radni materijal

Transcription

radni materijal
Okrugli sto
IZVJEŠTAJ O KONKURENTNOSTI
2015 - 2016: REFLEKSIJE NA
REFORMSKU AGENDU
radni materijal
Sarajevo, januar 2016.
SADRŽAJ
1.
Part one
1.1. Profil Bosne i Hercegovine
1.2. Measuring competitiveness: Reaching Beyond the New Normal: Findings from
the Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016
1.3. Methodology and Computation of the Global Competitiveness Index 2015-2016
1.4. Bosnia and Herzegovina – profile
1.5. The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016 Rankings
2.
Part two
2.1. Reformska agenda za Bosnu i Hercegovinu za period 2015 – 2018. godine
3.
Part three
3.1. Okvir za partnerstvo sa zemljom za Bosnu i Hercegovinu za period od fiskalne
godine 2016. do fiskalne godine 2020.
3.2. Vraćanje Bosne i Hercegovine u ravnotežu - sistematska dijagnostika za zemlju
PART ONE
BOSNA I HERCEGOVINA
KLJUČNI POKAZATELJI, 2014.
Ukupna populacija (milioni), 2014.
GDP (US$ milijarde), 2014.
GDP (tekuće cijene) per capita (US$), 2014.
GDP (PPP) kao dio (%) od svjetskog, 2014.
3.9
18.0
4,644
0.04
INDEKS GLOBALNE KOMPETITIVNOSTI (GCI)
Rang
(od 140)
111
n/a
87
88
Rezultat
(1-7)
3.7
n/a
4.0
3.9
Bazni zahtjevi (40.0%)
1. stub: Institucije
2. stub: Infrastruktura
3. stub: Makroekonomsko okruženje
4. stub: Zdravstvo i osnovno obrazovanje
95
127
103
98
48
4.2
3.2
3.1
4.3
6.0
Pojačivači efikasnosti (50.0%)
5. stub: Visoko obrazovanje i trening
6. stub: Efikasnost tržišta roba
7. stub: Efikasnost tržišta rada
8. stub: Razvoj finansijskog tržišta
9. stub: Tehnološka spremnost
10. stub: Veličina tržišta
112
97
129
131
113
79
97
3.5
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.1
Faktori inovativnosti i sofisticiranosti (10.0%)
11. stub: Sofisticiranost poslovanja
12. stub: Inovativnost
120
125
115
3.0
3.3
2.8
GCI 2015 – 2016
GCI 2014 – 2015 (od 144)
GCI 2013 – 2014 (od 148)
GCI 2012 – 2013 (od 144)
NAJPROBLEMATIČNIJI FAKTORI ZA POSLOVANJE
Neefikasna vladina birokratija
Korupcija
Porezne stope
Nestabilnost politika
Nestabilnost vlade/korupcija
Kompleksnost porezne regulative
Pristup finansiranju
Neadekvatna infrastruktura
Kriminal i krađe
Neadekvatno obrazovana radna snaga
Slaba radna etika domaće radne snage
Restriktivne regulative vezane za rad
Inflacija
Nedostatan kapacitet za inoviranje
Loše javno zdravstvo
Regulative vezane za strane valute
Rezultat
17.1
12.0
11.2
10.1
9.1
7.5
7.0
5.2
5.1
4.2
3.8
3.0
1.7
1.6
1.0
0.4
NIVO RAZVOJA
DETALJNI INDEKS GLOBALNE KOMPETITIVNOSTI (GCI)
Indikator
1. stub: Institucije
1.01 Vlasnička prava
1.02 Zaštita intelektualnog vlasništva
1.03 Raspodjela javnih fondova
1.04 Povjerenje javnosti u političare
1.05 Neregularna plaćanja i podmićivanje
1.06 Nezavisnost sudstva
1.07 Favoriziranje u odlučivanju vladinih zvaničnika
1.08 Rasipništvo u vladinim troškovima
1.09 Teret vladine regulative
1.10 Efikasnost zakonodavnog okvira pri provođenju rasprava
1.11 Efikasnost zakonodavnog okvira u sporovima s državom
1.12 Transparentnost vlade u donošenju politika
1.13 Poslovna cijena terorizma
1.14 Poslovna cijena kriminala i nasilja
1.15 Organizovani kriminal
1.16 Pouzdanost policijskih usluga
1.17 Etičko ponašanje firmi
1.18 Snaga revizijskih standarda i standarda izvještavanja
1.19 Efikasnost upravnih odbora firmi
1.20 Zaštita interesa manjinskih dioničara
1.21 Stepen zaštite investitora (1-10)
2. stub: Infrastruktura
2.01 Kvalitet ukupne infrastrukture
2.02 Kvalitet puteva
2.03 Kvalitet željezničke infrastrukture
2.04 Kvalitet infrastrukture luka
2.05 Kvalitet infrastrukture zračnog transporta
2.06 Raspoloživost avionskih mjesta sedmično, milioni
2.07 Kvalitet isporuke električne energije
2.08 Broj korisnika mobilne telefonije/100 stanovnika
2.09 Broj linija fiksne telefonije/100 stanovnika
3. stub: Makroekonomsko okruženje
3.01 Bilans vladinog budžeta, % GDP
3.02 Nacionalna stopa štednje, % GDP
3.03 Inflacija, godišnji % promjene
3.04 Vladin dug, % GDP
3.05 Kreditni rejting zemlje, 0 – 100
4. stub: Zdravstvo i osnovno obrazovanje
4.01 Prisustvo malarije/100,000 stanovnika
4.02 Uticaj malarije na biznis
4.03 Prisustvo tuberkuloze/100,000 stanovnika
4.04 Uticaj tuberkuloze na biznis
4.05 Širenje HIV-a, % odrasle populacije
4.06 Uticaj HIV/AIDS na biznis
4.07 Smrtnost novorođenčadi, na 1,000 živorođenih
4.08 Očekivani životni vijek, godine
4.09 Kvalitet osnovnog obrazovanja
4.10 Broj polaznika osnovnog obrazovanja, %
5. stub: Visoko obrazovanje i trening
5.01 Broj polaznika srednjoškolskog obrazovanja, %
5.02 Broj polaznika na univerzitetske ustanove
5.03 Kvalitet obrazovnog sistema
5.04 Kvalitet naobrazbe iz matematike i prirodnih nauka
5.05 Kvalitet škola za menadžment
5.06 Pristup internetu u školama
5.07 Dostupnost usluga specijalističkog obrazovanja
5.08 Opseg treninga zaposlenika
6. stub: Efikasnost tržišta roba
6.01 Intenzitet lokalne konkurencije
6.02 Stepen tržišne dominacije
6.03 Efektivnost anti-monopolske politike
6.04 Efekat oporezivanja na poticaj za ulaganje
6.05 Ukupna poreska stopa, % profita
1
Vrijednosti indikatora su od 1 – 7 ukoliko nije drugačije naglašeno pored naziva indikatora
Vrijednost1
Rang/140
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.1
3.1
2.9
2.5
1.7
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
5.4
4.0
4.0
5.4
3.0
3.5
3.9
2.7
5.4
127
131
101
116
108
110
108
137
130
128
116
133
65
97
113
27
134
131
132
139
77
3.1
2.6
2.0
2.0
2.4
12.6
4.3
91.3
22.2
118
129
92
135
138
128
85
108
49
-3.0
11.1
-0.9
44.9
29.5
70
123
89
72
106
m.f.
n/a
46.0
6.8
<0.1
6.9
5.7
76.3
3.7
98.4
n/a
n/a
64
7
1
2
39
48
82
16
89.0
37.0
2.4
3.6
3.3
3.9
3.1
2.9
73
70
136
92
120
83
130
137
4.4
3.1
3.1
2.8
23.3
117
115
122
127
21
6.06 Broj procedura potrebnih za pokretanje biznisa
6.07 Broj dana za pokretanje biznisa
6.08 Troškovi poljoprivredne politike
6.09 Učestalost necarinskih barijera
6.10 Carinska stopa, %
6.11 Prisutnost stranog vlasništva
6.12 Uticaj biznisa na regulativu iz domena FDI-a
6.13 Teret carinskih procedura
6.14 Udio uvoza u GDP-u
6.15 Stepen brige za potrošače
6.16 Sofisticiranost kupaca
7. stub: Efikasnost tržišta rada
7.01 Saradnja u odnosima poslodavaca i uposlenika
7.02 Fleksibilnost određivanja nadnice
7.03 Praksa u zapošljavanju i otkazu
7.04 Troškovi otpuštanja
7.05 Efekat oporezivanja na poticaj za rad
7.06 Plate i produktivnost
7.07 Oslanjanje na profesionalni menadžment
7.08 Kapacitet zemlje da zadrži talente
7.09 Kapacitet zemlje da privuče talente
7.10 Učešće žena u ukupnoj radnoj snazi
8. stub: Razvoj finansijskog tržišta
8.01 Dostupnost finansijskih usluga
8.02 Prihvatljivost cijena finansijskih usluga
8.03 Finansiranje putem lokalnog tržišta kapitala
8.04 Mogućnost pristupu zajmovima
8.05 Dostupnost venture kapitala
8.06 Kredibilitet banaka
8.07 Regulacija razmjene vrijednosnih papira
8.08 Index prava, 0-12
9. stub: Tehnološka spremnost
9.01 Dostupnost najnovije tehnologije
9.02 Nivo prihvatanja tehnologije u firmama
9.03 FDI i transfer tehnologije
9.04 Internet korisnici, %
9.05 Fiksni širokopojasni internet korisnici/100 stanovnika
9.06 Internet propusnost, kb/s po korisniku
9.07 Mobilni širokopojasni internet korisnici/100 stanovnika
10. stub: Veličina tržišta
10.01 Veličina domaćeg tržišta, 1-7
10.02 Veličina stranog tržišta, 1-7
10.03 GDP (PPP$ milijarde)
10.04 Izvoz kao procenat GDP-a
11. stub: Poslovna sofisticiranost
11.01 Kvantitet lokalnih dobavljača
11.02 Kvalitet lokalnih dobavljača
11.03 Stanje razvoja klastera
11.04 Priroda komparativne prednosti
11.05 Širina lanca vrijednosti
11.06 Kontrola međunarodne distribucije
11.07 Sofisticiranost procesa proizvodnje
11.08 Obim marketinga
11.09 Spremnost delegiranja ovlasti u biznisu
12. stub: Inovativnost
12.01 Kapacitet za inovacije
12.02 Kvalitet naučno istraživačkih institucija
12.03 Trošenje kompanija na istraživanje i razvoj
12.04 Saradnja univerziteta i industrije u istraživanjima
12.05 Vladine nabavke naprednih tehnoloških proizvoda
12.06 Dostupnost naučnika i inženjera
12.07 Broj proizvedenih patenata, aplikacija (u PCT)/million stanovnika
11
37.0
2.9
4.2
4.9
3.3
3.3
3.3
64.1
4.1
2.1
123
123
128
88
67
127
128
112
35
107
139
3.5
5.1
3.1
9.2
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.0
1.8
0.63
133
62
122
28
133
132
135
136
137
109
3.8
3.7
2.5
2.0
2.3
3.8
3.1
7
106
106
122
125
106
122
124
24
4.2
4.4
3.3
60.8
14.1
43.0
27.8
103
83
135
56
55
60
93
2.9
3.9
38.1
42.7
95
98
98
58
4.1
3.9
3.0
2.8
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.4
3.6
99
96
122
116
123
124
126
134
86
3.0
3.1
2.5
4.3
2.4
3.1
2.4
134
106
124
35
138
125
55
CHAPTER 1.1
Reaching Beyond the New
Normal: Findings from the
Global Competitiveness
Index 2015–2016
XAVIER SALA-I-MARTÍN
Columbia University
ROBERTO CROTTI
ATTILIO DI BATTISTA
MARGARETA DRZENIEK HANOUZ
CAROLINE GALVAN
THIERRY GEIGER
GAËLLE MARTI
World Economic Forum
Seven years after the global financial crisis, the world
economy is evolving against the background of the
“new normal” of lower economic growth, lower
productivity growth, and high unemployment. Although
overall prospects remain positive, growth is expected
to remain below the levels recorded in previous
decades in most developed economies and in many
emerging markets.1 Growth prospects could still be
derailed by the uncertainty fueled by a slowdown
in emerging markets, geopolitical tensions and
conflicts around the world, as well as by the unfolding
humanitarian crisis. At the same time, some positive
developments—such as the rapid diffusion of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) giving rise to
new business models and revolutionizing industries—
bear great promise for a future wave of innovations that
could drive longer-term growth.
Geographical patterns of growth also continue
to shift, with advanced economies gaining ground on
emerging markets. In 2013 emerging markets grew
almost four times as quickly as advanced economies
(5 percent versus 1.3 percent); in 2015 they are projected
to be growing less than twice as quickly (4.2 percent
versus 2.1 percent).2 In particular, the United States is
recovering, despite moves toward the normalization of
monetary policy and the strengthening of the dollar. The
country’s unemployment rate is at its lowest level since
2008.3 In Europe, more sluggish growth prospects are
somewhat counterbalanced by lower energy prices
and a weakened euro, though doubts remain about the
future of the eurozone following the bailout of Greece. In
Japan, monetary policy and a weaker yen are supporting
growth, although it remains subdued. Among emerging
markets, meanwhile, oil and commodity exporters need
to adjust to lower commodity price levels. In China, the
move toward a more sustainable, less investment-driven
growth model is expected to result in more moderate
growth (see Box 4).
Rather than adjusting to this new normal, countries
must step up their efforts to re-accelerate economic
growth. There is evidence that, in addition to lower
capital accumulation that results from reduced
investments, productivity over the past decade has
been stagnating and even declining, which could have
contributed to the current situation. As a growing body
of empirical literature shows, differences in productivity
are the main determinants of cross-country prosperity
levels.4 Increasing productivity therefore needs to be
at the core of the policy agendas of governments
and international organizations. This makes the World
Economic Forum’s annual assessment of the drivers of
productivity, the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI),
particularly relevant for policymakers seeking to identify
priority areas for reforms.
At the same time, it should be acknowledged
that the economic crisis has led to growth and
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 3
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Box 1: The Inclusive Growth and Development Report
Many countries are facing the consequences of widening
inequality, which has become particularly acute since the
global financial crisis—and evidence is growing that social
inclusion and growth in GDP per capita go hand in hand.
There has consequently been much discussion about the
need to ensure that growth translates into broad-based
improvements in living standards that touch all citizens rather
than a fortunate few. Yet there is little practical guidance
about how countries can achieve both growth and equity.
To help fill this gap, the World Economic Forum recently
released the inaugural Inclusive Growth and Development
Report, which aims to identify countries’ structural and
institutional features that influence the extent to which growth
translates into broad-based progress in living standards. It
presents a framework and a corresponding set of indicators
in seven principal policy domains (pillars) and 15 subdomains
(subpillars) (Figure 1).
A broad spectrum of actions can foster inclusive growth.
Figure 1: Inclusive Growth and Development Framework
Pillar 1:
Education
and
Skills
Development
Pillar 2:
Employment
and Labor
Compensation
Pillar 3:
Asset
Building and
Entrepreneurship
Pillar 4:
Financial
Intermediation
of Real
Economy
Investment
Pillar 5:
Corruption
and Rents
Pillar 6:
Basic Services
and
Infrastructure
Pillar 7:
Fiscal
Transfers
Access
Productive
Employment
Small Business
Ownership
Financial
System
Inclusion
Business
and Political
Ethics
Basic and
Digital
Infrastructure
Tax Code
Quality
Wage and
Non-wage
Labor
Compensation
Home and
Financial
Asset
Ownership
Intermediation
of Business
Investment
Concentration
of Rents
Health-related
Services and
Infrastructure
Social
Protection
Equity
(Cont’d.)
http://www.weforum.org/reports/inclusive-growth-and-development-report-2015
productivity being increasingly seen less as ultimate
goals and more as contributors to a larger goal of
broad-based rises in living standards. Developing
and advanced economies alike are subscribing more
and more to the notion of inclusive growth, and there
is growing debate about the relationship between
competitiveness and inclusiveness. The World Economic
Forum’s first Inclusive Growth and Development Report,
published in September 2015, further explores these
issues and provides a first attempt at benchmarking the
drivers of inclusive growth to complement our work on
competitiveness (see Box 1).
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016,
the 36th edition in the series, presents the results of
the latest iteration of the GCI. This chapter distills the
key messages, analyzes the main global and regional
results and recent trends, and briefly discusses the
competitiveness performance of selected economies.
Chapter 1.2 introduces the planned updates to the GCI,
which we expect will replace the current methodology in
4 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
the next edition of the Report. Chapter 1.3 describes the
workings of the Executive Opinion Survey, the results of
which feed into the GCI and other research by the Forum
and various organizations.
METHODOLOGY
We define competitiveness as the set of institutions,
policies, and factors that determine the level of
productivity of an economy, which in turn sets the level
of prosperity that the country can earn.
Building on Klaus Schwab’s original idea from 1979,
since 2005 the World Economic Forum has published
the Global Competitiveness Index developed by Xavier
Sala-i-Martín in collaboration with the Forum. Since an
update in 2007, the methodology has remained largely
unchanged. The GCI combines 114 indicators that
capture concepts that matter for productivity. These
indicators are grouped into 12 pillars (Figure 1): institutions,
infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health
and primary education, higher education and training,
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Box 1: The Inclusive Growth and Development Report (cont’d.)
Six of the seven pillars in the framework focus on how
inclusive outcomes can be delivered by market activity rather
than subsequent transfers, a factor that is captured by the
seventh pillar. This reflects the fact that most households rely
on income from wages, self-employment, or small business
ownership; therefore it is necessary for an inclusive growth
strategy to reinforce—or at least not undermine—incentives
to work, save, and invest. Although there is a place for fiscal
transfers to address inequality, the inclusiveness of a society’s
growth should be measured primarily by the extent to which
it produces broad gains in living standards before fiscal
transfers are taken into account.
The Inclusive Growth and Development Report presents
a database of cross-country statistical indicators that inform
comparative economy profiles—in effect, diagnostic scans
of the institutional enabling environment as it relates to
encouraging socially inclusive growth—in 112 economies. It
does not provide a definitive set of policy recommendations,
but rather aims to start a conversation about how individual
economies could tailor their responses to their particular
contexts. The assumption is that different approaches and
policy mixes will be appropriate for different economies
depending on their historical, cultural, and political-economy
circumstances. Nonetheless, six overall conclusions emerge
from the report:
• First, all countries have room for improvement. There is
considerable diversity in performance not only across but also
within countries. No country scores above average for its peer
group in all 15 subpillars, and only a few come close.
• Second, it is possible to be pro-equity and pro-growth
at the same time. This is demonstrated by the fact that
several of the strongest performers in the Forum’s Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI) are also relatively inclusive.
goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial
market development, technological readiness, market
size, business sophistication, and innovation. These
are in turn organized into three subindexes, in line with
three main stages of development: basic requirements,
efficiency enhancers, and innovation and sophistication
factors. The three subindexes are given different weights
in the calculation of the overall Index, depending on each
economy’s stage of development, as proxied by its GDP
per capita and the share of exports represented by raw
materials.
The GCI includes statistical data from internationally
recognized agencies, notably the International Monetary
Fund (IMF); the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization; and the World Health Organization.
It also includes data from the World Economic Forum’s
annual Executive Opinion Survey to capture concepts
that require a more qualitative assessment, or for which
comprehensive and internationally comparable statistical
data are not available.
• Third, fiscal transfers can be helpful—but so can other
policies. Many economies with high levels of tax and
redistribution are highly competitive. However, greater use
of the policy space in other areas could reduce the need for
these levers.
• Fourth, lower-income status is no bar to success. In
many subpillars—such as Business and Political Ethics,
Financial System Inclusion, and Educational Quality and
Equity—some developing countries outperform others with
much higher incomes.
• Fifth, there are significant regional similarities. This
suggests the strength of the role of shared culture, historical
traditions, and political-economy reflexes in areas such as
tax systems in Eastern Europe and educational inequity in
Latin America.
• Finally, the current debate on inequality needs to be
widened. The debate now typically focuses on redistribution
and the upskilling of labor, but these are only a minority
of the policy options available to “structurally adjust” an
economy for inclusive growth.
Looking ahead, the Forum intends the framework
and cross-country benchmarking data presented in The
Inclusive Growth and Development Report to stimulate
discussion not only about policy options in individual
countries but also about the most meaningful ways to
measure the enabling environment for inclusive growth and
development. Research will continue to refine conceptual
links as well as methodology, and will include investigating
the relative significance of and relationships between the
pillars, subpillars, and individual indicators. Last but not least,
identifying appropriate data to measure the concepts of
inclusion and equity remains a key concern.
This year the Report covers 140 economies. In
this edition, because of absence of data, we could not
include Angola, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Libya, Puerto
Rico, Suriname, Timor-Leste, or Yemen. However, Benin,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, and Liberia, which
could not be included in the last edition, are reinstated this
year. Altogether, the combined output of the economies
covered in the GCI represents 98.3 percent of world
GDP.5 The appendix contains a description of each pillar.
It also presents a detailed structure of the GCI with all the
indicators and explains how the Index is computed.
THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2015–2016
This section presents the main findings of the GCI 2015–
2016, starting with an analysis of selected overarching
topics and then drilling down into regions and selected
countries. Tables 1–5 report the rankings for the overall
GCI, the three subindexes, and their corresponding
pillars. Detailed scorecards for all the economies in the
sample are available in the data section of this Report.6
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 5
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Figure 1: The Global Competitiveness Index framework
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INDEX
Basic requirements
subindex
Efficiency enhancers
subindex
Pillar 1. Institutions
Pillar 1. Institutions
Pillar 2. Infrastructure
Pillar 2. Infrastructure
Pillar 5. Higher education
Pillar 5. Higher
education and
and training
training
Pillar 6. Goods market efficiency
Pillar 6. Goods market efficiency
Pillar 3. Macroeconomic
Pillar 3. Macroeconomic
environment
environment
Innovation and sophistication
factors subindex
Pillar 11. Business sophistication
Pillar 11. Business sophistication
Pillar 12. Innovation
Pillar 12. Innovation
Pillar 7. Labor market efficiency
Pillar 7. Labor market efficiency
Pillar 4. Health and primary
Pillar 4. Health and primary
education
education
Pillar
Technological
Pillar
8. 9.Financial
marketreadiness
development
Pillar 8. Financial market
developmentreadiness
Pillar 9. Technological
Pillar
10.10.
Market
sizesize
Pillar
Market
Key for
Key for
Key for
factor-driven
efficiency-driven
innovation-driven
economies
economies
economies
Note: See the appendix for the detailed structure of the GCI.
Figure 2: Difference in total factor productivity growth
between the 1995–2004 and 2005–14 decades
Percentage points
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
–0.5
–1.0
–1.5
–2.0
World
Emerging Markets and Developing Economies
Russia, Central Asia and Southeast Europe
Sub–Saharan Africa
Middle East & North Africa
Latin America
India
China
Japan
Europe
United States
–2.5
Source: The Conference Board, Total Economy Database™ (May 2015).
Notes: Estimated as a Törnqvist index, log change. See https://www.conference-board.org/
data/economydatabase/ for more information.
6 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
Not settling for the new normal
The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 triggered
a crisis of historical proportions, sending the global
economy into freefall. Governments around the
world resorted to short-term solutions to stabilize the
economy and stimulate growth—but growth remains
subdued seven years on, beyond the typical duration
of a business cycle. In 2015, global growth is projected
at 3.3 percent, its lowest rate since 2009—the trough
of the crisis—and one of the lowest since 2000.7
Unemployment, especially among youth, remains
elevated. This suboptimal situation is often referred to as
the new normal.
Although many possible explanations for this
situation have been advanced—including Lawrence
Summers’ “secular stagnation” argument,8 the aging of
populations in most advanced economies and some
emerging countries, and declining capital investment—
slowing productivity growth is undoubtedly part of
the story, especially in emerging markets.9 In the last
decade, productivity in most regions has grown more
slowly than in the decade before (Figure 2).
There is no general agreement on the factors
driving the slowdown in productivity growth. However,
commonly suggested explanations include: technological
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016 rankings and 2014–2015 comparisons
GCI 2015–2016
Country/Economy
Switzerland
Singapore
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Japan
Hong Kong SAR
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway
Denmark
Canada
Qatar
Taiwan, China
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Belgium
Luxembourg
Australia
France
Austria
Ireland
Saudi Arabia
Korea, Rep.
