Behind the "national competitiveness"
the international competitiveness of countries has always been one of the focuses of attention. Countless assessments and analyses have been carried out around this topic, and countless joys and sorrows have evolved as a result. However, what is this competitiveness fighting for? Why does China need to fight for it and how to fight for it
International Trade Perspective
the first perspective to observe "national competitiveness" is international trade. From this perspective, the international competitiveness of a country is its foreign trade competitiveness
in the eyes of outsiders, China's exports are menacing. In the "World Economic Forum 2006" anthology, there is such an article the emergence of China and India, which juxtaposes the export data of China and India, and then draws Figure 1 with the data of the United States as a reference
data show that in the early 1980s, China's exports were still very small compared with those of the United States. After entering this century, exports accelerated and reached the level of the United States in 2005. No wonder the "China Threat Theory" is rampant, and no wonder trade protection disputes against China are emerging one after another
it seems that from the perspective of international competitiveness, we can be complacent, and can keep pace with the United States and Japan, pushing the cup for a new one. In fact, the prediction that it will surpass Japan and catch up with the United States in many years has appeared in various media
an article in the British economist said that since 1978, China's GDP has increased at an average annual rate of 9.5%, which is three times that of the United States, faster than any other economy. China may one day replace the United States as the world's number one economy. Now "this dragon is indeed waking up"
according to an article in the International Herald Tribune, China will catch up with the United States in terms of economic scale and living standards. In terms of economic scale, China will be the absolute winner, but its living standard will be equal to that of the United States
Goldman Sachs, an American investment bank, predicts that in dollar terms, China's economy will become the largest in the world in the early 1940s. In terms of purchasing power, China may catch up with the United States eight years ahead of schedule
according to the world bank's 2004 world development report, if calculated according to purchasing power parity, China's GDP in 2003 was $6353.8 billion, with a per capita GDP of $4900. China has surpassed Japan and become the world's second largest economy
even foreigners say so. It seems that our "national competitiveness" can't be underestimated. However, Bo Xilai, Minister of Commerce in charge of international trade, poured cold water on his head: "China can only import an Airbus 380 if it sells 800 million shirts." Don't forget that on December 5, 2005, China aviation equipment import and export corporation bought 150 overhead passengers with one order
our export "advantage" is based on low wages, poor working conditions, a large amount of resource consumption and uncontrolled environmental damage. With such "advantages", can the country have the competitiveness of sustainable development
Michael Porter's perspective
export competitiveness is ultimately based on production capacity. Michael Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School, said in his famous national competitive advantage: "the only meaning of national competitiveness is national productivity. Competitiveness refers to the ability of a country or company to produce more wealth than its competitors in the world market."
Porter's specific analytical framework is called "Diamond System" (also known as diamond theory). He examined the productivity of a country from five aspects: production factors, demand conditions, enterprise strategy/structure and competitors, and the performance of related industries and supporting industries. At the same time, government and opportunities are also important factors. Porter painted the relationship between them as a diamond (see Figure 2), so it was called "Diamond System"
it can be seen that Porter is a "productivity only" theorist. Although his analysis involves government policies, cultural factors and leadership charm, the foothold of all analysis points to the productivity of specific industries
although many people in academia don't think much of Porter's theory, Professor Porter of business school has successfully conquered a large number of bosses and politicians. Porter's theory seems to have become the orthodox theoretical basis for evaluating national competitiveness. Even the famous World Economic Forum (WEF) asked him to preside over the "Global Competitiveness Report"The competitiveness of the global competitiveness report consists of two parts:
one part is growth competitiveness, which is the main body of the report evaluation. It mainly consists of three parts: technological competitiveness, institutional competitiveness and macroeconomic environment
one part is microeconomic competitiveness, which is mainly aimed at the competitiveness evaluation of enterprises. The indicators are composed of three categories: company operation and strategy index, and economic macro environmental quality index
in parallel, IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland, also publishes the World Competitiveness Yearbook every year, ranking the competitiveness of countries. Four factors are considered in the ranking of IMD:
1 Economic performance factors: involving domestic economy, international trade, international investment, employment, price, a total of 74 indicators
2. Government efficiency elements: involving public finance, fiscal policy, institutional structure, enterprise regulations, education, a total of 84 indicators
3. Enterprise efficiency factors: involving productivity, labor market, finance, management performance, globalization impact, a total of 66 indicators
4. National infrastructure elements: involving basic infrastructure, technological infrastructure, scientific infrastructure, health and environment, value system, a total of 90 indicators
