Government competitiveness

Government competitiveness[1][2][3] is a new 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

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 2013-2018
Rank Countries GC score 2018-2019 GC 2018-19 GC 2017-18 GC 2016-17 GC 2015-16 GC 2014-15 GC 2013-14
1  Netherlands 0.567 1 3 1 8 2 2
2  Denmark 0.563 2 2 5 11 7 6
3   Switzerland 0.562 3 1 2 2 3 7
4  Norway 0.560 4 4 4 1 5 5
5  New Zealand 0.548 5 12 14 4 8 10
6  Luxembourg 0.546 6 5 13 5 13 13
7  Finland 0.545 7 7 9 9 6 4
8  Sweden 0.538 8 9 8 3 1 3
9  Iceland 0.537 9 15 3 1 7 11
10  Australia 0.533 10 13 16 14 12 11
11  United States 0.532 11 6 6 6 4 1
12  United Kingdom 0.530 12 8 11 15 9 8
13  France 0.529 13 10 10 19 18 16
14  Germany 0.525 14 11 7 10 10 9
15  Austria 0.517 15 14 12 12 17 17
16  Canada 0.502 16 16 20 13 14 12
17  Ireland 0.502 17 17 15 20 21 20
18  Belgium 0.479 18 18 17 17 19 18
19  Japan 0.479 19 20 19 18 15 14
20  Spain 0.475 20 19 18 22 23 23
21  Estonia 0.464 21 22 22 16 20 22
22  South Korea 0.449 22 25 27 21 16 19
23  Slovenia 0.446 23 23 25 24 24 25
24  Italy 0.439 24 21 23 27 29 26
25  Israel 0.437 25 24 21 23 22 21
26  Portugal 0.434 26 26 24 26 25 24
27  Czech Republic 0.410 27 27 26 25 26 27
28  Poland 0.407 28 28 29 30 31 30
29  Latvia 0.393 29 32 .. .. .. ..
30  Hungary 0.383 30 29 31 29 28 29
31  Greece 0.377 31 30 30 28 32 32
32  Slovak Republic 0.375 32 31 28 31 30 31
33  Chile 0.346 33 33 32 32 27 28
34  Turkey 0.325 34 35 34 34 33 33
35  Mexico 0.321 35 34 33 33 34 34

Non-OECD rankings in 2013-2019
Rank Countries GC score 2018-19 GC 2018-19 GC 2017-18 GC 2016-17 GC 2015-16 GC 2014-15 GC 2013-14
1  Singapore 0.710 1 1 1 1 1 1
2  South Korea 0.644 2 2 2 2 2 2
3  Lithuania 0.612 3 3 6 8 6 3
4  Costa Rica 0.591 4 5 4 3 4 5
5  Uruguay 0.587 5 4 5 6 5 4
6  Malaysia 0.582 6 9 8 4 7 8
7  Bulgaria 0.575 7 7 11 7 7 11
8  Romania 0.574 8 8 9 15 24 .
9  Croatia 0.573 9 7 19 17 15 9
10  Qatar 0.561 10 6 3 5 3 6
11  Panama 0.559 11 13 13 10 16 .
12  Brazil 0.554 12 16 16 19 10 13
13  Mauritius 0.549 13 10 12 16 8 .
14  China 0.548 14 15 25 20 25 21
15  Russian Federation 0.546 15 14 18 24 31 30
16  Serbia 0.537 16 19 22 18 23 .
17  Georgia 0.536 17 12 34 25 13 10
18  Belarus 0.529 18 17 10 13 17 .
19  Albania 0.526 19 18 39 36 44 .
20  Kuwait 0.524 20 20 14 12 32 33
21  Thailand 0.521 21 26 20 11 14 14
22  Bahrain 0.520 22 21 15 14 12 12
23  Colombia 0.520 23 29 23 23 19 15
24  Peru 0.520 24 25 26 32 42 27
25  Argentina 0.518 25 23 17 21 22 23
26  Mongolia 0.516 26 22 45 54 38 19
27  Oman 0.515 27 24 24 27 28 16
28  Azerbaijan 0.509 28 30 27 37 45 25
29  Armenia 0.505 29 28 28 49 29 .
30  Moldova 0.504 30 31 38 48 26 .
31  Vietnam 0.501 31 32 31 22 34 20
32  Philippines 0.497 32 37 37 26 37 37
33  Ukraine 0.496 33 35 35 38 46 28
34  Ecuador 0.496 34 38 33 28 18 35
35  Tunisia 0.495 35 34 32 35 21 11
36  Jamaica 0.495 36 43 47 46 49 .
37  Uzbekistan 0.494 37 39 36 43 47 46
38  Kazakhstan 0.493 38 36 21 29 20 17
39  Indonesia 0.490 39 48 43 30 43 31
40  Paraguay 0.488 40 33 40 33 51 38
41  Morocco 0.484 41 40 44 47 30 29
42  Dominican Republic 0.484 42 49 41 44 39 .
43  Jordan 0.483 43 27 30 31 36 .
44  Sri Lanka 0.481 44 41 29 34 33 22
45  South Africa 0.478 45 45 42 50 52 .
46  Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.477 46 44 52 39 55 .
47  Kyrgyz Republic 0.474 47 47 50 55 48 .
48  Ghana 0.473 48 42 51 52 41 32
49  Lebanon 0.469 49 46 59 60 69 .
50  India 0.465 50 50 61 56 50 26
51  El Salvador 0.464 51 53 49 42 35 24
52  Honduras 0.459 52 56 53 59 62 36
53  Bolivia 0.455 53 52 46 45 54 40
54  Guatemala 0.455 54 55 57 58 61 34
55  Rwanda 0.452 55 51 56 53 40 18
56  Nicaragua 0.451 56 58 60 51 53 .
57  Botswana 0.449 57 57 48 40 27 .
58  Kenya 0.449 58 60 65 68 58 42
59  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 0.434 59 61 55 41 56 .
60    Nepal 0.434 60 59 62 61 58 50
61  Senegal 0.427 61 63 63 66 59 39
62  Egypt 0.425 62 54 58 64 60 41
63  Algeria 0.419 63 62 54 62 57 53
64  Cambodia 0.412 64 65 66 63 63 43
65  Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.411 65 64 64 57 65 51
66  Zambia 0.405 66 68 68 67 70 47
67  Tanzania 0.401 67 66 67 71 71 44
68  Bangladesh 0.400 68 69 69 65 73 55
69  Uganda 0.394 69 67 73 73 74 48
70  Pakistan 0.386 70 71 78 79 81 57
71  Benin 0.384 71 74 75 74 66 .
72  Cameroon 0.382 72 70 72 69 78 58
73  Malawi 0.376 73 77 70 70 67 .
74  Timor-Leste 0.372 74 73 71 72 72 45
75  Mali 0.368 75 72 79 83 82 56
76  Burkina Faso 0.368 76 79 76 77 77 54
77  Sierra Leone 0.358 77 81 82 82 76 .
78  Liberia 0.357 78 75 81 80 64 .
79  Nigeria 0.356 79 76 83 81 80 59
80  Madagascar 0.356 80 80 86 85 89 .
81  Mozambique 0.351 81 82 80 75 79 52
82  Ethiopia 0.347 82 78 78 75 49 .
83  Zimbabwe 0.346 83 85 74 76 83 .
84  Guinea 0.345 84 83 87 87 86 .
85  Mauritania 0.338 85 84 84 86 84 .
86  Sudan 0.337 86 86 88 88 87 .
87  Angola 0.301 87 87 85 84 85 .
88  Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.296 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

References
  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).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.