Israel
China
Iceland
Estonia
Czech Republic
Thailand
Spain
Kuwait
Chile
Lithuania
Indonesia
Portugal
Bahrain
Azerbaijan
Poland
Kazakhstan
Italy
Latvia
Russian Federation
Mauritius
Philippines
Malta
South Africa
Panama
Turkey
Costa Rica
Romania
Bulgaria
India
Vietnam
Mexico
Rwanda
Slovenia
Macedonia, FYR
Colombia
Oman
Hungary
Jordan
Cyprus
Georgia
Slovak Republic
Sri Lanka
Peru
Montenegro
GCI 2015–2016
Rank
(out of 140)
Score
(1–7)
Rank among
2014–2015
economies*
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
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
5.76
5.68
5.61
5.53
5.50
5.47
5.46
5.45
5.43
5.43
5.41
5.33
5.31
5.30
5.28
5.25
5.24
5.23
5.20
5.20
5.15
5.13
5.12
5.11
5.07
4.99
4.98
4.89
4.83
4.74
4.69
4.64
4.59
4.59
4.58
4.55
4.52
4.52
4.52
4.50
4.49
4.49
4.46
4.45
4.44
4.43
4.39
4.39
4.39
4.38
4.37
4.33
4.32
4.32
4.31
4.30
4.29
4.29
4.28
4.28
4.28
4.25
4.25
4.23
4.23
4.22
4.22
4.21
4.21
4.20
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
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
GCI 2014–
2015 rank
(out of 144)
1
2
3
5
8
6
7
4
10
9
11
13
15
16
14
17
12
20
18
19
22
23
21
25
24
26
27
28
30
29
37
31
35
40
33
41
34
36
44
38
43
50
49
42
53
39
52
47
56
48
45
51
59
54
71
68
61
62
70
63
66
46
60
64
58
69
75
73
65
67
Country/Economy
Botswana
Morocco
Uruguay
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Brazil
Ecuador
Croatia
Guatemala
Ukraine
Tajikistan
Greece
Armenia
Lao PDR
Moldova
Namibia
Jamaica
Algeria
Honduras
Trinidad and Tobago
Cambodia
Côte d'Ivoire
Tunisia
Albania
Serbia
El Salvador
Zambia
Seychelles
Dominican Republic
Kenya
Nepal
Lebanon
Kyrgyz Republic
Gabon
Mongolia
Bhutan
Argentina
Bangladesh
Nicaragua
Ethiopia
Senegal
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cape Verde
Lesotho
Cameroon
Uganda
Egypt
Bolivia
Paraguay
Ghana
Tanzania
Guyana
Benin
Gambia, The
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Mali
Swaziland
Liberia
Madagascar
Myanmar
Venezuela
Mozambique
Haiti
Malawi
Burundi
Sierra Leone
Mauritania
Chad
Guinea
Rank
(out of 140)
Score
(1–7)
Rank among
2014–2015
economies*
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
4.19
4.17
4.09
4.09
4.08
4.07
4.07
4.05
4.03
4.03
4.02
4.01
4.00
4.00
3.99
3.97
3.97
3.95
3.94
3.94
3.93
3.93
3.93
3.89
3.87
3.87
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.85
3.84
3.83
3.83
3.81
3.80
3.79
3.76
3.75
3.75
3.73
3.71
3.70
3.70
3.69
3.66
3.66
3.60
3.60
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.55
3.48
3.46
3.45
3.45
3.44
3.40
3.37
3.32
3.32
3.30
3.20
3.18
3.15
3.11
3.06
3.03
2.96
2.84
71
72
73
74
75
n/a
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
n/a
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
n/a
120
121
122
123
124
125
n/a
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
GCI 2014–
2015 rank
(out of 144)
74
72
80
83
57
n/a
77
78
76
91
81
85
93
82
88
86
79
100
89
95
115
87
97
94
84
96
92
101
90
102
113
108
106
98
103
104
109
99
118
112
n/a
114
107
116
122
119
105
120
111
121
117
n/a
125
127
124
129
128
123
n/a
130
134
131
133
137
132
139
138
141
143
144
Note: The Global Competitiveness Index captures the fundamentals of an economy. Recent developments, including currency (e.g., Switzerland) and commodity price fluctuations (e.g., Azerbaijan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia), geopolitical uncertainties (e.g., Ukraine), and security issues (e.g., Turkey) must be kept in mind when interpreting the results. See “Country highlights” on pages 23–32
for a more detailed description for selected economies.
* This column ranks all those economies for 2015–2016 that have been covered both in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 editions, hence a constant sample of 136 economies. Benin, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Ecuador, and Liberia were not included in the analysis last year, and therefore appear as n/a.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 7
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 2: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy
Switzerland
Singapore
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Japan
Hong Kong SAR
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway
Denmark
Canada
Qatar
Taiwan, China
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Belgium
Luxembourg
Australia
France
Austria
Ireland
Saudi Arabia
Korea, Rep.
Israel
China
Iceland
Estonia
Czech Republic
Thailand
Spain
Kuwait
Chile
Lithuania
Indonesia
Portugal
Bahrain
Azerbaijan
Poland
Kazakhstan
Italy
Latvia
Russian Federation
Mauritius
Philippines
Malta
South Africa
Panama
Turkey
Costa Rica
Romania
Bulgaria
India
Vietnam
Mexico
Rwanda
Slovenia
Macedonia, FYR
Colombia
Oman
Hungary
Jordan
Cyprus
Georgia
Slovak Republic
Sri Lanka
Peru
Montenegro
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
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
Basic requirements
Score
5.76
5.68
5.61
5.53
5.50
5.47
5.46
5.45
5.43
5.43
5.41
5.33
5.31
5.30
5.28
5.25
5.24
5.23
5.20
5.20
5.15
5.13
5.12
5.11
5.07
4.99
4.98
4.89
4.83
4.74
4.69
4.64
4.59
4.59
4.58
4.55
4.52
4.52
4.52
4.50
4.49
4.49
4.46
4.45
4.44
4.43
4.39
4.39
4.39
4.38
4.37
4.33
4.32
4.32
4.31
4.30
4.29
4.29
4.28
4.28
4.28
4.25
4.25
4.23
4.23
4.22
4.22
4.21
4.21
4.20
Rank
2
1
30
8
7
24
3
11
13
25
6
12
16
5
14
9
4
22
23
10
15
26
20
27
17
18
38
28
19
21
31
42
40
33
36
35
49
41
32
43
44
46
53
37
47
39
66
34
85
54
57
64
70
68
80
72
73
65
45
60
77
29
59
75
50
51
56
67
76
58
Efficiency enhancers
Innovation and sophistication factors
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
6.26
6.36
5.27
5.95
6.05
5.52
6.20
5.95
5.90
5.52
6.06
5.91
5.77
6.13
5.84
5.95
6.17
5.59
5.56
5.95
5.79
5.48
5.61
5.46
5.70
5.66
5.10
5.37
5.66
5.60
5.27
4.94
5.04
5.18
5.12
5.14
4.84
4.94
5.21
4.92
4.91
4.87
4.80
5.10
4.87
5.04
4.60
5.17
4.32
4.74
4.68
4.63
4.55
4.57
4.41
4.54
4.53
4.60
4.90
4.65
4.46
5.33
4.67
4.48
4.83
4.83
4.73
4.60
4.48
4.67
4
2
1
10
9
8
3
13
12
5
11
16
6
21
15
7
17
22
18
23
14
19
24
20
30
25
27
32
33
28
26
38
29
72
31
36
46
37
35
69
34
45
43
39
40
61
51
42
41
52
48
57
44
50
58
70
53
85
56
64
54
63
49
67
59
77
47
76
60
75
5.55
5.70
5.76
5.31
5.31
5.33
5.57
5.22
5.24
5.49
5.29
5.15
5.45
5.05
5.19
5.33
5.11
5.01
5.09
5.00
5.21
5.08
4.89
5.06
4.69
4.82
4.75
4.66
4.65
4.74
4.78
4.56
4.71
4.03
4.67
4.59
4.34
4.56
4.60
4.05
4.64
4.36
4.39
4.56
4.53
4.17
4.30
4.39
4.51
4.29
4.33
4.20
4.37
4.31
4.19
4.04
4.27
3.84
4.21
4.11
4.26
4.13
4.31
4.09
4.18
3.96
4.34
3.96
4.18
3.97
1
11
4
3
6
2
23
5
7
9
13
10
24
12
16
25
21
17
15
18
26
20
14
19
29
22
8
34
27
31
32
48
35
82
50
37
33
30
43
66
57
78
28
58
76
51
47
49
36
44
56
38
84
94
46
88
52
55
39
62
61
85
69
40
45
118
59
41
106
86
5.78
5.19
5.59
5.61
5.46
5.66
4.80
5.50
5.45
5.28
5.16
5.25
4.77
5.18
5.06
4.66
4.83
5.05
5.14
5.04
4.61
4.97
5.16
4.98
4.18
4.82
5.29
4.11
4.58
4.15
4.14
3.88
4.09
3.48
3.81
4.02
4.14
4.16
3.92
3.59
3.70
3.53
4.35
3.69
3.54
3.79
3.88
3.86
4.06
3.91
3.71
4.01
3.48
3.37
3.90
3.44
3.78
3.74
3.99
3.62
3.65
3.45
3.57
3.99
3.91
3.10
3.68
3.95
3.28
3.45
(Cont’d.)
8 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 2: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016 (cont’d.)
SUBINDEXES
OVERALL INDEX
Country/Economy
Botswana
Morocco
Uruguay
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Brazil
Ecuador
Croatia
Guatemala
Ukraine
Tajikistan
Greece
Armenia
Lao PDR
Moldova
Namibia
Jamaica
Algeria
Honduras
Trinidad and Tobago
Cambodia
Côte d'Ivoire
Tunisia
Albania
Serbia
El Salvador
Zambia
Seychelles
Dominican Republic
Kenya
Nepal
Lebanon
Kyrgyz Republic
Gabon
Mongolia
Bhutan
Argentina
Bangladesh
Nicaragua
Ethiopia
Senegal
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cape Verde
Lesotho
Cameroon
Uganda
Egypt
Bolivia
Paraguay
Ghana
Tanzania
Guyana
Benin
Gambia, The
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Mali
Swaziland
Liberia
Madagascar
Myanmar
Venezuela
Mozambique
Haiti
Malawi
Burundi
Sierra Leone
Mauritania
Chad
Guinea
Rank
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Basic requirements
Score
4.19
4.17
4.09
4.09
4.08
4.07
4.07
4.05
4.03
4.03
4.02
4.01
4.00
4.00
3.99
3.97
3.97
3.95
3.94
3.94
3.93
3.93
3.93
3.89
3.87
3.87
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.85
3.84
3.83
3.83
3.81
3.80
3.79
3.76
3.75
3.75
3.73
3.71
3.70
3.70
3.69
3.66
3.66
3.60
3.60
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.55
3.48
3.46
3.45
3.45
3.44
3.40
3.37
3.32
3.32
3.30
3.20
3.18
3.15
3.11
3.06
3.03
2.96
2.84
Rank
61
55
48
63
103
71
69
91
101
84
74
81
86
89
79
94
82
98
62
93
102
78
87
96
88
110
52
100
116
97
121
106
83
112
90
104
109
99
108
114
95
92
105
113
117
115
107
111
127
123
122
118
126
136
120
131
124
119
125
130
128
133
135
132
138
129
137
134
139
140
Efficiency enhancers
Innovation and sophistication factors
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
4.65
4.73
4.85
4.64
4.07
4.54
4.56
4.23
4.08
4.32
4.49
4.39
4.30
4.28
4.43
4.16
4.37
4.12
4.65
4.19
4.08
4.43
4.29
4.15
4.28
3.92
4.80
4.10
3.76
4.14
3.70
4.01
4.34
3.84
4.25
4.07
3.93
4.11
3.95
3.80
4.15
4.22
4.02
3.83
3.76
3.79
3.98
3.84
3.48
3.69
3.69
3.73
3.51
3.19
3.70
3.37
3.56
3.71
3.51
3.40
3.45
3.28
3.22
3.29
3.11
3.43
3.13
3.26
3.08
2.84
91
82
66
90
55
86
68
74
65
104
62
84
106
94
97
79
117
93
78
101
96
98
89
83
102
87
108
92
73
111
71
99
123
80
116
88
105
124
114
103
112
122
130
113
109
100
121
110
95
120
115
125
118
81
134
107
126
128
133
129
131
119
132
135
127
140
136
139
138
137
3.77
3.86
4.09
3.77
4.23
3.82
4.05
3.99
4.09
3.60
4.13
3.84
3.58
3.76
3.72
3.89
3.44
3.76
3.93
3.63
3.74
3.65
3.78
3.85
3.62
3.81
3.54
3.76
3.99
3.48
4.03
3.65
3.35
3.88
3.45
3.80
3.58
3.28
3.45
3.61
3.48
3.37
3.19
3.48
3.54
3.64
3.39
3.53
3.76
3.41
3.45
3.27
3.44
3.87
3.11
3.57
3.27
3.24
3.12
3.21
3.17
3.43
3.16
3.07
3.24
2.62
2.98
2.72
2.82
2.88
111
92
83
102
64
87
90
60
72
71
77
101
103
128
79
63
124
53
81
121
73
110
115
125
80
68
70
97
42
127
67
122
129
107
105
99
123
133
95
54
120
104
91
93
100
113
117
131
65
112
74
96
75
114
130
89
109
126
98
116
134
135
108
139
119
136
132
140
137
138
3.26
3.42
3.48
3.33
3.62
3.44
3.43
3.67
3.55
3.56
3.54
3.33
3.32
2.93
3.52
3.62
3.02
3.75
3.49
3.05
3.55
3.26
3.21
3.02
3.51
3.58
3.57
3.36
3.93
2.99
3.58
3.04
2.92
3.28
3.29
3.36
3.04
2.77
3.37
3.75
3.05
3.30
3.43
3.40
3.35
3.23
3.16
2.90
3.60
3.23
3.54
3.37
3.54
3.22
2.90
3.44
3.27
3.02
3.36
3.20
2.71
2.71
3.28
2.54
3.05
2.68
2.82
2.47
2.59
2.55
Note: Ranks out of 140 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 9
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 3: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016: Basic requirements
PILLARS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
3. Macroeconomic environment
4. Health and primary education
Country/Economy
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Latvia
87
82
104
81
15
20
43
32
109
23
118
90
107
95
61
103
68
129
93
113
16
92
139
36
28
77
64
102
69
51
31
12
100
71
115
88
21
108
11
26
83
126
50
8
127
74
91
140
122
132
98
3
59
19
80
49
63
27
38
53
94
24
75
46
116
18
33
106
86
37
4.29
4.37
4.07
4.39
5.79
5.61
4.92
5.21
3.93
5.56
3.73
4.25
3.98
4.15
4.65
4.07
4.57
3.43
4.19
3.83
5.77
4.22
3.08
5.12
5.37
4.46
4.63
4.08
4.56
4.83
5.26
5.91
4.09
4.54
3.79
4.28
5.60
3.95
5.94
5.48
4.34
3.51
4.83
5.95
3.48
4.48
4.23
2.84
3.69
3.29
4.12
6.20
4.67
5.66
4.41
4.84
4.64
5.46
5.09
4.80
4.16
5.52
4.48
4.87
3.76
5.66
5.18
4.01
4.30
5.10
84
99
135
76
19
21
64
26
132
22
90
33
110
127
37
121
107
134
111
93
16
66
137
32
51
114
49
62
89
43
57
15
118
105
87
117
25
83
1
29
78
42
40
20
72
81
113
136
102
138
88
8
97
18
60
55
94
12
41
106
80
13
36
50
91
69
56
115
71
48
3.68
3.49
2.86
3.78
5.31
5.19
3.94
4.92
2.94
5.17
3.62
4.60
3.34
3.18
4.43
3.23
3.39
2.90
3.33
3.58
5.44
3.94
2.80
4.64
4.15
3.31
4.17
4.03
3.63
4.28
4.09
5.45
3.27
3.42
3.65
3.28
5.03
3.69
6.10
4.78
3.76
4.28
4.38
5.22
3.86
3.72
3.32
2.83
3.43
2.80
3.64
5.72
3.52
5.32
4.06
4.09
3.58
5.53
4.36
3.42
3.74
5.51
4.45
4.16
3.61
3.90
4.09
3.29
3.87
4.18
88
105
87
82
16
15
65
29
123
21
130
92
107
103
96
74
72
136
101
125
14
94
140
45
39
84
71
85
46
50
41
22
100
67
91
60
33
121
25
8
110
95
61
7
115
34
77
139
108
137
93
1
48
19
81
62
63
27
32
26
79
5
70
58
99
13
54
114
98
49
3.55
3.08
3.58
3.72
5.66
5.71
4.15
5.10
2.56
5.55
2.26
3.41
3.07
3.08
3.25
3.92
4.00
2.01
3.19
2.45
5.73
3.33
1.73
4.60
4.73
3.67
4.03
3.63
4.59
4.46
4.70
5.54
3.21
4.14
3.42
4.21
4.87
2.62
5.45
6.04
2.93
3.29
4.20
6.12
2.74
4.83
3.84
1.79
3.01
1.92
3.39
6.69
4.51
5.57
3.72
4.19
4.16
5.34
4.89
5.38
3.74
6.21
4.05
4.25
3.22
5.82
4.32
2.84
3.23
4.47
118
38
114
72
28
45
10
82
49
65
88
126
63
98
9
117
53
110
64
90
39
124
113
29
8
32
94
74
107
109
21
11
57
75
137
100
15
76
36
77
18
138
51
20
136
132
59
129
120
102
112
16
52
42
91
33
66
87
50
111
131
121
130
25
123
5
3
80
70
31
3.96
5.35
4.07
4.71
5.62
5.13
6.35
4.60
4.98
4.79
4.45
3.60
4.81
4.32
6.46
4.01
4.94
4.11
4.80
4.41
5.34
3.61
4.07
5.61
6.52
5.53
4.37
4.70
4.19
4.16
5.97
6.29
4.85
4.70
2.77
4.28
6.15
4.69
5.37
4.66
6.01
2.69
4.95
5.98
2.79
3.26
4.83
3.51
3.73
4.22
4.08
6.10
4.94
5.20
4.40
5.50
4.78
4.45
4.98
4.09
3.45
3.67
3.45
5.72
3.63
6.58
6.72
4.62
4.73
5.56
52
81
68
95
9
19
102
35
101
3
117
89
109
48
119
103
53
110
87
107
7
51
132
74
44
97
55
129
63
17
27
21
104
59
96
94
22
108
1
16
111
131
65
13
118
41
105
138
115
125
92
29
72
8
84
80
47
12
39
26
70
4
54
93
114
23
79
98
90
37
5.97
5.58
5.75
5.35
6.54
6.41
5.22
6.20
5.24
6.73
4.58
5.39
4.71
6.03
4.46
5.13
5.97
4.71
5.44
4.88
6.58
5.99
3.72
5.64
6.09
5.32
5.94
3.95
5.85
6.42
6.31
6.36
5.04
5.91
5.34
5.37
6.34
4.80
6.87
6.43
4.66
3.76
5.79
6.48
4.53
6.13
4.94
3.26
4.59
4.24
5.38
6.28
5.71
6.55
5.48
5.59
6.05
6.51
6.15
6.32
5.71
6.68
5.97
5.37
4.60
6.34
5.60
5.30
5.39
6.18
(Cont’d.)
10 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 3: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016: Basic requirements (cont’d.)
