvador 77 4.02 66 4.39 83 3.85 87 3.36Peru 78 4.01 88 4.06 59 4.11 85 3.37Sri Lanka 79 4.01 89 4.05 74 3.95 44 3.95Guatemala 80 3.96 82 4.13 81 3.86 63 3.66Gambia, The 81 3.96 76 4.26 101 3.49 69 3.55Ukraine 82 3.95 94 3.96 68 4.05 80 3.42Algeria 83 3.95 61 4.44 117 3.29 122 2.88Macedonia, FYR 84 3.95 73 4.27 85 3.83 93 3.23Argentina 85 3.91 84 4.11 84 3.84 76 3.44Trinidad and Tobago 86 3.91 48 4.67 79 3.90 79 3.42Philippines 87 3.90 95 3.94 78 3.91 74 3.45Libya 88 3.90 68 4.38 110 3.36 111 3.04Honduras 89 3.86 87 4.10 95 3.54 96 3.21Georgia 90 3.81 85 4.10 89 3.73 117 2.94Jamaica 91 3.81 101 3.74 73 3.95 83 3.39Senegal 92 3.78 96 3.93 96 3.54 59 3.69Serbia 93 3.77 97 3.90 86 3.77 94 3.21Syria 94 3.76 72 4.30 112 3.35 100 3.17Dominican Republic 95 3.75 98 3.82 88 3.77 82 3.41Albania 96 3.72 90 4.04 93 3.63 121 2.90Armenia 97 3.71 81 4.13 99 3.51 112 3.03Kenya 98 3.67 120 3.49 75 3.94 50 3.80Nigeria 99 3.65 118 3.51 77 3.91 70 3.53Tanzania 100 3.59 103 3.71 104 3.45 95 3.21Pakistan 101 3.58 114 3.53 92 3.69 84 3.39Suriname 102 3.57 75 4.26 126 3.14 118 2.94Benin 103 3.56 99 3.78 121 3.25 104 3.12Guyana 104 3.56 105 3.69 107 3.40 110 3.06Ecuador 105 3.56 93 4.00 113 3.34 123 2.88Bangladesh 106 3.55 108 3.60 97 3.54 114 3.00Lesotho 107 3.54 102 3.71 116 3.31 101 3.16Uganda 108 3.53 110 3.58 102 3.49 103 3.14Bosnia and Herzegovina 109 3.53 100 3.74 100 3.50 127 2.80Cambodia 110 3.51 112 3.55 103 3.49 107 3.08Cameroon 111 3.50 107 3.68 119 3.27 106 3.11Zambia 112 3.50 117 3.51 98 3.52 90 3.26Venezuela 113 3.48 104 3.70 108 3.38 130 2.76Ghana 114 3.45 127 3.40 94 3.58 108 3.08Nicaragua 115 3.44 113 3.54 114 3.32 116 2.96Cte d’Ivoire 116 3.43 121 3.49 109 3.38 98 3.20Mongolia 117 3.43 123 3.48 106 3.42 120 2.93Ethiopia 118 3.43 111 3.56 120 3.26 115 2.98Malawi 119 3.42 124 3.43 105 3.43 97 3.21Bolivia 120 3.42 106 3.68 128 3.08 133 2.63Madagascar 121 3.42 115 3.52 118 3.28 99 3.20Tajikistan 122 3.38 116 3.51 123 3.22 109 3.06Kyrgyz Republic 123 3.36 126 3.40 111 3.36 128 2.80Paraguay 124 3.35 122 3.49 115 3.32 131 2.70Nepal 125 3.34 119 3.50 125 3.15 129 2.77Timor-Leste 126 3.26 109 3.60 132 2.78 132 2.68Mauritania 127 3.25 125 3.43 129 3.01 125 2.83Burkina Faso 128 3.23 130 3.25 122 3.22 105 3.12Mozambique 129 3.22 129 3.26 124 3.19 113 3.00Mali 130 3.22 128 3.30 127 3.09 102 3.14Chad 131 2.87 131 2.92 131 2.81 126 2.81Zimbabwe 132 2.77 132 2.71 130 2.87 124 2.86Burundi 133 2.58 133 2.49 133 2.68 119 2.94151.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum161.