Government competitiveness

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government competitiveness[1][2][3] is a state capacity concept created by Tobin Im,[4] a scholar of public administration and a professor at the Graduate School of Public Administration at Seoul National University. Since 2011, Center for Government Competitiveness (CGC) at Seoul National University has developed the Government Competitiveness (GC) index which evaluates government achievements in the various fields and furthermore provides policy recommendations to increase competitiveness of government in the future.

Description[edit]

Government competitiveness (GC) is often confounded with similar concepts. One of the prominent examples is national competitiveness. A variety of institutions have developed indices measuring the level of national competitiveness. Two indices, the World Competitiveness Scoreboard (WCS)[5] developed by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD)[6] and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)[7] built by the World Economic Forum (WEF)[8] have come to dominate the field of competitiveness studies.

The International Institute for Management Development WCS and the World Economic Forum the Global Competitiveness Index view national competitiveness akin to how business-friendly a nation is, and focus upon economic and market indicators. As such, if a nation is a good place for foreign firms to do business and make money, it will, as a result, be viewed as competitive. Following this logic, the role played by a government then, is mainly restricted to constructing an environment that is attractive to businesses.[9]

Stressing the broader fields of government activities, several institutions have started to develop indicators emphasizing the role of government in driving development and national competitiveness. Prominent examples include The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)[10] and the Quality of Government Institute’s (QGI) (the University of Gothenburg) Quality of Government indicators(QoG).[11]

While these two indices constitute important steps toward improving our understanding of how government contributes toward competitiveness, they have also revealed numerous theoretical and methodological shortcomings related to the study of governments’ role in fostering national competitiveness.[12]

Since 2011, Center for Government Competitiveness (director: Tobin Im) has developed the GC index mainly focusing on government capacities and roles in national development.[13] After investigating the limited capabilities of existing competitiveness indicators to define and measure the level of GC, the CGC has tried to develop a novel approach to conceptualizing and measuring GC.[14] According to Ho and Im (2012), the concept of GC can be defined as “the power of government to, in light of various constraints, take resources from in and outside of the country and improve social, economic and cultural conditions of the nation in order to sustainably enhance citizens’ quality of life.” Moreover, the concepts of ‘constraints’ and ‘quality of life’[15] can be interpreted in various ways, depending on a nation's unique environments.

By considering different experiences and policy practices between developed countries and developing countries,[16] the CGC measures the level of government competitiveness by applying different criteria to OECD and non-OECD countries. The seven fields of government activities both OECD and non-OECD countries have in common are followings: economy, education, health and welfare, agriculture and food, ICT, energy and environment, and governance. For OECD countries, three more fields are added: research and development, culture and tourism, and disaster management. Meanwhile, non-OECD countries have nine fields of government activities in total including infrastructure and safety.[17]

The CGC builds the GC index based on David Easton's system theory as a theoretical framework.[18] Therefore, the GC Index first analyzes competitiveness through each of the four levels- input, throughput (public management capacity), output, and outcome. The index then aggregates results from each level to produce an overall competitiveness score. This approach generates a variety of policy implications at each systemic level. The following are some sub-categories for each stage[19]

Input: resources, infrastructure, government expenditure, environment
Throughput: human, fiscal, organizational capacity, policy, system, process
Output: production, growth rate, improvement level, immediate goal achievement
Outcome: quality of life, satisfaction, social capital, ultimate goal achievement

Figure 1. GC Policy stage, edited from Easton's system theory

OECD rankings in 2013-2021[edit]

Rank Countries GC score 2020-21 GC 2020-21 GC 2019-20 GC 2018-19 GC 2017-18 GC 2016-17 GC 2015-16 GC 2014-15 GC 2013-14
2  Netherlands 0.530 2 1 3 1 8 2 2
1  Denmark 0.537 1 2 2 2 5 11 7 6
8   Switzerland 0.491 8 3 3 1 2 2 3 7
14  Norway 0.431 14 6 4 4 4 1 5 5
21  New Zealand 0.416 21 15 5 12 14 4 8 10
11  Luxembourg 0.459 11 13 6 5 13 5 13 13
9  Finland 0.486 9 10 7 7 9 9 6 4
13  Sweden 0.431 13 12 8 9 8 3 1 3
26  Iceland 0.393 26 24 9 15 3 1 7 11
19  Australia 0.421 19 19 10 13 16 14 12 11
16  United States 0.428 16 8 11 6 6 6 4 1
6  United Kingdom 0.496 6 5 12 8 11 15 9 8
4  France 0.506 4 9 13 10 10 19 18 16
5  Germany 0.505 5 4 14 11 7 10 10 9
3  Austria 0.507 3 7 15 14 12 12 17 17
28  Canada 0.379 28 26 16 16 20 13 14 12
22  Ireland 0.404 22 20 17 17 15 20 21 20
15  Belgium 0.429 15 17 18 18 17 17 19 18
10  Japan 0.468 10 14 19 20 19 18 15 14
17  Spain 0.427 17 18 20 19 18 22 23 23
12  Estonia 0.439 12 16 21 22 22 16 20 22
7  South Korea 0.492 7 11 22 25 27 21 16 19
20  Slovenia 0.421 20 21 23 23 25 24 24 25
23  Italy 0.404 23 23 24 21 23 27 29 26
25  Israel 0.393 25 27 25 24 21 23 22 21
18  Portugal 0.422 18 22 26 26 24 26 25 24
24  Czech Republic 0.399 24 25 27 27 26 25 26 27
27  Poland 0.390 27 28 28 28 29 30 31 30
32  Latvia 0.330 32 33 29 32 .. .. .. ..
29  Hungary 0.360 29 29 30 29 31 29 28 29
30  Greece 0.345 30 30 31 30 30 28 32 32
33  Slovak Republic 0.328 33 31 32 31 28 31 30 31
34  Chile 0.316 34 34 33 33 32 32 27 28
35  Turkey 0.286 35 36 34 35 34 34 33 33
37  Mexico 0.268 37 35 35 34 33 33 34 34