over the years, China has attached great importance to these two competitive rankings. As soon as the report came out, the media rushed to report and experts rushed to interpret it. However, these two rankings are difficult for us to get a clear view of China's "international competitiveness". Figure 3 is the ranking of China over the years found by the author. According to the ranking of International Management Development Institute (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland, China's international competitiveness has climbed in sharp fluctuations in the past decade, rising by 12 places in one year from 2005 to 2006; According to the ranking of the World Economic Forum (WEF), China's international competitiveness has declined significantly in the past decade
who should we trust
Lausanne's ranking is characterized by relying mainly on statistical data and minimizing human subjective judgments; The ranking of the world economic forum pays equal attention to data and economic analysis, attaches importance to questionnaire surveys, and emphasizes grasping the internal economic operation mechanism of a country. One emphasizes objectivity and the other emphasizes the depth of analysis. Everyone is reasonable, but it makes readers at a loss
we like South Korea, which is an example, and we also attach importance to this ranking. On September 29, 2005, South Korea's Busan reported that for the first time in its history, South Korea's national competitiveness increased by 12 places over the previous year, ranking 17th in the world. In the 2005 competitiveness evaluation report released by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on the 28th, South Korea's growth competitiveness (national competitiveness index) ranked 17th among 117 respondents, making it the country with the largest increase in ranking among the respondents. South Korea once set a record of 18th place in 2003, and has been falling since then. Last year, it fell to 29th place, down 11 places
this has not only become the pride of Koreans, but also made our media really excited for a while. However, from a common sense point of view, the change of a country's national competitiveness should be caused by years of accumulation, and the "rise of 12 places" in a year is puzzling
a report in East Asia said: "last year, the national competitiveness index of South Korea fell by 11 places compared with the previous year, so Li Xianzai, former deputy prime minister and head of the Ministry of Finance and economy, and others were dissatisfied with saying: 'how can public credit institutions do this?'"
WEF's South Korean partner has always been the South Korean Development Institute (KDI), but this year's survey was carried out by Seoul University of science, Therefore, the selection criteria of questionnaire respondents have changed
previously, KDI will randomly select 500 enterprises with assets of more than 7billion won to issue questionnaires, and return 100-150 distributed questionnaires to WEF. On the contrary, the way of Seoul University of science is to select 300 "core enterprises", and then collect 280 questionnaires and submit them to WEF. (see Dandong economic information 08:55:00.0)
listen to what President Bush said
focus on "the ability to produce more wealth than its competitors in a balanced manner", which is naturally more profound than focusing on the share of foreign trade. However, whether this ability can be measured by WEF or IMD is difficult to confirm. More importantly, what is the root of this ability
in January this year, US President Bush put forward the "US competitiveness plan" in his state of the Union address. On February 2, fixture 1 has not been solved well. The office of science and technology policy of the US domestic policy committee announced the plan
the report of this plan clearly points out at the beginning: "the economic strength of the United States and its global leadership depend to a large extent on China's ability to produce and utilize the latest scientific and technological development achievements." The report attributes this ability to three forces: scientific research, a strong education system and a social environment that encourages entrepreneurs to grow, take risks and innovate
this is a completely different perspective from WEF and IMD. It builds national competitiveness on two cornerstones: one is science/technology; The second is the overall national quality
it is worth noting that the "American competitiveness program" originated from a consulting report - "standing on the storm" proposed by the American Academy of sciences last October. The report points out that with the global diffusion of advanced knowledge and the emergence of low-cost labor, the advantages of the United States in market, science and technology have begun to be eroded. The report points out that if there is no strong force to consolidate the foundation of U.S. competitiveness, the United States will soon lose its preeminence. Therefore, the highest goal of the United States is to create new and high-quality jobs for all American citizens by developing new industries derived from talented scientists and engineers
interestingly, this report attaches great importance to China. The report mentioned China 128 times, India 85 times and the European Union 19 times. Emphasizing the factors affecting competitiveness, the report said: IBM recently transferred its personal computer business to a Chinese company; It is estimated that within 10 years, about 80% of the world's middle-class consumers will live in industrialized countries outside the United States; China's middle-income consumers will reach 595million, and the middle and upper income consumers will reach 82million—— China is clearly seen as a major potential competitor
as for the American media, they play up such views naked. Thomasfriedman, a famous columnist of the New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote in the book "the world is flat": <1 After the test, it can be automatically archived and manually archived/p>
when I was a child, my parents often said, "son, finish the meal obediently, because the children in China and India have no food." Now, parents will say to their children, "daughter, finish reading the book obediently, because children in China and India are waiting to rob you of your job."
from the perspective of international trade, we see the dispute over the ability of countries to carve up the world market; From Porter's perspective, we can see the effectiveness of countries in various industries