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010Table 6 The Global Competitiveness Index Basic requirementsPILLARS3. Macroeconomic 4. Health andBASIC REQUIREMENTS 1. Institutions 2. Infrastructure stability primary educationCountry/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank ScoreAlbania 90 4.04 87 3.62 104 2.84 95 4.24 66 5.48Algeria 61 4.44 115 3.20 99 2.91 2 6.39 77 5.28Argentina 84 4.11 126 2.94 88 3.11 48 4.87 59 5.54Armenia 81 4.13 95 3.49 81 3.25 53 4.78 97 5.00Australia 14 5.63 12 5.60 25 5.19 18 5.56 16 6.18Austria 13 5.70 14 5.55 9 5.89 37 5.22 18 6.14Azerbaijan 50 4.63 55 4.15 58 4.03 27 5.30 96 5.04Bahrain 22 5.41 30 4.88 27 4.96 5 5.97 37 5.83Bangladesh 108 3.60 122 3.09 126 2.39 84 4.45 105 4.49Barbados 31 5.16 20 5.18 21 5.37 115 3.80 9 6.28Belgium 20 5.43 24 4.98 18 5.58 56 4.74 3 6.43Benin 99 3.78 79 3.72 117 2.58 54 4.77 111 4.06Bolivia 106 3.68 132 2.50 122 2.47 60 4.70 94 5.05Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 3.74 128 2.89 128 2.18 69 4.61 75 5.29Botswana 63 4.43 29 4.89 61 3.93 41 5.06 118 3.85Brazil 91 4.04 93 3.50 74 3.50 109 3.93 79 5.24Brunei Darussalam 19 5.44 36 4.78 41 4.55 1 6.64 42 5.78Bulgaria 80 4.13 116 3.19 102 2.88 45 4.93 58 5.54Burkina Faso 130 3.25 71 3.82 115 2.60 118 3.60 130 2.97Burundi 133 2.49 129 2.75 125 2.41 132 1.05 121 3.74Cambodia 112 3.55 92 3.51 95 2.94 122 3.40 107 4.36Cameroon 107 3.68 112 3.24 121 2.49 34 5.24 122 3.74Canada 10 5.74 17 5.50 7 5.93 31 5.24 7 6.30Chad 131 2.92 131 2.71 133 1.90 82 4.50 133 2.55Chile 32 5.14 35 4.78 30 4.93 19 5.48 69 5.38China 36 5.09 48 4.39 46 4.31 8 5.93 45 5.72Colombia 83 4.12 101 3.37 83 3.20 72 4.59 72 5.34Costa Rica 62 4.44 47 4.42 82 3.24 101 4.11 29 5.97Cte d’Ivoire 121 3.49 127 2.91 73 3.54 89 4.43 128 3.08Croatia 52 4.62 85 3.65 49 4.26 50 4.83 44 5.72Cyprus 21 5.43 22 5.03 24 5.22 39 5.15 5 6.32Czech Republic 45 4.78 62 3.93 48 4.27 43 4.99 33 5.94Denmark 4 5.98 3 6.08 12 5.83 14 5.71 6 6.31Dominican Republic 98 3.82 117 3.19 85 3.16 94 4.28 103 4.65Ecuador 93 4.00 125 2.97 100 2.91 44 4.99 89 5.14Egypt 78 4.21 56 4.13 55 4.07 120 3.46 84 5.20El Salvador 66 4.39 91 3.52 51 4.20 61 4.68 86 5.17Estonia 34 5.10 31 4.85 34 4.67 47 4.90 28 5.98Ethiopia 111 3.56 75 3.78 96 2.94 116 3.76 120 3.78Finland 1 6.04 4 6.05 10 5.87 12 5.78 1 6.46France 15 5.60 26 4.95 3 6.52 58 4.72 11 6.22Gambia, The 76 4.26 27 4.91 60 3.95 92 4.32 117 3.86Georgia 85 4.10 72 3.82 72 3.60 117 3.73 78 5.26Germany 8 5.85 16 5.50 1 6.59 30 5.28 24 6.01Ghana 127 3.40 68 3.87 87 3.14 129 2.68 115 3.93Greece 56 4.49 70 3.83 47 4.31 103 4.02 41 5.81Guatemala 82 4.13 108 3.26 68 3.78 88 4.43 95 