Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
White Paper
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
80740_Couv:Mise en page 1
8.4.2008
13:03
Page 2
Contents
This paper is published by the World Economic Forum within the framework of the Global
Competitiveness Network.
Part I: Assessing the Foundations of Mexicos Competitiveness: Findings from the Global
3
The Global Competitiveness Network:
29
List of Countries
31
33
37
43
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Part I
1
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
The authors would like to thank Eva Trujillo Herrera for her excellent research assistance
for this paper.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
CHAPTER 1
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Basic requirements
Institutions
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic stability
Health and primary education
Key for
factor-driven
economies
Efficiency enhancers
Higher education and training
Goods market efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Financial market sophistication
Technological readiness
Market size
efficiency-driven
innovation-driven
Key for
economies
Key for
Figure 1
economies
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Table 1
Stage 1
Armenia
Bangladesh
Benin
Bolivia
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chad
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Georgia
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Kenya
Kyrgyz Republic
Lesotho
Madagascar
Mali
Mauritania
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Paraguay
Philippines
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Timor-Leste
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Transition from 1 to 2
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
China
Colombia
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Libya
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Ukraine
Venezuela
Stage 2
Algeria
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Jamaica
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia, FYR
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Montenegro
Namibia
Panama
Peru
Poland
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
South Africa
Suriname
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay
Transition from 2 to 3
Bahrain
Barbados
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Malta
Qatar
Slovak Republic
Taiwan, China
Trinidad and Tobago
Stage 3
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong SAR
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Table 2
Pillar group
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
Innovation and sophistication factors
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
92
Institutions
85
72
Innovation
71
67
Infrastructure
61
61
Technological readiness
60
55
Business sophistication
54
Macroeconomic stability
35
Market size
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 3
Figure 2
54
53
53
52
51
51
50
49
48
48
47
46
45
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Table 3
Country/Region
Rank
Brazil
72
Chile
26
China
34
Hungary
47
India
48
Indonesia
54
Korea, Rep.
11
Russian Federation
58
South Africa
44
Turkey
53
Mexico
52
Latin America & the Caribbean average
OECD average
Score
3.99
4.77
4.57
4.35
4.33
4.24
5.40
4.19
4.42
4.25
4.26
3.89
5.00
Basic requirements
Rank
Score
101
3.82
33
5.17
44
4.80
55
4.54
74
4.22
82
4.14
14
5.67
68
4.36
61
4.45
63
4.44
56
4.53
4.18
5.38
Efficiency enhancers
Rank
Score
55
4.12
28
4.58
45
4.26
40
4.34
31
4.52
37
4.43
12
5.28
48
4.19
36
4.44
51
4.16
50
4.17
3.72
4.93
Innovation factors
Rank
Score
41
3.99
36
4.06
50
3.89
43
3.98
26
4.36
34
4.10
7
5.42
77
3.50
33
4.16
48
3.90
60
3.66
3.42
4.77
Table 4
Institutions
Country/Region
Rank Score
Brazil
104
3.32
Chile
29
4.83
China
77
3.71
Hungary
54
4.14
India
48
4.32
Indonesia
63
3.90
Korea, Rep.
26
5.05
Russian Federation
116
3.10
South Africa
39
4.55
Turkey
55
4.13
Mexico
85
3.62
Latin America & the Caribbean average 3.56
OECD average
5.05
Infrastructure
Rank Score
78
3.07
31
4.56
52
3.97
54
3.93
67
3.45
91
2.74
16
5.55
65
3.48
43
4.22
59
3.68
61
3.55
3.18
5.15
Macroeconomic
stability
Rank Score
126
3.66
12
5.86
7
6.03
107
4.22
108
4.21
89
4.59
8
6.00
37
5.35
50
5.08
83
4.66
35
5.36
4.63
5.19
Health and
primary education
Rank Score
84
5.23
70
5.42
61
5.49
41
5.86
101
4.92
78
5.31
27
6.08
60
5.51
117
3.96
77
5.31
55
5.59
5.33
6.14
Basic
requirements
Rank Score
101
3.82
33
5.17
44
4.80
55
4.54
74
4.22
82
4.14
14
5.67
68
4.36
61
4.45
63
4.44
56
4.53
4.18
5.38
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Labour market
efficiency
Rank Score
104 3.96
14
4.96
55
4.40
58
4.36
96
4.07
31
4.74
24
4.79
33
4.70
78
4.16
126 3.60
92
4.09
4.17
4.66
3.06
4.81
Market
size
Rank Score
10
5.44
47
4.15
2
6.80
41
4.26
3
6.16
15
5.17
11
5.37
9
5.54
21
4.89
18
4.97
13
5.34
3.31
4.72
Efficiency
enhancers
Rank Score
55
4.12
28
4.58
45
4.26
40
4.34
31
4.52
37
4.43
12
5.28
48
4.19
36
4.44
51
4.16
50
4.17
3.72
4.93
Table 5
Table 6
Country/Region
Brazil
Chile
China
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Korea, Rep.
