Download ESCAP High-level Policy Dialogue

 ESCAP High-level Policy Dialogue
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia International Economic Summit 2013
Eleventh Bank Indonesia Annual International Seminar
“Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable Growth with Equity in East Asia”
15-17 May 2013, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Jointly organized by
UN ESCAP, Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia and Bank Indonesia
Roundtable Discussion – Rethinking Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable and
Inclusive Growth in East Asia
Presentation
Global Growth Engines including USA, European Union, Japan &
China to 12 Asian Economies (1980 to 2020), Further Asian Connectivity
and Inclusive Growth
by
Dr Tan Khee Giap
Co‐Directors, Asia Competitiveness Institute, Associate Professor of Public Policy
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
& Chairman, Singapore National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation
(SINCPEC)
May 2013
The views expressed in the paper are those of the author(s) and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the
views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations. This paper has been issued without formal editing.
Global Growth Engines including USA, European
Union, Japan & China to 12 Asian Economies (1980
to 2020), Further Asian Connectivity and Inclusive
Growth*
Dr Tan Khee Giap
Co‐Directors, Asia Competitiveness Institute
Associate Professor of Public Policy Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore &
Chairman, Singapore National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (SINCPEC) •Revised and prepared for presentation for ESCAP High‐level Policy Dialogue on “Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable Growth with Equity in East Asia organised by ESCAP, Jogyakarta, 15‐17 May 2013. Also presented at the Asia Pacific Real Estate Convention & Expo 2013, 20‐22 March 2013, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore; also presented at the 27th Pacific economic Seminar “Regional Economic Integration Review AND Outlook” organized by Chinese Taipei Pacific Economic Foundation Cooperation Committee, 4‐5 October 2012, The Regent Hotel, Taipei, Taiwan; presented to China‐Europe Institute of Business Studies (CEIBS) delegation, 13 October 2012 at Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore Outline of Presentation
• The dynamic evolution of global growth engines including USA,
EU, Japan, China to 11 selected Asian economies over past four
decades, 1980-2010.
• Regional competitiveness landscapes including 34 Greater China
economies, 35 States of India and ASEAN-10, 2000-2010.
• Differences in economic development approaches and
characteristics amongst China, India and Singapore.
• Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) versus
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a pathway to Free Trade
Agreement for Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) which is the most widely
supported approach for greater economic integration
• The Global economy in the decade ahead, 2010-2020: Dynamic
shifts, challenges and opportunities
Estimating Growth Engines
• China now the largest export market for
ASEAN-5 except Indonesia
• US, European Union and Japan are now
weaker engines of growth for ASEAN-5
• The importance of indirect growth multiplier
• US impact on Australia (US is a minor trading
partner) through its effect on Japan and China
(which are major Australian trading partners)
• Export shares and trade in intermediates
products
Growth Engines of ASEAN-5
• Traditional external engines of growth: US, EU,
Japan. “When US sneezes the world catches
cold”
• New external engines: China, India???
• How to assess? Trade flows versus multiplier
effects
• China the largest export market, does it generate
similar multiplier effects?
Decoupling Literature
• Number of studies on business cycle comovements at a global level (Kose and Prasad,
2010).
• Basic tool: Dynamic factor model. Identify a
latent factor to represent global cycles and
examine how this correlates with individual
country cycles.
• Results are mixed, but less supportive of
decoupling thesis.
Focus of ACI-LKYSPP Studies
• Our focus, not on business cycle synchronization,
but on the evolution of Asia’s dependence of
traditional and emerging growth engines and the
dynamics of Asian integration.
• Common practice: look into direct trade and
investment linkages. This ignores indirect
multiplier effects and underestimates the power
of growth engines.
Export shares and trade in intermediates products
versus final demand
ASEAN
Co
Japan
mp
on
en
ts
China
Components
Final Demand
(Components & (Components & final assembly)
final assembly)
US
s
ent
pon
Co m
NIEs
The Importance of Indirect
Growth Multiplier
Japan
US
Australia
China
Major Impact
Minor Impact
VAR Model of Estimation on the Engines of Growth
The Four Engines of Growth
Note: Figures in brackets for 2001‐2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs.
Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth.
10
The Four Engines of Growth
Thailand
Period
China India Japan
EU
US
1980 ‐ 1989
0.185 0.035 0.437 0.803 1.270 1990 ‐ 1999
0.354 0.026 0.524 0.876 1.438 2001 ‐ 2009
0.659 0.044 (1.74)
0.377 0.700 1.035 (1.06) (1.57)
Note: Figures in brackets for 2001‐2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs. Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth.
11
The Four Engines of Growth
Indonesia
Period
China
India
Japan
EU
US
1980 ‐ 1989
0.076 0.013 0.445 0.312 0.782 1990 ‐ 1999
0.183 0.015 0.322 0.415 0.661 2000 ‐ 2009
0.333 (1.37)
0.034 0.243 0.344 (1.03)
0.491 (1.47)
Note: Figures in brackets for 2000‐2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs.
Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth.
12
The Four Engines of Growth
Singapore
Period
China India Japan
EU
US
1980 ‐ 1989
0.165 0.049 0.442 0.650 1.377 1990 ‐ 1999
0.396 0.039 0.441 0.869 1.520 2000 ‐ 2009
0.748 0.063 0.297 0.703 1.006 (2.52)
(1.34)
(0.94)
Note: Figures in brackets for 2000‐2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs.
Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth.
13
The Four Engines of Growth
Philippines
Period
China
India Japan
EU
US
1980 ‐ 1989 0.020 0.003 0.068 0.104 0.251 1990 ‐ 1999 0.043 0.004 0.068 0.121 0.256 2000 ‐ 2009 0.110 0.005 0.063 0.115 0.175 (1.75)
(1.05) (1.59)
Note: Figures in brackets for 2000‐2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs.
Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth.
14
Relative Importance of US vs China as an Engine
of Growth for ASEAN-5
Period
1980‐89
1990‐99
2001‐09
2010‐19
Ratio
9.17
4.30
1.53
0.65*
* Figure projected assuming a linear trend for the natural logarithm of the ratio.
Relative Importance of EU vs China as an Engine
of Growth for ASEAN-5
Period
1980‐89
1990‐99
2001‐09
2010‐19
Ratio
4.49
2.41
1.02
0.51*
* Figure projected assuming a linear trend for the natural logarithm of the ratio.
Relative Importance of China vs Japan as an
Engine of Growth for ASEAN-5
Period
1980‐89
1990‐99
2001‐09
2010‐19
Ratio
0.31
0.71
1.88
4.52*
* Figure projected assuming a linear trend for the natural logarithm of the ratio.
Relative Importance of US vs China as an Engine of
Growth (2001-2009)
Country
Ratio
India
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Japan
Indonesia
Singapore Australia
Korea
Taiwan
Hong Kong 1.94
1.69
1.59
1.57
1.53
1.47
1.34
1.15
1.09
0.99
0.70
Relative Importance of EU vs China as an Engine of
Growth (2001-2009)
Country
India
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Japan
Indonesia
Singapore Australia
Korea
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Ratio
1.61
1.03
1.05
1.06
0.91
1.03
0.94
0.92
0.76
0.63
0 46
Relative Importance of China vs Japan as an
Engine of Growth (2001-2009)
Country
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Korea
India
Singapore
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Australia
Indonesia
Ratio
6.33
3.73
3.20
2.98
2.52
2.04
1.75
1.75
1.52
1.37
Relative Importance of (US plus Japan) vs China
as Engine of Growth (2001-2009)
Country
India
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Indonesia
Singapore Australia
Ratio
2.28
2.18
2.14
2.16
2.20
1.74
1.81
Korea
Taiwan
Hong Kong 1.40
1.26
0.86
Engines of Growth among ASEAN-5 (2001-09)
Indo
Mal
Phil
Spore Thai
Indo
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Mal
‐
‐
‐
0.34 ‐
(0.49)
Phil
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Spore 0.25
0.31 ‐
‐
‐
(0.16) (0.43)
Thai
‐
‐
‐
0.22 ‐
(0.39)
Note: figures in brackets refer to the period 1990‐99
Conclusions
• China has rapidly become a major engine of
growth for ASEAN-5 in the past decade
• The US growth engine is still 1.53 times more
important than that of China for ASEAN-5
• The EU growth engine is equally important as
that of China for ASEAN-5
• The Chinese growth engine has become 1.88
times more important than that of Japan for
ASEAN-5
Conclusions
• US pus Japan is about twice as important as China as
the growth engine for ASEAN-5, however, the continued
economic integration of China to other Asian economies
is unstoppable!