PILLARS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
3. Macroeconomic environment
4. Health and primary education
Country/Economy
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe
121
105
125
35
9
60
130
138
22
124
34
134
39
73
89
112
58
55
135
128
79
97
7
10
99
136
6
29
131
54
111
76
66
44
41
5
70
47
65
17
114
96
52
137
1
56
45
85
40
67
119
13
2
14
84
123
42
62
78
57
117
101
4
25
30
48
133
72
110
120
3.70
4.02
3.51
5.14
5.95
4.65
3.40
3.11
5.59
3.56
5.17
3.26
5.04
4.53
4.28
3.84
4.67
4.73
3.22
3.45
4.43
4.14
6.05
5.95
4.11
3.19
6.06
5.33
3.37
4.73
3.84
4.48
4.60
4.91
4.94
6.13
4.55
4.87
4.60
5.70
3.80
4.15
4.80
3.13
6.36
4.73
4.90
4.32
5.04
4.60
3.71
5.90
6.26
5.84
4.32
3.69
4.94
4.65
4.43
4.68
3.76
4.08
6.17
5.52
5.27
4.85
3.28
4.54
3.92
3.70
128
45
68
53
6
52
129
92
23
98
35
139
34
109
123
95
70
47
126
133
44
103
10
3
125
124
5
31
119
73
131
116
77
58
39
4
86
100
17
24
63
120
61
122
2
104
67
38
65
59
74
11
7
27
54
96
82
108
79
75
101
130
9
14
28
30
140
85
46
112
3.15
4.24
3.92
4.12
5.78
4.14
3.14
3.60
5.13
3.52
4.52
2.64
4.53
3.34
3.20
3.56
3.89
4.19
3.18
2.92
4.27
3.43
5.60
5.99
3.18
3.19
5.85
4.73
3.27
3.85
2.95
3.28
3.78
4.07
4.39
5.86
3.66
3.46
5.39
5.07
3.99
3.24
4.04
3.21
6.01
3.43
3.93
4.42
3.94
4.06
3.85
5.58
5.77
4.86
4.10
3.54
3.69
3.37
3.76
3.84
3.45
3.07
5.71
5.46
4.82
4.74
2.09
3.68
4.20
3.32
116
113
122
42
17
78
138
135
24
106
43
124
37
59
83
112
73
55
126
134
66
131
3
28
102
133
31
36
117
40
118
89
90
56
23
18
86
35
97
30
109
75
47
132
2
57
38
68
10
64
104
20
6
12
111
127
44
51
80
53
128
69
4
9
11
52
119
76
120
129
2.73
2.86
2.61
4.68
5.66
3.77
1.88
2.04
5.51
3.07
4.66
2.47
4.80
4.22
3.69
2.86
3.98
4.30
2.43
2.09
4.14
2.15
6.30
5.25
3.18
2.10
5.03
4.81
2.71
4.73
2.70
3.49
3.44
4.30
5.53
5.62
3.61
4.81
3.24
5.09
3.00
3.87
4.51
2.11
6.49
4.28
4.79
4.12
5.93
4.16
3.08
5.56
6.20
5.87
2.93
2.41
4.62
4.46
3.73
4.43
2.37
4.07
6.30
6.03
5.87
4.44
2.63
3.84
2.63
2.35
139
44
105
30
14
47
101
140
35
86
43
95
73
56
55
133
79
58
122
106
71
37
26
22
62
81
1
19
128
60
48
23
24
46
127
2
34
40
92
4
103
125
61
119
12
41
89
85
116
115
93
17
6
13
78
84
27
54
97
68
67
134
7
108
96
99
135
69
83
104
2.63
5.14
4.20
5.56
6.16
5.09
4.27
2.44
5.41
4.47
5.18
4.35
4.71
4.85
4.86
3.22
4.62
4.83
3.66
4.19
4.72
5.35
5.70
5.93
4.81
4.61
6.83
5.99
3.51
4.83
5.07
5.86
5.74
5.11
3.57
6.72
5.44
5.29
4.40
6.63
4.22
3.60
4.82
3.89
6.21
5.21
4.45
4.50
4.03
4.06
4.38
6.08
6.54
6.16
4.64
4.53
5.68
4.87
4.33
4.75
4.76
3.12
6.53
4.17
4.35
4.31
2.92
4.74
4.53
4.20
30
130
136
36
34
76
123
121
24
139
25
134
42
71
91
69
33
77
133
113
116
75
6
5
99
140
10
66
127
82
112
100
86
40
31
28
83
56
88
49
128
62
64
137
2
50
15
126
32
43
135
20
11
14
78
124
67
60
58
73
120
45
38
18
46
57
85
61
122
106
6.28
3.85
3.30
6.19
6.20
5.61
4.31
4.38
6.33
3.17
6.33
3.59
6.11
5.71
5.39
5.72
6.21
5.61
3.60
4.61
4.59
5.62
6.60
6.63
5.28
2.86
6.53
5.78
4.00
5.54
4.66
5.28
5.45
6.15
6.28
6.31
5.49
5.94
5.39
6.01
4.00
5.87
5.84
3.29
6.74
6.01
6.44
4.22
6.24
6.10
3.52
6.39
6.53
6.47
5.61
4.28
5.76
5.90
5.92
5.69
4.46
6.06
6.15
6.41
6.05
5.93
5.48
5.89
4.33
4.94
Note: Ranks out of 140 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 11
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 4: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016: Efficiency enhancers
PILLARS
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
Country/Economy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Latvia
5. Higher education
and training
6. Goods market
efficiency
7. Labor market
efficiency
8. Financial market
development
9. Technological
readiness
10. Market size
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
89
117
88
84
14
24
69
35
105
18
125
116
121
112
91
55
50
140
101
113
6
122
138
31
32
54
57
96
68
59
26
16
92
86
100
102
28
114
13
19
123
118
77
10
95
62
74
137
115
135
93
3
49
33
58
46
90
20
27
43
79
8
67
45
73
25
72
99
106
39
3.78
3.44
3.80
3.84
5.21
4.89
4.05
4.60
3.58
5.09
3.27
3.45
3.39
3.48
3.77
4.23
4.31
2.62
3.63
3.48
5.45
3.37
2.82
4.67
4.66
4.26
4.20
3.74
4.05
4.18
4.78
5.15
3.76
3.82
3.64
3.62
4.74
3.45
5.22
5.08
3.35
3.44
3.96
5.31
3.76
4.13
3.99
2.88
3.45
3.07
3.76
5.57
4.31
4.65
4.19
4.34
3.77
5.06
4.75
4.39
3.89
5.33
4.09
4.36
3.99
4.82
4.03
3.65
3.58
4.56
47
99
39
72
8
16
89
44
122
5
121
103
101
97
100
93
64
139
123
114
19
81
138
33
68
70
35
108
51
41
29
9
96
67
111
105
20
129
2
25
125
91
87
17
104
43
102
137
74
107
94
13
57
11
90
65
69
15
28
45
84
21
50
60
98
23
85
80
112
32
4.74
3.75
4.89
4.26
5.84
5.58
3.90
4.82
2.86
5.94
2.93
3.58
3.70
3.77
3.73
3.85
4.48
2.14
2.84
3.24
5.52
4.08
2.19
5.03
4.33
4.30
4.97
3.36
4.62
4.88
5.10
5.79
3.80
4.33
3.25
3.56
5.50
2.74
6.13
5.30
2.78
3.85
4.00
5.57
3.57
4.84
3.62
2.19
4.12
3.39
3.81
5.63
4.56
5.75
3.87
4.45
4.31
5.59
5.10
4.81
4.05
5.41
4.70
4.53
3.76
5.36
4.01
4.09
3.24
5.05
63
134
138
50
27
24
66
18
101
14
122
107
132
129
95
128
61
133
93
113
15
99
139
40
58
108
67
75
105
28
37
20
97
126
115
86
22
102
21
35
124
77
48
23
87
89
43
135
94
137
68
2
72
31
91
55
109
7
57
71
74
11
39
49
84
26
98
81
76
34
4.34
3.51
3.12
4.46
4.79
4.89
4.31
5.04
4.07
5.14
3.83
4.02
3.51
3.69
4.14
3.72
4.35
3.51
4.15
3.97
5.13
4.07
3.11
4.62
4.37
4.00
4.31
4.27
4.05
4.76
4.63
5.01
4.09
3.77
3.95
4.19
4.93
4.07
4.97
4.64
3.78
4.26
4.48
4.92
4.19
4.18
4.58
3.49
4.15
3.19
4.31
5.70
4.29
4.65
4.17
4.43
3.99
5.41
4.42
4.29
4.27
5.24
4.63
4.48
4.23
4.81
4.08
4.23
4.27
4.64
97
135
139
58
36
40
30
24
121
54
59
23
129
131
39
122
68
102
38
79
7
125
106
63
37
86
70
69
105
34
47
10
108
112
137
124
15
62
26
51
71
33
32
28
94
116
90
91
111
76
120
3
77
12
103
115
138
13
45
126
65
21
93
18
31
83
117
88
44
25
3.97
3.23
3.10
4.30
4.51
4.47
4.57
4.73
3.69
4.35
4.30
4.76
3.39
3.36
4.49
3.68
4.23
3.89
4.49
4.13
5.29
3.59
3.82
4.29
4.50
4.06
4.23
4.23
3.83
4.55
4.44
5.11
3.81
3.76
3.15
3.61
5.00
4.29
4.70
4.39
4.22
4.55
4.56
4.64
4.01
3.74
4.05
4.04
3.78
4.16
3.71
5.56
4.15
5.08
3.86
3.74
3.15
5.05
4.45
3.46
4.28
4.80
4.03
4.90
4.56
4.08
3.73
4.06
4.45
4.72
118
135
132
94
7
47
114
33
90
36
103
86
104
113
63
58
59
140
66
98
4
111
130
21
54
25
85
60
88
108
24
22
93
92
119
89
23
116
6
29
97
96
68
18
76
131
27
137
83
136
38
3
65
67
53
49
134
61
26
117
32
19
71
91
42
87
73
102
74
37
3.24
2.77
2.81
3.53
5.36
4.21
3.33
4.42
3.57
4.40
3.43
3.62
3.43
3.34
3.96
3.99
3.98
2.24
3.92
3.49
5.47
3.37
2.83
4.65
4.08
4.61
3.65
3.98
3.59
3.41
4.62
4.64
3.53
3.54
3.23
3.57
4.63
3.27
5.40
4.53
3.49
3.53
3.87
4.71
3.78
2.81
4.58
2.75
3.67
2.75
4.39
5.50
3.93
3.89
4.08
4.19
2.77
3.98
4.59
3.25
4.42
4.71
3.84
3.56
4.29
3.60
3.82
3.44
3.81
4.39
89
126
69
75
21
24
57
34
127
14
130
111
110
79
91
54
38
139
105
122
18
77
140
39
74
70
49
102
43
45
29
9
84
83
98
81
32
132
13
16
112
107
72
12
96
36
90
134
104
136
97
8
48
6
120
85
99
11
20
37
82
19
76
61
94
27
56
95
119
33
3.40
2.63
3.86
3.67
5.65
5.62
4.26
5.29
2.62
5.91
2.49
2.89
2.89
3.60
3.34
4.39
4.87
2.10
3.04
2.68
5.83
3.64
2.05
4.85
3.70
3.82
4.59
3.13
4.65
4.64
5.43
6.11
3.52
3.54
3.19
3.55
5.32
2.46
5.98
5.88
2.88
3.00
3.81
6.01
3.24
4.92
3.36
2.38
3.08
2.34
3.24
6.13
4.60
6.15
2.73
3.49
3.17
6.08
5.68
4.90
3.54
5.72
3.65
4.19
3.30
5.50
4.33
3.27
2.76
5.29
104
37
27
116
22
42
67
92
40
34
122
136
84
97
105
7
65
135
90
87
14
138
111
44
1
36
83
81
79
112
47
55
70
63
24
93
98
68
59
8
110
139
99
5
74
52
73
128
134
125
96
32
51
129
3
10
19
57
54
12
117
4
76
46
71
13
58
118
109
94
2.97
4.75
5.00
2.81
5.13
4.59
3.90
3.27
4.68
4.80
2.62
1.83
3.41
3.13
2.97
5.78
3.91
1.87
3.33
3.35
5.45
1.50
2.91
4.56
6.98
4.77
3.43
3.46
3.59
2.87
4.47
4.26
3.83
4.00
5.07
3.25
3.09
3.88
4.17
5.76
2.91
1.43
3.05
6.02
3.74
4.31
3.75
2.42
1.90
2.57
3.13
4.87
4.32
2.39
6.44
5.74
5.24
4.23
4.27
5.61
2.80
6.10
3.66
4.51
3.80
5.56
4.20
2.78
2.92
3.24
(Cont’d.)
12 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 4: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016: Efficiency enhancers (cont’d.)
PILLARS
EFFICIENCY
ENHANCERS
Country/Economy
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe
5. Higher education
and training
6. Goods market
efficiency
7. Labor market
efficiency
8. Financial market
development
9. Technological
readiness
10. Market size
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
71
130
133
36
23
64
129
127
22
126
42
139
61
53
94
80
75
82
132
131
97
111
9
7
124
81
11
63
107
52
110
60
51
34
37
21
44
40
85
30
103
83
108
136
2
47
56
41
29
76
128
12
4
15
104
120
38
78
98
48
109
65
17
5
1
66
119
70
87
134
4.03
3.19
3.12
4.59
5.00
4.11
3.21
3.24
5.01
3.27
4.39
2.72
4.17
4.27
3.76
3.88
3.97
3.86
3.16
3.17
3.72
3.48
5.31
5.33
3.28
3.87
5.29
4.13
3.57
4.29
3.53
4.18
4.30
4.64
4.56
5.05
4.37
4.53
3.84
4.69
3.61
3.85
3.54
2.98
5.70
4.34
4.21
4.51
4.71
3.96
3.24
5.24
5.55
5.19
3.60
3.41
4.56
3.93
3.65
4.33
3.54
4.09
5.11
5.49
5.76
4.09
3.43
4.04
3.81
3.11
58
116
126
24
40
46
131
133
36
127
42
140
52
86
79
62
54
106
136
134
109
113
3
10
119
128
7
88
124
77
115
82
63
31
26
27
59
38
120
49
110
71
92
132
1
53
22
83
30
66
118
12
4
14
75
135
56
73
76
55
130
34
37
18
6
48
61
95
78
117
4.55
3.18
2.77
5.35
4.89
4.79
2.64
2.53
4.97
2.76
4.85
2.13
4.62
4.00
4.09
4.50
4.58
3.42
2.35
2.49
3.30
3.24
6.03
5.78
3.07
2.75
5.85
3.90
2.82
4.10
3.21
4.07
4.48
5.05
5.19
5.12
4.55
4.96
3.05
4.73
3.25
4.27
3.85
2.54
6.20
4.62
5.41
4.07
5.08
4.38
3.11
5.67
6.00
5.60
4.12
2.47
4.57
4.26
4.12
4.58
2.71
5.03
4.97
5.56
5.87
4.74
4.52
3.80
4.09
3.14
56
88
78
36
4
33
119
117
6
110
42
136
25
82
103
79
70
64
112
130
85
114
10
8
125
100
19
52
116
41
90
60
80
46
32
5
73
92
44
29
69
127
65
123
1
54
47
38
62
51
111
17
9
13
96
121
30
104
118
45
120
106
3
12
16
59
140
83
53
131
4.43
4.19
4.25
4.64
5.54
4.65
3.90
3.94
5.42
3.98
4.59
3.37
4.85
4.23
4.06
4.24
4.30
4.33
3.97
3.62
4.20
3.96
5.34
5.39
3.77
4.07
5.01
4.45
3.95
4.59
4.17
4.36
4.24
4.51
4.65
5.52
4.28
4.16
4.57
4.70
4.30
3.74
4.33
3.79
5.72
4.43
4.50
4.63
4.35
4.45
3.98
5.08
5.38
5.19
4.12
3.89
4.69
4.05
3.92
4.53
3.90
4.02
5.59
5.22
5.10
4.37
2.81
4.23
4.43
3.54
109
75
61
53
16
84
42
29
19
113
55
136
57
114
85
41
74
123
98
73
49
99
17
6
119
35
9
89
132
80
110
64
82
81
66
14
78
50
8
60
72
118
43
104
2
100
95
107
92
130
101
20
1
22
48
46
67
96
133
127
27
56
11
5
4
128
140
52
87
134
3.80
4.16
4.30
4.35
4.93
4.07
4.46
4.60
4.86
3.76
4.34
3.18
4.31
3.75
4.07
4.46
4.18
3.62
3.96
4.19
4.41
3.91
4.90
5.29
3.71
4.55
5.12
4.06
3.34
4.13
3.78
4.29
4.09
4.11
4.27
5.00
4.13
4.40
5.21
4.30
4.19
3.72
4.45
3.84
5.71
3.90
4.00
3.82
4.04
3.37
3.90
4.82
5.80
4.77
4.42
4.44
4.23
3.97
3.33
3.46
4.65
4.33
5.10
5.31
5.40
3.41
2.59
4.38
4.06
3.29
78
127
109
57
11
52
133
100
9
105
40
139
34
46
115
125
44
70
126
138
50
72
31
1
112
79
8
45
99
15
80
30
48
43
107
13
55
95
28
41
75
120
106
123
2
35
128
12
77
51
82
14
10
17
110
101
39
56
122
64
81
121
20
16
5
69
129
84
62
124
3.76
2.97
3.38
3.99
5.04
4.09
2.79
3.47
5.16
3.42
4.37
2.40
4.42
4.24
3.28
3.04
4.26
3.86
2.99
2.40
4.18
3.83
4.43
5.73
3.34
3.75
5.21
4.24
3.47
4.91
3.75
4.53
4.21
4.26
3.41
5.02
4.05
3.53
4.54
4.32
3.80
3.23
3.41
3.06
5.57
4.41
2.85
5.03
3.78
4.12
3.68
4.99
5.10
4.82
3.38
3.45
4.38
4.04
3.11
3.93
3.74
3.18
4.70
4.83
5.45
3.86
2.84
3.65
3.96
3.06
66
123
135
22
1
63
129
133
47
114
23
121
65
73
53
67
55
78
124
138
87
128
10
15
116
106
7
62
113
52
109
88
68
41
26
31
46
60
103
42
100
51
71
137
5
44
35
50
25
93
125
4
2
28
115
131
58
59
80
64
117
86
30
3
17
40
101
92
108
118
3.99
2.67
2.36
5.63
6.42
4.15
2.52
2.38
4.63
2.85
5.62
2.68
4.06
3.77
4.39
3.98
4.33
3.62
2.66
2.16
3.42
2.62
6.10
5.90
2.81
3.03
6.14
4.18
2.88
4.44
2.97
3.40
3.91
4.78
5.54
5.41
4.63
4.22
3.12
4.70
3.15
4.47
3.81
2.34
6.20
4.64
5.14
4.56
5.56
3.31
2.64
6.24
6.31
5.49
2.81
2.46
4.24
4.23
3.57
4.08
2.80
3.45
5.43
6.30
5.85
4.81
3.14
3.32
3.00
2.79
77
133
137
78
95
108
106
127
26
113
123
124
119
11
121
100
131
53
101
60
114
88
23
66
107
25
49
64
28
80
91
48
30
21
50
56
43
6
126
17
103
75
140
130
35
62
85
29
15
61
132
41
39
20
120
72
18
102
69
16
82
45
31
9
2
86
38
33
89
115
3.64
1.99
1.67
3.61
3.18
2.94
2.96
2.52
5.05
2.83
2.61
2.58
2.78
5.65
2.68
3.04
2.20
4.31
3.04
4.16
2.82
3.34
5.07
3.91
2.95
5.07
4.41
3.94
4.96
3.54
3.33
4.44
4.89
5.16
4.33
4.25
4.57
5.93
2.53
5.40
3.00
3.70
1.40
2.33
4.78
4.03
3.39
4.94
5.42
4.14
2.11
4.64
4.69
5.24
2.72
3.76
5.25
3.03
3.87
5.41
3.43
4.54
4.89
5.74
6.91
3.36
4.70
4.84
3.34
2.81
Note: Ranks out of 140 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 13
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 5: The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016: Innovation and sophistication factors
PILLARS
INNOVATION
AND SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS
11. Business
sophistication
PILLARS
INNOVATION
AND SOPHISTICATION
FACTORS
12. Innovation
11. Business
sophistication
12. Innovation
Country/Economy
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Country/Economy
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Latvia
115
124
99
101
26
14
66
43
123
15
96
105
117
120
111
64
94
136
121
93
24
104
137
50
34
61
38
73
90
45
32
10
97
87
113
80
31
95
5
20
129
75
118
3
65
77
60
138
74
139
53
23
69
27
46
33
102
19
8
28
63
2
40
78
42
22
82
122
103
58
3.21
3.02
3.36
3.33
4.61
5.16
3.59
3.92
3.04
5.14
3.37
3.29
3.16
3.05
3.26
3.62
3.37
2.68
3.05
3.40
4.77
3.30
2.59
3.81
4.11
3.65
4.01
3.55
3.43
3.91
4.14
5.25
3.36
3.44
3.23
3.51
4.15
3.37
5.50
4.97
2.92
3.54
3.10
5.61
3.60
3.54
3.67
2.55
3.54
2.54
3.75
4.80
3.57
4.58
3.90
4.14
3.33
4.98
5.29
4.35
3.62
5.66
3.99
3.53
3.93
4.82
3.48
3.04
3.32
3.69
95
128
101
97
27
8
73
32
117
12
109
99
116
125
111
56
98
136
122
103
22
106
139
53
38
59
37
93
84
47
30
9
76
87
89
64
43
108
14
20
129
67
112
3
70
74
49
137
75
138
54
16
90
28
52
36
110
17
23
24
66
2
40
79
48
26
63
118
96
60
3.65
3.29
3.62
3.65
4.70
5.43
3.86
4.43
3.43
5.33
3.52
3.63
3.43
3.31
3.48
4.08
3.64
2.91
3.35
3.59
4.94
3.54
2.73
4.14
4.32
4.06
4.34
3.69
3.74
4.21
4.49
5.39
3.81
3.73
3.71
3.95
4.26
3.53
5.28
5.06
3.21
3.94
3.48
5.70
3.90
3.84
4.20
2.85
3.81
2.80
4.09
5.20
3.70
4.69
4.15
4.35
3.52
5.14
4.93
4.84
3.95
5.77
4.31
3.79
4.21
4.80
3.98
3.41
3.65
4.06
118
119
93
107
23
17
61
56
127
16
82
111
114
115
102
84
94
133
122
79
22
100
135
50
31
76
39
53
92
44
35
10
112
86
120
99
29
81
2
18
129
88
123
6
65
77
91
139
71
138
55
27
51
25
42
30
90
21
3
32
67
5
40
72
41
19
109
125
108
62
2.76
2.76
3.11
3.02
4.53
4.90
3.33
3.41
2.65
4.96
3.21
2.94
2.89
2.79
3.04
3.16
3.11
2.46
2.74
3.22
4.60
3.06
2.45
3.47
3.89
3.24
3.68
3.41
3.13
3.60
3.79
5.11
2.92
3.15
2.75
3.06
4.03
3.21
5.73
4.88
2.63
3.14
2.71
5.51
3.31
3.23
3.13
2.25
3.27
2.28
3.41
4.40
3.44
4.47
3.65
3.94
3.14
4.81
5.65
3.86
3.29
5.54
3.67
3.27
3.65
4.83
2.99
2.67
2.99
3.33
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe
67
91
98
37
18
62
116
119
17
109
49
140
51
52
128
107
86
92
108
134
79
127
6
25
133
114
13
85
89
44
131
106
47
57
30
12
84
76
55
29
54
125
70
132
11
59
39
36
35
41
126
7
1
16
71
112
48
81
110
56
100
72
21
9
4
83
135
88
68
130
3.58
3.43
3.36
4.02
5.04
3.62
3.20
3.05
5.05
3.27
3.86
2.47
3.79
3.78
2.93
3.28
3.45
3.42
3.28
2.71
3.52
2.99
5.46
4.66
2.77
3.22
5.16
3.45
3.44
3.91
2.90
3.28
3.88
3.70
4.16
5.18
3.48
3.54
3.74
4.18
3.75
3.02
3.57
2.82
5.19
3.68
3.99
4.06
4.09
3.95
3.02
5.45
5.78
5.06
3.56
3.23
3.88
3.49
3.26
3.71
3.35
3.55
4.83
5.28
5.59
3.48
2.71
3.44
3.58
2.90
61
105
92
39
19
72
119
121
13
115
46
140
34
50
127
113
102
82
120
135
77
126
5
25
133
94
11
71
86
45
124
81
42
55
41
10
88
80
69
29
65
132
62
131
18
57
51
33
31
44
123
7
1
21
78
114
35
68
104
58
107
91
15
6
4
83
134
100
85
130
4.05
3.58
3.69
4.32
5.10
3.87
3.37
3.37
5.29
3.43
4.22
2.72
4.36
4.18
3.29
3.46
3.62
3.77
3.37
2.94
3.81
3.31
5.56
4.82
3.12
3.65
5.34
3.87
3.73
4.23
3.34
3.79
4.26
4.09
4.27
5.38
3.71
3.79
3.91
4.54
3.95
3.14
3.99
3.14
5.13
4.07
4.15
4.42
4.46
4.25
3.34
5.44
5.79
5.01
3.80
3.43
4.36
3.93
3.58
4.07
3.54
3.70
5.25
5.54
5.60
3.75
2.98
3.63
3.74
3.18
95
70
104
36
15
58
106
121
20
96
49
140
78
59
130
97
69
98
83
132
74
126
8
24
137
117
13
103
89
45
134
116
48
64
28
14
75
68
46
34
47
113
87
131
9
66
33
38
37
43
124
7
1
11
63
105
57
101
110
60
85
54
26
12
4
80
136
73
52
128
3.10
3.28
3.03
3.73
4.98
3.38
3.03
2.74
4.82
3.10
3.50
2.23
3.23
3.38
2.56
3.10
3.28
3.07
3.18
2.47
3.24
2.66
5.37
4.51
2.42
2.78
4.99
3.04
3.14
3.59
2.46
2.78
3.50
3.32
4.05
4.98
3.24
3.29
3.57
3.83
3.55
2.90
3.15
2.49
5.24
3.29
3.83
3.69
3.72
3.65
2.69
5.46
5.76
5.10
3.32
3.03
3.41
3.05
2.94
3.35
3.16
3.41
4.41
5.02
5.58
3.21
2.43
3.25
3.42
2.63
Note: Ranks out of 140 economies and scores measured on a 1-to-7 scale.
14 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Box 2: The Case for Trade and Competitiveness
Trade and competitiveness are intimately connected. As
demonstrated by the East Asian “miracle economies” (Hong
Kong SAR, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan),
trade and investment integration can improve competitiveness
through two channels: first, by increasing the size of the market
available to domestic firms; and second, by driving productivity
and innovation by exposing firms to international competition,
expertise, and technology. No country has developed
successfully in modern times without opening its economy to
international trade, investment, and the movement of people
across borders.
Conversely, it is the competitiveness of economies—
the level of productivity of continents, nations, subnational
regions, and even cities—that determines how well they
translate openness to trade and investment into opportunities
for their firms, farms, and people.
Trade and competitiveness come together in global value
chains (GVCs). Trade no longer means merely goods crossing
borders; rather it is the international, interconnected flow of
goods, services, investment, people, and ideas along a value
chain. Production stages that previously took place in a single
factory, or in a single country, are now dispersed across
many factories in many countries. GVCs are the key drivers of
employment, productivity, and growth in international trade.
They create niches for developing countries to industrialize
faster and better, and they enable developed countries to
specialize in higher-value production in goods and services,
thus improving wages and consumer choice.
Taking advantage of GVCs demands more than keeping
borders open to trade and investment: a whole host of
domestic non-tariff and regulatory barriers also need to be
removed as well as a welcoming business climate provided.
Unilateral measures can help countries take advantage
of GVCs, but they work best when they are locked in by
international agreements such as those negotiated by the
inventions of the last decade, such as social networks
and the sharing economy, having a more limited effect on
productivity than the Internet revolution of the previous
decade (and also creating value of a kind not captured
in national accounts and hence not showing up in
productivity data);10 barriers to knowledge diffusion that
prevent smaller companies from assimilating knowledge
from larger firms;11 and a slowdown in the growth of
global trade, which is only partly explained by the slowing
growth in GDP. Other structural factors at play include a
slower pace of trade liberalization or even the introduction
of trade barriers, and a slower expansion of cross-border
value-chain trade.12 Box 2 discusses the links between
trade and competitiveness. Factors that contribute to the
GCI can also help to explain the slowdown in productivity
growth: these include lack of infrastructure, rigid labor
and goods markets, underdeveloped financial markets,
inefficient use of talent, lack of access to or poor quality
of education, slow adoption of technologies, and low
innovation rates.
Raising productivity growth increases potential
output and can contribute to boosting overall growth.
World Trade Organization, bilateral investment treaties, and
regional trade agreements.
Openness has non-economic benefits, too. Wider and
deeper cross-border economic integration has contributed
greatly to overall peace and stability since World War II. It
has increased individuals’ freedom to produce and consume
in daily life, widening the life choices and chances of large
numbers of ordinary people.
However, openness and the links between trade
and competitiveness have fallen off the agenda in recent
years. Since the 2008–09 crisis, policymakers have been
in fire-fighting mode, focusing on fiscal and monetary
macroeconomic stimulus and financial reregulation. This has
arguably come at the expense of supply-side issues and
structural reforms needed to address sluggish productivity
growth. Supply-side constraints to growth—distortions in
product and factor markets, education, skills, infrastructure—
have not been sufficiently addressed; if anything, market
distortions have increased since the crisis, undermining
competitiveness. And although protectionism has not surged,
there is evidence of creeping protectionism, especially with
increasing non-tariff barriers to trade. Global trade growth is
weaker than at any time in the last two decades.
Strengthening both global openness and domestic
competitiveness has never been more important. To revive
sluggish productivity and tap new sources of growth,
innovation, job creation, and development, a trade-andcompetitiveness agenda should be a priority for policymakers
around the world.