Russian Federation
South Africa
Turkey
Mexico
Latin America & the Caribbean average
OECD average
Business sophistication
Rank
Score
39
4.48
32
4.65
57
4.18
46
4.35
26
4.81
33
4.65
9
5.47
88
3.70
36
4.61
41
4.45
54
4.22
3.91
5.07
Innovation
Rank
Score
44
3.50
45
3.48
38
3.60
37
3.61
28
3.90
41
3.56
8
5.36
57
3.31
32
3.71
53
3.36
71
3.11
2.93
4.47
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
10
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Score
5.43
4.40
4.33
4.23
4.04
4.02
3.97
3.64
3.41
3.37
3.34
3.33
Figure 5
Figure 4
Chile
Macro environment
7
6
Government readiness
for private investment
Legal framework
5
4
11
3
2
Government and society
Private investment
track record
Political risk
Access to information
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2003
40
Figure 6
38
37
30
27
21
20
20
18
21
18
17
15
15
10
12
10
11
Peru
Brazil
Mexico
Colombia
Argentina
Chile
Venezuela
Latin American
average
Figure 7
Other Taxes***
Social security
40
36
36
12
15
17
18
12
11
3
10
35
9
15
5
Latin America
12
13
10
11
12
2
11
14
10
16
30
30
20
43
OECD
Mexico
Chile
Brazil
Ireland
15
13
Spain
France
* Data is for 2004, except for Bolivia (2003) and Uruguay (2002)
** Direct taxes include: i) taxes on income, profits, and capital gains, ii) taxes on payroll and workforce, and iii) taxes on property
*** Other taxes include: i) taxes on goods and services, and ii) other taxes
Source: OECD Development Center 2007
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
60
56
52
54
50
50
51
53
49
46
47 46
47
42
Gini coefficient
40
34
35
31
31
30
20
10
Latin America
Europe
Brazil
Mexico
Chile
Ireland
Spain
France
Figure 8
15% through tax expenditures and transfers, the corresponding percentage for Mexico is a disappointing 2%.
The authors argue this can be largely explained by two
factors: transfers in Latin America average 7.3% of GDP
compared to 14.7% in Europe; and Europes better targeted
and more progressive tax and transfer systems.
13
Health and primary education
A healthy and literate workforce is key to a countrys
potential to improve its productivity and competitiveness.
Workers in poor health cannot function to their full
potential and create significant costs for businesses.
Likewise, basic education fosters human resource efficiency
by enabling employees to correctly perform tasks and
adapt to the changing needs of the production system.
Examples of the positive cause-and-effect relationship
between measures of health and education and per capita
income growth abound in the economic literature.
Recent studies demonstrate the importance not only of
full enrollment but also of the quality of education.
With a score of 5.59, Mexico ranked 55th in this
pillar, just after Korea (27th) and Hungary (41st) in the
sample. It is worth noting that Mexico outperforms the
regional star economy Chile, which came in 70th in
health and primary education. Nevertheless, Mexico lags
well behind the OECD average (6.14), which suggests
that there is still much left to do.
Mexico ranks 62nd in health quality. Although
good by Latin American standards, health indicators
remain far below those of most OECD countries.The
government faces important challenges in providing
universal access to basic healthcare services, notably
because of the large informal sector.The level of public
spending as a share of total healthcare spending has been
increasing, but remains 45% of the total, well below the
73% OECD average. Only about half of the population
is covered by health insurance, and there are large
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
600
550
Slovak Republic
Republic
500
Mathematics Score (PISA)
Figur
Fig
uree 9
Poland
Norrway
No
Spain
United States
450
Thailand
Uruguay
400
Mexicco
Mexi
Indonesia
350
Tunisia
Brazil
300
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student (2001) in $ PPP, by level of education, based on full-time equivalents
Source: OECD Development Center 2007
14
regional disparities between the richer north and the
poorer south in terms of insurance coverage, public
healthcare expenditure and standards of quality. At around
6.5% of GDP in 2005, total spending in healthcare was
quite low in comparison to the OECD average (8.9%).29
Given the countrys demographics, health costs are
bound to grow.Thus improved access to preventive care
for uninsured citizens represents a priority.30 According
to the OECD, the Mexican government appears on
track to meet this goal by 2010. At the same time,
schemes known as Oportunidades (Opportunities) and
Progresa (Progress) have been providing cash since the
1990s to some five million poor families so that they
can go to health clinics, receive health education and
keep their children in school.31
Given the desire of the government to achieve universal
healthcare coverage, new PPP mechanisms should be
explored to share these tasks with the private sector.
Successful in other countries,build, operate and transfer
(BOT) mechanisms should be favored over privatization.32
BOT schemes allow the private sector to play a greater
role in providing services while ensuring quality
through pre-established agreements on standards.
Mexico ranks 56th in the primary education subpillar.