• India has not yet become a growth engine for ASEAN-5
though it is of increasing importance to Singapore and
Malaysia
• Intra-ASEAN growth engines are confined to among
Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. The growth engines
have actually weakened over the past decade.
Conclusions
• The mutual growth dependence of Singapore and
Malaysia has fallen over the past decade
• Indonesia has become a more important growth
engine for Singapore over the past decade
• US participation in any Asian regional economic
grouping is critical as it is still the most
important engine of growth for all the Asian
economies (except Taiwan and Hong Kong)
Conclusions
• Based on existing trends, for ASEAN to strategically balance the
rising dependence on China, the key network linkages with the
most future potential are:
• (1) India-Indonesia-Singapore, Australia-India, Japan-IndonesiaSingapore.
• (2) Attracting Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Hong Kong
labour intensive industries relocating from China to ASEAN to
produce for the US, EU, Japan, India and ASEAN markets.
• (3) For greater Asian connectivity and integration, attracting
massive infrastructure investment and financing from China and
Japan to ASEAN in the area of transportation,
telecommunication, power & utilities to ensure sustainable
economic growth development bottlenecks in ASEAN
Regional tension and political agenda involving USA, China, Japan
and Korea have disrupted CJK-FTA
•
•
•
•
Further momentum of China-Japan-Korea Free Trade Agreement (CJK-FTA) is
unlikely in the near future and not too optimistic in the medium term either.
Trans-Pacific Strategic economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) evolved from the
original P-4 FTA initiated by Singapore in 2006 currently have more than 11 members
committed or interested. However, TPP so far has been overshadowed by political
agenda with renewed Japanese interests, given the “difficulties” of China and Indonesia
which are unlikely join such a high quality FTA .
Japan proposed Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia (CEPEA) so as to
play an active leadership role in East Asia which in fact is FTA of ASEAN 3+3 (i.e. India
Australia and New Zealand) where all 16 members are members of the East Asian
Summit; meanwhile China has taken keen initiative in discussion pertaining to East
Asia Free Trade Agreement (EAFTA) where government officials are engaged in the
discussions under the four working groups.
We strongly urge USA to play an even more pro-active economic role in Asia where
political role would emerge naturally later which would lead to greater stabilization of
Asia.
RCEP or TPP, which is a realistic path way FTAAP to
better reflect balanced regional interests?
•
•
•
•
The current American-driven high-quality Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have
gained momentum from recent Japanese agreement to participate although two
emerging giant Asian economies, namely China and Indonesia, continued to be not keen.
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) can be seen as a compromise
when China and Japan jointly proposed in August 2011 ASEAN to set up three working
groups in goods, trade in services and investments. Hence ASEAN proposed in
November 2011 an ASEAN-Led RCEP was affirmed by leaders from East Asia Summit
in April 2012.
RCEP could be the most realistic pathway to Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific
(FTAAP) which would be the most widely supported approach since USA, China and
Japan (and surely Chinese Taipei too !) are included. Other interested potential
members such as India and other smaller economies would surely be welcome.
As Indonesia recovers steadily since 2005 as a rising middle power after her economic
set back in Asian financial crisis of 1997, the importance and leadership of Indonesia is
noticed especially in view of the recent rising regional tensions over territory
sovereignty amongst some members of ASEAN and China.
Growth rates of China’s GDP, 1986-2011
29
21/05/2013
China’s GDP, 1978-2010 (at current prices, in USD millions)
1978
21/05/2013
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
30
USA, European Union, China, Japan & India, 2013-2020
•
•
•
•
•
•
The US economy appears to be emerging from its worst since the 2008 – 2009 American
sub-prime driven-financial crisis through rounds of quantitative easing.
The fiscal non-sustainability and weak competitiveness of Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland
and Portugal would continue to drag down the economic prospect of European Union.
The Chinese economy would continue to grow steadily at 7.5% per annum for the
current decade with external demand, domestic consumption, regional infrastructure
development and rapid urbanization as drivers for growth.
India would continue to be bogged down by inertia in economic reform programs and
the weak coalition government.
The current Japanese attempt to restore trade competitiveness through currency
depreciation and regionalization of Reminbi would have significant implications to
exchange rate alignment for major world currencies.
Global quantitative easing by the US Federal Reserves Board, European Central Bank,
Bank of Japan, and People’s Bank of China would lead to competitive exchange rate
devaluation and volatile capital flows with serious negative implications for Asian
economies with potential inflationary pressure.
21/05/2013
31
Greater Asian Connectivity: Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
•
•
•
•
In the APEC process, there are basically three pillars including trade & investment,
regional integration and eco-tech. While APEC economies have made good progress in
terms of trade & investment, regional integration in terms of Asian connectivity needed
to be further enhanced. However the third pillar, namely eco-tech which encompasses
inclusive, sustainable and equitable growth, has been lacking in focus and serious
attention while the first two pillars progress ahead with good performance by
multinational corporations and reward for employers.
In view of widening income disparity amongst developing and developed economies,
productivity tracking and efficiency monitoring of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
must be serious look into, in particular the management performance of professional,
managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) working in SMEs.
Unlike Japan, as China is surely and steadily on the way to be the biggest economy in
the world, further cooperation amongst SMES in Asia to gain greater access to the big,
diverse and increasingly consumption driven Chinese markets would be paramount.
Amongst the significant and effective way of ensuring fruits of economic growth to be
inclusive and equitably shared, tracking on affordability indices in FOUR areas
including education, housing, health and public transportation for public policies
formulation and adjustments remained most critical.
21/05/2013
32
Framework for constructing Competitiveness Ranking
(1)
Macroeconomic Stability
(2)
Government &
Institutional Setting
(4)
Quality Of Life &
Infrastructure
Development
(3)
Financial, Businesses &
Manpower Conditions
1.1
Regional Economic
Vibrancy
2.1
Government Policies and
Fiscal Sustainability
3.1
Financial Deepening and
Business Efficiency
1.2
Openness To Trade and
Services
2.2
Institutions, Governance
and Leadership
3.2 Labour Market Flexibility
4.2
1.3
Attractiveness To Foreign
Investors
3.3 Productivity Performance
Standard of Living,
4.3 Education and Social
Stability
4.1 Physical Infrastructure
Technological
Infrastructure
1. Indicators for Macroeconomic Stability (26 Indicators)
1.1 Regional Economic Vibrancy 1.2
Openness To Trade and
Services
1.3
Attractiveness To Foreign
Investors
1.1.01 Gross Regional Product
1.2.01 Trade Balance (%)
1.1.02 GRP Growth
1.2.02 International Merchandise Exports
1.1.03 GRP Per Capita
1.2.03 International Merchandise Imports
1.3.01 Planned Foreign Direct Investment (Excl
Regional Investment)