Note
This box is based on a report prepared by the Global Agenda
Councils on Competitiveness and Trade and FDI. For the full report,
go to http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-councilcompetitiveness-2014-2016-0.
In emerging markets and developing countries in
particular, there is scope for raising productivity
through structural reforms. The GCI results reveal
that considerable room for improvement exists in every
country in all areas that drive productivity (Figure 3), and
in each instance this constitutes a potential source of
productivity gain.
Another explanation for low economic growth,
particularly in Europe, is that lending has not yet fully
recovered since the financial crisis (Figure 4). Despite
very low interest rates, banks are reluctant to lend
because of the uncertain environment and, arguably,
also because of much stricter regulations that were
implemented in the wake of the financial crisis to stabilize
the banking sector. Small- and medium-sized enterprises
are being particularly affected.13
Competitiveness improves resilience
A number of risks, including geopolitical tensions and
currency and commodity price fluctuations, could derail
the still weak recovery, should they materialize. Trends
since 2007 support the hypothesis that competitiveness
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 15
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Figure 3: Distance to the best-performing economy in the GCI and pillars
Index value (0–100, 100 = best-performing economy listed in parentheses)
100
(Switzerland)
(Finland)
(Hong Kong SAR)
Overall
GCI
1st pillar:
Institutions
2nd pillar:
Infrastructure
(Norway)
(Finland)
(Singapore)
(Singapore)
5th pillar:
Higher
education
and
training
6th pillar:
Goods
market
efficiency
(Switzerland) (New Zealand) (Luxembourg)
(China)
(Switzerland)
(Switzerland)
80
60
40
20
0
3rd pillar: 4th pillar:
MacroHealth
economic
and
environment primary
education
■ Advanced Economies
■ Middle East, North Africa, and Pakistan
7th pillar: 8th pillar: 9th pillar: 10th pillar: 11th pillar: 12th pillar:
Labor
Financial Technological Market
Business Innovation
market
market
readiness
size
sophistication
efficiency development
■ Emerging and Developing Europe
■ Latin America and the Caribbean
■ Emerging and Developing Asia
■ Commonwealth of Independent States
■ Sub-Saharan Africa
Note: The distance to the frontier is a group’s average score (on a 1-to-7 scale) minus 1 divided by the score of the best-performing economy minus 1. See page xv for group composition.
contributes to an economy’s resilience, providing another
reason to prioritize productivity growth now.
Countries rated as more competitive before the
crisis tended either to withstand it better (e.g., Germany,
Switzerland) or bounce back more quickly. For example,
the United States started growing again by 2010, while
Greece took until 2014 to return to positive territory,
its economy having contracted by 25 percent in the
meantime. Figure 5 compares the growth trajectory of the
five most and five least competitive advanced economies
as identified in the 2007–2008 Global Competitiveness
Index.14 The growth differential between the two groups
averaged around 4 percent between 2010 and 2013.
The contribution of competitiveness to resilience
appears to hold for economies at most stages of
development.15 Figure 6 reports average growth over the
period 2008–14 for the GCI 2007–2008’s three most and
least competitive economies in each of the five income
groups. In each group, the most competitive economies
have grown significantly more since the beginning of the
crisis.
Figure 4: Financial development pillar
Evolution of average scores (1–7 scale), constant sample
Figure 5: Average GDP growth rate (%) of selected
advanced economies
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
6
Advanced Economies
Middle East, North Africa, and Pakistan
Emerging and Developing Asia
Commonwealth of Independent States
Emerging and Developing Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
5
4
■ 5 most competitive economies
■ 5 least competitive economies
3
2
1
0
–1
–2
–3
4
–4
–5
3
0
2007–2008
2015–2016
Note: See page xv for group composition.
16 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Sources: World Economic Forum; IMF 2015c.
Note: The five most competitive advanced economies in the GCI 2007–2008 were the United
States, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany; the five least competitive were
Slovenia, Portugal, Italy, Cyprus, and Greece. Data are given as the simple average of
growth rates. Advanced economy status is as of April 2007.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Leveraging the human factor
According to International Labour Organization (ILO)
estimates, the global unemployment rate in 2014 was
5.9 percent—some 201 million people—with youth
unemployment running at 13 percent.16 Unemployment
spiked in almost every country after the crisis, but
individual countries have widely different trajectories.
From a peak in 2010, the most competitive economies
have managed to bring unemployment down toward precrisis levels. In less competitive countries, unemployment
has remained well above pre-crisis levels.
Figure 7 depicts the evolution in unemployment
rate over the period 2007–14 in selected advanced
economies. At the left of the chart, for example, Greece’s
trajectory shows the unemployment rate soaring. In the
bottom-right of the chart, by contrast, Switzerland’s
consistently high GCI results coincide with a relatively
steady unemployment rate.
Although the relationship between unemployment
and competitiveness is complex, both rely heavily on the
adequacy of the education system and the efficiency of
the labor market: by educating, training, and rewarding
people appropriately, a country ensures that its workers
have the skills to attain productive employment and
that it can attract and retain talent. This is true for both
advanced economies and developing ones, because
talent generates ideas that in turn power innovation, and
4
0
CYP, MLT, TTO
1
ITA, HUN, GRC
2
USA, CHE, DNK
3
ZWE, BDI, TCD
ARG, SRB, VEN
5
MYS, CHL, LTU
SGP, KOR, HKG
6
VNM, PAK, NGA
■ 3 most competitive economies
■ 3 least competitive economies
PRY, LSO, GUY
7
THA, CHN, IND
Figure 6: Growth rates of the most and least competitive
economies, by income group
Average annual growth rate, 2007–14
–1
–2
High income
OECD (26)
Other high
income (16)
Upper-middle
income (24)
Lower-middle
income (30)
Low
income (21)
Sources: World Economic Forum; IMF 2015c.
Note: The number of economies included in each group is indicated in parentheses along
the x axis. The GCI 2007–2008 rank is in parentheses in the following list: ARG =
Argentina (85); BDI = Burundi (130); CHE = Switzerland (2); CHL = Chile (26); CHN
= China (34); CYP = Cyprus (55); DNK = Denmark (3); GRC = Greece (65); GUY =
Guyana (126); HKG = Hong Kong SAR (12); HUN = Hungary (47); IND = India (48);
ITA = Italy (46); KOR = Korea, Rep. (11); LSO = Lesotho (124); LTU = Lithuania (38);
MLT = Malta (56); MYS = Malaysia (21); NGA = Nigeria (95); PAK = Pakistan (92);
PRY = Paraguay (121); SGP = Singapore (7); SRB = Serbia (91); TCD = Chad (131);
THA = Thailand (28); TTO = Trinidad and Tobago (84); USA = United States (1);
VEN = Venezuela (98); VNM = Vietnam (68); ZWE = Zimbabwe (129).
Figure 7: Evolution of unemployment rate in selected advanced economies, 2007–14
Percent of total labor force
30
Greece ('13)
Spain ('13)
25
Year of peak unemployment
20
Cyprus ('14)
Portugal ('13)
Ireland ('12)
15
Italy ('14)
France ('13)
United States ('10)
Germany ('07)
10
5
Singapore ('09)
Switzerland ('09)
0
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
GCI 2007–2008 score (1–7)
Sources: World Economic Forum; IMF 2015c.
Note: Year of peak unemployment indicated in parentheses.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 17
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 6: Performance of selected advanced economies on selected human capital–related indicators
Rank out of 140
INDICATORS
Country/economy
Overall
GCI
5.03
Quality
of the
education
system
5.08
Extent
of
staff training
5.04
Quality of
math and
science
education
7.01
12.06
7.07
Cooperation
7.02
7.08
7.09
Availability Reliance on
7.06
7.03
in laborFlexibility
Country
Country
of scientists professional
Pay and
Hiring and
employer
of wage
capacity to capacity to
and engineers management productivity firing practices relations determination retain talent attract talent
Switzerland
1
1
1
4
23
6
4
2
1
16
1
1
Singapore
2
3
4
1
11
5
3
4
3
6
6
2
United States
3
18
14
44
4
9
8
10
31
19
2
6
Germany
4
10
13
16
15
15
13
107
20
132
13
19
Netherlands
5
8
9
7
22
4
46
89
8
131
11
13
Japan
6
27
6
9
3
18
14
123
5
7
29
78
21
46
18
12
21
11
21
15
9
4
United Kingdom
10
21
France
22
30
28
19
19
29
59
127
116
69
63
42
Ireland
24
9
20
21
9
7
7
19
15
56
19
9
Korea, Rep.
26
66
36
30
40
37
24
115
132
66
25
35
Estonia
30
34
32
14
73
25
10
13
28
1
93
86
Spain
33
85
104
84
16
49
115
121
84
97
94
98
Italy
43
65
132
41
26
119
131
132
127
134
113
115
Greece
81
114
91
61
6
101
103
91
107
115
111
131
Note: Color is coded according to rank:
■ 1–20
■ 21–40
■ 41–60
■ 61–80
because strong vocational skills remain an important
source of comparative advantage.
Table 6 presents the performance of selected
advanced economies on indicators of education
and labor market efficiency. The world’s three most
competitive economies—Switzerland, Singapore, and
the United States—score well in the vast majority of
these indicators. Southern European countries where
unemployment has spiked, such as Spain and Italy,
perform poorly on most. Some countries with positive
overall performance but shortcomings in at least one
dimension—such as Germany, the Republic of Korea,
and Japan—may still have positive unemployment
trajectories, but they are also exposed to the risk of
creating a two-tier labor market that discriminates
between permanent employees and others.
While the shortcomings in advanced economies
are most likely to center on higher education, the skills
gap, as well as labor market and wage-setting rigidities,
in less-developed countries the issues center on public
health and basic education. Even in countries where
primary and secondary education is almost universal, the
quality of that education can be mediocre and curricula
are not adapted to the needs of businesses. The
difficulty of finding jobs in the formal sector reduces the
incentives for workers to invest in their own education.
18 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
■ 81–100
■ 101–120
■ 121–140
Results overview
This section presents an overview of the GCI results by
region, identifies patterns, and puts them in context.17
Figure 8 compares the range of results between
advanced economies and others in different regions
between 2007 and 2008 (before the economic crisis)
and the current edition of the Index. In most cases the
gap is large, with sub-Saharan Africa continuing to
be furthest behind despite improving on average. The
figure also shows the diversity of performance within
each region, with the Middle East and North Africa
showing the largest disparities between best and worst
performers.
Most advanced economies have recovered to their
pre-crisis level of competitiveness. As in previous years,
they fill all the top positions in the rankings. Yet some
disparity remains, with some Eastern and Southern
European countries occupying the lowest rankings in this
group: most notable is Greece, which at 81st place is the
least competitive economy of this group.
Access to finance is still the main drag on growth
in most of these economies, with the United States
representing a positive exception—it is now close to precrisis levels in terms of access to finance. At the other
end of the spectrum, in the eurozone finance is much
more difficult to access than it was eight years ago,
underscoring one of the most important factors slowing
down growth on the continent.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Figure 8: Distribution of GCI scores
7
6
Best performer
2007–2008 average
2015–2016 average
5
Worst performer
4
3
2
1
2007–
2008
2015–
2016
Advanced
Economies
2007–
2008
2015–
2016
Emerging
and
Developing
Asia
2007–
2008
2015–
2016
Commonwealth
of
Independent
States
2007–
2008
2015–
2016
Emerging
and
Developing
Europe
2007–
2008
2015–
2016
2007–
2008
Middle East,
North Africa,
and Pakistan
2015–
2016
Latin
America
and the
Caribbean
2007–
2008
2015–
2016
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Note: Groups sorted according to average GCI 2015–2016 score. See page xv for group composition.
Analysis of other pillars provides a mixed picture.
Almost a decade of economic instability and a doubledip recession have eroded trust in public institutions
since 2007 in most advanced economies, especially
in Southern Europe. At the same time, the quality of
infrastructure improved in Southern Europe, with Italy
showing the highest growth, especially in the railway
sector, thanks to heavy investments and increased
market competition. However, infrastructure quality
deteriorated in the United States, Switzerland, and
Northern Europe, with Germany and France displaced
from top positions by Hong Kong SAR and Singapore.
Firms in the eurozone responded to the sluggishness
of recovery by doing the most to improve their level
of innovation, with Southern European countries
showing small signs of convergence with their northern
counterparts.
There is further evidence of the emergence of a
divide in Europe between reformist countries and the
other countries. In France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and
Spain, we observe significant improvement in the areas
of market competition and labor market efficiency thanks
to the reforms these countries have been implementing.
By contrast, Cyprus and Greece have failed to improve
in these pillars.
The analysis of the most problematic factors for
doing business between 2007 and 2015 shows that the
relative level of concern among firms around restrictive
labor regulations has indeed progressively decreased in
Figure 9: Restrictive labor regulations as the most
problematic factor for doing business
Average score*
25
■ Northern Europe
■ Southern Europe
■ Eastern Europe
20
15
10
5
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey.
* See Box 3 for methodology.
Southern Europe (Figure 9). In most countries, access
to finance has replaced labor regulations as the most
problematic factor for doing business in those countries
(Box 3 presents a trend analysis of these factors).
Emerging and Developing Asia has been the
world’s fastest-growing region since 2005 and looks
set to retain this status in the medium term. The region
now accounts for some 30 percent of global GDP, with
China alone accounting for 16 percent.18 This dynamism
is reflected in the GCI results. Since the beginning of the
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 19
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Box 3: The most problematic factors for doing business: Impacts of the global crisis
Respondents to the Executive Opinion Survey are asked
every year to identify and rank the five most problematic
factors for doing business in their country. The scores
calculated on the basis of the 2015 data are presented in the
country profiles at the end of this Report.
A comparative analysis of the results from 2007 and
2015 can help us understand how the global financial crisis
has created new obstacles for doing business across the
world, highlighted previously existing weaknesses, and
changed the priorities of firms in countries at all stages of
development (Table 1).
The most striking change is the surge of access to finance
as one of the most serious problems for business in many
countries, a consequence of the global financial crisis (Figure 1).
Because of deleveraging and stricter regulations in the
banking sector, uncertain economic prospects, and despite
extremely low interest rates, obtaining finance is still very
difficult, especially for small- and medium-sized enterprises.
In advanced economies, firms surveyed in 2015 indicate this
factor as the 4th most pressing concern.1 This has more than
doubled since 2007, when it was only 7th.2 Access to finance
is now almost as problematic in advanced as in developing
economies, where it has risen from 3rd in 2007 to become
the number 1 priority (Table 1).
Table 1: The most problematic factors for doing business
in 2007 and 2015
ADVANCED ECONOMIES
2007 2015
Factor
Score*
Factor
Score*
Government bureaucracy
13.6
Government bureaucracy
14.2
Restrictive labor regulations
13.6
Tax rates
13.1
Tax rates
11.9
Restrictive labor regulations
12.8
Complexity of tax regulations
10.7
Access to finance
10.8
Inadequately educated
workforce
9.0
Complexity of tax regulations
8.8
EMERGING MARKET AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIES
2007 2015
Factor
Score*
Factor
Score*
Government bureaucracy
12.3
Access to finance
11.7
Corruption
11.4
Corruption
11.4
11.3
Access to finance
9.8
Government bureaucracy
Inadequate supply of
infrastructure
8.9
Tax rates
8.1
Policy instability
8.1
Inadequate supply of
infrastructure
8.0
Sources: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2007 and 2015 editions.
* See Note 2 of this box.
Figure 1: Access to finance as the most problematic factor for doing business, 2007–15
1a: Absolute value
1b: Index = 100 (2007)
20
400
350
15
300
Advanced economies
250
10
200
Emerging market and developing economies
150
Advanced economies
5
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
100
2015
Emerging market and developing economies
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Sources: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey, 2007 and 2015 editions.
Tax rates also climbed the priority list in both advanced
and developing economies. In their quest for a reduction
of debt and deficits, governments in many countries have
implemented austerity measures that include new taxes that
depressed business activity further.
The analysis also reveals the persistence of institutional
factors as top priorities in most economies, showing
how difficult it is for countries at all levels of development
to improve their institutional framework. Government
bureaucracy is still the top priority in advanced economies
and remains one of the three most pressing issues in
developing economies; corruption—another factor related to
governance—ranks second on the list. Corruption has gained
in prominence especially in countries where recent scandals
20 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
have exposed its economic costs, such as Brazil, Hungary,
Italy, Mexico, and Spain.
Notes
1
See page xv for group composition.
2
Respondents to the Executive Opinion Survey were asked to
select the five most problematic factors for doing business in their
country and to rank them between 1 (most problematic) and 5.
The numbers presented in this box show the responses weighted
according to their rankings. The historical scores have been
adjusted to reflect the introduction of new factors to the list used
in the Survey. For the list of problematic factors for each economy,
refer to the Country/Economy Profiles at the end of the Report.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
crisis, competitiveness trends have been mostly positive.
However, regional averages conceal profound disparities
across the region (Figure 10). China (28th) and most of
the Southeast Asian countries are performing well, while
South Asian countries and Mongolia (104th) continue to
lag behind.
Behind Singapore (2nd), the five largest members of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—
namely Malaysia (18th, up two), Thailand (32nd, down
one), Indonesia (37th, down four), the Philippines (47,
up five), and Vietnam (56th, up 12)—all rank in the top
half of the overall GCI rankings. With the exception of
Thailand, all five have improved their showing since 2007,
most notably the Philippines, which has leapfrogged 17
places. Although ranked much lower, the three other
ASEAN members—Lao PDR (83rd, up 10), Cambodia
(90th, up five), and Myanmar (131st, up three)—all move
up the ladder.
In contrast, no member of the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) features
in the top 50. India leads the way at 55th, followed by
Sri Lanka (68th, up five). Nepal (100th, up two), Bhutan
(105th, down two), Bangladesh (107th, up two), and
Pakistan (126th, up three) all rank 100th or below.
Although last year all SAARC countries except Bhutan
posted small gains, since 2007 only Nepal has managed
to progress significantly (14 places gained); Pakistan
lost 34 places during that period and India, despite
leapfrogging 16 places this year, still ranks seven notches
lower than it did in 2007.
Despite the region’s dynamism, it faces many
challenges. Most countries have a gaping infrastructure
deficit because investment has not kept up with rapid
growth. The uptake of technology, in particular of ICTs,
is also very low across the region. For middle-income
countries, innovation capacity remains limited, which
poses a risk to their growth in the long run. For instance,
the results of the Executive Opinion Survey reveal that
the difficulty of innovating has become the biggest
concern of the business community in China (see Box 4).
Three factors had an impact on the regional
economy in Emerging Europe in 2014–2015: some
Balkan countries were hit by floods, which reduced
agriculture yields, capital formation, and industry
capacity; the recession in Russia reduced exports,
particularly of the Baltic countries; and changes in
monetary policy from both the European Central
Bank and the Swiss National Bank have had doubleedged effects by increasing the costs of mortgages
denominated in Swiss francs on one hand and reducing
interests rates on the other. Despite these difficulties,
however, the region’s growth is projected to remain
steady, and only three countries fell in their GCI ranking.
The Baltic countries are generally doing better
than those in Central and Southern Europe. Lithuania
is the most competitive economy in the region (36th),
Figure 10: Emerging and Developing Asia competitiveness
trends
Average GCI score (1–7), constant sample
5
■ ASEAN
■ SAARC
■ Other developing Asia
4
3
0
2007– 2008– 2009– 2010– 2011– 2012– 2013– 2014– 2015–
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Note: ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations; SAARC = South Asian Association
for Cooperation.
only six positions behind Estonia.19 Poland (41st) and
Turkey (51st) take the second and third position in the
region. Only Albania (93rd), Serbia (94th), and Bosnia
and Herzegovina (111th) are outside the top 80. Gaps
are particularly wide on technological readiness, with
the Baltics outperforming Southern Europe. Lithuania
leads the region in technological and ICT adoption and
innovation, with less promising trends in countries such
as Albania, Turkey, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
All countries need to continue implementing
structural reforms to achieve higher levels of
competitiveness. In particular, all would benefit from
improving the flexibility of their labor markets (with the
possible exception of Hungary), developing the financial
sector, and reducing red tape, which is reported as one
of the most problematic factors for doing business in the
region.
Competitiveness has been slowly improving overall
in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
in recent years, sustained by a positive macroeconomic
environment, especially in energy-exporting countries,
and slight progress in goods market efficiency and
education. Innovation capacity has also improved, but
only slightly and from a low base. However, the strong
overall performance is under threat from expectations of
prolonged low commodity prices and regional knock-on
effects of recent geopolitical developments. Russia (45th)
still faces economic sanctions, while the situation in the
eastern part of Ukraine (79th) remains tense. Recession
in both countries will necessarily affect the region’s
prospects.
The CIS region needs to diversify to become
more competitive and resilient to commodity price and
demand shocks, but it may be hampered by the reduced
capacity of its financial sector to lend to non-oil sectors.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 21
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Efforts to shield the economy from shocks in the short
term should not derail structural progress toward longerterm competiveness. Countries must step up efforts to
improve economic fundamentals such as the efficiency
of the goods and labor markets, financial development,
competition policy, governance, and enterprise
restructuring.
Performance across countries is more homogenous
than in other regions, with the best performer
(Azerbaijan, 40th) losing one position this year, while the
poorest performer (Kyrgyz Republic, 102nd) registers
the fastest recent improvement in the region. The largest
gaps between countries are in technology readiness
and ICTs (where Moldova is leading the group) and
infrastructure (led by Russia).
The deceleration experienced in Latin America and
the Caribbean since 2012 continues in 2015, with the
IMF projecting growth of below 1 percent—down from
1.3 percent in 2014 and 2.9 percent in 2013.20 Falling
commodity prices add to the persisting challenge of
low levels of trade, investment, and savings, and low
productivity growth. As a result, the region has seen
its performance on the GCI stagnate over the past five
years. On a brighter note, some countries are likely to
benefit from the US recovery, given their strong trade
and investment links.
The region is heterogenous and the competitiveness
divide among these countries remains wide. The top
Latin American performer is Chile (35th), followed by
Panama (50th) and Costa Rica (52nd). Mexico and
Colombia are rapidly approaching the top three after
improving four and five positions, respectively. Three
Latin American countries experience dramatic declines
this year: Bolivia, Brazil, and El Salvador. All three
countries suffer from deteriorating institutions and low
macroeconomic performance stability. At the bottom of
the region are Venezuela (132nd) and Haiti (134th). Most
countries from the region cluster toward the middle—
that is, between 50th and 100th, with Argentina slightly
outside this range at 106th.
To create sustainable long-term growth, the
region must build resilience against external economic
shocks. Infrastructure, skills, and innovation—areas
in which the region performs relatively poorly—are
among the fundamentals to be strengthened. Structural
reforms and measures to improve the business
environment and to foster innovation, coupled with
a better-educated workforce—through more on-thejob training, for example—would increase resilience
by diversifying the economy away from commodity
price dependence and enable production with more
value-added.21
There is a sense of urgency for the region to
overcome its productivity challenges to enhance
competitiveness, even in an environment of slower
economic growth. The region needs not only to boost
22 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
productivity but also to share the resulting prosperity,
reducing and preserving social gains that might be at risk.
There are stark differences in competitiveness
across the Middle East and North Africa region. Led
by Qatar (14th), the United Arab Emirates (17th), Saudi
Arabia (25th), and Bahrain (39th), many Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) countries are already fairly competitive
and can build on past progress to improve further.
However, the Levant and North Africa lag significantly
behind, the best performers being Jordan (64th) and
Morocco (72nd).
Although most of its countries have made progress
in improving competitiveness, the region is marked by
fragility and vulnerability to shocks. Rising geopolitical
security concerns made it impossible to cover Yemen,
Syria, or Libya in this year’s Report. Spillovers from
the Syrian war have affected security elsewhere in the
Levant, while in North Africa, terrorist events in the
Spring of 2015 undermined recent positive developments
in Tunisia (92nd).
Despite the diversity of their economies, most of
the region’s countries share the major—and daunting—
challenge of creating sufficient employment opportunities
for their youthful populations.
More jobs can be achieved only by creating the
right conditions for the private sector to grow. The region
is also home to some of the world’s biggest energy
exporters; the recent drop in energy prices further
demonstrates the need for economic diversification
and developing a strong and vibrant private sector. The
recent agreement with Iran on its nuclear program (73rd)
may provide important growth opportunities if conditions
for implementation are fulfilled.
Sub-Saharan Africa’s solid growth rates—more
than 5 percent over the past 15 years—bear witness to
the region’s impressive economic potential.22 However,
Africa’s levels of productivity remain low. The recent
fall in resource prices has affected many countries,23
and the normalization of US monetary policy may lead
to increased investor scrutiny of emerging market
risk, undermining growth prospects. Both these
developments emphasize the region’s need to prioritize
competitiveness-enhancing reforms.
