Search results

This study aims to evaluate the competitiveness of nations and seeks to answer the following research question: how does the competitiveness of nations include improvements in the quality of life, thus influencing and contributing to social progress in both social and economic indices?

This paper collected secondary data from the World Economic Forum and the socioeconomic dimensions of the Social Progress Imperative Index and considered the dimensions of these indices, which were demonstrated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The main focus was on the documentary analysis that was carried out to explain the realities of 121 countries from 2014 to 2017 as taken from these indices, considering the 10 countries at the top and bottom.

This study showed the use of new measures for the performance of nations that are less dependent on economics and focus more on social development, which may be a trend for the future of nations, and produce a more holistic view for the study. “Innovation” is the factor with the weakest relationship with social progress, which is justified by a weaker relationship with one of the subcategories, “basic human needs”, when analyzed in isolation. However, when the authors analyze the best and worst nations, the authors observe that economic factors are still prevalent, with the “institutions” and “infrastructure” factors being effective for improving competitiveness and the quality of life.

The findings represent a new, emerging configuration in country performance, but the study has its limitations, such as the use of only two pooled variables and the fact that it does not correlate their dimensions or variables.

This study can represents an expansion logic for measuring the performance of countries considering social factors. The main contributions of this study are its statistical evidence and documentary analysis of the relationship between economic and social variables. The main contribution of this paper is to show that over time (2014–2017) economic factors, as measured by the competitiveness index of nations, relate to aspects of social welfare, as measured by the social progress index.

This paper has two objectives. First, it attempts to prove that the level of competitiveness can be measured for any entities with different domains—product, firm, industry, nation, bloc, or the globe. It shows that sources of competitiveness are identical for all the entities. The distinguishing feature among these entities is the roles they play in determining the respective levels of competitiveness. Second, the paper suggests that the genuine purpose in our analysis of competitiveness should be to find ways to increase the level of global competitiveness. To identify sources of competitiveness, I propose the nine‐factor model, which encompasses both physical and human factors. These nine factors are classified into four categories —subject, environment, resources, and mechanism —by the roles they play to increase the level of competitiveness. The “integrated model of competitiveness” shows that different classifications of the nine factors take place for different entities. Specifically, as the domain of the entity increases, the scope of resources that subjects can utilize expands and the scope of the uncontrollable environment shrinks. Global competitiveness is not cross‐sectional in nature. I suggest ways to increase the future level of global competitiveness for the better welfare of all humankind.

Nation branding strategies are gaining priority as an area of research because of increasing market complexities and the rising importance of national competitiveness ranking. The sustainable development of a nation brand, when properly managed, will provide the economic incentive to attract investors, tourists and generate income for local communities. Therefore, this paper aims to focus on delineating the strategic imperatives for sustainable market competitiveness of nation brands.

The research adopts an eclectic approach in examining a wider range of factors such as sustainability and market competitiveness to develop a synergistic nation brand.

For nation brands to remain competitive, it is essential to understand the key determinants of market competitiveness. These determinants include sustainable tourism factors such as culture, heritage, environmental and integration of internal and external stakeholder groups from the public and private sectors.

This paper provides a framework for the analysis of sustainable market competitiveness factors of the nation brand. It also provides implications for nation branding and future research agenda.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Competitiveness is often confused with productivity. Productivity refers to the internal capability of an organization, while competitiveness refers to the relative position of an organization against its competitors. These two important concepts are often confused and interchangeably used. For example, in his famous book, The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Porter (1990, p. 6) says that the only meaningful concept of competitiveness at the national level is national productivity. Competitiveness may also have a distinctly different meaning at different levels of analysis — product, firm, industry, and nation. Porter (1990, p. 33) says that the basic unit of analysis for understanding competition is the “industry,” while the title of his book refers to “nations.” He also says that firms, not nations, compete in international markets.

Competitiveness is one of the most misunderstood concepts of the 1990s. It has drawn substantial attention from the government and business communities during the last 25 years. Morrisson et al. (1988) noted that between 1983 and 1987, the term competitiveness appeared more than 5700 times in the titles of newspapers and magazine articles. The growth of importance and interest can also be observed from the increase in the bibliographical entries in ABI/Inform database. From 1981 to 1986, the topic “international competitiveness” increased by about 26 listings per year (a total of 159 in 6 years) and the rate increased to 45 listings per year from 1987 to 1993. Academic interest in the area has also increased and as a result, new developments contemplating conceptualization and understanding of competitiveness are taking place. However, to no one's surprise, writers from different disciplines offer a variation in perspective when describing the concept, understanding, and postulation of competitiveness.