1.3.02 Realized Foreign Direct Investment (Excl.
Regional Investment)
1.3.03 Foreign Funded Enterprises (%)
1.1.04 Primary Industry (%)
1.2.04 Openness To Trade
1.3.04 Total Taxes on Foreign Funded Companies
1.1.05 Secondary Industry (%)
1.2.05 International Visitor Arrivals
1.1.06 Tertiary Industry (%)
1.2.06 International Tourism Receipts
1.1.07 Gross Capital Formation (%)
1.1.08 Consumer Price Index
1.1.09 Retail Price Index
1.1.10 Net Regional Trade
1.1.11 Regional Tourist Arrivals
1.1.12 Regional Tourism Receipts
1.1.13 Planned Regional Investment
1.1.14 Realized Regional Investment
1.1.15 Industry Gross Output Value
1.1.16 Business Survey Index
2. Indicators for Government and Institutional Setting (13 Indicators)
2.1 Government Policies and Fiscal Sustainability 2.2
Institutions, Governance and Leadership
2.1.01 Government Revenue
2.2.01 Domestic Funded Enterprises
2.1.02 Tax Revenue
2.2.02 State-Owned Enterprises
2.1.03 Tax Revenue/Government Revenue
2.2.03 Collective-Owned Enterprises
2.1.04 Government Consumption Expenditure
2.2.04 Limited Liability Corporations
2.1.05 Budget Balance
2.2.05 Share Holding Corporations
2.2.06 Private Enterprises
2.2.07 Foreign Funded Enterprises
2.2.08 State-Owned Enterprises to Total Enterprises
3. Indicators for Financial, Businesses and Manpower Conditions (16 Indicators)
3.1
Financial Deepening and
Business Efficiency
3.2
Labour Market Flexibility
3.3
Productivity Performance
3.1.01 Total Savings Deposits
3.2.01 Total Employed Persons
3.3.01 Overall Labour Productivity
3.1.02 Total Loans
3.2.02 Self-Employed Persons (Urban
Area)
3.3.02 Primary Industry, Value Added per
Worker
3.2.03 Unemployment Rate (Urban Area) 3.3.03 Secondary Industry, Value-Added
per Worker
3.2.04 Secondary & Tertiary Staff
Workers (%)
3.3.04 Tertiary Industry, Value-Added per
Worker
3.2.05 Average Annual Wage of Staff and 3.3.05 Investment in Fixed Assets
Workers
3.2.06 Total Wages Bill of Employed
Persons in Urban Units
3.2.07 Wages Paid Out by State-Owned
Units
3.2.08 Wages Paid Out by Urban
Collective Units
3.2.09 Wages Paid Out by Other Units
4. Indicators for Quality Of Life and Infrastructure Development (51 Indicators)
4.1
Physical Infrastructure
4.2
Technological Infrastructure
4.3
Standard of Living, Education and Social
Stability
4.1.01 Population
4.2.01 Persons per Fixed Telephone Subscriber
4.3.01 Illiteracy Rate
4.1.02 Urban Population
4.2.02 Persons per Internet Subscriber
4.3.02 Number of Educational Institutions
4.1.03 Rural Population
4.2.03 Personal Computer
4.3.03 Disparity between Primary & Secondary Institutions
4.1.04 Population Density
4.2.04 High Technology Expenditure
4.3.04 Tertiary Institutions
4.1.05 Length of Railways in Operation
4.2.05 High Technology Proficiency
4.3.05 Student-Teacher Ratio (Primary)
4.1.06 Length of Highways
4.2.06 Persons per Mobile Telephone Subscriber
4.3.06 Student-Teacher Ratio (Secondary)
4.1.07 Length of Navigable Inland Waterways
4.2.07 Urban Television Sets
4.3.07 Student-Teacher Ratio (Tertiary)
4.1.08 Length of Total Civil Aviation Routes
4.2.08 Rural Television Sets
4.3.08 Health Expenditure
4.1.09 Passenger Distance of Railways in Operation
4.2.09 Expenditure on Science and Technology
4.3.09 Urban Population Growth
4.1.10 Passenger Distance of Highways
4.2.10 Scientific and Technical Journals
4.3.10 Air Pollution
4.1.11 Passenger Distance of Navigable Inland Waterways
4.2.11 Patents Granted
4.3.11 Ageing Profile
4.1.12 Passenger Distance of Total Civil Aviation Routes
4.3.12 Old Age Dependency Ratio
4.1.13 Motor Vehicles per Person
4.3.13 Birth Rate
4.1.14 Coal
4.3.14 Death Rate
4.1.15 Oil
4.3.15 Adequacy of Hospitals
4.1.16 Electric Hydropower
4.3.16 Population per Hospital Bed
4.1.17 Crude Steel
4.3.17 Population per Medical Personnel
4.1.18 Pig Iron
4.3.18 Per Capita Annual Urban Household Income
4.1.19 Steel Products
4.1.20 Cement
4.1.21 Total Land Area
4.1.22 Cultivated Land
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 34 Greater China Economies,
2000-2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1
Economy
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Score
1.4942
1.4539
1.3795
1.4942
1.3125
1.2732
1.1827
1.0637
0.9719
0.8664
0.8555
2
Economy
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Score
1.1127
1.1833
1.1134
1.1127
1.0644
0.9137
0.9063
0.9221
0.8343
0.8525
0.8535
3
Economy
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Jiangsu
Score
0.6370
0.6989
0.7650
0.6370
0.7916
0.7813
0.8221
0.8385
0.8215
0.7956
0.7714
4
Economy
Shanghai
Shanghai
Shanghai
Shanghai
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Hong Kong
Score
0.2861
0.3286
0.3590
0.2861
0.4323
0.4995
0.5514
0.5988
0.6608
0.7136
0.7531
5
Economy
Beijing
Beijing
Beijing
Beijing
Shanghai
Shanghai
Zhejiang
Beijing
Beijing
Zhejiang
Zhejiang
Score
0.2667
0.3127
0.3400
0.2667
0.3638
0.4110
0.4268
0.4517
0.4631
0.4768
0.4699
6
Economy
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Jiangsu
Zhejiang
Zhejiang
Beijing
Zhejiang
Zhejiang
Beijing
Beijing
Score
0.2501
0.2606
0.3101
0.2501
0.3308
0.3541
0.3932
0.4326
0.4542
0.4753
0.4401
7
Economy
Zhejiang
Zhejiang
Zhejiang
Zhejiang
Beijing
Shandong
Shandong
Shanghai
Shanghai
Shanghai
Shanghai
Score
0.1620
0.2312
0.2648
0.1620
0.3255
0.3531
0.3843
0.4237
0.4516
0.3911
0.4228
8
Economy
Shandong
Shandong
Shandong
Shandong
Shandong
Beijing
Shanghai
Shandong
Shandong
Shandong
Shandong
Score
0.1414
0.1875
0.2361
0.1414
0.3200
0.3353
0.3793
0.3550
0.3766
0.3574
0.3543
9
Economy
Macau
Macau
Liaoning
Macau
Macau
Liaoning
Liaoning
Liaoning
Liaoning
Liaoning
Liaoning
Score
0.1202
0.1227
0.1176
0.1202
0.0806
0.0708
0.0735
0.1091
0.1519
0.1854
0.1992
10
Economy
Liaoning
Liaoning
Fujian
Liaoning
Fujian
Fujian
Macau
Macau
Hebei
Hebei
Hebei
Score
0.1075
0.1017
0.0911
0.1075
0.0615
0.0294
0.0462
0.0555
0.0467
0.0533
0.0432
11
Economy
Fujian
Fujian
Macau
Macau
Liaoning
Hebei
Fujian
Hebei
Fujian
Fujian
Fujian
Score
0.0821
0.0897
0.0857
0.0610
0.0472
0.0294
0.0369
0.0230
0.0037
0.0371
0.0294
12
Economy
Hebei
Hebei
Hebei
Hebei
Hebei
Macau
Hebei
Fujian
Macau
Tianjin
Sichuan
Score
0.0109
-0.0066
0.0128
0.0101
0.0098
0.0230
0.0239
0.0079
-0.0069
-0.0232
-0.0065
13
Economy
Hubei
Sichuan
Sichuan
Sichuan
Sichuan
Sichuan
Henan
Sichuan
Hubei
Macau
Hubei
Score
-0.0319
-0.0373
-0.0233
-0.0122
-0.0314
-0.0597
-0.0530
-0.0452
-0.0452
-0.0234
-0.0093
14
Economy
Sichuan
Hubei
Hubei
Hubei
Hubei
Henan
Hubei
Hubei
Tianjin
Hubei
Tianjin
Score
-0.0451
-0.0641
-0.0875
-0.0742
-0.0866
-0.0747
-0.0541
-0.0624
-0.0473
-0.0290
-0.0113
15
Economy
Tianjin
Tianjin
Tianjin
Heilongjiang
Tianjin
Hubei
Sichuan
Henan
Sichuan
Sichuan
Macau
Score
-0.0502
-0.0814
-0.1107
-0.1164
-0.0976
-0.0882
-0.0628
-0.0756
-0.0575
-0.0390
-0.0441