The region’s most pressing challenges are weak
institutions, poor infrastructure, and insufficient health
and education sectors. Improving education and the
enabling environment for employment will largely
determine whether or not the region will be able to reap
the unprecedented growth opportunities of its growing
labor force—the number of sub-Saharan Africans
reaching working age (15–64) will exceed that of the
rest of the world by 2035.24 The region’s comparatively
efficient markets demonstrate its capacity for reform,
as reflected in its rapidly improving goods market
efficiency.25 However, reforms to improve institutions and
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
bridge the infrastructure and human capital gaps will
take time to produce results.
There are wide regional disparities in
competitiveness. The top performers are Mauritius (46th),
South Africa (49th, and reversing its four-year downward
trend), Rwanda (58th), and Botswana (71st). However,
15 out of the bottom 20 economies are sub-Saharan
African, with Guinea propping up the list in 140th.
The other two countries hardest hit by Ebola—Liberia
(129th) and Sierra Leone (137th)—also rank low. Côte
d’Ivoire (91st) and Ethiopia (109th) are this year’s largest
improvers: both have strengthened institutions, while
Côte d’Ivoire has also improved its financial markets and
domestic competition and Ethiopia has made progress
in its goods and labor market as well as its business
sophistication and innovation.
Country highlights
This section discusses performance highlights for
selected economies, including the top 10 most
competitive, the best performers in each main region,
and G-20 economies outside the top 10. Economies are
listed in rank order (see Table 7).
Switzerland tops the GCI for the seventh
consecutive year. Switzerland leads the innovation
pillar, thanks to its world-class research institutions (1st),
high spending on research and development (R&D) by
companies (1st), and strong cooperation between the
academic world and the private sector (3rd). But many
other factors contribute to Switzerland’s innovation
ecosystem, including the level of business sophistication
(1st) and the country’s capacity to nurture and attract
talent. Switzerland boasts an excellent education system
at all levels and is a pioneer of the dual education
system. The labor market is highly efficient (1st), with
high levels of collaboration between labor and employers
(1st) and balancing employee protection with flexibility
and business needs. Swiss public institutions are among
the most effective and transparent in the world (6th),
and competitiveness is further buttressed by excellent
infrastructure and connectivity (6th) and highly developed
financial markets (10th). Last but not least, Switzerland’s
macroeconomic environment is among the most
stable worldwide (6th) at a time when many developed
countries continue to struggle in this area.
These very strong economic fundamentals help to
explain Switzerland’s resilience throughout the crisis.
Yet recent developments have created a number of
downside risks and leave little policy space. These
include the sluggish recovery in key trading partner
countries; the appreciation of the Swiss franc following
the exit of the exchange rate floor; near-zero inflation;
and negative real interest rates. Uncertainty about future
immigration policy following the referendum against
“mass immigration” could undermine Switzerland’s
capacity to tap into the global talent pool needed to
Table 7: List of economies covered in this section
Rank out of 140
Economy
GCI rank
Switzerland
Singapore
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Japan
Hong Kong SAR
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Canada
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Australia
France
Saudi Arabia
Korea, Rep.
China
Chile
Indonesia
Azerbaijan
Italy
Russian Federation
Mauritius
South Africa
Turkey
India
Mexico
Rwanda
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
17
18
21
22
25
26
28
35
37
40
43
45
46
49
51
55
57
58
61
75
106
116
124
Page of description
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
power its economy. Switzerland must continue to
sharpen its competitive edge to justify the high cost of
doing business in the country.
Singapore ranks 2nd for the fifth year in a row,
with one of the most consistent performances of all
economies, being in the top 10 in nine out 12 pillars.
Singapore remains the best performer when it comes
to the overall efficiency of markets, and one of the two
economies—together with Hong Kong SAR—ranking
in the top three in goods, labor, and financial market
efficiency. In particular, Singapore can rely on the most
flexible and the second most attractive labor market
in the world, although the participation of women in
the workforce remains relatively low (75th). With the
best higher education and training system in the world
(1st, overtaking Finland), Singapore is well placed to
increase technological adoption (5th, up two), business
sophistication (18th, up one), and innovation (stable at
9th). The economy can rely on top-notch infrastructure
(2nd), a transparent and efficient institutional framework
(2nd), and a stable macroeconomic environment (12th).
In particular, the government produced a large budget
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 23
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Appendix:
Methodology and Computation of the Global Competitiveness Index
2015–2016
This appendix provides a short description of each
pillar of the Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016
(GCI) and of the application of the concept of stages of
development to weight the Index. For a more detailed
description and literature review for each pillar, refer to
Chapter 1.1 in The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–
2015.a The appendix also presents the detailed structure
of the GCI and explains how the Index is computed.
THE TWELVE PILLARS OF COMPETITIVENESS
We define competitiveness as the set of institutions,
policies, and factors that determine the level of
productivity of a country. The level of productivity, in
turn, sets the level of prosperity that can be reached by
an economy. The productivity level also determines the
rates of return obtained by investments in an economy,
which in turn are the fundamental drivers of its growth
rates. In other words, a more competitive economy is
one that is likely to grow faster over time.
This open-endedness is captured within the GCI
by including a weighted average of many different
components, each measuring a different aspect of
competitiveness. The components are grouped into 12
categories, the pillars of competitiveness:
First pillar: Institutions
The institutional environment of a country depends on
the efficiency and the behavior of both public and private
stakeholders. The legal and administrative framework
within which individuals, firms, and governments interact
determines the quality of the public institutions of a
country and has a strong bearing on competitiveness
and growth. It influences investment decisions and the
organization of production and plays a key role in the
ways in which societies distribute the benefits and bear
the costs of development strategies and policies. Good
private institutions are also important for the sound and
sustainable development of an economy. The 2007–08
global financial crisis, along with numerous corporate
scandals, has highlighted the relevance of accounting
and reporting standards and transparency for preventing
fraud and mismanagement, ensuring good governance,
and maintaining investor and consumer confidence.
Second pillar: Infrastructure
Extensive and efficient infrastructure is critical for
ensuring the effective functioning of the economy.
Effective modes of transport—including high-quality
roads, railroads, ports, and air transport—enable
entrepreneurs to get their goods and services to
market in a secure and timely manner and facilitate
the movement of workers to the most suitable jobs.
Economies also depend on electricity supplies that are
free from interruptions and shortages so that businesses
and factories can work unimpeded. Finally, a solid
and extensive telecommunications network allows for
a rapid and free flow of information, which increases
overall economic efficiency by helping to ensure that
businesses can communicate and decisions are made
by economic actors taking into account all available
relevant information.
Third pillar: Macroeconomic environment
The stability of the macroeconomic environment is
important for business and, therefore, is significant for
the overall competitiveness of a country. Although it is
certainly true that macroeconomic stability alone cannot
increase the productivity of a nation, it is also recognized
that macroeconomic disarray harms the economy, as
we have seen in recent years, conspicuously in the
European context. The government cannot provide
services efficiently if it has to make high-interest
payments on its past debts. Running fiscal deficits limits
the government’s future ability to react to business
cycles. Firms cannot operate efficiently when inflation
rates are out of hand. In sum, the economy cannot grow
in a sustainable manner unless the macro environment
is stable.
Fourth pillar: Health and primary education
A healthy workforce is vital to a country’s competitiveness
and productivity. Workers who are ill cannot function
to their potential and will be less productive. Poor
health leads to significant costs to business, as sick
workers are often absent or operate at lower levels of
efficiency. Investment in the provision of health services
is thus critical for clear economic, as well as moral,
considerations. In addition to health, this pillar takes into
account the quantity and quality of the basic education
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 35
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
received by the population, which is increasingly important
in today’s economy. Basic education increases the
efficiency of each individual worker.
Fifth pillar: Higher education and training
Quality higher education and training is crucial for
economies that want to move up the value chain beyond
simple production processes and products. In particular,
today’s globalizing economy requires countries to nurture
pools of well-educated workers who are able to perform
complex tasks and adapt rapidly to their changing
environment and the evolving needs of the production
system. This pillar measures secondary and tertiary
enrollment rates as well as the quality of education
as evaluated by business leaders. The extent of staff
training is also taken into consideration because of the
importance of vocational and continuous on-the-job
training—which is neglected in many economies—for
ensuring a constant upgrading of workers’ skills.
Sixth pillar: Goods market efficiency
Countries with efficient goods markets are well
positioned to produce the right mix of products and
services given their particular supply-and-demand
conditions, as well as to ensure that these goods can be
most effectively traded in the economy. Healthy market
competition, both domestic and foreign, is important in
driving market efficiency, and thus business productivity,
by ensuring that the most efficient firms, producing
goods demanded by the market, are those that thrive.
Market efficiency also depends on demand conditions
such as customer orientation and buyer sophistication.
For cultural or historical reasons, customers may be
more demanding in some countries than in others. This
can create an important competitive advantage, as it
forces companies to be more innovative and customeroriented and thus imposes the discipline necessary for
efficiency to be achieved in the market.
Seventh pillar: Labor market efficiency
The efficiency and flexibility of the labor market are
critical for ensuring that workers are allocated to their
most effective use in the economy and provided with
incentives to give their best effort in their jobs. Labor
markets must therefore have the flexibility to shift
workers from one economic activity to another rapidly
and at low cost, and to allow for wage fluctuations
without much social disruption. Efficient labor markets
must also ensure clear strong incentives for employees
and promote meritocracy at the workplace, and they
must provide equity in the business environment
between women and men. Taken together these factors
have a positive effect on worker performance and the
attractiveness of the country for talent, two aspects of
the labor market that are growing more important as
talent shortages loom on the horizon.
36 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
Eighth pillar: Financial market development
An efficient financial sector allocates the resources
saved by a nation’s population, as well as those entering
the economy from abroad, to the entrepreneurial or
investment projects with the highest expected rates
of return rather than to the politically connected.
Business investment is critical to productivity. Therefore
economies require sophisticated financial markets that
can make capital available for private-sector investment
from such sources as loans from a sound banking
sector, well-regulated securities exchanges, venture
capital, and other financial products. In order to fulfill
all those functions, the banking sector needs to be
trustworthy and transparent, and—as has been made
so clear recently—financial markets need appropriate
regulation to protect investors and other actors in the
economy at large.
Ninth pillar: Technological readiness
The technological readiness pillar measures the agility
with which an economy adopts existing technologies to
enhance the productivity of its industries, with specific
emphasis on its capacity to fully leverage information
and communication technologies (ICTs) in daily activities
and production processes for increased efficiency and
enabling innovation for competitiveness. Whether the
technology used has or has not been developed within
national borders is irrelevant for its ability to enhance
productivity. The central point is that the firms operating
in the country need to have access to advanced products
and blueprints and the ability to absorb and use them.
Among the main sources of foreign technology, FDI
often plays a key role, especially for countries at a less
advanced stage of technological development.
Tenth pillar: Market size
The size of the market affects productivity since large
markets allow firms to exploit economies of scale.
Traditionally, the markets available to firms have been
constrained by national borders. In the era of globalization,
international markets have become a substitute for
domestic markets, especially for small countries. Thus
exports can be thought of as a substitute for domestic
demand in determining the size of the market for the firms
of a country. By including both domestic and foreign
markets in our measure of market size, we give credit to
export-driven economies and geographic areas (such as
the European Union) that are divided into many countries
but have a single common market.
Eleventh pillar: Business sophistication
Business sophistication concerns two elements that
are intricately linked: the quality of a country’s overall
business networks and the quality of individual firms’
operations and strategies. These factors are especially
important for countries at an advanced stage of
© 2015 World Economic Forum
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
development when, to a large extent, the more basic
sources of productivity improvements have been
exhausted. The quality of a country’s business networks
and supporting industries, as measured by the quantity
and quality of local suppliers and the extent of their
interaction, is important for a variety of reasons. When
companies and suppliers from a particular sector are
interconnected in geographically proximate groups,
called clusters, efficiency is heightened, greater
opportunities for innovation in processes and products
are created, and barriers to entry for new firms are
reduced.
Twelfth pillar: Innovation
The final pillar of competitiveness focuses on
technological innovation. Innovation is particularly
important for economies as they approach the frontiers
of knowledge, and the possibility of generating more
value by merely integrating and adapting exogenous
technologies tends to disappear. In these economies,
firms must design and develop cutting-edge products
and processes to maintain a competitive edge and
move toward even higher value-added activities. This
progression requires an environment that is conducive
to innovative activity and supported by both the
public and the private sectors. In particular, it means
sufficient investment in research and development
(R&D), especially by the private sector; the presence
of high-quality scientific research institutions that can
generate the basic knowledge needed to build the new
technologies; extensive collaboration in research and
technological developments between universities and
industry; and the protection of intellectual property.
The interrelation of the 12 pillars
Although we report the results of the 12 pillars of
competitiveness separately, it is important to keep
in mind that they are not independent: they tend to
reinforce each other, and a weakness in one area
often has a negative impact in others. The detailed
structure and methodology used to compute the GCI are
presented at the end of this appendix.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE WEIGHTED
INDEX
Although all of the pillars described above will matter to a
certain extent for all economies, it is clear that they affect
different economies in different ways.
In line with well-known economic theory of stages
of development, the GCI assumes that, in the first
stage, the economy is factor-driven and countries
compete based on their factor endowments—primarily
unskilled labor and natural resources.b Maintaining
competitiveness at this stage of development hinges
primarily on well-functioning public and private
institutions (1st pillar), a well-developed infrastructure
(2nd pillar), a stable macroeconomic environment (3rd
pillar), and a healthy workforce that has received at least
a basic education (4th pillar).
As a country becomes more competitive,
productivity will increase and wages will rise with
advancing development. Countries will then move
into the efficiency-driven stage of development, when
they must begin to develop more-efficient production
processes and increase product quality because wages
have risen and they cannot increase prices. At this
point, competitiveness is increasingly driven by higher
education and training (5th pillar), efficient goods markets
(6th pillar), well-functioning labor markets (7th pillar),
developed financial markets (8th pillar), the ability to
harness the benefits of existing technologies (9th pillar),
and a large domestic or foreign market (10th pillar).
Finally, as countries move into the innovation-driven
stage, wages will have risen by so much that they are
able to sustain those higher wages and the associated
standard of living only if their businesses are able to
compete using the most sophisticated production
processes (11th pillar) and by innovating new ones (12th
pillar).
The GCI takes the stages of development into
account by attributing higher relative weights to those
pillars that are more relevant for an economy given its
particular stage of development. To implement this
concept, the pillars are organized into three subindexes,
each critical to a particular stage of development.
The basic requirements subindex groups those
pillars most critical for countries in the factor-driven
stage. The efficiency enhancers subindex includes those
pillars critical for countries in the efficiency-driven stage.
And the innovation and sophistication factors subindex
includes the pillars critical to countries in the innovationdriven stage.
The weights attributed to each subindex in every
stage of development are shown in Table 1.
Two criteria are used to allocate countries into
stages of development. The first is the level of GDP per
capita at market exchange rates. The thresholds used
are also reported in Table 1. A second criterion is used to
adjust for countries that, based on income, would have
moved beyond stage 1, but where prosperity is based
on the extraction of resources. This is measured by the
share of exports of mineral goods in total exports (goods
and services), and assumes that countries with more
than 70 percent of their exports made up of mineral
products (measured using a five-year average) are to a
large extent factor driven.c Countries that are resource
driven and significantly wealthier than economies at the
technological frontier are classified in the innovationdriven stage.d Any countries falling between two of the
three stages are considered to be “in transition.” For
these countries, the weights change smoothly as a
country develops, reflecting the smooth transition from
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 37
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
Table 1: Subindex weights and income thresholds for stages of development
STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
Stage 1:
Factor-driven
Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2
<2,000
2,000–2,999
3,000–8,999
9,000–17,000
Weight for basic requirements
60%
40–60%
40%
20–40%
20%
Weight for efficiency enhancers
35%
35–50%
50%
50%
50%
5%
5–10%
10%
10–30%
30%
GDP per capita (US$) thresholds*
Weight for innovation and sophistication factors
Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven
Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
Note: See individual country/economy profiles for the exact applied weights.
* For economies with a high dependency on mineral resources, GDP per capita is not the sole criterion for the determination of the stage of development. See text for details.
Table 2: Countries/economies at each stage of development
Stage 1:
Factor-driven
(35 economies)
Transition from
stage 1 to stage 2
(16 economies)
Stage 2:
Efficiency-driven
(31 economies)
Transition from
stage 2 to stage 3
(20 economies)
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
(38 economies)
Bangladesh
Benin
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chad
Côte d'Ivoire
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Ghana
Guinea
Haiti
India
Kenya
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Myanmar
Nepal
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bhutan
Botswana
Gabon
Honduras
Iran, Islamic rep.
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Moldova
Mongolia
Nigeria
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Vietnam
Albania
Armenia
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
China
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Indonesia
Jamaica
Jordan
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Morocco
Namibia
Paraguay
Peru
Serbia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Thailand
Tunisia
Ukraine
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hungary
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Oman
Panama
Poland
Romania
Russian Federation
Seychelles
Turkey
Uruguay
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong SAR
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Qatar
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan, China
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
38 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
© 2015 World Economic Forum
>17,000
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
one stage of development to another. The classification
of countries into stages of development is shown in
Table 2.
STRUCTURE AND COMPUTATION OF THE INDEX
The computation of the GCI is based on successive
aggregations of scores from the indicator level (i.e.,
the most disaggregated level) all the way up to the
overall GCI score. Unless noted otherwise, we use
an arithmetic mean to aggregate individual indicators
within a category.e For the higher aggregation levels,
we use the percentage shown next to each category.
This percentage represents the category’s weight within
its immediate parent category. Reported percentages
are rounded to the nearest integer, but exact figures
are used in the calculation of the GCI. For example,
the score a country achieves in the 11th pillar accounts
for 50 percent of this country’s score in the innovation
and sophistication factors subindex, irrespective of
the country’s stage of development. Similarly, the
score achieved on the subpillar transport infrastructure
accounts for 50 percent of the score of the infrastructure
pillar.
Unlike the case for the lower levels of aggregation,
the weight put on each of the three subindexes (basic
requirements, efficiency enhancers, and innovation and
sophistication factors) is not fixed. Instead, it depends
on each country’s stage of development, as discussed
in the chapter.f For instance, in the case of Burundi—a
country in the first stage of development—the score
in the basic requirements subindex accounts for 60
percent of its overall GCI score, while it represents just
20 percent of the overall GCI score of Sweden, a country
in the third stage of development. For countries in
transition between stages, the weighting applied to each
subindex is reported in the corresponding profile at the
end of this volume. For instance, in the case of Turkey,
currently in transition from stage 2 to stage 3, the weight
on each subindex is 36.3 percent, 50 percent, and 13.7
percent, respectively, as reported in the country profile
on page 350.
Indicators that are not derived from the Executive
Opinion Survey (the Survey) are identified by an
asterisk (*) in the following list. The Technical Notes
and Sources section at the end of the Report provides
detailed information about each of these indicators.
To make the aggregation possible, the indicators are
converted to a 1-to-7 scale in order to align them with
the Survey results. We apply a min-max transformation,
which preserves the order of, and the relative distance
between, country scores.g
Indicators that are followed by the designation
“½” enter the GCI in two different pillars. In order to
avoid double counting, we assign a half-weight to each
instance.h
Weight (%) within
immediate parent category
BASIC REQUIREMENTS .........................................20–60%f
1st pillar: Institutions ..................................................25%
A. Public institutions.........................................................................75%
1. Property rights ..........................................................................20%
1.01 Property rights
1.02 Intellectual property protection½
2. Ethics and corruption ................................................................20%
1.03 Diversion of public funds
1.04 Public trust in politicians
1.05 Irregular payments and bribes
3. Undue influence........................................................................20%
1.06 Judicial independence
1.07 Favoritism in decisions of government officials
4. Public-sector performance ........................................................20%
1.08 Wastefulness of government spending
1.09 Burden of government regulation
1.10 Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes
1.11 Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regulations
1.12 Transparency of government policymaking
5. Security....................................................................................20%
1.13 Business costs of terrorism
1.14 Business costs of crime and violence
1.15 Organized crime
1.16 Reliability of police services
B. Private institutions .......................................................................25%
1. Corporate ethics .......................................................................50%
1.17 Ethical behavior of firms
2. Accountability ...........................................................................50%
1.18 Strength of auditing and reporting standards
1.19 Efficacy of corporate boards
1.20 Protection of minority shareholders’ interests
1.21 Strength of investor protection*
2nd pillar: Infrastructure .............................................25%
A. Transport infrastructure................................................................50%
2.01 Quality of overall infrastructure
2.02 Quality of roads
2.03 Quality of railroad infrastructurei
2.04 Quality of port infrastructure
2.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure
2.06 Available airline seat kilometers*
B. Electricity and telephony infrastructure ......................................50%
2.07 Quality of electricity supply
2.08 Mobile telephone subscriptions* ½
2.09 Fixed telephone lines* ½
3rd pillar: Macroeconomic environment ....................25%
© 2015 World Economic Forum
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
Government budget balance*
Gross national savings*
Inflation* j
Government debt*
Country credit rating*
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 39
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
4th pillar: Health and primary education....................25%
A. Health .......................................................................................... 50%
4.01 Business impact of malariak
4.02 Malaria incidence* k
4.03 Business impact of tuberculosisk
4.04 Tuberculosis incidence* k
4.05 Business impact of HIV/AIDSk
4.06 HIV prevalence* k
4.07 Infant mortality*
4.08 Life expectancy*
B. Primary education ........................................................................50%
4.09 Quality of primary education
4.10 Primary education enrollment rate*
EFFICIENCY ENHANCERS ......................................35–50%f
5th pillar: Higher education and training....................17%
A. Quantity of education ...................................................................33%
5.01 Secondary education enrollment rate*
5.02 Tertiary education enrollment rate*
B. Quality of education .....................................................................33%
5.03 Quality of the educational system
5.04 Quality of math and science education
5.05 Quality of management schools
5.06 Internet access in schools
C. On-the-job training .......................................................................33%
5.07 Local availability of specialized research and training
services
5.08 Extent of staff training
6th pillar: Goods market efficiency ............................17%
A. Competition ..................................................................................67%
1. Domestic competition .......................................................variablel
6.01 Intensity of local competition
6.02 Extent of market dominance
6.03 Effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy
6.04 Effect of taxation on incentives to invest
6.05 Total tax rate*
6.06 Number of procedures required to start a business* m
6.07 Time required to start a business* m
6.08 Agricultural policy costs
2. Foreign competition variablel
6.09 Prevalence of trade barriers
6.10 Trade tariffs*
6.11 Prevalence of foreign ownership
6.12 Business impact of rules on FDI
6.13 Burden of customs procedures
6.14 Imports as a percentage of GDP* n
B. Quality of demand conditions ......................................................33%
6.15 Degree of customer orientation
6.16 Buyer sophistication
7th pillar: Labor market efficiency .............................17%
A. Flexibility ......................................................................................50%
7.01 Cooperation in labor-employer relations
7.02 Flexibility of wage determination
7.03 Hiring and firing practices
7.04 Redundancy costs*
7.05 Effect of taxation on incentives to work
7.08 Country capacity to retain talent
7.09 Country capacity to attract talent
7.10 Female participation in labor force*
8th pillar: Financial market development ...................17%
A. Efficiency ......................................................................................50%
8.01 Availability of financial services
8.02 Affordability of financial services
8.03 Financing through local equity market
8.04 Ease of access to loans
8.05 Venture capital availability
B. Trustworthiness and confidence ..................................................50%
8.06 Soundness of banks
8.07 Regulation of securities exchanges
8.08 Legal rights index*
9th pillar: Technological readiness .............................17%
A. Technological adoption.................................................................50%
9.01 Availability of latest technologies
9.02 Firm-level technology absorption
9.03 FDI and technology transfer
B. ICT use..........................................................................................50%
9.04 Internet users*
9.05 Broadband Internet subscriptions*
9.06 Internet bandwidth*
9.07 Mobile broadband subscriptions*
2.08 Mobile telephone subscriptions* ½
2.09 Fixed telephone lines* ½
10th pillar: Market size...............................................17%
A. Domestic market size ..................................................................75%
10.01 Domestic market size index* o
B. Foreign market size .....................................................................25%
10.02 Foreign market size index* p
INNOVATION AND SOPHISTICATION FACTORS .........5–30%f
11th pillar: Business sophistication ...........................50%
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
7.07
12th pillar: R&D Innovation .........................................50%
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
1.02
B. Efficient use of talent ...................................................................50%
7.06 Pay and productivity
7.07 Reliance on professional management½
40 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
Local supplier quantity
Local supplier quality
State of cluster development
Nature of competitive advantage
Value chain breadth
Control of international distribution
Production process sophistication
Extent of marketing
Willingness to delegate authority
Reliance on professional management½
© 2015 World Economic Forum
Capacity for innovation
Quality of scientific research institutions
Company spending on R&D
University-industry collaboration in R&D
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Availability of scientists and engineers
PCT patent applications*
Intellectual property protection½
1.1: Reaching Beyond the New Normal
NOTES
i
a World Economic Forum 2014.
b Probably the most famous theory of stages of development
was developed by the American historian W. W. Rostow in the
1960s (see Rostow 1960). Here we adapt Michael Porter’s theory
of stages (see Porter 1990). See Chapter 1.1 of The Global
Competitiveness Report 2007–2008 for a complete description
of how we have adapted Michael Porter’s theory for the present
application (Sala-i-Martín et al. 2007).
c In order to capture the resource intensity of the economy, we use
as a proxy the exports of mineral products as a share of overall
exports according to the sector classification developed by the
International Trade Centre in their Trade Performance Index. In
addition to crude oil and gas, this category also contains all metal
ores and other minerals as well as petroleum products, liquefied
gas, coal, and precious stones. The data used cover the years
2010 through 2014. Further information on these data can be
found at http://www.intracen.org/menus/countries.htm
All countries with more than 70 percent of their exports
made up of mineral products are considered to be to some extent
factor driven. The stage of development for these countries is
adjusted downward smoothly depending on the exact primary
export share. The higher the minerals export share, the stronger
the adjustment and the closer the country will move to stage 1.