5.04Guyana 105 3.69 103 3.32 91 3.03 127 3.00 67 5.41Honduras 87 4.10 99 3.37 77 3.39 85 4.44 85 5.18Hong Kong SAR 6 5.90 11 5.62 2 6.54 16 5.67 43 5.76Hungary 58 4.48 76 3.77 57 4.04 83 4.50 53 5.59Iceland 24 5.36 13 5.58 11 5.85 119 3.57 2 6.45India 79 4.18 54 4.21 76 3.47 96 4.23 101 4.82Indonesia 70 4.30 58 4.00 84 3.20 52 4.82 82 5.20Ireland 37 5.06 19 5.21 52 4.19 65 4.63 10 6.23Israel 42 4.88 39 4.64 44 4.42 67 4.62 39 5.82Italy 67 4.38 97 3.44 59 3.99 102 4.11 26 5.99Jamaica 101 3.74 82 3.70 67 3.84 131 2.25 88 5.14Japan 27 5.27 28 4.90 13 5.83 97 4.22 19 6.13Jordan 46 4.74 25 4.97 42 4.45 105 3.97 57 5.56Kazakhstan 74 4.27 86 3.64 75 3.49 59 4.71 80 5.22Kenya 120 3.49 107 3.27 92 3.01 121 3.43 110 4.26Korea, Rep. 23 5.40 53 4.23 17 5.60 11 5.80 27 5.99Kuwait 40 5.02 51 4.31 50 4.23 3 6.23 73 5.33Kyrgyz Republic 126 3.40 124 2.98 124 2.41 125 3.25 98 4.98Latvia 60 4.45 65 3.91 56 4.04 99 4.20 50 5.66Lesotho 102 3.71 89 3.54 114 2.62 29 5.29 127 3.37Cont’d.The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic ForumTable 6 The Global Competitiveness Index Basic requirements cont’d.PILLARS3. Macroeconomic 4. Health andBASIC REQUIREMENTS 1. Institutions 2. Infrastructure stability primary educationCountry/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank ScoreLibya 68 4.38 67 3.88 105 2.83 4 6.19 104 4.61Lithuania 47 4.68 59 4.00 43 4.44 57 4.72 55 5.57Luxembourg 7 5.85 6 5.88 19 5.56 6 5.95 25 6.01Macedonia, FYR 73 4.27 83 3.69 90 3.05 49 4.84 60 5.52Madagascar 115 3.52 111 3.24 113 2.63 123 3.38 102 4.82Malawi 124 3.43 50 4.32 112 2.63 126 3.17 124 3.61Malaysia 33 5.12 43 4.53 26 5.05 42 5.00 34 5.90Mali 128 3.30 88 3.55 108 2.73 110 3.91 129 2.99Malta 41 4.97 33 4.82 38 4.60 81 4.52 32 5.94Mauritania 125 3.43 100 3.37 118 2.57 113 3.84 114 3.95Mauritius 51 4.63 41 4.59 53 4.16 98 4.21 56 5.56Mexico 59 4.47 98 3.40 69 3.69 28 5.29 65 5.48Mongolia 123 3.48 121 3.09 132 1.98 108 3.95 100 4.91Montenegro 65 4.43 52 4.28 93 3.00 70 4.61 40 5.81Morocco 57 4.49 64 3.92 70 3.62 32 5.24 87 5.17Mozambique 129 3.26 105 3.30 116 2.59 100 4.18 131 2.97Namibia 53 4.61 37 4.77 32 4.77 66 4.62 109 4.28Nepal 119 3.50 123 3.07 131 2.03 86 4.44 106 4.45Netherlands 12 5.71 10 5.66 15 5.74 38 5.21 14 6.22New Zealand 16 5.58 5 6.03 35 4.64 33 5.24 4 6.43Nicaragua 113 3.54 119 3.12 120 2.52 124 3.33 83 5.20Nigeria 118 3.51 102 3.34 127 2.29 20 5.43 132 2.96Norway 11 5.73 7 5.88 28 4.95 7 5.94 17 6.16Oman 25 5.30 18 5.38 29 4.93 10 5.82 92 5.08Pakistan 114 3.53 104 3.31 89 3.06 114 3.81 113 3.95Panama 55 4.54 69 3.85 65 3.88 46 4.92 64 