16
Economy
Heilongjiang
Heilongjiang
Heilongjiang
Chongqing
Henan
Tianjin
Tianjin
Tianjin
Henan
Henan
Henan
Score
-0.0856
-0.1244
-0.1110
-0.1217
-0.1197
-0.1019
-0.0748
-0.0918
-0.0809
-0.0528
-0.0805
17
Economy
Henan
Inner Mongolia
Henan
Tianjin
Heilongjiang
Chongqing
Hunan
Hunan
Inner Mongolia
Anhui
Anhui
Score
-0.1194
-0.1423
-0.1467
-0.1323
-0.1395
-0.1339
-0.1457
-0.1487
-0.1477
-0.1258
-0.0992
18
Economy
Inner Mongolia
Jilin
Chongqing
Henan
Hunan
Hunan
Inner Mongolia
Inner Mongolia
Chongqing
Inner Mongolia
Inner Mongolia
Score
-0.1306
-0.1525
-0.1475
-0.1570
-0.1490
-0.1455
-0.1689
-0.1599
-0.1505
-0.1377
-0.1459
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 34 Greater China Economies,
2000-2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
19
Economy
Jilin
Hunan
Jilin
Hunan
Anhui
Heilongjiang
Heilongjiang
Anhui
Hunan
Chongqing
Chongqing
Score
-0.1407
-0.1608
-0.1501
-0.1690
-0.1544
-0.1485
-0.1726
-0.1762
-0.1530
-0.1509
-0.1518
20
Economy
Shanxi
Chongqing
Hunan
Anhui
Chongqing
Inner Mongolia
Jiangxi
Chongqing
Heilongjiang
Jilin
Hunan
Score
-0.1656
-0.1783
-0.1609
-0.1816
-0.1546
-0.1579
-0.1789
-0.1766
-0.1620
-0.1549
-0.1563
21
Economy
Anhui
Henan
Anhui
Inner Mongolia
Inner Mongolia
Jiangxi
Anhui
Jilin
Anhui
Hunan
Jilin
Score
-0.1689
-0.1882
-0.1805
-0.1838
-0.1645
-0.1775
-0.1791
-0.1771
-0.1647
-0.1655
-0.1743
22
Economy
Chongqing
Shanxi
Shanxi
Xinjiang
Xinjiang
Anhui
Jilin
Xinjiang
Jilin
Heilongjiang
Shaanxi
Score
-0.1773
-0.1913
-0.1837
-0.1849
-0.1934
-0.1792
-0.1811
-0.1838
-0.1753
-0.1745
-0.1811
23
Economy
Hunan
Anhui
Inner Mongolia
Jilin
Jilin
Jilin
Chongqing
Heilongjiang
Xinjiang
Shaanxi
Heilongjiang
Score
-0.1841
-0.1947
-0.1950
-0.1979
-0.2114
-0.1810
-0.1970
-0.1898
-0.2007
-0.1980
-0.1913
24
Economy
Xinjiang
Hainan
Xinjiang
Shanxi
Jiangxi
Xinjiang
Guangxi
Jiangxi
Jiangxi
Jiangxi
Shanxi
Score
-0.1856
-0.2251
-0.2047
-0.2199
-0.2189
-0.2163
-0.2265
-0.1901
-0.2077
-0.2043
-0.2027
25
Economy
Guangxi
Xinjiang
Ningxia
Jiangxi
Guangxi
Guangxi
Xinjiang
Guangxi
Guangxi
Guangxi
Jiangxi
Score
-0.2132
-0.2309
-0.2286
-0.2355
-0.2435
-0.2394
-0.2283
-0.2130
-0.2160
-0.2059
-0.2054
26
Economy
Hainan
Guangxi
Guangxi
Ningxia
Ningxia
Shaanxi
Shaanxi
Shaanxi
Shanxi
Shanxi
Xinjiang
Score
-0.2161
-0.2360
-0.2392
-0.2464
-0.2558
-0.2467
-0.2488
-0.2509
-0.2414
-0.2312
-0.2227
27
Economy
Yunnan
Ningxia
Hainan
Guangxi
Shanxi
Ningxia
Shanxi
Shanxi
Shaanxi
Xinjiang
Guangxi
Score
-0.2180
-0.2381
-0.2480
-0.2625
-0.2596
-0.2655
-0.2582
-0.2587
-0.2428
-0.2411
-0.2356
28
Economy
Ningxia
Yunnan
Yunnan
Shaanxi
Shaanxi
Yunnan
Yunnan
Ningxia
Yunnan
Yunnan
Yunnan
Score
-0.2221
-0.2386
-0.2647
-0.2737
-0.2833
-0.2737
-0.2855
-0.2966
-0.3062
-0.3156
-0.3293
29
Economy
Shaanxi
Shaanxi
Jiangxi
Yunnan
Yunnan
Shanxi
Ningxia
Yunnan
Ningxia
Ningxia
Ningxia
Score
-0.2244
-0.2688
-0.2679
-0.2818
-0.2959
-0.2852
-0.3029
-0.3120
-0.3618
-0.3787
-0.3706
30
Economy
Jiangxi
Jiangxi
Shaanxi
Hainan
Hainan
Qinghai
Qinghai
Hainan
Hainan
Hainan
Hainan
Score
-0.3097
-0.2818
-0.2801
-0.3086
-0.2961
-0.3199
-0.3539
-0.3619
-0.4052
-0.3870
-0.3898
31
Economy
Qinghai
Qinghai
Qinghai
Qinghai
Qinghai
Hainan
Hainan
Qinghai
Qinghai
Gansu
Gansu
Score
-0.3586
-0.3300
-0.3478
-0.3359
-0.3349
-0.3730
-0.3877
-0.3934
-0.4092
-0.4356
-0.4458
32
Economy
Gansu
Gansu
Guizhou
Guizhou
Guizhou
Gansu
Guizhou
Guizhou
Gansu
Guizhou
Qinghai
Score
-0.3902
-0.3877
-0.4314
-0.4459
-0.4673
-0.4192
-0.4530
-0.4672
-0.4214
-0.4525
-0.4575
33
Economy
Guizhou
Guizhou
Gansu
Gansu
Gansu
Guizhou
Gansu
Gansu
Guizhou
Qinghai
Guizhou
Score
-0.4226
-0.4208
-0.4600
-0.4623
-0.4707
-0.4421
-0.4590
-0.4802
-0.4472
-0.4546
-0.4585
34
Economy
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Score
-0.6109
-0.5911
-0.6058
-0.5498
-0.5118
-0.5448
-0.5549
-0.5708
-0.5856
-0.6234
-0.6228
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 35 States and Federal Territories of
India, 2000-2010
TOTAL Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1
Economy
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Score
1.098245
1.13581
1.093355
1.098245
1.197973
1.239308
1.187489
1.250754
1.150723
1.174888
1.232075
2
Economy
Tamil Nadu
Delhi #
Delhi #
Tamil Nadu
Delhi #
Delhi #
Delhi #
Delhi #
Delhi #
Delhi #
Delhi #
Score
0.640821
0.691053
0.57142
0.640821
0.494827
0.512666
0.488915
0.464661
0.471413
0.497664
0.444077
3
Economy
Delhi #
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Delhi #
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu
Score
0.618374
0.481231
0.489779
0.618374
0.45917
0.426796
0.418075
0.429929
0.376032
0.391829
0.36754
4
Economy
Lakshadweep #
Lakshadweep #
Lakshadweep #
Lakshadweep #
Karnataka
Karnataka
Karnataka
Karnataka
Karnataka
Karnataka
Lakshadweep #
Score
0.375167
0.387643
0.378609
0.375167
0.415928
0.382369
0.396654
0.382121
0.346045
0.350084
0.345353
5
Economy
Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Lakshadweep #
Lakshadweep #
Lakshadweep #
Lakshadweep #
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Score
0.340205
0.35295
0.356376
0.340205
0.399783
0.347421
0.384123
0.344002
0.338577
0.336564
0.339292
6
Economy
Sikkim
Sikkim
Uttar Pradesh
Sikkim
Lakshadweep #
Gujarat
Uttar Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Lakshadweep #
Gujarat
Score
0.275462
0.322713
0.333013
0.275462
0.333871
0.32243
0.309431
0.295684
0.281556
0.325895
0.317991
7
Economy
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Gujarat
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Uttar Pradesh
Score
0.252288
0.300379
0.329932
0.252288
0.322763
0.29783
0.303031
0.281901
0.275488
0.280855
0.268128
8
Economy
Gujarat
Gujarat
Sikkim
Gujarat
Uttar Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Score
0.224269
0.283423
0.326165
0.224269
0.290749
0.264769
0.264159
0.270557
0.26568
0.234622
0.265209
9
Economy
Karnataka
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Sikkim
Sikkim
Sikkim
Sikkim
Sikkim
Sikkim
Sikkim
Score
0.20717
0.250783
0.274869
0.20717
0.290255
0.21638
0.226392
0.203786
0.23224
0.206479
0.158365
10
Economy
West Bengal
West Bengal
West Bengal
West Bengal
West Bengal
West Bengal
West Bengal
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Score
0.193719
0.156147
0.139608
0.193719
0.108573
0.123528
0.105952
0.112822
0.103518
0.11327
0.129438
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 35 States and Federal Territories of
India, 2000-2010
TOTAL Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
21
Economy
Nagaland
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Pondicherry #
Pondicherry #
Dadra & Nagar Haveli #
Jammu & Kashmir
Punjab
Pondicherry #
Haryana
Kerala
Score
‐0.12852
‐0.13449
‐0.13242
‐0.10082
‐0.13275
‐0.10379
‐0.12609
‐0.1288
‐0.12582
‐0.12806
‐0.13524
22
Economy
