 | |
Internet and the use of data for
International Affairs | | |
 Comments
The first thing one has to keep in mind when regarding this kind of classification is that whe are talking
of rankings. Rankings are
a very good way of comparing and summarizing data but they also have some weak points:
1. When comparing time series the WCY ranking doesn't tell nothing of certain about the actual competiveness
trend. For
example the fact that the USA had the leadership of the ranking for the last 5 years could also imply
that their competiveness
have actually decreased (As matter of fact .
2. A country can go up in the ranking simply because the countries that were just ahead of it have fallen.
See for example the
situation of Switzerland that from the 9th place in 1996 has raised to the 5th. Does this mean that
the overall competivity of
Switzerland has improved thus giving the country a 4 place boost in the ranking? Or the fairly good
performance was helped by
the falling of Hong Kong (3rd place to 14th) and Japan(4th to 17th), due to economic crisis in Asia,
of Denmark (5th to 12th),due
to weaker economy in 1999, and of Norway (6th place to 16th) due to the fall of oil prices in
1998 and early 1999?
3. A difference in the position of two countries in the ranking tells a little about the overall competitiveness
difference, i.e. the
difference in competiveness between Italy (30th) and Singapore (2nd) could even be less, as far
as we know from the simple
analysis of this ranking, than the difference between Singapore and the USA (1st).
The position of Italy (30th) is mainly caused, as the study points out, by "... slow growth, weak
public finances, especially debt,
and by the dramatic 46th position in the Government input factor"
| 