The purpose of this study is to analyze how The Competitive Advantage of Nations project led by Professor Michael E. Porter has opened up new perspectives on competitiveness of nations and firms for scholars, practitioners and policymakers. With the publication of The Competitive Advantage of Nations (CAON) book in 1990, Professor Michael E. Porter opened up a whole new perspective on competitiveness and clusters, including both new research avenues and new perspectives for practitioners and politicians. By questioning the traditional, more static and macroeconomic, views on competitiveness, he opened up for a new model of microeconomic drivers of long-run firm competitiveness. The new conceptual model, the Diamond model, pointed to the importance of healthy rivalry and dynamic clusters, in the proximate firm environment, as central to our understanding of how firms build sustainable competitive advantages in global markets.

Literature review and conceptual.

To distinguish between short-term, more static, and long-term, more dynamic competitiveness of firms, and the competitiveness of nations and regions, the paper proposes a conceptualization into three interrelated concepts: competitiveness and innovativeness of firms, and attractiveness of nations and regions.

This paper summarizes 40 years of Professor Porter’s seminal research with a focus on the CAON project that began with the 1990 book on The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The paper proposes three interrelated concepts to cover issues of competitiveness: competitiveness (firm’s static advantages), innovativeness (firm’s dynamic advantages) and attractiveness (national/regional advantages).

The paper aims to relook at the notion of competitiveness in the challenging times of pandemic. The failure of global value chains caused many nations despite their state of economic development to struggle for necessary items. The goal of achieving profitability abated by having self-sufficiency, specifically in the manufacturing sector where unlike services, the production processes jolted. Under this backdrop, the paper attempts to project local industry clusters as a panacea for achieving resilient competitiveness.

To explore the credibility of clusters as an important tool to prepare nations towards a resilient future, a correlation between the state of cluster development in a country and its national competitiveness has been tested. Besides, any difference in the notion of state of cluster development between least developing countries, developing countries and developed countries has also been tested. The paper uses the data from World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report.

Strong support for the research hypothesis has been found. High positive correlation exists between the state of cluster development and national competitiveness. The state of cluster development is found to be significantly different among three categories of countries.

Clusters have been promoted in academic literature, policy circles and the business community for many advantages. This paper is a novice attempt to showcase these can serve as an instrument to prepare economies for self-sufficiency and a resilient future by performing an objective evaluation.

This paper aims to identify the impact of economic integration on trade competitiveness and demonstrate its effects on trade and investment performance of member nations.

The study compiles some price indices to provide a systematic assessment of competitiveness in the BRICS region. The panel regression framework estimates the impact of integration on trade competitiveness and the external sector performance of BRICS nations.

The findings of the research highlight the prospects for strong, closer and sustained integration in BRICS and, more importantly, the contribution of competitiveness to FDI receipts and export growth.

The assessment of exports and investment experiences of BRICS nations, particularly China and India, provides further evidence in support of the logical design and strategic use of their foreign trade policies.

The economic partnership that wants to sustain this high road to global economic space needs strategic orientations to promote their partnership in other interest areas to make the cooperation more competitive in price terms.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the competitiveness and convergence of the G7 and big emerging markets (BEM) nations using various economic, demographic, trade, investment, and freedom and governance criteria.

The two groups of nations, G7 and BEM, are compared on the basis of various longitudinal and cross‐sectional variables. The longitudinal variables are GDP and real GDP growth, per capita GDP, international trade, foreign direct investment, index of ageing, and life expectancy at birth. Cross‐sectional competitive indices are Global competitiveness index, index of economic freedom, Democracy index, Human development index, Gini index, Government effectiveness, and Corruption perception index.

The findings show that BEM is growing faster than G7 in most economic indicators including GDP, trade, and investment. The growth results in some form of convergence. The freedom and governance infrastructure of the BEM is relatively weak to support their economic growth. The primary challenge of the BEM is coming from the economic interdependence they create in a globalized economy. Overall, the growth presents a new political reality that the world must recognize.

National competitiveness is a long‐term issue. A 30‐year longitudinal analysis may not be long enough to accurately reflect a nation's performance. Evidently, wealth creation in the emerging markets has profound influence in noneconomic areas. Political polarization and military confrontation are not unlikely.

Governments and businesses in G7, BEM, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) nations and institutions involved in global governance (e.g. World Bank, IMF, and WEF) may use the findings of the study to determine their policies. We should pay special attention to the global economic interdependence and guard against the negative effects of emerging markets' growth.

The comparative analysis between the G7 and BEM in terms of competitiveness and convergence is an original contribution. Also, the author's insight beyond economics is a unique section to follow. The author is not aware of any other study that has used the two concepts competitiveness and convergence together to understand the emerging markets.