For example, a country that exports 95 percent of mineral exports
and that, based on the income criteria, would be in stage 3 will
be in transition between stages 1 and 2. The income and primary
exports criteria are weighted identically. Stages of development
are dictated solely by income for countries that export less than
70 percent minerals. Countries that export only primary products
would automatically fall into the factor-driven stage (stage 1).
d In practice, this applies to countries where the GDP per capita at
current market prices has, for the past five years, been above an
average of that of economies at the technology frontier. Countries
at the technology frontier are the 10 countries with the highest per
capita patenting activity according, to Patent Cooperation Treaty
data.
e Formally, for a category i composed of K indicators, we have:
K
K
f As described above, the weights are as specified in Table 1 of
this appendix. Refer to individual country/economy profiles at the
end of this Report for the exact weights used in the computation
of each economy’s GCI score.
g Formally, we have:
6 x
(
country score – sample minimum
sample maximum – sample minimum
)
+ 1
The sample minimum and sample maximum are, respectively, the
lowest and highest country scores in the sample of economies
covered by the GCI. In some instances, adjustments were made
to account for extreme outliers. For those indicators for which a
higher value indicates a worse outcome (e.g., disease incidence,
government debt), the transformation formula takes the following
form, thus ensuring that 1 and 7 still corresponds to the worst and
best possible outcomes, respectively:
–6 x
(
j In order to capture the idea that both high inflation and deflation
are detrimental, inflation enters the model in a U-shaped manner
as follows: for values of inflation between 0.5 and 2.9 percent,
a country receives the highest possible score of 7. Outside this
range, scores decrease linearly as they move away from these
values.
k The impact of malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS on
competitiveness depends not only on their respective incidence
rates but also on how costly they are for business. Therefore,
in order to estimate the impact of each of the three diseases,
we combine its incidence rate with the Survey question on its
perceived cost to businesses. To combine these data we first
take the ratio of each country’s disease incidence rate relative to
the highest incidence rate in the whole sample. The inverse of
this ratio is then multiplied by each country’s score on the related
Survey question. This product is then normalized to a 1-to-7
scale. Note that countries with zero reported incidence receive
a 7, regardless of their scores on the related Survey question.
In the case of malaria, countries receive a 7 if the World Health
Organization has classified them as malaria-free countries or
included them in the supplementary list of areas where malaria
has never existed or has disappeared without specific measures.
l The competition subpillar is the weighted average of two
components: domestic competition and foreign competition. In
both components, the included indicators provide an indication
of the extent to which competition is distorted. The relative
importance of these distortions depends on the relative size of
domestic versus foreign competition. This interaction between
the domestic market and the foreign market is captured by
the way we determine the weights of the two components.
Domestic competition is the sum of consumption (C), investment
(I), government spending (G), and exports (X), while foreign
competition is equal to imports (M). Thus we assign a weight of
(C + I + G + X)/(C + I + G + X + M) to domestic competition and a
weight of M/(C + I + G + X + M) to foreign competition.
m Indicators 6.06 and 6.07 combine to form one single indicator.
indicatork
k=1
categoryi
“N/Appl.” is used for economies where there is no regular train
service or where the network covers only a negligible portion
of the territory. Assessment of the existence of a network was
conducted by the World Economic Forum based on various
sources.
country score – sample minimum
sample maximum – sample minimum
)
n For indicator 6.14, imports as a percentage of GDP, we first apply
a log-transformation and then a min-max transformation.
o The size of the domestic market is constructed by taking the
natural log of the sum of the gross domestic product valued at
purchased power parity (PPP) (indicator 10.03) plus the total value
(PPP estimates) of imports of goods and services (indicator 6.14),
minus the total value (PPP estimates) of exports of goods and
services (indicator 10.04). Data are then normalized on a 1-to-7
scale. PPP estimates of imports and exports are obtained by
taking the product of exports as a percentage of GDP and GDP
valued at PPP.
p The size of the foreign market is estimated as the natural log of
the total value (PPP estimates) of exports of goods and services,
normalized on a 1-to-7 scale. PPP estimates of exports are
obtained by taking the product of exports as a percentage of GDP
(indicator 10.04) and GDP valued at PPP (10.03).
+ 7
h For those categories that contain one or several half-weight
indicators, country scores are computed as follows:
(sum of scores on full-weight variables) (count of full-weight variables) (sum of scores on half-weight variables)
(count of half-weight variables)
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 41
2: Country/Economy Profiles
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Key indicators, 2014
GDP (PPP) per capita (int’l $), 1990–2014
Population (millions) .......................................... 3.9
GDP (US$ billions) .......................................... 18.0
GDP per capita (US$) ................................... 4,644
GDP (PPP) as share (%) of world total ............ 0.04
Bosnia and Herzegovina
25,000
Emerging and Developing Europe
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Global Competitiveness Index
Rank
(out of 140)
Score
(1–7)
Institutions
7
Innovation
GCI 2015–2016 .................................................... 111 ..... 3.7
GCI 2014–2015 (out of 144) .................................... n/a ......n/a
GCI 2013–2014 (out of 148) ..................................... 87 ......4.0
GCI 2012–2013 (out of 144) ..................................... 88 ......3.9
Infrastructure
6
5
Business
sophistication
Macroeconomic
environment
4
3
2
Basic requirements (40.0%) .......................................95 ......4.2
Market size
1st pillar: Institutions ............................................... 127 ......3.2
2nd pillar: Infrastructure .......................................... 103 ......3.1
3rd pillar: Macroeconomic environment .................... 98 ......4.3
4th pillar: Health and primary education ................... 48 ......6.0
Health and
primary
education
1
Higher education
and training
Technological
readiness
Financial market
development
Efficiency enhancers (50.0%) ...................................112 ......3.5
Goods market
efficiency
Labor market efficiency
5th pillar: Higher education and training ................... 97 ......3.8
6th pillar: Goods market efficiency .......................... 129 ......3.7
7th pillar: Labor market efficiency ........................... 131 ......3.4
8th pillar: Financial market development ................. 113 ......3.3
9th pillar: Technological readiness ............................ 79 ......3.6
10th pillar: Market size.............................................. 97 ......3.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Emerging and Developing Europe
Stage of development
Innovation and sophistication factors (10.0%) .........120 ......3.0
11th pillar: Business sophistication ........................ 125 ......3.3
12th pillar: Innovation ............................................. 115 ......2.8
1
Transition
1–2
Factor
driven
2
Transition
2–3
3
Efficiency
driven
Innovation
driven
The most problematic factors for doing business
Score*
Inefficient government bureaucracy ...................................17.1
Corruption .........................................................................12.0
Tax rates............................................................................11.2
Policy instability .................................................................10.1
Government instability/coups ..............................................9.1
Complexity of tax regulations...............................................7.5
Access to financing .............................................................7.0
Inadequate supply of infrastructure ......................................5.2
Crime and theft ...................................................................5.1
Inadequately educated workforce ........................................4.2
Poor work ethic in labor force..............................................3.8
Restrictive labor regulations .................................................3.0
Inflation ................................................................................1.7
Insufficient capacity to innovate ...........................................1.6
Poor public health ...............................................................1.0
Foreign currency regulations ................................................0.4
0
*
5
10
15
20
25
From the list of factors, respondents were asked to select the five most problematic for doing business in their country and to rank them between 1 (most problematic) and 5. The score
corresponds to the responses weighted according to their rankings.
118 | The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016
© 2015 World Economic Forum
30
2: Country/Economy Profiles
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Global Competitiveness Index in detail
INDICATOR
VALUE RANK/140
INDICATOR
1st pillar: Institutions
VALUE RANK/140
6th pillar: Goods market efficiency (cont’d.)
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
Property rights ....................................................... 3.1 ..........127
Intellectual property protection ............................... 2.9 ..........131
Diversion of public funds ........................................ 2.8 ..........101
Public trust in politicians ......................................... 2.1 ..........116
Irregular payments and bribes ................................ 3.1 ..........108
Judicial independence............................................ 2.9 ..........110
Favoritism in decisions of government officials ....... 2.5 ..........108
Wastefulness of government spending ................... 1.7 ..........137
Burden of government regulation ........................... 2.5 ..........130
Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes .... 2.7 ..........128
Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regs. ... 2.8 ..........116
Transparency of government policymaking............. 2.9 ..........133
Business costs of terrorism .................................... 5.4 ............65
Business costs of crime and violence..................... 4.0 ............97
Organized crime ..................................................... 4.0 ..........113
Reliability of police services .................................... 5.4 ............27
Ethical behavior of firms ......................................... 3.0 ..........134
Strength of auditing and reporting standards ......... 3.5 ..........131
Efficacy of corporate boards .................................. 3.9 ..........132
Protection of minority shareholders’ interests ......... 2.7 ..........139
Strength of investor protection, 0–10 (best)* .......... 5.4 ............77
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
Quality of overall infrastructure ............................... 3.1 ..........118
Quality of roads ...................................................... 2.6 ..........129
Quality of railroad infrastructure .............................. 2.0 ............92
Quality of port infrastructure ................................... 2.0 ..........135
Quality of air transport infrastructure....................... 2.4 ..........138
Available airline seat km/week, millions* ............... 12.6 ..........128
Quality of electricity supply ..................................... 4.3 ............85
Mobile telephone subscriptions/100 pop.* ........... 91.3 ..........108
Fixed-telephone lines/100 pop.* ........................... 22.2 ............49
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
Government budget balance, % GDP*................. –3.0 ............70
Gross national savings, % GDP* .......................... 11.1 ..........123
Inflation, annual % change* .................................. –0.9 ............89
General government debt, % GDP* ..................... 44.9 ............72
Country credit rating, 0–100 (best)* ...................... 29.5 ..........106
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
Malaria cases/100,000 pop.* ................................M.F. ...........n/a
Business impact of malaria ............................. N/Appl. ...........n/a
Tuberculosis cases/100,000 pop.* ....................... 46.0 ............64
Business impact of tuberculosis ............................. 6.8 ..............7
HIV prevalence, % adult pop.* ............................. <0.1 ..............1
Business impact of HIV/AIDS ................................. 6.9 ..............2
Infant mortality, deaths/1,000 live births* ................ 5.7 ............39
Life expectancy, years*......................................... 76.3 ............48
Quality of primary education ................................... 3.7 ............82
Primary education enrollment, net %* .................. 98.4 ............16
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
Secondary education enrollment, gross %* .......... 89.0 ............73
Tertiary education enrollment, gross %*................ 37.0 ............70
Quality of the education system ............................. 2.4 ..........136
Quality of math and science education .................. 3.6 ............92
Quality of management schools ............................. 3.3 ..........120
Internet access in schools ...................................... 3.9 ............83
Availability of specialized training services .............. 3.1 ..........130
Extent of staff training ............................................ 2.9 ..........137
2nd pillar: Infrastructure
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
No. procedures to start a business* ........................ 11 ..........123
No. days to start a business* ............................... 37.0 ..........123
Agricultural policy costs.......................................... 2.9 ..........128
Prevalence of non-tariff barriers .............................. 4.2 ............88
Trade tariffs, % duty* .............................................. 4.9 ............67
Prevalence of foreign ownership............................. 3.3 ..........127
Business impact of rules on FDI ............................. 3.3 ..........128
Burden of customs procedures .............................. 3.3 ..........112
Imports as a percentage of GDP* ........................ 64.1 ............35
Degree of customer orientation .............................. 4.1 ..........107
Buyer sophistication ............................................... 2.1 ..........139
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
Cooperation in labor-employer relations ................. 3.5 ..........133
Flexibility of wage determination ............................. 5.1 ............62
Hiring and firing practices ....................................... 3.1 ..........122
Redundancy costs, weeks of salary* ...................... 9.2 ............28
Effect of taxation on incentives to work .................. 2.6 ..........133
Pay and productivity............................................... 2.9 ..........132
Reliance on professional management ................... 2.9 ..........135
Country capacity to retain talent............................. 2.0 ..........136
Country capacity to attract talent ........................... 1.8 ..........137
Women in labor force, ratio to men* ..................... 0.63 ..........109
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
Availability of financial services ............................... 3.8 ..........106
Affordability of financial services ............................. 3.7 ..........106
Financing through local equity market .................... 2.5 ..........122
Ease of access to loans ......................................... 2.0 ..........125
Venture capital availability ....................................... 2.3 ..........106
Soundness of banks .............................................. 3.8 ..........122
Regulation of securities exchanges ........................ 3.1 ..........124
Legal rights index, 0–12 (best)* ................................. 7 ............24
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
Availability of latest technologies ............................ 4.2 ..........103
Firm-level technology absorption ............................ 4.4 ............83
FDI and technology transfer ................................... 3.3 ..........135
Individuals using Internet, %* ............................... 60.8 ............56
Fixed-broadband Internet subscriptions/100 pop.* 14.1 ............55
Int’l Internet bandwidth, kb/s per user* ................ 43.0 ............60
Mobile-broadband subscriptions/100 pop.* ......... 27.8 ............93
10.01
10.02
10.03
10.04
Domestic market size index, 1–7 (best)*................. 2.9 ............95
Foreign market size index, 1–7 (best)* .................... 3.9 ............98
GDP (PPP$ billions)* ............................................ 38.1 ............98
Exports as a percentage of GDP* ........................ 42.7 ............58
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.04
11.05
11.06
11.07
11.08
11.09
Local supplier quantity ........................................... 4.1 ............99
Local supplier quality.............................................. 3.9 ............96
State of cluster development.................................. 3.0 ..........122
Nature of competitive advantage ............................ 2.8 ..........116
Value chain breadth................................................ 3.1 ..........123
Control of international distribution ......................... 3.1 ..........124
Production process sophistication.......................... 2.9 ..........126
Extent of marketing ................................................ 3.4 ..........134
Willingness to delegate authority ............................ 3.6 ............86
12.01
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
12.06
12.07
Capacity for innovation........................................... 3.0 ..........134
Quality of scientific research institutions ................. 3.1 ..........106
Company spending on R&D................................... 2.5 ..........124
University-industry collaboration in R&D ................. 4.3 ............35
Gov’t procurement of advanced tech products ...... 2.4 ..........138
Availability of scientists and engineers .................... 3.1 ..........125
PCT patents, applications/million pop.* .................. 2.4 ............55
7th pillar: Labor market efficiency
8th pillar: Financial market development
3rd pillar: Macroeconomic environment
4th pillar: Health and primary education
5th pillar: Higher education and training
6th pillar: Goods market efficiency
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
Intensity of local competition .................................. 4.4 ..........117
Extent of market dominance .................................. 3.1 ..........115
Effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy ..................... 3.1 ..........122
Effect of taxation on incentives to invest................. 2.8 ..........127
Total tax rate, % profits* ....................................... 23.3 ............21
9th pillar: Technological readiness
10th pillar: Market size
11th pillar: Business sophistication
12th pillar: Innovation
Notes: Values are on a 1-to-7 scale unless otherwise annotated with an asterisk (*). For further details and explanation, please refer to the section “How to Read
the Country/Economy Profiles” on page 89.
© 2015 World Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 | 119
The Global Competitiveness Index 2015–2016 Rankings
Regional Rankings
The Global Competitiveness Map
PART TWO
Reformska agenda za Bosnu i Hercegovinu za period 2015 - 2018. godine
1.
Vijeće ministara Bosne i Hercegovine, Vlada Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine, Vlada Republike Srpske,
vlade: Unsko-sanskog kantona, Posavskog kantona, Tuzlanskog kantona, Zeničko-dobojskog kantona,
Bosansko-podrinjskog kantona, Srednjobosanskog kantona, Hercegovačko-neretvanskog kantona,
Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona, Kantona Sarajevo, Hercegbosanskog kantona i Vlada Brčko Distrikta
prepoznaju hitnu potrebu pokretanja procesa oporavka i moderniziranja ekonomije u cilju jačanja
održivog, efikasnog, socijalno pravednog i stabilnog ekonomskog rasta, otvaranja radnih mjesta,
povećanja i bolje ciljane raspodjele socijalnih davanja te stvaranja održivog i pravičnog društvenog
okruženja. Konkretne akcije u cilju fiskalne i finansijske održivosti i socioekonomske reforme će biti
dopunjene ciljnim mjerama, da bi se ojačala vladavina prava i borba protiv korupcije, uz jačanje upravnih
kapaciteta i povećanje efikasnosti javnih institucija na svim nivoma vlasti (pojam „svi nivoi vlasti“ ovdje i
u daljnjem tekstu podrazumijeva državni, entitetski i kantonalni nivo vlasti te Brčko Distrikt).
2.
Ova reformska agenda utvrđuje glavne planove Vijeća ministara BiH, Vlade Federacije BiH, Vlade
Republike Srpske, vlada Unsko-sanskog kantona, Posavskog kantona, Tuzlanskog kantona, Zeničkodobojskog kantona, Bosansko-podrinjskog kantona, Srednjobosanskog kantona, Hercegovačkoneretvanskog kantona, Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona, Kantona Sarajevo, Hercegbosanskog kantona i
Vlade Brčko Distrikta za socioekonomske i povezane reforme tokom preostalog njihovog demokratski
povjerenog im mandata i uveliko odražava programe koje su Vijeće ministara BiH, Vlada Federacije BiH,
Vlada Republike Srpske, vlade Unskosanskog kantona, Posavskog kantona, Tuzlanskog kantona, Zeničkodobojskog kantona, Bosanskopodrinjskog kantona, Srednjobosanskog kantona, Hercegovačkoneretvanskog kantona, Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona, Kantona Sarajevo, Hercegbosanskog kantona i
Vlada Brčko Distrikta već započele. Reformska agenda je, također, namijenjena da odgovori na poziv
Vijeća za vanjske poslove, iz decembra 2014. godine, za usvajanjem inicijalne agende za reforme, u
skladu s pravnom stečevinom EU. Svjesni smo da će značajan napredak u provođenju ove agende biti
neophodan za aplikaciju za članstvo koju će razmatrati EU.
3.
O prioritetima koji su predviđeni ovom agendom razgovarano je s međunarodnim finansijskim
institucijama i u prethodnom periodu. Reforme bi trebalo da uspostave osnovu za pregovore o
pojedinačnim programima finansijske i tehničke pomoći međunarodnih finansijskih institucija i EU, kao i
s drugim donatorima i partnerima koji eventualno žele podržati Reformsku agendu. Svaka od institucija
pregovara o pojedinačnim programima i prati napredak po svojim prioritetima, a jasno je da će program
biti tijesno koordiniran i usklađen s ukupnim reformskim naporima.
4.
Nadalje, Refomska agenda je tijesno povezana s ciljevima novog pristupa EU ekonomskom upravljanju
na Zapadnom Balkanu i u skladu je s programom ekonomskih reformi, kao temeljnim elementom koji
treba da podstakne sveobuhvatne strukturalne reforme da bi se održala makroekonomska stabilnost i
pospiješili rast i konkuretnost.
5.
Provođenje Reformske agende će započeti bez odlaganja. Širok set srednjoročnih prioriteta, kako je
naznačeno u nastavku, bit će prerađen u konkretne inicijalne mjere i poduhvate, koji će biti pripremljeni
i provedeni u predstojećim mjesecima 2015. i početkom 2016. godine, sa svakom institucijom
pojedinačno. Odnosno, ove početne mjere i poduhvati će biti razrađeni u konsultacijama s
1
međunarodnim finansijskim institucijama i EU i vodit će do daljnjih preciznijih mjera koje će reformsku
agendu pomjeriti s njene početne faze dalje u srednjoročni period.
6.
Stanje javnih finansija svih nivoa vlasti u BiH je takvo da je neophodno provesti fiskalnu konsolidaciju
koja će postepeno dovesti do smanjenja budžetskog deficita i srednjeročno dovesti do smanjenja nivoa
javnog duga. Zbog toga su se vlasti u BiH opredijelile za snažan trogodišnji program fiskalne
konsolidacije. U pogledu ovog cilja, a radi izbjegavanja nepovoljnih eksternih uvjeta finansiranja, vlasti u
BiH očekuju zaključivanje finansijskih aranžmana s Međunarodnim monetarnim fondom, Svjetskom
bankom i Evropskom komisijom, koje će tokom provođenja mjera fiskalne konsolidacije osigurati
finansijsku podršku.
7.
Fiskalna konsolidacija ima za cilj da osigura stabilno makroekonomsko okruženje, ali za stabilan,
pozitivan realni rast u srednjem i dugom roku neophodno je provesti niz strukturalnih reformi u
oblastima radnog zakonodavstva, reforme javne uprave i politike zapošljavanja u javnom sektoru,
unapređenja poslovne klime i konkurentnosti, restrukturiranja javnih poduzeća, reforme socijalnih
davanja, reforme zdravstvenog sektora, te vladavine prava.
Reformska agenda je prikazana u šest značajnih oblasti, i to:
Javne finansije, oporezivanje i fiskalna održivost
8. Budžeti će biti utvrđeni i održavani na čvrstim srednjeročnim temeljima, dogovorenim s MMF-om u
aranžmanu koji će uslijediti nakon sadašnjeg stendbaj-aranžmana. Ovaj novi fiskalni okvir će postaviti
nivo javnog duga na silaznu putanju, a stvorit će i prostor za povećanje javnih investicija i istovremeno
smanjiti učešće vladinog sektora u ekonomiji. Fiskalna konsolidacija će biti provedena smanjivanjem
javne potrošnje, te povećanjem javnih prihoda. Povećanje javnih prihoda će se postići povećanjem
prihoda od poreza, proširivanjem poreske baze, smanjenjem sive ekonomije, smanjenjem poreskih
oslobađanja i unapređenjem rada poreskih uprava. Ukoliko se ove mjere pokažu nedovoljnim do kraja
2015. godine, dodatne mjere, uključujući i povećanje PDV-a, će se razmatrati u dogovoru s MMF-om, na
osnovu detaljnih procjena, na sastanku na visokom nivou:
o
o
o
o
o
Dok će reforme poreskih sistema i javnih rashoda morati biti provedene unutar cijelog fiskalnog
paketa koji će osigurati srednjeročnu fiskalnu održivost, postoji i jasna potreba za smanjenjem
vladinog sektora u ekonomiji i znatnog smanjenja poreskog opterećenja na rad i investicije. Ovi
imperativi ukazuju na potrebu da se značajno smanje javni rashodi na svim nivoima vlasti i
unaprijedi njena efikasnost.
Fiskalna konsolidacija mora da dovede do smanjenja budžetskog deficita i do zaustavljanja rasta
javnog duga. Provest ćemo reforme sistema oporezivanja, u cilju smanjenja opterećenja rada, ali
iste nije moguće provesti unutar postojećeg fiskalnog okvira.
Potrebno je provesti smanjenje opterećenja rada kroz smanjenje doprinosa za zdravstveno
osiguranje, ali je istovremeno potrebno osigurati dodatne prihode vanbudžetskim fondovima za
pokriće gubitaka koji će nastati zbog smanjenja stope doprinosa.
Potrebno je utvrditi ukupan fond plaća i svih tekućih rashoda na svim nivoima vlasti, koji se neće
moći povećavati bez obzira na rast poreskih prihoda.