Dadra & Nagar Haveli #
Dadra & Nagar Haveli #
Daman & Diu #
Arunachal Pradesh
Daman & Diu #
Punjab
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Daman & Diu #
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Score
‐0.23473
‐0.22688
‐0.20401
‐0.22182
‐0.22481
‐0.22257
‐0.16793
‐0.19775
‐0.16994
‐0.19247
‐0.19356
Economy
Meghalaya
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Nagaland
Manipur
Himachal Pradesh
Manipur
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Uttaranchal
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Orissa
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Score
‐0.14886
‐0.15539
‐0.14011
‐0.10168
‐0.13675
‐0.1175
‐0.1424
‐0.1296
‐0.13563
‐0.13649
‐0.1379
23
Economy
Jammu & Kashmir
Arunachal Pradesh
Dadra & Nagar Haveli #
Jammu & Kashmir
Arunachal Pradesh
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Kerala
Uttaranchal
Kerala
Haryana
Score
‐0.24744
‐0.23306
‐0.22942
‐0.22809
‐0.22616
‐0.23272
‐0.17621
‐0.21593
‐0.17289
‐0.20456
‐0.20062
Economy
Orissa
Manipur
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Nagaland
Nagaland
Nagaland
Nagaland
Nagaland
Uttaranchal
Score
‐0.15515
‐0.15614
‐0.16543
‐0.17995
‐0.15412
‐0.12098
‐0.14345
‐0.13375
‐0.14459
‐0.14121
‐0.1504
24
Economy
Haryana
Orissa
Orissa
Orissa
Manipur
Himachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Haryana
Punjab
Manipur
Orissa
25
Score
Economy
Score
‐0.18673
Tripura
‐0.21627
‐0.18567
Himachal Pradesh
‐0.22393
‐0.17504
Arunachal Pradesh
‐0.18619
‐0.20163
Himachal Pradesh
‐0.21583
‐0.20698 Andaman & Nicobar Islands # ‐0.22302
‐0.15471
Uttaranchal
‐0.19907
‐0.15141
Uttaranchal
‐0.15922
‐0.13705
Orissa
‐0.14264
‐0.15227
Orissa
‐0.15873
‐0.17151
Punjab
‐0.17857
‐0.15451
Manipur
‐0.17986
TOTAL Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
26
Economy
Himachal Pradesh
Nagaland
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Orissa
Orissa
Orissa
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Haryana
Andaman & Nicobar Islands #
Daman & Diu #
27
28
29
30
Score
Economy
Score
‐0.26691 Andaman & Nicobar Islands # ‐0.27584
‐0.27552
Tripura
‐0.28328
‐0.25923
Manipur
‐0.27967
‐0.23749
Nagaland
‐0.2457
‐0.26274
Nagaland
‐0.26621
‐0.23811 Andaman & Nicobar Islands # ‐0.24019
‐0.18385
Manipur
‐0.25098
‐0.22666
Manipur
‐0.26919
‐0.1985
Manipur
‐0.22655
‐0.21908
Uttaranchal
‐0.23216
‐0.23086
Bihar
‐0.23312
Economy
Bihar
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Score
‐0.2898
‐0.29191
‐0.28269
‐0.29115
‐0.28355
‐0.28717
‐0.2723
‐0.27602
‐0.25575
‐0.27468
‐0.23854
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 35 States and Federal Territories of
India, 2000-2010
TOTAL Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
31
Economy
Manipur
Uttaranchal
Tripura
Assam
Assam
Assam
Assam
Assam
Bihar
Bihar
Assam
Score
‐0.31752
‐0.29698
‐0.31118
‐0.32841
‐0.28713
‐0.33469
‐0.31556
‐0.30441
‐0.30023
‐0.2905
‐0.25685
32
Economy
Uttaranchal
Assam
Assam
Chattisgarh
Jharkhand
Bihar
Chattisgarh
Bihar
Assam
Assam
Meghalaya
Score
‐0.31959
‐0.34883
‐0.31707
‐0.3714
‐0.3479
‐0.36079
‐0.32333
‐0.3328
‐0.33631
‐0.29815
‐0.2797
33
Economy
Assam
Chattisgarh
Bihar
Bihar
Bihar
Chattisgarh
Bihar
Chattisgarh
Chattisgarh
Chattisgarh
Chattisgarh
Score
‐0.34989
‐0.3819
‐0.31803
‐0.39834
‐0.3486
‐0.37493
‐0.34353
‐0.33637
‐0.34875
‐0.37658
‐0.33267
34
Economy
Jharkhand
Bihar
Chattisgarh
Tripura
Chattisgarh
Jharkhand
Tripura
Jharkhand
Jharkhand
Tripura
Jharkhand
Score
‐0.41507
‐0.38613
‐0.40031
‐0.40325
‐0.36411
‐0.38276
‐0.42228
‐0.37067
‐0.35041
‐0.38639
‐0.40756
35
Economy
Chattisgarh
Jharkhand
Jharkhand
Jharkhand
Tripura
Tripura
Jharkhand
Tripura
Tripura
Jharkhand
Tripura
Score
‐0.45956
‐0.44426
‐0.42795
‐0.43749
‐0.41352
‐0.38906
‐0.49841
‐0.42255
‐0.41183
‐0.41068
‐0.41814
ASEAN-10 Economies Indicators List (29 July 2012) - 2000 to 2010
1
1.1
1.1.01
1.1.02
1.1.03
1.1.04
1.1.05
1.1.06
1.1.07
1.1.08
1.1.09
1.1.10
1.1.11
1.1.12
1.2
1.2.01
1.2.02
1.2.03
1.2.04
1.2.05
1.3
1.3.01
1.3.02
1.3.03
1.3.04
1.3.05
1.3.06
1.3.07
MACROECONOMIC STABILITY
Economic Vibrancy
Gross Domestic Production
GDP Growth
GDP Per Capita
Output Agriculture (Value Added)
Output Industry (Value Added)
Output Manufacturing (Value Added)
Output Services (Value Added)
Gross Domestic Savings
Gross Fixed Capital Formation
Consumer Price Index
Inflation
Money Supply Growth (M2)
Openness To Trade and Services
Current Account Balance
Exports of Goods and Services
Imports of Goods and Services
Openness To Trade
International Tourism Receipts
Attractiveness To Foreign Investors
Foreign Direct Investment Inflows
Foreign Owned Companies
Total Taxes on Foreign Owned Companies
Discrimination Against Investors
Levelness of Playing Field
Transparency of Processes for Investors
Nationalism as an Impediment
2
2.1
GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
Government Policies and Fiscal Sustainability
2.1.01
2.1.02
2.1.03
2.1.04
2.1.05
2.1.06
2.1.07
2.1.08
2.1.09
2.1.10
2.1.11
2.1.12
2.1.13
2.1.14
2.1.15
2.2
2.2.01
2.2.02
2.2.03
2.2.04
2.2.05
2.2.06
2.2.07
2.2.08
2.2.09
2.2.10
2.2.11
2.2.12
2.2.13
2.2.14
2.2.15
Government Revenue
Tax Revenue
Tax Revenue/Government Revenue
Government Consumption Expenditure
External Debt
International Reserves
Foreign Assets
International Monetary Fund Credit
Budget Balance
Tax Burden
Money Supply (M2)
Deposit Interest Rate
Lending Rate
Interest Rate Spread
Official Exchange Rate
Institutions, Governance and Leadership
Quality of Government Policies
Government Effectiveness
Government Environmental Protection Policies
Quality of Central Bank/Monetary Authority
Government Stability
Government Responsiveness
Quality of Political Leadership
Political System Risk
Legislature/Parliament (Functioning of Government System)
Conduct of State Affairs by Key Institutions
Institutional Sophistication
Bureaucracy/Red Tape
Corruption
Cronyism
State-Owned Enterprises
2.3
2.3.01
2.3.02
2.3.03
2.3.04
2.3.05
2.3.06
2.3.07
2.3.08
2.3.09
2.3.10
2.3.11
2.3.12
2.3.13
2.3.14
2.3.15
Competition, Regulatory Standards and Rule of Laws
Corporate Governance
Quality of Regulatory Environment
Transparency of Government
Monopolies and Cartel
Public-Private Sector Competition
Ease of Starting Business
Barriers to Trade
Intellectual Property Rights Protection
Regional Competitiveness
Quality of Judiciary
Effectiveness of Legal System
Integrity of Legal System
Quality of Police
Political Change
Social Stability
3
FINANCIAL, BUSINESSES AND MANPOWER CONDITIONS
3.1
Financial Deepening and Business Efficiency
3.1i Banking Efficiency
3.1.01 Claims on Private Sector
3.1.02 Domestic Credit to Private Sector
3.1.03 Quality of Banking and Financial System
3.1.04 Domestic Credit Provided by Banking Sector
3.1ii Stock Market Efficiency