5.50Paraguay 122 3.49 130 2.71 129 2.13 107 3.95 90 5.14Peru 88 4.06 90 3.52 97 2.91 63 4.66 91 5.14Philippines 95 3.94 113 3.24 98 2.91 76 4.54 93 5.07Poland 71 4.30 66 3.90 103 2.88 74 4.56 35 5.88Portugal 39 5.05 44 4.49 23 5.23 79 4.52 31 5.95Puerto Rico 44 4.84 42 4.58 33 4.69 87 4.44 49 5.67Qatar 17 5.57 9 5.69 39 4.58 13 5.73 8 6.30Romania 86 4.10 84 3.68 110 2.67 75 4.55 63 5.50Russian Federation 64 4.43 114 3.23 71 3.62 36 5.24 51 5.65Saudi Arabia 30 5.17 32 4.84 36 4.63 9 5.86 71 5.37Senegal 96 3.93 77 3.75 80 3.25 90 4.39 108 4.33Serbia 97 3.90 110 3.24 107 2.75 111 3.88 46 5.71Singapore 2 5.99 1 6.15 4 6.35 35 5.24 13 6.22Slovak Republic 54 4.61 78 3.74 63 3.89 40 5.14 48 5.68Slovenia 29 5.18 46 4.47 31 4.84 26 5.32 22 6.10South Africa 77 4.26 45 4.47 45 4.33 68 4.62 125 3.60Spain 38 5.06 49 4.38 22 5.36 62 4.68 38 5.82Sri Lanka 89 4.05 73 3.80 64 3.88 128 2.83 47 5.69Suriname 75 4.26 94 3.50 86 3.15 51 4.82 54 5.58Sweden 5 5.96 2 6.10 14 5.82 15 5.70 12 6.22Switzerland 3 5.98 8 5.85 5 6.35 17 5.63 21 6.10Syria 72 4.30 57 4.04 79 3.28 80 4.52 70 5.38Taiwan, China 18 5.47 37 4.73 16 5.60 25 5.34 15 6.20Tajikistan 116 3.51 81 3.71 109 2.73 130 2.63 99 4.97Tanzania 103 3.71 74 3.80 123 2.45 77 4.54 112 4.03Thailand 43 4.86 60 3.98 40 4.57 22 5.37 61 5.52Timor-Leste 109 3.60 109 3.24 130 2.04 21 5.41 123 3.69Trinidad and Tobago 48 4.67 80 3.72 54 4.09 23 5.35 62 5.50Tunisia 35 5.09 23 5.02 37 4.62 55 4.77 30 5.95Turkey 69 4.34 96 3.49 62 3.92 64 4.66 74 5.32Uganda 110 3.58 106 3.29 119 2.54 73 4.59 116 3.93Ukraine 94 3.96 120 3.10 78 3.39 106 3.96 68 5.41United Arab Emirates 9 5.75 15 5.52 6 5.98 24 5.35 20 6.13United Kingdom 26 5.29 21 5.07 20 5.43 71 4.60 23 6.07United States 28 5.23 34 4.81 8 5.92 93 4.31 36 5.88Uruguay 49 4.64 40 4.60 66 3.86 78 4.53 52 5.60Venezuela 104 3.70 133 2.39 106 2.80 91 4.38 81 5.22Vietnam 92 4.02 63 3.93 94 3.00 112 3.86 76 5.28Zambia 117 3.51 61 3.94 111 2.63 104 4.00 126 3.44Zimbabwe 132 2.71 118 3.14 101 2.89 133 1.00 119 3.80171.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum181.1 The Global Competitiveness Index 2009–2010Table 7 The Global Competitiveness Index Efficiency enhancersPILLARSEFFICIENCY 5. Higher education 6. Goods market 7. Labor market 8. Financial market 9. Technological 10. MarketENHANCERS and training efficiency efficiency sophistication readiness sizeCountry/Economy Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank ScoreAlbania 93 3.63 90 3.55 97 3.89 65 4.41 90 3.93 89 3.19 106 2.82Algeria 117 3.29 102 3.30 126 3.36 127 3.45 132 2.79 123 2.56 51 4.27Argentina 