Mjere za poboljšanje naplate poreza će se aktivno provoditi. To će uključiti napore na razmjeni
informacija između četiri poreske uprave i prihvatanje pristupa revizije i inspekcije zasnovanog na
2
o
o
o
o
o
riziku, a sve u skladu s ustavnim uređenjem i nadležnostima svake od poreskih agencija i u okviru
zaključenog memoranduma o saradnji, kao i povećanje napora na naplati neplaćenih poreskih
dugovanja. Planirat ćemo e-usluge za PDV i porez na dohodak.
Smanjenje rashoda će najvećim dijelom biti rezultat provođenja reformi javne uprave, uključujući
stroge kontrole zapošljavanja i ukupnog fonda plaća u javnom sektoru te penzione i reforme
socijalne zaštite, kao i od transparentnijeg prioritetnijeg planiranja i provođenja javnih investicija.
Entiteti, kantoni i Brčko Distrikt će unaprijediti fiskalne kontrole i finansijsko upravljanja kroz
donošenje novih zakona o fiskalnoj odgovornosti (u RS) i finansijskoj kontroli i upravljanju (u FBiH) i
vlasti na svim nivoima će usvojiti nove razvojne strategije javne unutrašnje finansijske kontrole.
Mjere za jačanje kontrole nad nižim nivoima vlasti, vanbudžetskim fondovima, kao i javnim
poduzećima će biti aktivno provođene (kako je dogovoreno s MMF-om i Svjetskom bankom).
Entitetske vlade, vlade kantona i Brčko Distrikta će usvojiti i provesti sveobuhvatne strategije za
rješavanje pitanja preostalih gubitaša u javnom vlasništvu, koja također imaju veliki zaostatak
neplaćenih socijalnih doprinosa.
Vlade entiteta, kantona i Brčko Distrikta će tražiti finansijsku i tehničku pomoć Svjetske banke, kako
bi proveli reformu zdravstvenog sektora. Reforma podrazumijeva rješenje dugovanja zdravstvenog
sektora, uvođenje trezorskog sistema poslovanja, te definiranje novih modela i izvora finansiranja,
uz precizno normiranje mreže zdravstvenih ustanova. Od Svjetske banke ćemo kroz program DPL
tražiti da osigura tehničku i finansijsku podršku za reorganizaciju zdravstvenog sektora. Entitetske
vlade, vlade kantona i Brčko Distrikta će ova sredstva koristiti za izmirenje neizmirenih obaveza u
zdravstvenom sektoru (posebno doprinosa) do kraja 2015. godine. Paralelno, vlasti u BiH će
podržati povećanje akciza na duhan i alkohol koji će biti direktni prihodi Fonda zdravstvenog
osiguranja RS i fondova zdravstvenog osiguranja u FBiH i kantonima i Brčko Distriktu do kraja 2015.
godine.
Osiguranje održivosti javnog duga je od ključne važnosti za održavanje stabilnosti javnih finansija, ali
je isto moguće osigurati samo uz smanjenje budžetskog deficita. Razmjene informacija među
vladama na svim nivoima vlasti o strukturi duga, bruto potrebama za zaduživanjem i planovima i
priznanju neisplaćenih obaveza i kliringu osigurat će realnost srednjeročnog fiskalnog okvira.
Poslovna klima i konkurentost
9. Daljnji rast i prosperitet moraju biti zasnovani na privlačenju investicija. Postoji potreba da se
unaprijedi konkurentnost eliminiranjem već dobro poznatih i dokumentiranih prepreka investicijama.
Osim toga, postoji potreba da se ujednači i izravna teren za investicije uklanjanjem skrivenih dotacija i
ostalih vidova pomoći mnogim velikim poduzećima i poboljšanjem stečajnih procedura te nastavkom
aktivnosti na rješavanju problema s nekim od neodrživih poduzeća. Uz to, postoje nedosljednosti i
zamršenosti u regulatornim okvirima i poreskim sistemima koji predstavljaju glavne probleme
potencijalnim investitorima u ekonomiju, a praćeni su visokim administrativnim preprekama:
o
Reforme poslovnog okruženja će uključiti: u FBiH, kantonima i Brčko Distriktu nove zakone o
privrednim društvima i direktnim stranim ulaganjima i pojednostavljenje i automatiziranje
registracije poslovnih subjekata; ubrzat će procedure za pribavljanje građevinskih dozvola i
priključaka za struju; olakšat će izvoz nastavkom reformi inspekcija i jačanjem nacionalne kontrole
kvaliteta, usklađene sa zahtjevima EU, ispitat će izvodljivost provođenja fiskalno održivih javnoprivatnih partnerstva i ostvarivanja većeg učešća privatnog sektora u razvoju infrastrukture, svi
3
o
o
o
o
nivoi vlasti će sačiniti (i objaviti) sveobuhvatan popis parafiskalnih nameta u cilju osiguravanja
njihove transparentnosti i smanjenja u skladu s podjelom nadležnosti.
Potrebni su bolji zakoni i prakse za zaštitu investitora, uključujući bolje korporativno upravljanje,
osnažene prakse upravljanja rizikom radi poboljšanja pristupa finansijama (posebno za nova
poduzeća), bolju zaštitu manjinskih dioničara i efikasnije okvire za insolventnost izmjenom zakona o
stečaju kojim će se uvesti novi institut „predstečajni postupak“ s ciljem finansijskog restrukturiranja
dužnika kako bi se izbjegao stečaj u cilju očuvanja radnih mjesta i nastavak obavljanja osnovne
djelatnosti privrednog društva. Oba entiteta, kantoni i Brčko Distrikt će izvršiti reviziju svog stečajnog
zakonodavstva u cilju skraćivanja stečajnog postupka. U FBiH će se uvesti privredni sudovi.
Javna poduzeća će biti podijeljena na ona koja su održiva (s manjim ili većim potrebama za
prestruktuiranjem) i ona koja to nisu, uz predviđenu objavu popisa takvih poduzeća. Ovi popisi će
formirati osnovu za sveobuhvatne programe prestruktuiranja i program privatizacije/likvidacije u
srednjoročnom periodu. Vlade entiteta, kantona i Brčko Distrikta će tražiti finansijsku i tehničku
pomoć Svjetske banke kako bi pripremili i realizirali program restrukturiranja javnih poduzeća.
Posebna pažnja će se posvetiti restrukturiranju željeznica (u oba entiteta), te rudnika (u Federaciji
BiH), koji podrazumijeva novu organizaciju i broj zaposlenih. Predviđa se izrada preliminarnih
planova u cilju pripreme BH Telekoma za djelimičnu privatizaciju u FBiH.
Daljnji napori da se očuva stabilnost finansijskog sektora i stvore uvjeti potrebni za oživljavanje
bankarskog kreditiranja će se aktivno provoditi u konsultacijama s Centralnom bankom Bosne i
Hercegovine i MMF-om. U sklopu toga, prilagođavat ćemo zakone iz finansijskog sektora s
direktivama EU i uvjetima iz Bazela, primjenljivim za stepen razvijenosti domaćeg finansijskog tržišta,
istovremeno jačajući nadzor nad bankama od strane entitetskih agencija za bankarstvo.
Osigurat ćemo provođenje novog nacrta zakona o carinskoj politici, koji će pojednostaviti carinsku
obradu i smanjiti administrativne zahtjeve, čime će se olakšati trgovina.
Tržište rada
10. Kako bi se stabilno krenulo putem održivog rasta, Bosna i Hercegovina se mora prihvatiti svojih
strateških prednosti. One uključuju značajan potencijal u radnoj snazi koji trenutno nije dovoljno
iskorišten. Niska stopa aktivnosti radno sposobnog stanovištva i visoka stopa nezaposlenosti koja je u
značajnoj mjeri posljedica neusklađenosti ponude i potražnje za kvalificiranom radnom snagom
ograničava mogućnosti razvoja. U BiH postoji i značajan broj dugoročno nezaposlenih koji su
obeshrabreni da traže zaposlenje. Postojeći zakoni o radu u značajnoj mjeri više ne odražavaju društvene
i ekonomske odnose u BiH, te su u pojedinim odredbama kontradiktorni s drugim zakonima i u nekim
odredbama nejasni i nedovoljno fleksibilni. Kultura kolektivnog pregovaranja i socijalnog dijaloga je
nedovoljno razvijena i često opterećena nerealnim zahtjevima socijalnih partnera.
o
o
o
Značajno smanjenje doprinosa socijalne zaštite (posebno za one s manjim primanjima) bi smanjilo
troškove rada, pomoglo da se privuku investitori i dovelo bi više zaposlenih u formalni sektor (i
smanjilo dominantnost zaposlenja u neformalnom sektoru), ali je isto nemoguće provesti bez
osiguranja dodatnih sredstava za vanbudžetske fondove.
U srednjeročnom periodu reformirati sistem obrazovanja u cilju njegove veće povezanosti s
tržištem rada.
Razmotrit ćemo uvođenje shema podrške za tražioce prvog zaposlenja.
4
o
o
o
Aktivno će se težiti obeshrabrivanju rada u sivoj ekonomiji, uključujući putem sprečavanja prijava
nižeg dohotka kao osnova za obračun i plaćanje poreza i doprinosa.
Ostale reforme tržišta rada će biti donesene kako je dogovoreno s MMF-om i Svjetskom bankom i
uz konsultacije sa socijalnim partnerima. Entitetske vlade, vlade kantona i Brčko Distrikta će
poboljšati nacrte svojih zakona o radu, uz konsultacije sa socijalnim partnerima kako bi se povećala
fleksibilnost radnih uvjeta (uključujući omogućavanje zaposlenja na pola radnog vremena) i
omogućilo diferencijalno određivanje plaća na osnovu vještina, kvalifikacija, nivoa iskustva i učinka.
U isto vrijeme, entiteti, kantoni i Brčko Distrikt će pojačati svoje inspekcije rada i povećati kazne za
kršenje zakona o radu i potrudit će se da zaštite prava radnika u skladu sa standardima rada
Međunarodne organizacije rada i direktivama EU o radu. Zavodi/službe za zapošljavanje će uvesti
upravljačke prakse da bi poboljšalo vraćanje ljudi u radni status i osiguralo razdvajanje obaveznog
zdravstvenog osiguranja od funkcije posredovanja u zapošljavanju.
Reforma socijalne zaštite i penzija
11. Uz unapređivanje inicijative i efikasne industrije, moderno i brižno društvo se mora pobrinuti za one
koji ne mogu brinuti sami o sebi. Istovremeno, sistemi socijalne zaštite ne smiju istovremeno remetiti
podstreke u ekonomiji i moraju biti fiskalno održivi. Da bi se ti ciljevi postigli, entitetske vlade, vlade
kantona i Brčko Distrikta moraju poboljšati ciljanje socijalne pomoći putem paketa mjera kojima će
učiniti politike socijalne zašite efikasnijim, efektivnijim i pravičnijim. Socijalna zaštita treba da je u
funkciji onih kojima je zaista potrebna ili koji je plaćaju i mora biti postavljena na stabilne finansijske
osnove. Penzioni sistemi bi također trebalo da su na stabilnim finansijskim osnovama, ukoliko se tokom
srednjoročnog perioda želi riješiti problem nagomilanih prava radnika.
o Sistemi socijalne zaštite će biti reformirani (u konsultacijama sa Svjetskom bankom i MMF-om),
uključujući i poboljšano ciljanje socijalne zaštite koja se ne finansira iz doprinosa i uspostavljanje
centralizirane baze podatka svih korisnika socijalnih davanja u FBiH i kantonima. Reformski napori
će imati za cilj da podstaknu korisnike da budu aktivni učesnici u ekonomiji, a uz zaštitu i povećanje
socijalne pomoći za one kojima je najpotrebnija.
o
U FBiH i kantonima sistemi osiguranja moraju biti postavljeni na čvrste finansijske osnove, i to:
zamrzavanjem troškova za privilegirane penzije i smanjenjem opcija prijevremenog penzioniranja za
rizična zanimanja, uvođenjem razumnih sankcija za prijevremeno penzioniranje i bonusa za kasnije
penzioniranje kako bi se produžila dob za efektivno penzioniranje i uvođenje održivog indeksiranja
primanja.
o Revizija radi verificiranja prihvatljivosti postojećih korisnika će biti ubrzana u cijeloj FBiH i
kantonima, a Vlada FBiH i vlade kantona će ojačati zakonski okvir za poboljšanje postupka revizije.
Ubrzat će se provođenje penzionih reformi na osnovu novog zakona o penzijama u FBiH.
o FBiH i kantoni će tražiti pomoć Svjetske banke u rješavanju pitanja neisplaćenih obaveza prema
socijalnim fondovima za doprinose iz radnog odnosa.
o U RS Vlada će ispitati potrebu za reformom parametara penzionog sistema.
o Oba entiteta, kantoni i Brčko Distrikt će energičnije raditi na izradi prijedloga shema za dobrovoljno
penzioniranje. FBiH i kantoni će se posvetiti izradi potrebnih zakonskih propisa, dok će RS nastaviti
aktivnosti na osnivanju prvog dobrovoljnog penzionog fonda.
5
Vladavina prava i dobro upravljanje
12. Postoji potreba da se osigura nepovratno osnaživanje vladavine prava, koja mora biti izgrađena na
osnovama konkretnog napretka u borbi protiv organiziranog kriminala, terorizma i korupcije. Sve
operativne i institucionalne aktivnosti će imati za cilj da osiguraju građanima u cijeloj Bosni i Hercegovini
sigurnije okruženje bez korupcije. U isto vrijeme, vlasti na svim nivoima u BiH će povećati svoje zalaganje
da se povrati povjerenje građana u institucije odgovorne za vladavinu prava, razvojem kapaciteta,
odgovornosti, profesionalizma i integriteta.
o Usvojit će se strategija reforme sudskog sistema/plan akcije (2014 - 2018), uspostaviti efikasna
prevencija korupcije i sukoba interesa u pravosuđu, povećati profesionalizam i integritet putem
propisivanja objektivnih kriterija za imenovanje nosilaca pravosudnih funkcija i usvajanje mjera
integriteta cijelog pravosudnog sistema u BiH; pojačat će se disciplinska odgovornost nosilaca
pravosudnih funkcija usvajanjem novih pravila disciplinskog postupka i uvođenjem novih
disciplinskih mjera. Insistirat će se da sudovi donose odluke u razumnom roku, a sagledat će se
mogućnost da se komunalni predmeti rješavaju vansudskim putem. Poboljšat će se procedura
prodaje zaplijenjene imovine te unaprijediti uloga sudskih izvršilaca kako bi se smanjilo opterećenje
sudova u izvršnom postupku.
o Profesionalan, efektivan i efikasan rad policijskih službi je ključ za suočavanje sa sigurnosnim
izazovima. Procjena će se vršiti radi identificiranja mjera kako bi se dodatno unaprijedio integritet
policijskih agencija na svim nivoima. Bliska saradnja policije na svim nivoima će biti unaprijeđena, u
skladu s utvrđenim ustavnim nadležnostima. Regionalna i međunarodna policijska saradnja će
nastaviti da se razvija, uključujući i stupanja na snagu operativnog sporazuma s Europolom, u
skladu s Privremenom odlukom o uspostavljanju sistema saradnje i razmjene informacija nadležnih
organa za provođenje zakona u Bosni i Hercegovini i EUROPOL-a.
o Usvojit će se strategije za borbu protiv korupcije i bit će uspostavljene efikasne strukture za
prevenciju i nadzor u skladu s relevantnim međunarodnim standardima i poštujući ustavne
nadležnosti i usvojene dokumente na svim nivoima vlasti. Same institucije vladavine prava će se
pridržavati najviših standarda integriteta, dok će adekvatne mjere integriteta biti uspostavljene na
svim nivoima vlasti kako bi se osiguralo onemogućavanje korupcije i sankcije efikasno primijenile.
Borba protiv ozbiljnog kriminala i korupcije, pored efikasnije istrage, krivičnog gonjenja i osude će
također biti zasnovana na čvršćim pravnim i institucionalnim okvirima koji reguliraju oduzimanja
imovine, pranja novca i povrat na svim nivoima vlasti u BiH.
o Pored usvojene strategije za borbu protiv terorizma u BiH i pratećih akcionih planova, bit će
zaključen i operativni sporazum s Europolom kako bi se na taj način osigurao dvosmjerni protok
povjerljivih informacija o kriminalu između BiH i zemalja članica; poboljšat će se protok informacija
između policije i tužilaca povećanjem efikasnosti sistema razmjene podataka; usvojit ćemo novu
strategiju integriranog upravljanja granicom koja osigurava bolju saradnju između svih srodnih
agencija u BiH i preko njenih granica, usklađivanjem svih zakona o civilnom posjedovanju oružja.
o Radit ćemo na usklađivanju našeg pravnog i regulatornog okvira za borbu protiv pranja novca i
finansiranja terorizma u skladu s međunarodnim standardima i preporukama s Financial Action
Task Force (Radne grupe za finansijsko djelovanje).
6
Reforma javne uprave
13. Reforma javne uprave je jedan od ključnih prioriteta za osiguranje fiskalne održivosti i kvalitetno
pružanje usluga građanima. Reformu je potrebno provoditi u tijesnoj vezi s reformama u
socioekonomskom sistemu i vladavini prava.
o Vijeće ministara BiH, entitetske vlade, vlade kantona i Brčko Distrikta će usvojiti ključne principe
koji su osnova za sljedeći ciklus refome javne uprave. Modernija, kompetentnija, transparentnija,
efikasnija, ekonomičnija i odgovornija javna uprava će poboljšati pružanje javnih usluga i ostvariti
uštede. Ovi planovi će uključiti osnovne, suštinski važne reforme za upravljanje javnim finansijama.
o Postoji podrška za snažniju reformu javne uprave na svim nivoima vlasti. Svi nivoi vlasti će izraditi
nove zakone o državnim službenicima i zaposlenicima, uz pomoć Svjetske banke i SIGMA-e, da bi
olakšali reformu javne uprave i uveli veću fleksibilnost radnih aranžmana. Ovi zakoni će biti usvojeni
ubrzo nakon usvajanja novih zakona o radu u entitetima, kantonima i Brčko Distriktu. Kandidati za
zapošljavanje u državnoj službi će biti ocjenjivani na osnovu prethodno određenih kriterija
kvalificiranosti i rezultata testova kompetentnosti i organi uprave će osigurati zapošljavanje najbolje
rangiranih.
o Vijeće Ministara BiH, entitetske vlade, vlade kantona i Brčko Distrikta će uvesti ograničenja na
zapošljavanje u javnoj upravi sve dok revidirani kadrovski sistemi ne budu doneseni i provedeni
(uključujući i korištenje norme), a ukupan fond plaća u javnom sektoru će biti zamrznut do
donošenja revidiranog sistema određivanja plaća na osnovu vrijednosti.
o Objavljivanje odluka o žalbama u postupcima javnih nabavki (kao zakonska obaveza) će biti od
središnje važnosti za osiguranje transparentnosti u procedurama nabavki, odlučivanjem o žalbama i
osiguranim pristupom javnosti odlukama tijela za reviziju nabavki.
14. Vijeće ministara BiH, entitetske vlade, vlade kantona i Brčko Distrika će se i dalje blisko konsultirati s
EU o ovoj agendi, koja će se razvijati i tražit će da se pojasne i obrazlože bilo koja značajna odstupanja od
dogovorenog, tako da se napredak može jasno redovno mjeriti, razumijevati i ocjenjivati. Redovni
izvještaji o napretku bit će dostavljani Delegaciji EU u Sarajevu. Izvještaji će biti temeljeni na činjenicama
i po prirodi tehnički i kratki (dok će istovremeno osigurati dati sadržaj svih usvojenih mjera i okolnosti
kašnjenja i promjena planova). Prvi izvještaj bi trebalo da bude dostavljen 15. novembra 2015. godine.
15. Bit će data puna podrška za uspješnu realizaciju aktivnosti u vezi s provođenjem popisa stanovništva,
domaćinstava i stanova, uz puno poštivanje odredbi Zakona o popisu, podzakonskih propisa i evropskih
statističkih standarda u popisnim aktivnostima.
16. Sazivat ćemo redovne koordinacione sastanke s predstavnicima EU i međunarodnih finansijskih
institucija, radi pojašnjenja tehničkih detalja i pomoći u pripremi izvještaja. Osim toga, predlažemo da
pregledamo napredak u provođenju reformske agende s EU i međunarodnim finansijskim institucijama
na sastanku na visokom nivou, koji bi se organizirao krajem novembra. To će biti prilika da se sagleda
cjelokupan napredak i postigne dogovor o svim suštinski važnim revizijama.
17. Obavezuju se državni, entitetski, kantonalni i nivo vlasti Brčko Distrikta da ni na koji način neće
osporavati, ometati i blokirati realizaciju aranžmana s međunarodnim finansijskim institucijama koji su
direktno i indirektno vezani za reformske procese, a koje je određeni nivo vlasti proveo ili provodi u
okviru svojih ustavnih nadležnosti.
7
PART
THREE
Dokument
Grupacije Svjetske banke
Izvještaj br. 99616-BA
MEĐUNARODNA BANKA ZA OBNOVU I RAZVOJ
MEĐUNARODNA FINANSIJSKA KORPORACIJA
MULTILATERALNA AGENCIJA ZA INVESTICIJSKE GARANCIJE
OKVIR ZA PARTNERSTVO SA ZEMLJOM
ZA
BOSNU I HERCEGOVINU
ZA PERIOD OD FISKALNE GODINE 2016. DO FISKALNE GODINE 2020.
14. novembar 2015.
Jedinica uprave za zemlje Jugoistočne Evrope
Region Evrope i centralne Azije
Međunarodna finansijska korporacija
Region Evrope i centralne Azije
Multilateralna agencija za investicijske garancije
Ovaj dokument ima ograničenu raspodjelu i korisnici ga smiju upotrebljavati samo za obavljanje svojih
zvaničnih dužnosti. Njegov sadržaj ne smije se inače objavljivati bez ovlaštenja Grupacije Svjetske banke.
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/12/215221450204091066/WBG-Bosnia-andHerzegovina-period-FY2016-2020.pdf
OKVIR ZA PARTNERSTVO SA ZEMLJOM
ZA PERIOD OD FISKALNE GODINE 2016. DO FISKALNE GODINE 2020.
ZA BOSNU I HERCEGOVINU
SAŽETAK
Bosna i Hercegovina ima priliku da promijeni svoju razvojnu putanju. U zemlji već 20
godina vlada mir, i bez obzira na kompleksnu političku strukturu, uspjela je postići značajne
rezultate. Najveći dio infrastrukture koja je uništena u ratu je obnovljen, a uspostavljene su
institucije za upravljanje zemljom na svim nivoima nadležnosti. Uspostavljen je okvir za
ekonomsko i fiskalno upravljanje i to je donijelo trajnu makroekonomsku stabilnost. Višestruki
reformski napori su poboljšali ekonomske veze između Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine i
Republike Srpske, a određeni napredak je postignut i u stvaranju boljeg okruženja za razvoj
privatnog sektora i stvaranje radnih mjesta. Sada mora da se uradi mnogo više, ako se želi da
Bosna i Hercegovina dosegne održivi prosperitet za svoje građane i uključi se u redove zemalja
Evropske unije. Javni sektor BiH je velik i neefikasan, i kao rezultat komplikovanih poslijeratnih
struktura rukovođenja i kao rezultat nasljeđa iz ranije Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Bez
obzira na određena poboljšanja, privatni sektor još uvijek je opterećen ne baš sjajnim poslovnim
okruženjem, visokim porezima na rad, nefleksibilnim politikama na tržištu rada, neujednačenom
transportnom infrastrukturom, energetskom nedovoljnošću i drugim ograničenjima.
Nezaposlenost premašuje 27 procenata, a tek oko polovine ljudi radne dobi ekonomski je
aktivno. Stopa siromaštva je 15 procenata, a nije opadala još od globalne finansijske krize iz
2008. Na različitim nivoima društva pojavljuje se konsenzus da je došlo vrijeme da zemlja
promijeni kurs i oslobodi svoje potencijale za rast. Izbori krajem 2014. doveli su na vlast novo
Vijeće ministara BiH, Vladu Republike Srpske i Vladu Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine koji su
fokusirani na ekonomske reforme sa ciljem stimulisanja rasta i stvaranja radnih mjesta. Nedavno
usvojena srednjoročna Reformska agenda za BiH predstavlja široko zasnovan konsenzus među
svim vladajućim institucijama o ključnim prioritetima za ekonomski i socijalni razvoj, koji bi
preusmjerili Bosnu i Hercegovinu na održiviju putanju rasta. Vijeće ministara BiH, Vlada
Republike Srpske i Vlada Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine zvanično su podržali Reformsku
agendu, a napredak u njenoj implementaciji će predstavljati temelje za prijavu zemlje za članstvo
u Evropskoj uniji.
i.