3.1.05 Listed Domestic Companies
3.1.06 Market Capitalisation
3.1.07 Total Value of Stocks Traded
3.1.08 Sovereign Rating
3.1.09 Quality of Stock Market Regulatory Authority
3.2
Labor Market Flexibility
3.2.01 Labour Force
3.2.02 Unemployment Rate
3.2.03 Cost of Production Labour
3.2.04 High Quality Production Staff
3.2.05 Cost of Management Staff
3.2.06 High Quality Management Staff
3.2.07 Skill Level
3.2.08 Work Ethics
3.2.09 Labour Turnover
3.3
Productivity Performance
3.3.01 Agriculture, Value Added Per Worker
3.3.02 Industry, Value-Added Per Worker
3.3.03 Manufacturing, Value-Added Per Worker
3.3.04 Services, Value-Added Per Worker
QUALITY OF LIFE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
4
4.1
Physical Infrastructure
4.1.01Population
4.1.02Local Road System
4.1.03Rail Facilities
4.1.04Airport Facilities
4.1.05Port Facilities
4.1.06Public Transport System
4.1.07Electric Power
4.1.08Water and Other Utilities
4.2
Technological Infrastructure
4.2.01Telecommunications System
4.2.02Telephone Main Lines
4.2.03Internet Subscribers
4.2.04Cellular Mobile Telephone Subscribers
4.2.05Internet and Services Supporting IT
4.2.06Personal Computers
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 4.2.07 Expenditure
4.2.08High Technology Proficiency
4.3 Standard of Living, Education and Social Stability
4.3.01Literacy Rate
4.3.02Primary Schooling
4.3.03Secondary Schooling
4.3.04University and Post‐Graduate Education
4.3.05Human Development Index
4.3.06Health Expenditure
4.3.07Urban Population
4.3.08Urban Population Growth
4.3.09Public Security and Safety
4.3.10Freedom of Press
4.3.11Freedom of Speech
4.3.12Information Flows
4.3.13Freedom of Religion
4.3.14Religious Unrest
4.3.15Labour Unrest
4.3.16Racial Unrest
4.3.17Labour Activism
4.3.18Water Quality
4.3.19Air Quality
4.3.20Noise Pollution
4.3.21Traffic Congestion
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of ASEAN-10, 2000-2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
Rank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1
Economy
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
Score
1.4672
1.4498
1.4135
1.3501
1.4022
1.4242
1.3837
1.3996
1.3887
1.4518
1.4463
2
Economy
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Score
0.5160
0.5316
0.6048
0.5889
0.6305
0.6353
0.6625
0.6450
0.6174
0.5322
0.5766
3
Economy
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Score
0.2955
0.3002
0.3236
0.3299
0.3007
0.3078
0.2756
0.2423
0.2330
0.2247
0.2210
4
Economy
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Score
0.2254
0.2651
0.2356
0.2620
0.2420
0.2670
0.2567
0.2074
0.1933
0.2077
0.2039
5
Economy
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Indonesia
Philippines
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Score
-0.0811
-0.1238
-0.1733
-0.1996
-0.1723
-0.1917
-0.1647
-0.1082
-0.1068
-0.0857
-0.0657
6
Economy
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Philippines
Indonesia
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Vietnam
Vietnam
Score
-0.2847
-0.2653
-0.2155
-0.2242
-0.2161
-0.2167
-0.1822
-0.1811
-0.1900
-0.1866
-0.1878
7
Economy
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Philippines
Philippines
Score
-0.2945
-0.2726
-0.3018
-0.2808
-0.2718
-0.2762
-0.2739
-0.2548
-0.2074
-0.2432
-0.2574
8
Economy
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Score
-0.4205
-0.4272
-0.4363
-0.4382
-0.4918
-0.5098
-0.5331
-0.5243
-0.5387
-0.5203
-0.5151
9
Economy
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Score
-0.7111
-0.6723
-0.6590
-0.6693
-0.6582
-0.6682
-0.6436
-0.6387
-0.6314
-0.6154
-0.6295
10
Economy
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Score
-0.7121
-0.7856
-0.7918
-0.7189
-0.7653
-0.7716
-0.7810
-0.7873
-0.7581
-0.7653
-0.7923
Macroeconomic Stability Ranking, 2000-2010
MACROECONOMIC STABILITY
1
Rank
Economy
2000
Singapore
2001
Singapore
2002
Singapore
2003
Singapore
2004
Singapore
2005
Singapore
2006
Singapore
2007
Singapore
2008
Singapore
2009
Singapore
2010
Singapore
Score
1.5599
1.4976
1.4192
1.4240
1.4970
1.5559
1.4779
1.4575
1.3234
1.5067
1.5447
2
Economy
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Score
0.5190
0.4891
0.5790
0.5244
0.6201
0.6221
0.5924
0.5919
0.5446
0.4129
0.4814
3
Economy
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Score
0.3588
0.3885
0.4109
0.3939
0.3736
0.3836
0.3824
0.3549
0.3809
0.3658
0.3429
4
Economy
Indonesia
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Indonesia
Brunei
Brunei
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Score
-0.1372
-0.0398
-0.0551
-0.0421
-0.0010
0.0131
0.0590
0.0773
0.1279
0.0893
0.0668
5
Economy
Brunei
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Brunei
Indonesia
Indonesia
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Score
-0.1811
-0.1213
-0.1220
-0.1537
-0.1019
-0.0881
-0.0451
-0.0510
-0.0581
-0.0852
0.0243
MACROECONOMIC STABILITY
6
Rank
Economy
2000
Cambodia
2001
Vietnam
2002
Vietnam
2003
Vietnam
2004
Vietnam
2005
Cambodia
2006
Vietnam
2007
Philippines
2008
Vietnam
2009
Vietnam
2010
Vietnam
Score
-0.2359
-0.2041
-0.1656
-0.2281
-0.3173
-0.3175
-0.3300
-0.3073
-0.2032
-0.1723
-0.2077
7
Economy
Philippines
Cambodia
Philippines
Cambodia
Philippines
Vietnam
Philippines
Vietnam
Cambodia
Cambodia
Philippines
Score
-0.2464
-0.2461
-0.2900
-0.2697
-0.3303
-0.3677
-0.3570
-0.3098
-0.3793
-0.4504
-0.4283
8
Economy
Vietnam
Philippines
Cambodia
Philippines
Cambodia
Philippines
Cambodia
Cambodia
Philippines
Philippines
Cambodia
Score
-0.2482
-0.2838
-0.2979
-0.3311
-0.3364
-0.4122
-0.3705
-0.4248
-0.3821
-0.4598
-0.4709
9
Economy
Myanmar
Laos
Laos
Myanmar
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Score
-0.6496
-0.6428
-0.6437
-0.6508
-0.6700
-0.6669
-0.6391
-0.6203
-0.6322
-0.5605
-0.6677
10
Economy
Laos
Myanmar
Myanmar
Laos
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Score
-0.7394
-0.8373
-0.8347
-0.6667
-0.7339
-0.7223
-0.7699
-0.7685
-0.7218
-0.6465
-0.6855
Government and Institutional Setting Ranking, 2000-2010
GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
1
Rank
Economy
Score
2000
Singapore
1.6287
2001
Singapore
1.6542
2002
Singapore
1.5226
2003
Singapore
1.5044
2004
Singapore
1.4614
2005
Singapore
1.4468
2006
Singapore
1.4556
2007
Singapore
1.5036
2008
Singapore
1.6060
2009
Singapore
1.6057
2010
Singapore
1.6183
2
Economy
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Score
0.5221
0.5543
0.6612
0.6646
0.7101
0.7533
0.7257
0.6925
0.6040
0.4761
0.5324
3
Economy
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Score
0.4551
0.4524
0.5045
0.5390
0.4588
0.4814
0.4680
0.4282
0.3924
0.4725
0.3965
4
Economy
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Score
0.3959
0.3819
0.3627
0.3896
0.4587
0.4808
0.3344
0.2409
0.1975
0.1701