84 3.84 55 4.20 124 3.47 123 3.59 116 3.37 68 3.54 23 4.87Armenia 99 3.51 96 3.46 116 3.65 47 4.61 97 3.79 105 2.86 109 2.69Australia 9 5.29 14 5.33 9 5.20 9 5.20 4 5.51 20 5.39 19 5.10Austria 19 4.98 17 5.19 11 5.14 34 4.71 27 4.85 19 5.39 33 4.62Azerbaijan 71 4.03 72 3.88 71 4.16 13 5.07 66 4.23 75 3.41 78 3.39Bahrain 44 4.39 48 4.37 22 4.96 35 4.71 30 4.78 35 4.57 97 2.95Bangladesh 97 3.54 129 2.57 102 3.82 112 3.89 71 4.18 125 2.45 48 4.32Barbados 60 4.11 26 4.91 72 4.12 48 4.58 38 4.67 41 4.44 126 1.92Belgium 18 5.04 8 5.52 13 5.11 44 4.66 25 4.86 22 5.26 25 4.83Benin 121 3.25 115 2.97 103 3.82 87 4.18 108 3.53 117 2.63 122 2.40Bolivia 128 3.08 93 3.51 131 3.03 131 3.15 121 3.20 128 2.34 87 3.24Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 3.50 86 3.68 125 3.37 94 4.10 104 3.66 95 3.00 90 3.19Botswana 87 3.77 94 3.51 79 4.05 58 4.47 47 4.53 92 3.16 98 2.93Brazil 42 4.41 58 4.14 99 3.87 80 4.27 51 4.47 46 4.06 10 5.63Brunei Darussalam 76 3.94 62 4.06 100 3.87 10 5.17 68 4.21 60 3.77 115 2.56Bulgaria 62 4.08 60 4.11 81 4.02 54 4.51 76 4.09 56 3.82 58 3.94Burkina Faso 122 3.22 127 2.62 98 3.88 60 4.45 117 3.31 122 2.56 119 2.50Burundi 133 2.68 131 2.51 129 3.21 101 4.05 133 2.68 129 2.31 132 1.32Cambodia 103 3.49 122 2.78 85 4.00 52 4.53 94 3.85 113 2.66 92 3.10Cameroon 119 3.27 119 2.82 118 3.63 104 4.03 120 3.24 111 2.68 89 3.19Canada 4 5.39 9 5.50 16 5.08 7 5.40 11 5.25 11 5.63 14 5.47Chad 131 2.81 133 2.23 133 2.88 102 4.05 131 2.79 127 2.39 116 2.54Chile 33 4.55 45 4.40 26 4.83 41 4.69 32 4.72 42 4.28 44 4.39China 32 4.56 61 4.09 42 4.47 32 4.74 81 4.05 79 3.38 2 6.63Colombia 64 4.07 71 3.89 88 3.98 78 4.29 78 4.09 66 3.57 31 4.63Costa Rica 58 4.13 44 4.42 47 4.42 36 4.71 79 4.08 62 3.72 77 3.41Cte d’Ivoire 109 3.38 112 3.13 115 3.67 105 4.00 113 3.43 97 2.95 95 3.07Croatia 67 4.05 56 4.20 94 3.92 92 4.12 77 4.09 43 4.22 65 3.76Cyprus 41 4.45 28 4.81 24 4.87 46 4.62 18 5.00 38 4.50 99 2.92Czech Republic 24 4.78 24 5.05 27 4.82 20 4.88 42 4.64 30 4.75 40 4.51Denmark 6 5.36 2 5.90 7 5.21 5 5.53 8 5.31 4 5.92 49 4.32Dominican Republic 88 3.77 89 3.56 89 3.98 73 4.32 105 3.64 72 3.47 68 3.64Ecuador 113 3.34 103 3.25 127 3.32 130 3.26 114 3.41 102 2.90 60 3.87Egypt 80 3.87 88 3.62 87 3.99 126 3.46 84 4.01 82 3.35 26 4.81El Salvador 83 3.85 95 3.48 50 4.40 68 4.36 70 4.18 81 3.36 80 3.32Estonia 27 4.69 21 5.11 28 4.81 21 4.86 29 4.82 16 5.49 94 3.08Ethiopia 120 3.26 125 2.67 106 3.77 69 4.34 127 3.05 131 2.29 76 3.44Finland 12 5.17 1 5.97 19 4.98 23 4.85 7 5.33 10 5.64 53 4.23France 16 5.08 15 5.30 25 4.86 67 4.39 