Government competitiveness

Government competitiveness ^{[1] [2] [3]} is a state capacity concept created by Tobin Im, ^[4] a scholar of public administration and a professor at the Graduate School of Public Administration at Seoul National University. Since 2011, the 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 provides policy recommendations to increase the 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's 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 favorable 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, the 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. Both OECD and non-OECD countries share the following seven fields of government activities: economy, education, health and welfare, agriculture and food, ICT, energy and environment, and governance. For OECD countries, three more fields are added: research and development, culture and tourism, and disaster management. Meanwhile, non-OECD countries have nine fields of government activities in total, including infrastructure and safety. ^[17]

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

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

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

OECD rankings in 2013-2021

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

Non-OECD rankings in 2013-2021

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

• Korea is exceptionally included in the non-OECD cases for a reference point
• GC scores are rounded off to four decimal places. Therefore, the countries that seem to have the same scores have, in fact, different scores.

See also

• Competition
• the Global Competitiveness Index
• World Competitiveness Yearbook
• The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators

References

1. ""Korean Parliament GC ranks 16th among 34 OECD countries"". The Joongang Ilbo. 2015-10-29. Retrieved 2017-04-10.
2. Min-Sik, Yoon (2015-01-05). ""Korea lags OECD average in disaster management"". The Korea Herald. The Korea Herald . 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]. 서울Pn (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, Alfred Tat-Kei; Im, Tobin (May 2015). "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". The American Review of Public Administration. 45 (3): 263–280. doi:10.1177/0275074013501856.
17. "Government Competitiveness Center".
18. Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Wiley.
19. "Center for Government Competitiveness. (2018) Government Competitiveness Report 2018, Graduate School of Public Administration. Seoul National University" (PDF).

External links

• Center for Government Competitiveness