0.1635
5
Economy
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Vietnam
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Indonesia
Philippines
Indonesia
Indonesia
Score
-0.0204
-0.0718
-0.1303
-0.1716
-0.2289
-0.1731
-0.1660
-0.1853
-0.2009
-0.1222
-0.0784
GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
6
Rank
Economy
Score
2000
Vietnam
-0.2637
2001
Vietnam
-0.2610
2002
Vietnam
-0.2106
2003
Philippines
-0.2108
2004
Vietnam
-0.2799
2005
Vietnam
-0.2918
2006
Indonesia
-0.2432
2007
Philippines
-0.1893
2008
Indonesia
-0.2119
2009
Philippines
-0.2831
2010
Philippines
-0.2924
7
Economy
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Score
-0.4327
-0.4687
-0.4137
-0.3983
-0.3500
-0.3671
-0.3241
-0.3192
-0.3214
-0.2960
-0.3205
8
Economy
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Score
-0.6183
-0.6085
-0.6225
-0.5271
-0.4730
-0.5673
-0.5246
-0.4620
-0.4681
-0.4453
-0.4254
9
Economy
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Score
-0.8141
-0.7743
-0.7942
-0.8666
-0.8152
-0.8258
-0.7946
-0.7743
-0.7090
-0.6952
-0.6712
10
Economy
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Score
-0.8526
-0.8584
-0.8798
-0.9233
-0.9421
-0.9372
-0.9313
-0.9350
-0.8887
-0.8826
-0.9227
Financial, Businesses and Manpower Conditions Ranking, 2000-2010
FINANCIAL, BUSINESSES AND MANPOWER CONDITIONS
1
2
Rank
Economy
Score
Economy
2000
Singapore
1.2168
Malaysia
2001
Singapore
1.2317
Malaysia
2002
Singapore
1.3047
Malaysia
2003
Singapore
1.1351
Malaysia
2004
Singapore
1.3215
Malaysia
2005
Singapore
1.3431
Malaysia
2006
Singapore
1.2774
Malaysia
2007
Singapore
1.2633
Malaysia
2008
Singapore
1.2631
Malaysia
2009
Singapore
1.3299
Malaysia
2010
Singapore
1.2535
Malaysia
Score
0.4277
0.4858
0.5372
0.5111
0.5326
0.4744
0.6156
0.6595
0.6948
0.6298
0.7064
3
Economy
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Score
0.3154
0.3209
0.2830
0.3303
0.2733
0.2337
0.1971
0.1853
0.2030
0.2164
0.2365
4
Economy
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Score
0.1618
0.1487
0.1082
0.1939
0.1886
0.1809
0.1829
0.1351
0.0851
0.1070
0.0932
5
Economy
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Indonesia
Philippines
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Score
-0.0093
-0.0782
-0.0998
-0.1180
-0.1432
-0.0650
-0.1277
-0.0939
-0.1231
-0.0913
-0.0913
FINANCIAL, BUSINESSES AND MANPOWER CONDITIONS
6
7
Rank
Economy
Score
Economy
2000
Indonesia
-0.0915
Vietnam
2001
Indonesia
-0.1019
Vietnam
2002
Indonesia
-0.1189
Vietnam
2003
Indonesia
-0.1621
Vietnam
2004
Philippines
-0.2097
Vietnam
2005
Indonesia
-0.1990
Vietnam
2006
Philippines
-0.1324
Vietnam
2007
Philippines
-0.1445
Vietnam
2008
Philippines
-0.1306
Vietnam
2009
Philippines
-0.1826
Vietnam
2010
Philippines
-0.1992
Vietnam
Score
-0.3454
-0.3067
-0.2776
-0.2759
-0.2793
-0.2399
-0.2489
-0.2553
-0.1828
-0.2320
-0.2276
8
Economy
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Score
-0.5001
-0.5426
-0.5435
-0.3983
-0.4562
-0.4866
-0.4697
-0.4539
-0.4530
-0.5008
-0.5204
9
Economy
Laos
Cambodia
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Score
-0.5840
-0.5744
-0.5528
-0.5512
-0.5461
-0.5869
-0.5568
-0.5761
-0.6081
-0.6197
-0.5903
10
Economy
Cambodia
Laos
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Score
-0.5913
-0.5832
-0.6405
-0.6651
-0.6814
-0.6546
-0.7375
-0.7196
-0.7482
-0.6566
-0.6607
Quality Of Life and Infrastructure Development Ranking, 2000-2010
QUALITY OF LIFE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
1
2
Rank
Economy
Score
Economy
2000
Singapore
1.4633
Malaysia
2001
Singapore
1.4156
Malaysia
2002
Singapore
1.4076
Malaysia
2003
Singapore
1.3370
Malaysia
2004
Singapore
1.3291
Malaysia
2005
Singapore
1.3511
Malaysia
2006
Singapore
1.3240
Malaysia
2007
Singapore
1.3740
Malaysia
2008
Singapore
1.3624
Malaysia
2009
Singapore
1.3650
Malaysia
2010
Singapore
1.3686
Malaysia
Score
0.5952
0.5974
0.6419
0.6556
0.6593
0.6912
0.7164
0.6362
0.6260
0.6100
0.5865
3
Economy
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Brunei
Score
0.3714
0.3973
0.3520
0.3702
0.3379
0.3398
0.3027
0.3172
0.3538
0.3367
0.3015
4
Economy
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Score
0.2063
0.2113
0.2708
0.1928
0.1821
0.1859
0.2025
0.1884
0.1506
0.1467
0.1413
5
Economy
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Vietnam
Vietnam
Score
-0.0484
-0.0613
-0.1730
-0.1384
-0.0954
-0.1165
-0.0734
-0.0836
-0.0462
-0.0460
0.0047
QUALITY OF LIFE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
6
7
Rank
Economy
Score
Economy
2000
Vietnam
-0.2817
Indonesia
2001
Indonesia
-0.2586
Vietnam
2002
Vietnam
-0.2082
Indonesia
2003
Vietnam
-0.2211
Indonesia
2004
Indonesia
-0.1952
Vietnam
2005
Vietnam
-0.2056
Indonesia
2006
Vietnam
-0.1926
Indonesia
2007
Vietnam
-0.1348
Indonesia
2008
Vietnam
-0.1220
Indonesia
2009
Philippines
-0.0472
Indonesia
2010
Philippines
-0.1096
Indonesia
Score
-0.3311
-0.2893
-0.3436
-0.2805
-0.2106
-0.2126
-0.2429
-0.2308
-0.2200
-0.2187
-0.1598
8
Economy
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Score
-0.4222
-0.4194
-0.3932
-0.4196
-0.4764
-0.4998
-0.4997
-0.4907
-0.5591
-0.5291
-0.5036
9
Economy
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Laos
Score
-0.7068
-0.6891
-0.6451
-0.5927
-0.6017
-0.5932
-0.5840
-0.5840
-0.5763
-0.5863
-0.5888
10
Economy
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Score
-0.8459
-0.9039
-0.9090
-0.9034
-0.9292
-0.9403
-0.9531
-0.9917
-0.9691
-1.0312
-1.0407
Overall Ranking for 79 Asian Economies, Year 2010
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Economy
Macau
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Guangdong
Singapore
Jiangsu
Shanghai
Indonesia
Beijing
Shandong
Zhejiang
Tianjin
Liaoning
Maharashtra
Inner Mongolia
Malaysia
Henan
Thailand
Hebei
Sichuan
Delhi
Fujian
Xinjiang
Hunan
Heilongjiang
Hubei
Jilin
Anhui
Shaanxi
Shanxi
Guangxi
Jiangxi
Chongqing
Vietnam
Yunnan
Brunei
Philippines
Lakshadweep
Karnataka
Hainan
Score
1.7181
1.3985
1.0655
0.8045
0.7705
0.6636
0.5166
0.4955
0.4412
0.4386
0.4161
0.3208
0.3182
0.3175
0.3067
0.2511
0.2253
0.1675
0.1634
0.1556
0.1546
0.1499
0.1258
0.1076
0.0974
0.0843
0.0667
0.0640
0.0622
0.0497
0.0493
0.0239
0.0179
0.0163
-0.0050
-0.0151
-0.0154
-0.0298
-0.0502
-0.0745
Rank
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Economy
Gansu
Tamil Nadu
Guizhou
Uttar Pradesh
Ningxia
Chandigarh
Sikkim
Qinghai
Arunachal Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Mizoram
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Madhya Pradesh
West Bengal
Gujarat
Daman & Diu
Pondicherry
Uttaranchal
Tibet
Rajasthan
Jammu & Kashmir
Goa
Himachal Pradesh
Nagaland
Bihar
Laos
Meghalaya
Kerala
Haryana
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Manipur
Punjab
Chattisgarh
Orissa
Assam
Tripura
Jharkhand