21 4.95 24 5.24 8 5.78Gambia, The 101 3.49 100 3.36 60 4.25 26 4.82 91 3.92 90 3.18 131 1.41Georgia 89 3.73 84 3.70 74 4.09 17 4.94 95 3.84 100 2.92 101 2.89Germany 14 5.12 22 5.07 18 5.01 70 4.33 36 4.68 12 5.63 5 6.02Ghana 94 3.58 108 3.20 91 3.94 100 4.06 59 4.35 112 2.68 86 3.25Greece 57 4.13 43 4.43 75 4.09 116 3.80 83 4.02 53 3.86 34 4.59Guatemala 81 3.86 101 3.34 52 4.34 88 4.17 67 4.23 70 3.53 71 3.57Guyana 107 3.40 78 3.81 96 3.91 99 4.06 101 3.72 94 3.12 129 1.78Honduras 95 3.54 106 3.22 80 4.03 121 3.65 89 3.94 93 3.13 84 3.26Hong Kong SAR 5 5.37 31 4.74 2 5.54 4 5.59 1 5.95 9 5.68 27 4.73Hungary 45 4.38 35 4.63 64 4.22 63 4.43 69 4.20 40 4.44 45 4.35Iceland 30 4.64 4 5.65 31 4.72 6 5.43 85 3.99 14 5.57 120 2.49India 35 4.52 66 3.96 48 4.42 83 4.23 16 5.10 83 3.33 4 6.07Indonesia 50 4.24 69 3.91 41 4.49 75 4.30 61 4.30 88 3.20 16 5.21Ireland 22 4.87 20 5.12 15 5.09 22 4.86 45 4.60 21 5.27 52 4.26Israel 26 4.72 36 4.60 49 4.40 28 4.78 15 5.14 26 5.11 50 4.28Italy 46 4.37 49 4.35 65 4.22 117 3.74 100 3.76 39 4.50 9 5.67Jamaica 73 3.95 77 3.83 69 4.18 72 4.33 46 4.58 50 3.90 100 2.90Japan 11 5.21 23 5.06 17 5.06 12 5.10 40 4.65 25 5.23 3 6.17Jordan 66 4.06 42 4.45 43 4.46 106 3.97 52 4.45 61 3.75 82 3.27Kazakhstan 69 4.04 59 4.13 84 4.00 18 4.93 111 3.48 69 3.53 55 4.17Kenya 75 3.94 85 3.69 73 4.09 40 4.69 37 4.67 96 2.99 74 3.50Korea, Rep. 20 4.92 16 5.24 36 4.64 84 4.22 58 4.36 15 5.50 12 5.56Kuwait 63 4.08 82 3.72 63 4.24 59 4.47 63 4.25 49 3.94 61 3.84Kyrgyz Republic 111 3.36 87 3.64 120 3.61 76 4.30 109 3.53 124 2.50 112 2.61Latvia 51 4.21 34 4.66 57 4.29 37 4.70 60 4.32 47 4.00 83 3.27Lesotho 116 3.31 105 3.23 82 4.01 64 4.41 102 3.71 116 2.64 127 1.85Cont’d.The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 2009 World Economic Forum
编号:20150422094235411    类型:共享资源    大小:3.92MB    格式:PDF    上传时间:2015-04-22
  
5
关 键 词:
全球 竞争力 报告 The Global Competitiveness Report 20092010. pdf
  人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享,仅供网友学习交流,未经上传用户书面授权,请勿作他用。
关于本文
本文标题:全球竞争力报告The Global Competitiveness Report 20092010
链接地址:http://www.renrendoc.com/p-426820.html

当前资源信息

4.0
 
(2人评价)
浏览:50次
策划大师上传于2015-04-22

官方联系方式

客服手机:17625900360   
2:不支持迅雷下载,请使用浏览器下载   
3:不支持QQ浏览器下载,请用其他浏览器   
4:下载后的文档和图纸-无水印   
5:文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

精品推荐

相关阅读

关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 资源地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服 - 联系我们

网站客服QQ:2846424093    人人文库上传用户QQ群:460291265   

copyright@ 2016-2018  renrendoc.com 网站版权所有   南天在线技术支持

经营许可证编号:苏ICP备12009002号-5