The country has achieved almost universal enrollment in
primary education (98% according to the latest data
from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, UNESCO), and the it invests
heavily in education (5.25% of GDP, corresponding to a
33rd position out of 131 economies).Yet the quality of
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Percentage of adults 25-64 who have attended higher educational institutions, 2004
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
ly
hR
epu
Slo
blic
vak
Re
pub
lic
Po
rtu
gal
Po
lan
d
Me
xic
o
Hu
nga
ry
Au
str
ia
Gre
ece
Lux
em
bou
rg
Fra
nce
Ge
rm
OE
any
CD
ave
r
a
Ne
w Z ge
eal
and
Sp
ain
Ice
lan
Sw
d
itze
rla
nd
Ire
Un
lan
ited
d
Kin
gdo
Ne
m
the
rla
nds
Be
lgiu
m
Ko
rea
Au
str
alia
No
rw
ay
De
nm
ark
Fin
lan
d
Sw
ede
n
Jap
Un
an
ited
Sta
tes
Ca
nad
a
Ita
Cze
c
Tur
key
Figure 10
true for countries that have reached higher (efficiencyor innovation-driven) development stages; for them, low
cost production provides less of a competitive advantage.
Higher education is also key to fostering the absorption of
technology and innovation. Countries constantly featured
at the top of the Forums competitiveness rankings such
as the United States, the Nordic countries and smaller
economies such as Israel and Singapore all share a
common focus on higher education in their recent
developmental histories.
The quality of higher education, especially for math
and science, has long been a concern for Latin America,
and Mexico is no exception. Ranked 72nd, the country
lags behind the rest of the sample, with the exception of
China (78th). It is worth noting how fellow OECD
member Korea, often put forward as top competitor for
Mexico, ranked 6th on the higher education and training
pillar.This could partly explain the different growth
paths followed by these countries in the last two decades.
Enrollment rates in Mexico for secondary and tertiary
education are poor: 79.71% and 23.39%, respectively,
according to the most recent data available from
UNESCO, putting Mexico in the 80th and 73rd positions,
respectively.This problem is compounded by an especially
gloomy assessment of the quality of the educational
system (92nd), notably in math and science (113th). In
the latest PISA survey, conducted by the OECD in
2006, Mexico placed below the OECD average of 500
points in science (413), math (406) and reading (410) chalking up one of the worst performances among the
57 countries assessed. Only 3% of Mexican students
reached the highest levels in the 2006 PISA science
scale, compared to an OECD average of 9%.38 The poor
results by 15 year-olds on this standardized test have a
direct affect on enrollment in higher education (see
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
15
16
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
17
18
Table 7
United Kingdom
Mexico
Chile
Brazil
Canada
United States
Branches
619
109
135
136
534
457
ATMs
1,122
311
328
1,101
1,824
1,645
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Financial Institutions
Others
Corporate bonds
Equities
Investment funds
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Figure 11
Market size
A sufficiently large market is central to improving productivity. It allows firms to benefit from economies of scale,
in turn encouraging them to invest in research and
development (R&D), innovate and constantly improve
their production processes. Since relevant markets
increasingly stretch beyond national borders, the GCI
includes in its assessment both domestic and foreign markets.
With a score of 5.34, Mexico ranked a satisfactory
13th for the size of its market, putting it in the same
league as Russia (9th), Brazil (10th), Korea (11th) and
Indonesia (15th). On this score it outperforms both the
Latin American (3.31) and OECD (4.72) averages. A very
large domestic market (ranked 12th out of 131) is further
extended by exports (31.9% of its GDP). It ranks 17th
for the size of its foreign market.
In terms of domestic market, Mexicos population is
over 100 million, and purchasing power is growing.
Recently attained macroeconomic stability, stronger
growth, expanding credit, and social programs for the poor
have contributed to a marked reduction in the percentage
of Mexicans under the poverty line (from 37% in 1996
to 14% in 2006) and the emergence of a more robust
middle class.The number of families that earn between
US$600-1,600 a month jumped from 5.7 million in
1996 to 10.7 million a decade later.66
The most recent demographic trends bode well for a
further expansion of the domestic market. For the first
time in decades, the economically active population
outnumbers the rest of the population (i.e. the sum of
retired population and children).67 And the trend is expected
to last another 30 years. If supported by investment in
human and physical capital, productivity and growth
prospects could benefit as the domestic market grows.
The size of Mexicos foreign market is boosted by its
extensive network of free trade agreements. Mexico is a
world leader in signing such pacts. It has inked deals that
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
19
30,000
25,000
US$ millions
Figur
Fig
uree 12
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
Figure 13
All commodities
Machinery and transport equipment
Miscellaneous manufactured articles
300
250
US$ billion
20
200
150
100
50
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
21
22
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
31 The World Bank found that these programs significantly helped to raise
enrollment rates. Similarly, improvements in health and nutrition linked to
the program have also been striking, as measured by increases in the height
of children and reductions in the incidence of disease. See World Bank 2006.
32 In other countries, BOT mechanisms have proven an efficient way of involving
the private sector and transferring some of the risks to it, while achieving the
most important goal of providing a quality service.
33 EIU 2007c.
34 Developed jointly by OECD member countries through the OECDs Directorate
for Education, the PISA gauges the degree to which 15 year-old students,
approaching the end of compulsory education, have acquired some of the
knowledge and skills essential for full participation in the knowledge economy.