Non-OECD rankings in 2013-2021[edit]

Rank Countries GC score 2021-20 GC 2021-20 GC 2020-19 GC 2018-19 GC 2017-18 GC 2016-17 GC 2015-16 GC 2014-15 GC 2013-14
1  Singapore 0.711 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2  South Korea 0.679 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
.  Lithuania . . . 3 3 6 8 6 3
3  Costa Rica 0.618 3 2 4 5 4 3 4 5
9  Uruguay 0.549 9 7 5 4 5 6 5 4
4  Malaysia 0.602 4 4 6 9 8 4 7 8
5  Bulgaria 0.600 5 5 7 7 11 7 7 11
6  Romania 0.592 6 6 8 8 9 15 24 .
12  Croatia 0.546 12 13 9 7 19 17 15 9
34  Qatar 0.483 34 27 10 6 3 5 3 6
15  Panama 0.541 15 8 11 13 13 10 16 .
10  Brazil 0.549 10 10 12 16 16 19 10 13
19  Mauritius 0.521 19 21 13 10 12 16 8 .
14  China 0.542 14 9 14 15 25 20 25 21
11  Russian Federation 0.547 11 16 15 14 18 24 31 30
7  Serbia 0.579 7 11 16 19 22 18 23 .
29  Georgia 0.497 29 25 17 12 34 25 13 10
18  Belarus 0.522 18 23 18 17 10 13 17 .
22  Albania 0.519 22 33 19 18 39 36 44 .
38  Kuwait 0.482 38 28 20 20 14 12 32 33
8  Thailand 0.551 8 12 21 26 20 11 14 14
35  Bahrain 0.483 35 48 22 21 15 14 12 12
.  Colombia . . 14 23 29 23 23 19 15
20  Peru 0.520 20 19 24 25 26 32 42 27
13  Argentina 0.544 13 15 25 23 17 21 22 23
17  Mongolia 0.524 17 32 26 22 45 54 38 19
49  Oman 0.450 49 49 27 24 24 27 28 16
43  Azerbaijan 0.471 43 34 28 30 27 37 45 25
42  Armenia 0.471 42 37 29 28 28 49 29 .
62  Moldova 0.415 62 52 30 31 38 48 26 .
24  Vietnam 0.515 24 20 31 32 31 22 34 20
36  Philippines 0.483 36 31 32 37 37 26 37 37
21  Ukraine 0.519 21 30 33 35 35 38 46 28
25  Ecuador 0.508 25 18 34 38 33 28 18 35
32  Tunisia 0.485 32 35 35 34 32 35 21 11
39  Jamaica 0.482 39 50 36 43 47 46 49 .
47  Uzbekistan 0.454 47 62 37 39 36 43 47 46
16  Kazakhstan 0.541 16 24 38 36 21 29 20 17
23  Indonesia 0.518 23 17 39 48 43 30 43 31
48  Paraguay 0.454 48 45 40 33 40 33 51 38
37  Morocco 0.482 37 36 41 40 44 47 30 29
28  Dominican Republic 0.499 28 22 42 49 41 44 39 .
33  Jordan 0.485 33 43 43 27 30 31 36 .
27  Sri Lanka 0.499 27 26 44 41 29 34 33 22
26  South Africa 0.500 26 40 45 45 42 50 52 .
57  Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.429 57 61 46 44 52 39 55 .
53  Kyrgyz Republic 0.443 53 54 47 47 50 55 48 .
31  Ghana 0.490 31 42 48 42 51 52 41 32
71  Lebanon 0.376 71 63 49 46 59 60 69 .
30  India 0.496 30 39 50 50 61 56 50 26
51  El Salvador 0.445 51 38 51 53 49 42 35 24
50  Honduras 0.445 50 41 52 56 53 59 62 36
45  Bolivia 0.456 45 46 53 52 46 45 54 40
55  Guatemala 0.439 55 44 54 55 57 58 61 34
44  Rwanda 0.467 44 53 55 51 56 53 40 18
64  Nicaragua 0.407 64 58 56 58 60 51 53 .
40  Botswana 0.480 40 29 57 57 48 40 27 .
46  Kenya 0.455 46 47 58 60 65 68 58 42
45  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 0.456 45 46 59 61 55 41 56 .
41    Nepal 0.475 41 55 60 59 62 61 58 50
54  Senegal 0.440 54 51 61 63 63 66 59 39
56  Egypt 0.430 56 57 62 54 58 64 60 41
61  Algeria 0.415 61 56 63 62 54 62 57 53
52  Cambodia 0.443 52 60 64 65 66 63 63 43
63  Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.408 63 73 65 64 64 57 65 51
67  Zambia 0.399 67 59 66 68 68 67 70 47
59  Tanzania 0.417 59 67 67 66 67 71 71 44
65  Bangladesh 0.406 65 66 68 69 69 65 73 55
66  Uganda 0.403 66 68 69 67 73 73 74 48
70  Pakistan 0.384 70 65 70 71 78 79 81 57
71  Benin 0.417 58 64 71 74 75 74 66 .
80  Cameroon 0.336 80 74 72 70 72 69 78 58
60  Malawi 0.416 60 69 73 77 70 70 67 .
77  Timor-Leste 0.345 77 82 74 73 71 72 72 45
