View source for Government competitiveness

'''Government competitiveness'''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.joins.com/article/18958340|title="Korean Parliament GC ranks 16th among 34 OECD countries"|date=2015-10-29|publisher=[[The Joongang Ilbo]]|accessdate=2017-04-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://khnews.kheraldm.com/view.php?ud=20150105000708&md=20150105211233_BL |title="Korea lags OECD average in disaster management"|date=2015-01-05|publisher=[[The Korea Herald]]|accessdate=2015-03-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://go.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20130930011003|script-title=ko:"한국 정부경쟁력 OECD국가 중 16위, 317개 지표 점수화 순위 산정"|trans-title=Korea Government Competitiveness ranks 16th in OECD, measured by 317 indicators |date=2013-09-30 |publisher=The Seoul Shinmun|accessdate=2015-03-17|language=ko}}</ref> is a [[state capacity]] concept created by [[Tobin Im]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://m.yna.co.kr/kr/contents?/cid=AKR20131215044400004&site=0100000000 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170411054120/http://m.yna.co.kr/kr/contents/?%2Fcid=AKR20131215044400004&site=0100000000 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2017-04-11 |script-title=ko:"임도빈 한국행정학회 회장 당선" |trans-title=Tobin Im is elected president of Korean Association for Public Administration |date=2013-12-15 |publisher=Yunhap News Agency |accessdate=2015-03-17 |language=ko }}</ref> a scholar of [[public administration]] and a professor at the Graduate School of [[Public Administration]] at [[Seoul National University]]. Since 2011, 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 furthermore provides policy recommendations to increase 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)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imd.org/wcc/wcy-world-competitiveness-yearbook/|title=World Competitiveness Scoreboard|date= 2014|accessdate=March 17, 2015}}</ref> developed by the [[International Institute for Management Development]] (IMD)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imd.org/|title=International Institute for Management Development|date= 2014|accessdate=March 17, 2015}}</ref>  and [[Global Competitiveness Report|the Global Competitiveness Index]] (GCI)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/|title=Global Competitiveness Report 2014 and 2015|date= 2014|accessdate=March 17, 2015}}</ref>  built by the [[World Economic Forum]] (WEF)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.weforum.org/|title=World Economic Forum}}</ref>  have come to dominate the field of competitiveness studies.

The [[International Institute for Management Development]] [[International Institute for Management Development#MD World Competitiveness Center (WCC)|WCS]] and the [[World Economic Forum]] [[Global Competitiveness Index|the 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 good 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.<ref>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.</ref>

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 [[Worldwide Governance Indicators|The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators]] (WGI)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home|title=World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicator}}</ref>  and [[Quality of Government Institute|the Quality of Government Institute’s]] (QGI) (the University of Gothenburg) Quality of Government indicators(QoG).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://qog.pol.gu.se/|title=Quality of Government indicators}}</ref>

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.<ref>(2007){{cite web|url=https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/4149.htm/|title=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.</ref>

Since 2011, Center for Government Competitiveness (director: [[Tobin Im]]) has developed the GC index mainly focusing on government capacities and roles in national development.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gccenter.net|title=Government Competitiveness Center}}</ref>  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.<ref>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).</ref>   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’<ref>Ho, A., & Im, T. (2012). Defining a new concept of government competitiveness. The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 50 (3), p. 13 (In Korean).</ref> 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,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://arp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/16/0275074013501856.full.pdf+html|title=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.}}</ref> the CGC measures the level of government competitiveness by applying different criteria to OECD and non-OECD countries. The seven fields of government activities both OECD and non-OECD countries have in common are followings: 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gccenter.net|title=Government Competitiveness Center}}</ref>

The CGC builds the GC index based on David Easton's system theory as a theoretical framework.<ref>Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Wiley.</ref>  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<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gccenter.net/data/ranking/2018%20Government%20Competitiveness%20Report%20ISBN%20include.pdf.pdf|title= Center for Government Competitiveness. (2018) Government Competitiveness Report 2018, Graduate School of Public Administration. Seoul National University.}}</ref>

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

[[File:GC_policy_stage,edited_from_Easton's_system_theory.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1. GC Policy stage, edited from Easton's system theory]]

==OECD rankings in 2013-2021==

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

|}

==Non-OECD rankings in 2013-2021==

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

==See also==
* [[Competition]]
* [[Global Competitiveness Report|the Global Competitiveness Index]] 
* [[World Competitiveness Yearbook]] 
* [[Worldwide Governance Indicators|The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators]]

==References==
{{reflist|18em}}

==External links==
* [http://www.gccenter.net Center for Government Competitiveness]

[[Category:Public administration]]
[[Category:International rankings]]