PISA surveys are conducted every three years and focus on science, math and
reading. The last survey conducted in 2006 included 57 countries, up from 41
in 2003, covering close to 90% of the world economy. Further information
can be found at: www.pisa.oecd.org.
35 OECD 2005.
36 Guerrero et al. 2006.
37 World Bank 2006.
38 OECD 2007a.
39 This is also reflected in the survey data on the availability of scientists and
engineers, included in the innovation pillar, for which Mexico ranked 96th.
40 Murphy et al. provide evidence suggesting that countries with a higher proportion of engineering college majors grow faster, whereas countries with a
higher proportion of law graduates are less dynamic. See Murphy et al. 1991.
41 See IMCO 2007.
42 As already mentioned, the signing of NAFTA and other trade agreements
allowed the country to diversify away from primary commodities and develop
an important manufacturing sector and other higher value added industries.
Manufactured goods exports expanded by 11% per year in dollar terms on
average in the 10 years to 2005, compared with 6% for the OECD on average
(OECD 2007b).
43 Guerrero et al. 2006.
44 The Federal Communication Commission can impose fines, but it has little
ability to enforce them. This depends on the judicial system. At the same time,
the Federal Telecommunication Commission can only give recommendations
to the corresponding ministry. It lacks independent enforcement powers.
45 The most recent Gini coefficient for Mexico was 46.1, lower than Brazil
(57.0), but much higher than Korea (31.6). See World Bank 2007.
46 Unlike Chile, Mexico has not significantly liberalized the labor legal framework
in the wake of the market reforms of the 1990s. The framework remains very
much the one established by the 1917 constitution and the federal labor law
adopted in 1970. Over flexibility and efficiency, priority is given to the protection
of workers rights. These include the provision of a minimum salary, severe
restrictions on forms of employment other than permanent contracts, a
protection mechanism for workers in work-related disputes, and promotion
criteria based on seniority and unionization rather than competence (the
so called Escalafn ciego).
47 Mexico is ranked 92nd in the variable for non-wage labor cost, estimated by
the World Bank at 23.9% of total salary.
48 Although McKinsey (in Farrell et al. 2007) ranks Mexico 2nd in its index of the
most attractive offshore centers (given its low labor cost and attractive geographical position), it warns about the difficulties encountered by companies
in finding suitable talent, especially for high-skilled jobs.
49 Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (Mexican Social Security Institute
2006), quoted in IMCO 2007.
50 De la Torre and Schmuckler 2007; and Levine et al. 2000.
51 Levine 2005.
29 EIU 2007c.
54 According to the EIU, by 2006 80% of banking sector assets was controlled
by foreign investors, notably by BBVA-Bancomer, Banamex, HSBC and Banco
Santander Mexicano. See EIU 2007c.
30 This effort is being carried out via the Sistema de Proteccion Social en Salud
(System of Social Security in Heath, centered on a voluntary health insurance
schemes) and Seguro Popular (Popular Insurance), financed mainly by contributions from federal and state governments, with means-tested contributions
from affiliates.
Notes
55 In the past decade a decrease, not an increase, in the numbers of issuers has
been observed. Market capitalization as a percentage of GDP is less than
25%, four times less than in the developed world or Chile, according to the
Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (BMV, Mexican Stock Market, www.bmv.com.mx).
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
23
56 IMCO 2007.
57 Rather than increasing direct buying of equities and participating on the
boards of companies listed in the stock exchange, pension managers have
tended to limit most of their exposure in equities to Exchange Traded Funds.
Thus they are not active shareholders.
58 De la Torre et al. 2007.
59 In 1997 an important reform was passed changing the pay-as-you-go system
to a fully-funded one with individual accounts.
60 In 2004, 93% of all corporate debt on the balance sheets of pension funds
was rated AA or higher, while in the equity markets 10 firms represented 70%
of the value traded. (see BMV website, available at: www.bmv.com.mx).
61 Novo Mercado is a listing segment designed for shares issued by companies
that voluntarily agree to abide by corporate governance practices and transparency requirements in addition to those already required by the Brazilian law
and the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission. Given the voluntary
aspect, it is widely thought that the Novo Mercado is a success because
both investors and companies consider corporate governance obligations to
be advantageous.
62 As of February 2008, Brazil became the largest emerging market in the
Morgan Stanley Capital International Global Emerging Market index,
accounting for 14.95% of the index. In 2002, Brazil accounted for just 5.3%.
(see: www.mscibarra.com)
63 For a full account of the different competitiveness strategies followed by
Mexico and Korea, see Villareal Ramos and Villareal Arrambide 2006.
64 Ranked 69th, 59th, 54th and 50th, respectively, for mobile telephone subscribers,
Internet users, personal computers and broadband Internet subscribers.
65 OECD 2007c.
66 The Economist 2007c.
24
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
The Economist. 2007a. Having his cake and eating it. June 21st.
Available at http://www.economist.com
OECD Development Center. 2007. Latin American Economic Outlook 2008. Paris:
OECD.
Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
References
Larre, B. and C. Heady. 2007. Fiscal Policy and Tax Reform Getting it Right,
Perspectives on Policy Challenges in Mexico. Paris: OECD.