69  Mali 0.386 69 75 75 72 79 83 82 56
68  Burkina Faso 0.395 68 71 76 79 76 77 77 54
73  Sierra Leone 0.367 73 80 77 81 82 82 76 .
83  Liberia 0.297 83 83 78 75 81 80 64 .
75  Nigeria 0.354 75 72 79 76 83 81 80 59
76  Madagascar 0.346 76 81 80 80 86 85 89 .
72  Mozambique 0.374 72 76 81 82 80 75 79 52
74  Ethiopia 0.365 74 78 82 78 78 75 49 .
82  Zimbabwe 0.308 82 77 83 85 74 76 83 .
79  Guinea 0.342 79 79 84 83 87 87 86 .
86  Mauritania 0.273 86 85 85 84 84 86 84 .
84  Sudan 0.287 84 87 86 86 88 88 87 .
87  Angola 0.315 81 86 87 87 85 84 88 .
88  Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.280 85 84 88 88 89 89 88 60
  • Korea is exceptionally included in the non-OECD cases for a reference point
  • GC scores are rounded off to four decimal places. Therefore, the countries which seem to have the same scores have, in fact, different scores.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ ""Korean Parliament GC ranks 16th among 34 OECD countries"". The Joongang Ilbo. 2015-10-29. Retrieved 2017-04-10.
  2. ^ ""Korea lags OECD average in disaster management"". The Korea Herald. 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-03-17.
  3. ^ "한국 정부경쟁력 OECD국가 중 16위, 317개 지표 점수화 순위 산정" [Korea Government Competitiveness ranks 16th in OECD, measured by 317 indicators] (in Korean). The Seoul Shinmun. 2013-09-30. Retrieved 2015-03-17.
  4. ^ "임도빈 한국행정학회 회장 당선" [Tobin Im is elected president of Korean Association for Public Administration] (in Korean). Yunhap News Agency. 2013-12-15. Archived from the original on 2017-04-11. Retrieved 2015-03-17.
  5. ^ "World Competitiveness Scoreboard". 2014. Retrieved March 17, 2015.
  6. ^ "International Institute for Management Development". 2014. Retrieved March 17, 2015.
  7. ^ "Global Competitiveness Report 2014 and 2015". 2014. Retrieved March 17, 2015.
  8. ^ "World Economic Forum".
  9. ^ For the general assessment on the two indices, see Ochel, W & Rohn, O. (2006). Ranking of countries – the WEF, IMD, Fraser and Heritage Indices. CESifo DICE Report Vol. 4 no. 2. pp. 48-60.
  10. ^ "World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicator".
  11. ^ "Quality of Government indicators".
  12. ^ (2007)"The Worldwide Governance Indicators Project: Answering the Critics. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4149". For the critics on the WGI and its responses, see Kaufmann, D, Kraay, A, & Mastruzzi, M.
  13. ^ "Government Competitiveness Center".
  14. ^ Im, T. (2014). Government Competitiveness 2013. Seoul: CM Press (in Korean); Im, T., Kim, S., Ko, G., & Jo, W. (2014). Government Competitiveness: Theory and Evaluation Index. Seoul: Bakyoungsa (In Korean).
  15. ^ Ho, A., & Im, T. (2012). Defining a new concept of government competitiveness. The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 50 (3), p. 13 (In Korean).
  16. ^ "Ho, A. & Im, T. (2013). Challenges in Building Effective and Competitive Government in Developing Countries: An Institutional Logics Perspective, The American Review of Public Administration, first published online".
  17. ^ "Government Competitiveness Center".
  18. ^ Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Wiley.
  19. ^ "Center for Government Competitiveness. (2018) Government Competitiveness Report 2018, Graduate School of Public Administration. Seoul National University" (PDF).

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_competitiveness&oldid=1185879519"