Cambodia
Myanmar
Score
-0.0977
-0.1031
-0.1047
-0.1283
-0.1390
-0.1423
-0.1671
-0.1738
-0.1882
-0.1891
-0.1962
-0.2151
-0.2203
-0.2332
-0.2353
-0.2390
-0.2695
-0.2942
-0.2952
-0.3035
-0.3121
-0.3148
-0.3471
-0.3543
-0.3635
-0.3665
-0.3905
-0.3918
-0.3939
-0.3986
-0.4016
-0.4422
-0.4492
-0.4626
-0.4659
-0.4667
-0.4693
-0.4700
-0.6389
Relative Competitiveness Index Between Top 10 Mainland
Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC Index)
China (1994)
India (1994)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (74%)
5.1455
3.8065
Economic Vibrancy: (93%)
4.8809
4.5492
Government & Institutions: (76%)
6.7360
5.1421
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (69%)
6.5277
4.4975
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (67%)
4.5372
3.0724
Relative Competitiveness Index Between Top 10 Mainland
Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC Index)
China (1999)
India (1999)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (49%)
6.4126
3.1236
Economic Vibrancy: (49%)
6.7803
3.339
Government & Institutions: (69%)
8.6861
5.9548
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (50%)
6.9167
3.4664
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (39%)
6.4604
2.508
Relative Competitiveness Index Between Top 10 Mainland
Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC Index)
China (2004)
India (2004)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (25%)
6.6994
1.6771
Economic Vibrancy: (48%)
7.9141
3.76
Government & Institutions: (53%)
8.9705
4.73
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (48%)
6.1343
2.9166
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (9%)
4.8213
0.4449
Relative Competitiveness Index Between Top 10 Mainland
Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC Index)
China (2009)
India (2009)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (23%)
6.2413
1.4619
Economic Vibrancy: (12%)
10.3120
1.2608
Government & Institutions: (36%)
5.1525
1.8488
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (39%)
6.7228
2.599
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (5%)
2.7784
0.1391
Summary Findings on Relative Competitiveness Index Amongst Top
10 Mainland China Provinces & Indian States
(a) When comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of China and India in 1994
•
CI-RC Index suggested that India was only 73% of China’ overall competitiveness,
where both were nearly in par on economic environment (93%), but China was
ahead in Government & Institutions (76%), business (69%) and social (67%)
environment.
(b) When comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of China and India in 1999
•
CI-RC Index revealed that India was left further behind with only 49% of China’s
overall competitiveness and losing ground in all 4 environments including economic
(49%), Government & Institutions (69%), Businesses (50%) and social (39%).
(c) When comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of China and India in 2004
•
CI-RC Index showed how India was left with a fraction amounting to 25% of China’s
overall competitiveness, with further deterioration in all 4 environments including
economics (48%), Government & Institutions (53%), Businesses (48%) and Social
(9%).
(d) When comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of China and India in 2009
•
CI-RC Index showed how India was left with a fraction amounting to 23% of China’s
overall competitiveness, with further deterioration in all 4 environments including
economics (12%), Government & Institutions (36%), Businesses (39%) and Social (5%).
Relative Competitiveness Index Between Top 10 Mainland
Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC Index)
China (1994)
India (2009)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (145%)
3.1039
4.4979
Economic Vibrancy: (110%)
3.8753
4.2652
Government & Institutions: (308%)
1.7989
5.5385
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (211%)
2.9882
6.3111
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (50%)
3.7533
1.8768
Relative Competitiveness Index Amongst Top 10
Mainland Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC
Index)
China (1999)
India (2009)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (116%)
3.3125
3.8405
Economic Vibrancy: (83%)
5.2326
4.3475
Government & Institutions: (153%)
3.3801
5.1719
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (157%)
3.4686
5.4483
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (34%)
1.1687
0.3941
Relative Competitiveness Index Between Top 10 Mainland
Chinese Provinces & Indian States (CI-RC Index)
China (2004)
India (2009)
(B/A)
A
B
Overall CI‐RCI: (43%)
5.2058
2.2457
Economic Vibrancy: (25%)
8.6742
2.189
Government & Institutions: (101%)
3.7906
3.8168
Businesses & Labor Flexibility: (41%)
6.1405
2.5221
Physical & Social Infrastructure: (21%)
2.2178
0.4549
Summary Findings on Relative Competitiveness Index Amongst Top
10 Mainland China Provinces & Indian States
(e) However, when comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of India based on 2009
data sets with those of China in 1994 that is by giving a handicap of 15 years:
• CI-RC Index indicated that India overall competitiveness is actually 45% more than
China , economically more competitive than China by 10%, more effective than China
in government & institutions by 208% , with greater business efficiency & labor
flexibility by 111%, but still lagging behind in physical and social infrastructure by
50%!
(f) Interestingly when comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of India based on
2009 data sets with those of China in 1999 that is by giving a handicap of 10 years
• CI-RC Index reflected that India was overall more competitive than China by 16%,
economically less competitive than China by 17%, 53% more effective than China in
government & institutions and 57% more efficient in business & labor flexibility, but
lagging behind even more in physical and social infrastructure with only 34%
(g) Noticed when comparing competitiveness of top 10 economies of India based on 2009
data sets with those of China in 2004 that is by giving a handicap of 5 years.
• CI-RC Index reflected that India was only 43% of China overall competitiveness, and
India’s was only 25% of China’s economy vibrancy , both of are of equal effectiveness
in terms of government and institutions , and India has only 41% of China business
efficiency and labor flexibility , and left behind even more with 21% in terms of
physical and social infrastructure !
(h) If we further provide up to 15 years of handicap to India, that is to say comparing data
set of 2009 for India with those of China in 1994, in terms of competitiveness in physical
Thank you for your attention