Levine, R., N. Loayza and T. Beck. 2000. Financial Intermediation and Growth:
Causality and Causes. Journal of Monetary Economics. 46 (1):31-77.
Levine, R. 2005. Finance and Growth. Handbook of Economic Growth, Aghio,
P. and S. Durlauf eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
26
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
5th pillar: Higher education and training ............. 17%
A. Quantity of education................................................................... 33%
5.01 Secondary enrollment (hard data)
5.02 Tertiary enrollment (hard data)
4.11 Education expenditure (hard data)1/2
B. Quality of education..................................................................... 33%
5.03 Quality of the educational system
5.04 Quality of math and science education
5.05 Quality of management schools
5.06 Internet access in schools
C. On-the-job training ....................................................................... 33%
5.07 Local availability of specialized research and training
services
5.08 Extent of staff training
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
(count
ountrry score- sample minimum)
+7
( sample maximum - sample minimum)
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
10.04
Weights
Basic requirements
Efficiency enhancers
Innovation factors
Factordriven
stage (%)
Efficiencydriven
stage (%)
Innovationdriven
stage (%)
60
35
5
40
50
10
20
50
30
c. For those groups of variables that contain one or several half-weight variables,
country scores for those groups are computed as follows:
1
( sum of scoreson half - weight var
variables)
2
1
(count of full - weight var
variables) ( count of half - weight var
variables)
2
d. In order to capture the idea that both high inflation and deflation are detrimental,
inflation enters the model in a U-shaped manner as follows: for values of inflation
between 0.5 and 2.9%, a country receives the highest possible score of 7. Outside
this range, scores decrease linearly as they move away from these values.
e. The impact of malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS on competitiveness depends
not only on their respective incidence rates, but also on how costly they are for
business. Therefore, in order to estimate the impact of each of the three diseases,
we combine its incidence rate with the survey question on its perceived cost to
businesses. To combine these data we first take the ratio of each countrys disease
incidence rate relative to the highest incidence rate in the whole sample. The
inverse of this ratio is then multiplied by each countrys score on the related survey question. This product is then normalized to a 1-to-7 scale. Note that countries with zero reported incidence receive a 7, regardless their scores on the
related survey question.
f. The Competition subpillar is the weighted average of two components:
Domestic competition and Foreign competition. In both components, the included
variables provide an indication of the extent to which competition is distorted.
The relative importance of these distortions depends on the relative size of domestic
versus foreign competition. This interaction between the domestic market and
the foreign market is captured by the way we determine the weights of the two
components. Domestic competition is the sum of consumption (C), investment
(I), government spending (G), and exports (X), while foreign competition is equal
to imports (M). Thus we assign a weight of (C+I+G+X)/(C+I+G+X+M) to domestic
competition, and a weight of M/(C+I+G+X+M) to foreign competition.
g. Variables 6.06 and 6.07 combine to form one single variable.
h. The size of the domestic market is constructed by taking the natural log of the
sum of the gross domestic product valued at PPP plus the total value (PPP estimates)
of imports of goods and services, minus the total value (PPP estimates) of
exports of goods and services. Data are then normalized on a 1-to-7 scale. PPP
estimates of imports and exports are obtained by taking the product of exports
as a percentage of GDP and GDP valued at PPP. The underlying data are reported
in the Data Tables section of the Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008.
i. The size of the foreign market is estimated as the natural log of the total value
(PPP estimates) of exports of goods and services, normalized on a 1-to-7 scale.
PPP estimates of exports are obtained by taking the product of exports as a
percentage of GDP and GDP valued at PPP. The underlying data are reported in
the Data Tables section of the Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
27
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Part II
Country Profiles
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
List of Countries
List of Countries
Country/Economy
Page
Mexico
52
Brazil
58
Chile
62
China
66
Hungary
70
India
74
Indonesia
78
Korea, Rep.
82
Russia
86
South Africa
90
Turkey
94
31
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Brazil
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007......................................................................191.3
GDP (US$ billions), 2007................................................................................1,295.4
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................6,841.6
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................4.4
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................1.3
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................5.1
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................9.8
GINI index, 2004...................................................................................................57.0
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Brazil
Mexico
33
Page 1
Key indicators
Brazil
Mexico
10
15
20
25
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Competitiveness Rankings
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Page 2
Brazil
GDP based on purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita, 1996-2007
Brazil
Western Hemisphere
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1995
Source: UNCTAD, FDI Database, World Investment Report 2007
All commodities
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
Machinery and transport
equipment
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................47.6
Source: International Trade Center
Others:
42.1%
United
States: 18%
Mexico: 3.2%
China: 6.1%
Argentina: 8.5%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
34
2006
Trade diversification
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Brazil
9
RANK/131
+ Better than Mexico (45 times) Worse than Mexico (65 times)
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
RANK/131
VALUE
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
35
Mexico
9
INDICATOR
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
RANK
competitive advantages
/ improve/worsen between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
competitive disadvantages / improve/worsen between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
SCORE
LA&C
OECD
BEST PERFORMER
EVOLUTION
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Denmark .................................
Singapore ...............................
Germany .................................
Finland.....................................
Singapore ...............................
Singapore ...............................
Denmark .................................
Singapore ...............................
Finland.....................................
Syria ........................................
Iceland ....................................
Finland.....................................
Finland.....................................
Germany .................................
Sweden...................................
Sweden...................................
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
Switzerland ............................
France .....................................n/a
Switzerland ............................
Singapore ...............................
Singapore ...............................
Denmark .................................
Switzerland ............................
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
Libya ........................................
Kuwait .....................................
Japan ......................................
Netherlands ...........................
Timor-Leste.............................
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
4.11
Iceland ....................................
Multiple (57) .................=..........
Denmark .................................
Iceland ....................................
Iceland ....................................
Multiple (24) .................=..........=
Multiple (2) ...................=..........
Multiple (2) ...................=..........=
Finland...........................n/a ........n/a
Japan ......................................
Uzbekistan....................=..........n/a
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
Australia .......................=..........
Korea.......................................
Singapore ...............................
Singapore ...............................
France .....................................
Iceland ....................................
Switzerland ............................
Denmark .................................
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Bahrain ...................................
Saudi Arabia ..........................n/a
Multiple (3) .............................=
Australia .................................=
New Zealand..........................
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Mexico
Competitiveness Profile
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Mexico
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007......................................................................109.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................886.4
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................8,426.3
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................2.9
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006................................................-0.2
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................3.4
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................3.7
GINI index, 2004...................................................................................................46.1
Score
(17) 1
38
6.1 Denmark
6.2 Finland
6.7 Germany
6.6 Kuwait
6.6 Finland
6.0 Finland
5.8 Hong Kong SAR
5.7 United States
6.2 Hong Kong SAR
5.9 Sweden
6.8 United States
5.8 Switzerland
5.9 Germany
5.8 United States
Mexico
Best performer
LA&C
OECD
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Mexico
Western Hemisphere
12,000
10,000
8,000
Mexico
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
39
250
200
150
100
Miscellaneous
manufactured articles
50
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................28.1
European Union: 4.4%
Canada: 2.1%
Colombia: 0.9%
Venezuela: 0.7%
Others: 7.0%
United
States: 84.9%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
40
Mexico
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK
competitive advantages
/ improve/worsen between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
competitive disadvantages / improve/worsen between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
SCORE
LA&C
OECD
BEST PERFORMER
EVOLUTION
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Denmark .................................
Singapore ...............................
Germany .................................
Finland.....................................
Singapore ...............................
Singapore ...............................
Denmark .................................
Singapore ...............................
Finland.....................................
Syria ........................................
Iceland ....................................
Finland.....................................
Finland.....................................
Germany .................................
Sweden...................................
Sweden...................................
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
Switzerland ............................
France .....................................n/a
Switzerland ............................
Singapore ...............................
Singapore ...............................
Denmark .................................
Switzerland ............................
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
Libya ........................................
Kuwait .....................................
Japan ......................................
Netherlands ...........................
Timor-Leste.............................
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
4.11
Iceland ....................................
Multiple (57) .................=..........
Denmark .................................
Iceland ....................................
Iceland ....................................
Multiple (24) .................=..........=
Multiple (2) ...................=..........
Multiple (2) ...................=..........=
Finland...........................n/a ........n/a
Japan ......................................
Uzbekistan....................=..........n/a
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
Australia .......................=..........
Korea.......................................
Singapore ...............................
Singapore ...............................
France .....................................
Iceland ....................................
Switzerland ............................
Denmark .................................
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Bahrain ...................................
Saudi Arabia ..........................n/a
Multiple (3) .............................=
Australia .................................=
New Zealand..........................
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
RANK
SCORE
LA&C
OECD
BEST PERFORMER
EVOLUTION
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
Prevalence of trade barriers ..................................................53.................... ..................4.7 ................4.3 ................5.3 ....................6.3 Hong Kong SAR.....................
Trade-weighted tariff rate (% duty)* ...................................102.................... ................11.9 ................8.8 ................3.9 ....................0.0 Multiple (2) ...................=..........n/a
Prevalence of foreign ownership ..........................................32.................... ..................5.7 ................5.1 ................5.6 ....................6.5 Ireland.....................................
Business impact of rules on FDI ............................................46.................... ..................5.4 ................4.9 ................5.5 ....................6.5 Ireland.....................................
Burden of customs procedures .............................................74.................... ..................3.6 ................3.4 ................4.9 ....................6.4 Singapore .....................n/a ........n/a
Degree of customer orientation.............................................59.................... ..................4.7 ................4.3 ................5.4 ....................6.1 Austria.....................................
Buyer sophistication ................................................................54.................... ..................4.0 ................3.7 ................4.9 ....................5.7 Switzerland ............................
INDICATOR..........................................................................RANK.................... .............SCORE ...........LA&C ...........OECDBEST PERFORMER .................................EVOL
7th pillar: Labor market efficiency
Cooperation in labor-employer relations..............................40.................... ..................4.8 ................4.4 ................4.9 ....................6.3 Denmark .................................
Flexibility of wage determination...........................................72.................... ..................5.1 ................5.0 ................4.6 ....................6.4 Hong Kong SAR.....................
Non-wage labor costs (% of workers salary)*...................92.................... ................23.9 ..............14.3 ..............22.9 ....................0.0 Multiple (7) ...................=..........n/a
Rigidity of Employment Index (0-100, 100 is worst)*...........63.................... ................38.0 ..............37.3 ..............34.0 ....................0.0 Multiple (3) ...................=..........
Hiring and firing practices ......................................................75.................... ..................3.7 ................3.6 ................3.6 ....................5.8 Singapore ...............................
Firing costs (in weeks of wage)* ...........................................95.................... ................74.3 ..............63.9 ..............33.5 ....................0.0 Multiple (3) ...................=..........
Pay and productivity ................................................................44.................... ..................4.6 ................4.1 ................4.5 ....................6.0 Hong Kong SAR.....................
Reliance on professional management ................................62.................... ..................4.6 ................4.4 ................5.5 ....................6.4 Sweden...................................
Brain drain .................................................................................51.................... ..................3.6 ................3.3 ................4.4 ....................6.0 United States .........................
Female participation in labor force (% of male participation)* .........112.................... ................51.3 ..............67.3 ..............79.8 ................102.7 Mozambique ................=..........n/a
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
Switzerland ............................
Sweden...................................
Denmark .................................
United States .........................
Uruguay ........................n/a ........n/a
New Zealand..........................n/a
Switzerland ............................
Sweden.........................n/a ........n/a
Multiple (2) ...................=..........
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
Sweden...................................
Iceland ....................................
Denmark .................................
Ireland.....................................
Luxembourg ...........................
Iceland ....................................
Switzerland ............................
Iceland ..........................=..........n/a
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
Germany .................................
Germany .................................
Taiwan, China ........................
Germany .................................
Switzerland ............................
Iceland ....................................
Germany .................................
United States .........................
Sweden...................................
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Germany .................................
Switzerland ............................
Switzerland ............................
United States .........................
Singapore ...............................
Finland.....................................
United States .........................
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Competitiveness Profiles" on page XXX.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Mexico
41
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Comparator Countries
Competitiveness Profiles
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Brazil
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007......................................................................191.3
GDP (US$ billions), 2007................................................................................1,295.4
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................6,841.6
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................4.4
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................1.3
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................5.1
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................9.8
GINI index, 2004...................................................................................................57.0
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
44
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Brazil
Mexico
Brazil
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Brazil
Western Hemisphere
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Brazil
45
All commodities
Machinery and transport
equipment
Food and live anmals
chefly for food
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................47.6
Source: International Trade Center
Others:
42.1%
United
States: 18%
Mexico: 3.2%
China: 6.1%
Argentina: 8.5%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Brazil
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
46
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
+ Better than Mexico (45 times) Worse than Mexico (65 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Chile
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007........................................................................16.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................160.8
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................9,697.7
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................5.9
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................3.6
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................4.0
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................6.5
GINI index, 2004...................................................................................................54.9
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
48
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Chile
Mexico
Chile
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Chile
Western Hemisphere
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Chile
49
50
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
40
20
30
10
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005..................................................................................9.6
Others:
31.4%
European Union:
23.5%
United
States: 16.2%
Korea,
Republic
of: 5.7%
China: 11.4%
Japan: 11.8%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Chile
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
50
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
+ Better than Mexico (99 times) Worse than Mexico (10 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
China
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007...................................................................1,331.4
GDP (US$ billions), 2007................................................................................3,248.5
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................2,459.8
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007.................................................................11.5
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................9.0
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ......................................................13.5
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................9.5
GINI index, 2004...................................................................................................46.9
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
52
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
China
Mexico
China
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
China
Developing Asia
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
China
53
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
United
States: 21%
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................39.4
Source: International Trade Center
Korea,
Republic
of: 4.6%
European Union:
18.8%
Japan: 9.5%
Hong Kong: 16%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
China
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
54
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
+ Better than Mexico (57 times) Worse than Mexico (53 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Hungary
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007........................................................................10.0
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................136.4
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 ...............................................................13,560.4
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................2.1
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006................................................-6.5
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................2.6
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................7.4
GINI index, 2002...................................................................................................26.9
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
56
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Hungary
Mexico
Hungary
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Hungary
Euro area
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Hungary
57
All commodities
Machinery and
transport equipment
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
Miscellaneus
manufactured articles
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................25.8
European Union:
74.4%
Romania: 4%
United States: 2.7%
Russian Federation: 2.7%
Ukraine: 1.7%
Others:
14.5%
Source: WTO, 2007
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Hungary
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
58
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
+ Better than Mexico (73 times) Worse than Mexico (38 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
India
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007...................................................................1,135.6
GDP (US$ billions), 2007................................................................................1,089.9
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 ....................................................................964.6
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................8.9
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006................................................-1.1
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 .......................................................n/a
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................7.2
GINI index, 2004-2005 .........................................................................................36.8
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
60
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
India
Mexico
Mexico
India
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
India
Developing Asia
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
India
61
120
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
100
Miscellaneus
manufactured articles
Mineral fules, lubricants
and related materials
80
60
40
20
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................32.0
European Union:
22.5%
Others:
40.4%
United
States: 16.9%
United Arab
Singapore: 5.3%
China: 6.6% States: 8.3%
Source: WTO, 2007
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
India
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
62
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
+ Better than Mexico (68 times) Worse than Mexico (42 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Indonesia
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007......................................................................228.1
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................410.3
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................1,824.1
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................6.2
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................2.7
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................4.1
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................9.6
GINI index, 2002...................................................................................................34.3
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
64
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Indonesia
Mexico
Indonesia
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Indonesia
Developing Asia
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Indonesia
65
100
80
60
40
20
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................30.6
Source: International Trade Center
Others:
38.1%
European
Union: 11.9%
United
States: 11.2%
China: 8.3%
Singapore: 8.9%
Source: WTO, 2007
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Indonesia
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
66
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
+ Better than Mexico (60 times) Worse than Mexico (51 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Korea, Rep.
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007........................................................................48.1
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................949.7
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 ...............................................................19,624.4
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................4.8
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................0.7
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................7.8
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................2.9
GINI index, 1998...................................................................................................31.6
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
68
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Korea, Rep.
Euro area
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Korea, Rep.
69
300
250
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
150
Miscellaneus
manufactured articles
50
200
100
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................22.4
Source: International Trade Center
European
Union: 14.9%
United
States: 13.3%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Korea, Rep.
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
70
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
+ Better than Mexico (95 times) Worse than Mexico (16 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Russian Federation
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007......................................................................141.9
GDP (US$ billions), 2007................................................................................1,223.7
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................8,611.7
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................7.0
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006 .................................................9.6
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ......................................................10.8
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................7.0
GINI index, 2002...................................................................................................39.9
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
Infrastructure
Business
sophistication
72
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Russian Federation
Mexico
Russian Federation
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Russian Federation
73
300
250
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
150
200
100
50
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005..................................................................................6.9
Source: International Trade Center
China: 5.2%
Others:
24.1%
Belarus: 4.3%
Ukraine: 5.0%
Turkey: 4.7%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Russian Federation
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
74
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
+ Better than Mexico (42 times) Worse than Mexico (69 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
South Africa
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007........................................................................47.7
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................274.5
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................5,723.9
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................4.7
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006................................................-6.4
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................3.2
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ....................................24.2
GINI index, 2000...................................................................................................57.8
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
76
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
South Africa
Mexico
South Africa
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
South Africa
77
50
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
40
20
30
10
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................30.5
European Union:
35.4%
Others:
33.9%
Switzerland: 3.3%
China: 4.0%
Japan: 11.9%
United
States: 11.5%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
South Africa
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
78
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
+ Better than Mexico (69 times) Worse than Mexico (42 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
Turkey
Key indicators
Total population (millions), 2007........................................................................75.2
GDP (US$ billions), 2007...................................................................................482.0
GDP per capita (PPP, US$), 2007 .................................................................6,547.7
Real growth in GDP (percent), 2007...................................................................5.0
Current account balance (percent of GDP), 2006................................................-8.1
Total reserves in months of imports, 2005 ........................................................4.8
Unemployment (percent of total labour force), 2007 ......................................9.7
GINI index, 2003...................................................................................................43.6
Competitiveness rankings
Rank
(out of 131)
Institutions
Score
(17)
Innovation
80
Business
sophistication
Infrastructure
Macroeconomic
stability
4
3
2
Market size
Health and
primary
education
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
sophistication
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
Turkey
Mexico
Turkey
Mexico
10
15
20
Percent of responses
Note: From a list of 14 factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between
1 (most problematic) and 5. The bars in the figure show the responses weighted according to their rankings.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
25
Turkey
Commonwealth of
Independent States
and Mongolia
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Turkey
81
All commodities
Manufactured goods
classified chiefly by
materials
Miscellaneus
manufactured articles
Machinery and transport
equipment
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Trade diversification
Number of exported product groups out of 261
2005................................................................................41.6
Source: International Trade Center
United
States: 5.9%
Russian Federation: 3.8%
Others:
32.1%
Iraq: 3.0%
Romania: 2.7%
Note: For descriptions of variables and detailed sources, please refer to How to Read the Country Profiles.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
2006
Turkey
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
RANK/131
VALUE
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.07
2.08
82
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
+ Better than Mexico (66 times) Worse than Mexico (44 times)
INDICATOR
RANK/131
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.09
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
VALUE
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
* Hard data
Note: For further details and explanation, please refer to the section "How to Read the Country/Economy Profiles" at the beginning of this chapter.
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
80740_Couv:Mise en page 1
8.4.2008
13:03
Page 2
Contents
This paper is published by the World Economic Forum within the framework of the Global
Competitiveness Network.
Part I: Assessing the Foundations of Mexicos Competitiveness: Findings from the Global
3
The Global Competitiveness Network:
29
List of Countries
31
33
37
43
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum
80740_Couv:Mise en page 1
8.4.2008
9:41
Page 1
White Paper
Assessing the Foundations of Mexico's Competitiveness: White Paper 2008 World Economic Forum