Sistematska dijagnostika za zemlju (Systematic Country Diagnostic - SCD) za Bosnu i
Hercegovinu kao zaključak navodi da bi BiH mogla eliminisati siromaštvo i postići opšti
prosperitet u toku jedne ili dvije generacije, ako bi sprovela uravnoteživanje svog modela
razvoja. Najprije, zemlja treba da oslobodi potencijal privatnog sektora, uz istovremeno
smanjivanje velikog javnog sektora. Drugo, ekonomija treba da se preusmjeri, sa fokusa prema
unutra, koji je vođen domaćom potrošnjom, doznakama i uvozom, na fokus prema vani, kroz
privlačenje stranih investicija, podsticanje izvoza i napredovanje u oblasti regionalne i globalne
tržišne integracije. Viša stopa ekonomskog rasta neophodna je da bi Bosna i Hercegovina
pobijedila u borbi protiv siromaštva, pošto su siromašni imali najviše koristi od bržeg rasta,
između ostalog kroz zapošljavanje.
ii.
Kroz SCD je identifikovano deset prioriteta, od kojih su prva četiri fokusirana na
ubrzavanje rasta, sa ciljem stvaranja i održavanja većeg broja boljih radnih mjesta. Oni
iii.
i
uključuju: i) reforme tržišta rada, unapređivanje pružanja socijalne zaštite za ugrožene grupe i
smanjivanje cijene rada; ii) unapređivanje konkurentnosti, poduzetništva i investicijske klime;
iii) smanjivanje veličine javnog sektora, uz istovremeno osiguravanje fiskalne održivosti i
unapređivanje pružanja javnih usluga; i iv) investiranje u ekonomsku infrastrukturu za rast i
inkluziju. Implementacija tih reformi bi uskladila poticaje i politike prema privatnom sektoru sa
fokusom na regionalnu i međunarodnu integraciju. Drugi skup visoko prioritetnih mjera bi doveo
do ubrzavanja socijalnog i ekonomskog razvoja BiH nakon što zemlja bude na pravom putu,
povećavanjem njene otpornosti. Te mjere uključuju: i) pomaganje BiH da izdrži nepovoljna
vremenska dešavanja; ii) unapređivanje obrazovanja i vještina na tržištu rada; i iii) unapređivanje
zdravstvenih usluga i dostupnosti vodovoda i kanalizacije. Završni skup tih srednjoročnih
prioriteta odnosi se na dugoročne napore na stvaranju stabilnih i održivih ekonomskih prilika.
Oni uključuju: i) održavanje finansijske stabilnosti i proširivanje dostupnosti finansiranja; ii)
smanjivanje zagađenja i zaštita životne sredine; i iii) povećavanje poljoprivredne produktivnosti.
Prioriteti iz SCD se blisko poklapaju sa programom strukturalnih reformi na kojima
rade Vijeće ministara BiH, Vlada Republike Srpske i Vlada Federacije Bosne i
Hercegovine. Reformska agenda ima za cilj da podstakne ekonomski rast, da stvori radna
mjesta, te da unaprijedi efikasnost socijalne pomoći, uz istovremeno ostajanje na putu ka
fiskalnoj konsolidaciji i zaštiti makroekonomske stabilnosti. Agenda je usmjerena na šest
područja za reformu: fiskalna održivost i konsolidacija; poslovna klima i konkurentnost; reforma
tržišta rada; usmjeravanje socijalne pomoći i reforma penzijskog sistema; vladavina zakona; te
reforma javne administracije. Pored toga, Vijeće ministara BiH, Vlada Republike Srpske i Vlada
Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine usmjeravaju napore na ulaganja u energetiku i transport, kao i na
ublažavanje nepovoljnih prirodnih dešavanja, kao što su poplave i suše. Konačno, Vijeće
ministara BiH, Vlada Republike Srpske i Vlada Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine stavljaju
naglasak na socijalnu održivost reforme, prepoznajući činjenicu da je značajan dio stanovništva
BiH izložen riziku od socijalne isključenosti. Svjesni su važnosti uravnoteživanja potrebe za
transformacijskim promjenama, sa razumijevanjem mogućih socijalnih troškova reforme, te
osmišljavanjem mjera za ublažavanje, po potrebi.
iv.
v.
Novi Okvir za partnerstvo sa zemljom (Country Partnership Framework - CPF)
Grupacije Svjetske banke ima za cilj da pruži podršku ovom umjerenom tempu
napredovanja na dugo odlaganoj strukturalnoj reformi. On je izgrađen selektivno oko pet od
deset prioriteta iz SCD, uključujući prva četiri koja su usmjerena na ubrzavanje rasta i peti, koji
je usmjeren na izgrađivanje otpornosti na vanjske uticaje, uključujući klimatski podstaknute
prirodne katastrofe. CPF je zasnovan na zaključcima Sistematske dijagnostike za zemlju,
odražava Reformsku agendu Vijeća ministara BiH, Vlade Republike Srpske i Vlade Federacije
Bosne i Hercegovine, te kao izvor informacija koristi lekcije iz iskustva, koordinaciju sa
razvojnim partnerima i konsultacije sa različitim interesnim stranama. Strategija se fokusira na
oblasti: (1) povećavanje stepena efikasnosti i djelotvornosti javnog sektora; (2) stvaranje
uslova za ubrzani rast privatnog sektora; i (3) izgradnju otpornosti na prirodne nepogode.
Krovna sveprožimajuća tema inkluzije biće izvor informacija za izbor i osmišljavanje konkretnih
intervencija u okviru strategije, sa ciljem osiguravanja da reforme budu socijalno održive, te da
ugrožene grupe ne budu ostavljene u pozadini stvari, kako se nove prilike budu pojavljivale.
Unutar tih triju oblasti fokusa, strategija će doprinijeti ostvarivanju osam konkretnih ciljeva CPF
(vidjeti sliku 1).
ii
Selektivnost programa WBG zasnovana je na razvojnim prioritetima, prema tome
kako su oni definisani u SCD, a zatim je dodatno rafinirana na osnovu sljedećeg: i)
političke posvećenosti / podržavanja; ii) komparativnih prednosti Banke i istorijskog
angažmana Banke; i iii) raspodjeli rada sa drugim ključnim partnerima. CPF se bavi sa sva
četiri „glavna“ prioriteta koja su identifikovana u SCD, konkretno, reformom tržišta rada;
unapređivanjem poslovnog okruženja; jačanjem djelotvornosti i efikasnosti javnog sektora; te
investiranjem u ekonomsku infrastrukturu za rast i inkluziju. Jedan od „visokih“ prioriteta takođe
će biti direktan cilj, konkretno, pomaganje BiH u izgradnji otpornosti na nepovoljna prirodna
dešavanja. Drugi prioriteti SCD visokog i srednjeg nivoa biće uključeni samo selektivno, tamo
gdje oni u značajnoj mjeri doprinose postizanju glavnih prioriteta SCD. Na primjer, usmjerene
intervencije vezane za zdravstvene usluge i vodosnabdijevanje i kanalizaciju neophodne su za
postizanje fiskalne konsolidacije i unapređivanje pružanja javnih usluga – a to je glavni prioritet
SCD. CPF neće uključivati znatan angažman na obrazovanju (bez obzira na njegovu važnost za
dugoročni rast Bosne i Hercegovine) zbog toga što bi politička volja i podrška zahtijevali
značajno jačanje, da bi se postigli rezultati u toj oblasti. Takođe, CPF neće uključivati značajan
angažman u dvije krucijalne oblasti Reformske agende: vladavina zakona i reforma javne
administracije, zbog toga što će u tim oblastima vodeću ulogu preuzeti Evropska komisija.
vi.
Okvir je ambiciozan u istorijskom kontekstu zemlje, a njegova uspješnost će u
kritičnoj mjeri zavisiti od toga da li će reforma biti održana. Prema tome, to je program koji
nosi visoki stepen rizika, ali i velike nagrade, i koji bi mogao da igra ulogu katalizatora u
promjeni razvojne putanje BiH, ako ne bude zastoja. Uspjeh bi značio samo postepene promjene
u kratkoročnom periodu, a posvećenost bi morala da bude održana sve dok puni efekat na rast i
stvaranje novih radnih mjesta ne bude vidljiv, za što će trebati vremena. Dok je impuls za
reforme danas snažan, svi faktori na kojima su se temeljili raniji napori i dalje su na mjestu:
snažni uloženi interesi imaju mogućnost da dovedu do odlaganja ili preusmjere reforme, dok bi
kompleksna, decentralizovana struktura rukovođenja u BiH mogla da oteža koordinirano
pripremanje i implementiranje razvojnih programa. Prostor koji daje politička prilika takođe je
uzan, pri čemu je naredni izborni ciklus za samo godinu dana (lokalni izbori planiraju se za
2016.). Socijalne tenzije i dalje su visoke, imajući u vidu povećane nivoe nezaposlenosti i
sužavanje prostora za emigraciju. U slučaju da se ijedan od tih rizika materijalizuje, impuls
reformi mogao bi opasti i WBG ne bi bila u mogućnosti da obezbijedi puni raspon planirane
podrške. Podrška WBG-a posebno budžetska podrška za katalitičke promjene politika – bila bi
pripremana prema stepenu posvećenosti reformama i mogla bi da se umanji u skladu sa tom
skalom, da se odloži ili eliminiše, ako reformska agenda zemlje krene pogrešnim putem.
vii.
Reforma preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu, nova oblast za angažman WBG u BiH,
uključuje posebno visoke rizike i donosi posebno velike prilike. BiH nije reformisala svoj
sektor preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu još od raspada Jugoslavije, a pokretanje postupka
rješavanja tog problema moglo bi dovesti do značajnih promjena u ekonomskom krajoliku
zemlje. Prema tome, to je područje u kojem su nepopunjene oblasti našeg znanja najveće, što čini
teškim ocjenjivanje i opsega problema i vjerovatnoće njegovog rješavanja – ili čak i razumnih
očekivanja za napredovanje – u okviru vremenskih rokova za CPF. Banka će, prema tome, početi
svoj angažman sveobuhvatnom analizom pitanja u sektoru preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu,
uključujući detaljnu ocjenu željezničkih kompanija u oba entiteta. Ona će takođe poduzeti ocjenu
prilika i ograničenja vezano za partnerstva javnog i privatnog sektora (Public-Private
viii.
iii
Partnerships - PPP) u obezbjeđivanju i pružanju infrastrukture i socijalnih usluga. Kada rezultati
tog rada budu dostupni, a preporuke za restrukturiranje sektora budu jasne, CPF bi mogao biti
modifikovan kao dio redovnog procesa monitoringa CPF i srednjoročnog procesa pregleda, tako
da odražava operativni angažman na reformi preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu.
ix.
Iako program CPF uključuje radnje na ublažavanju rizika od prirodnih katastrofa, ti
rizici ostaju značajni. Oporavak od katastrofalnih poplava iz maja 2014. tek je počeo, nakon što
su znatni resursi preusmjereni ka naporima na oporavku. Ugroženost poplavama, sušama i oštrim
zimama je velika i mogla bi predstavljati ozbiljno opterećenje za implementaciju programa i
pravovremeno postizanje ciljeva CPF.
x.
Prilika za transformacione promjene opravdava velike rizike koji su vezani za
strategiju CPF. Sada je jedinstveno važan trenutak za BiH koji ne bi trebalo da bude propušten.
Opšti konsenzus u BiH i među njenim razvojnim partnerima, kao i zajedničko razumijevanje
izazova i prioriteta, dopuštaju da se usklade svi napori za podršku jasno definisanoj reformskoj
agendi. U vidu podrške toj istorijskoj prilici, Grupacija Svjetske banke će koristiti puni spektar
svog znanja i finansijskih instrumenata u saradnji sa MMF-om, EU i drugim razvojnim
partnerima.
iv
Slika 1. Veza između ciljeva CPF i prioriteta SCD
Prioritet 1: Reformisanje
tržišta rada,
unapređivanje pružanja
socijalne zaštite i
smanjivanje cijene rada
Prioritet 2: Unapređivanje
konkurentnosti,
preduzetništva i investicijske
klime
Prioritet 3: Smanjivanje
veličine javnog sektora
uz osiguravanje fiskalne
održivosti i unapređivanje
pružanja javnih usluga
Prioritet 4:
Obezbjeđivanje energije i
povezivanje BiH sa
svijetom
UKLJUČENJE KAO SVEPROŽIMAJUĆE TEME
v
Prioritet 5: Pomaganje
BiH da se izbori sa
nepovoljnim prirodnim
dešavanjima
Vraćanje Bosne i Hercegovine u ravnotežu
Sistematska dijagnostika za zemlju
GRUPACIJA SVJETSKE BANKE
Region Evrope i centralne Azije
Vraćanje Bosne i Hercegovine u ravnotežu
Sistematska dijagnostika za zemlju
Novembar 2015.
Regionalni potpredsjednik:
Cyril Muller
Potpredsjednik IFC-a:
Dimitris Tsitsiragos
Direktorica za zemlju:
Ellen Goldstein
Regionalna direktorica IFC-a:
Tomasz Telma
Viši direktori:
Marcelo Giugale / Anabel Gonzalez / Ana Revenga
Menadžeri za prakse:
Paloma Casero / Ivailo Izvorski
Vođe projektnih timova:
Lada Busevac / Simon Davies / Wolfgang Fengler / George Konda
VALUTNI EKVIVALENTI
Efektivna kursna stopa: od 5. avgusta 2015.
Valutna jedinica: BAM
1,79 BAM = 1 USD
Fiskalna godina [2016.]
[1. januar – 31. decembar]
Grupacija Svjetske banke
Toranj B, 17, sprat, Fra Anđela Zvizdovića 1/B/17, 71000 Sarajevo
Bosna i Hercegovina
Telefon: +387 33 251-500
Adresa elektronske pošte: mail_to_bosnia@worldbank.org
Internet adresa: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/bosniaandherzegovina
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/11/16/090224b0831becfd/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Rebalancing0Bo0c0country0diag
nostic.pdf
Standardna izjava odricanja od odgovornosti
Ovaj izvještaj je proizvod osoblja Grupacije Svjetske banke, koju sačinjavaju Međunarodna banka za obnovu i razvoj (International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development - IBRD), Međunarodna finansijska korporacija (International Finance Corporation - IFC) i Multilateralna agencija za investicijske garancije
(Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency - MIGA). Nalazi, tumačenja i zaključci koji su izraženi u ovom radu ne odražavaju u svakom slučaju gledišta izvršnih
direktora Grupacije Svjetske banke ili vlada koje oni predstavljaju. Grupacija Svjetske banke ne garantuje za tačnost podataka koji su uključeni u ovaj rad.
Granice, boje, denominacije i druge informacije koje su prikazane na bilo kojoj mapi u ovom rad ne povlače nikakav sud na strani Grupacije Svjetske banke
vezano za pravni status bilo koje teritorije, ni izraz podrške ili prihvatanja takvih granica.
Izjava o autorskim pravima:
Ovaj rad Grupacije Svjetske banke licenciran je u okviru licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). U skladu sa licencom Creative Commons Attribution možete da slobodno kopirate, distribuirate, prenosite
i prilagođavate ovaj rad, između ostalog i za komercijalne namjene, u skladu sa sljedećim uslovima:
Pripisivanje – Molimo da ovaj rad u citatima navodite na sljedeći način: World Bank. 2015. Rebalancing Bosna i Hercegovina: A Systematic Country
Diagnostic. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group.
Prevodi – Ako budete kreirali prevod ovog rada, molimo da dodate sljedeći izjavu o odricanju od odgovornosti sa pripisivanjem: Ovaj prevod nije kreirala
Grupacija Svjetske banke i ne bi trebalo da se smatra zvaničnim prevodom Grupacije Svjetske banke. Grupacija Svjetske banke neće biti odgovorna za bilo
koji sadržaj ili grešku u ovom prevodu.
Prilagođavanje – Ako budete kreirali adaptaciju ovog rada molimo da dodate sljedeći izjavu o odricanju od odgovornosti sa pripisivanjem: Ovo je adaptacija
originalnog rada Grupacije Svjetske banke. Gledišta i mišljenja izražena u adaptaciji su isključiva odgovornost pojedinih autora ili grupe autora adaptacije i
nemaju podršku Grupacije Svjetske banke.
Sadržaj u vlasništvu treće strane – Grupacija Svjetske banke ne posjeduje u svakom slučaju svaku komponentu sadržaja koji je uključen u ovaj rad.
Prema tome, Grupacija Svjetske banke ne garantuje da korištenje bilo koje komponente ili dijela koji je u vlasništvu treće strane a sadržan je u radu neće
predstavljati kršenje prava tih trećih strana. Rizici od potraživanja koja bi mogla da rezultuju iz takvih kršenja u potpunosti su na Vaša. Ako želite da iskoristite
komponentu rada na druge namjene, Vaša je odgovornost da odredite da li je potrebno dobiti odobrenje za to korištenje u druge namjene i da dobijete
odobrenje od vlasnika autorskih prava. Primjeri komponenti mogu da uključuju , između ostalog, tabele, iznose ili slike.
Svi upiti o pravima i licencama trebalo bi da se dostave na adresu Publishing and Knowledge Division, TheWorld Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC
20433, USA; faks: 202-522-2625; adresa elektronske pošte: pubrights@worldbank.org.
Izvršni sažetak
Dvadeset godina po okončanju rata, Bosna i Hercegovina (BiH) tek treba dostići zajednički prosperitet za sve
svoje građane i približiti se evropskom životnom standardu. U zemlji vlada mir još od kraja 1995., ali potrebno je
usklađivanje njenog razvojnog modela, ako se želi pridružiti grupi prosperitetnih evropskih ekonomija. BiH ima
neproporcionalno velik javni sektor, koji datira još iz doba Jugoslavije, koji je do sada tek djelomično reformisan.
Ustavni aranžmani u okviru Dejtonskog i Vašingtonskog sporazuma su za glavni cilj imali prestanak rata, a ne
izgradnju održive i efikasne države. Finansijski prilivi, naročito pomoći i doznaka, podstiču ekonomski rast zasnovan
na potrošnji. Ti su prilivi bili značajni u poslijeratnom oporavku i podigli su zemlju ponovo na status zemlje sa
srednjim prihodima. Međutim, dostizanje visokih nivoa prihoda, stvaranje prosperiteta i iskorjenjavanje
siromaštva će se desiti kad se BiH okrene prema ekonomskom modelu koji se nadovezuje na međunarodne
integracije, naročito s EU, koja je najznačajniji trgovinski partner BiH i stub institucionalnih reformi.
U principu, BiH ima niz prednosti koje bi mogla iskoristiti. Zemlja se nalazi tik do EU, najvećeg svjetskog
ekonomskog bloka. Postigla je makroekonomsku stabilnost s niskim deficitom i umjerenim nivoom duga. Velikoj
dijaspori ide dobro i njeni transferi u domovinu se procjenjuju na 10 – 11 procenata BDP-a. Ako bi BiH dostigla isti
nivo trgovinske razmjene sa susjedima, koji je imala u doba Jugoslavije, njen bi se izvoz utrostručio. Iskorištavanje
tih prednosti moglo bi je učiniti živom ekonomijom s dinamičnim preduzetnicima, koja ide u pravcu dostizanja
bogatijih zemalja Evrope.
Prosječan stanovnik BiH ne može očekivati prosperitetan život. Mjereno metodologijom Svjetske banke,
siromaštvo je iznosilo 15 procenata u 2011. (posljednji raspoloživi podaci), a oko polovine stanovništva još uvijek
živi u nesigurnosti.1 Siromaštvo je opalo s 20 procenata (2001) na 14 procenata (2007.), ali je od svjetske krize
došlo do umjerenog preokreta. Nivoi siromaštva su slični u oba entiteta (Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine (FBiH) i
Republika Srpska (RS)), a kao i u mnogim drugim zemljama, siromaštvo je veće među ruralnim stanovništvom.
Najkritičnije pitanje je otvaranje radnih mjesta, obzirom da je zaposlenost blisko povezana sa siromaštvom, a samo
oko jedan od tri stanovnika radno aktivne dobi u BiH ima posao (dok samo jedan od četiri ima posao u formalnom
sektoru). Veliki dio stanovništva živi od rada u neformalnom sektoru, doznaka od rodbine ili socijalnih davanja.
Ako zemlja ne otvori više radnih mjesta, mnogi stanovnici BiH će ostariti u relativnom siromaštvu.
Socijalna i ekonomska neravnoteža predstavljaju akutan problem. Društvo u BiH je podijeljeno na relativno mali
aktivan dio, koji redovno zarađuje platu (često i u inostranstvu) i veliku grupu koja zavisi od transfera bilo od vlasti
ili od rodbine. Mnogi od tih koji zavise od transfera žive u ruralnim dijelovima zemlje. I pored većih stopa
siromaštva među ruralnim stanovništvom (i stanovništvom koje se bavi poljoprivredom), ono jedva da se smanjilo
kao udio u ukupnom stanovništvu nakon rata. Život u ruralnim područjima, uz razumnu dostupnost brojnih javnih
usluga, i dalje ostaje bolja alternativa za mnoge stanovnike BiH koji nemaju posao i ne mogu pokriti veće troškove
života u gradovima. I drugi slojevi stanovništva su takođe u velikoj mjeri pogođeni siromaštvom, uključujući djecu
i Rome. Uistinu, procjenjuje se da je preko 40 procenata Roma siromašno. Pored toga, jedan od pet odraslih Roma
se smatra nepismenim (u poređenju s gotovo punom pismenošću ostatka stanovništva), a preko polovine je
pothranjeno.
Da bi ostvarila uspjeh, BiH treba ponovo uravnotežiti svoj model razvoja kroz dvije temeljne stvari. Prvo, treba
omogućiti iskorištavanje potencijala privatnog sektora uz smanjenje utjecaja ogromnog javnog sektora. Drugo,
ekonomija treba ostvariti pomak, s unutrašnjeg fokusa vođenog domaćom potrošnjom i uvozom, u pravcu
potencijalnih međunarodnih integracija kroz investicije i izvoz. Da bi to ostvarila zemlji treba više firmi (i veće
firme), prilagodljivih malih i srednjih preduzeća i poslovni ambijent koji im omogućava rast i širenje proizvodnje,
zapošljavanja i izvoza.
1
Definisano kao stanje u riziku od siromaštva ili socijalne isključenosti, sveukupni indikator strategije Evropa 2020.
4
Sada ne postoje usklađeni podsticaji za ostvarivanje tog novog modela razvoja. Većina politika pruža podršku
onima koji već imaju posao i ostvaruju koristi od ekonomije zasnovane na potrošnji i u kojoj dominira državni
sektor. Na primjer, od velike potrošnje na socijalnu zaštitu korist ostvaruju bogati skoro u istoj mjeri kao i
siromašni, preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu koja više ne posluju i dalje na svojim evidencijama vode radnike kao
zaposlene (time gomilajući obaveze po osnovu neplaćenih socijalnih doprinosa), a velika poreska opterećenja
gutaju preko trećine plate, čak i najmanje plaćenih radnika, što poslodavcima otvaranje formalnih radnih mjesta
za niže kvalifikovane radnike čini gotovo nemogućim. Te neuravnoteženosti je teško ispraviti jer su duboko
ukorijenjene u prošlost zemlje i institucionalne strukture bivše Jugoslavije. Istovremeno, ako BiH želi iskorijeniti
siromaštvo, ostvariti zajednički prosperitet i u konačnici postati zemlja s visokim prihodom, treba prekinuti sa
sadašnjim stanjem stvari i iznaći novi, djelotvorniji razvojni put.
Uravnoteženje socijalnog i ekonomskog modela BiH je otežano i demografskim izazovima sa kojima se zemlja
suočava, kao i specifičnom institucionalnom strukturom. Sa 3,8 miliona stanovnika, BiH je ionako relativno mala
zemlja. I pored toga spada među zemlje u svijetu čije se stanovništvo najbrže smanjuje i stari, što nameće izazove
po pružanje usluga, naročito u ruralnim područjima. Za razliku od mnogih drugih ekonomija u nastanku, BiH ne
može pokupiti demografsku dividendu pukom promjenom svog ekonomskog modela. Pored toga, institucionalna
fragmentacija čini donošenje ekonomske politike još većim izazovom. Složena institucionalna struktura
uspostavljena Dejtonskim sporazumom koji je zaustavio rat ima negativne utjecaje na efikasnost procesa
donošenja odluka i rezultata, često, uz nepotrebno i skupo dupliranje.
Okvir ES.1. Socijalna i ekonomska kretanja u Bosni i Hercegovini – ključne činjenice









Prihod po stanovniku 4.700 USD, što je manje od polovine svjetskog prosjeka i samo 20 procenata
prosječnog prihoda Evropske Unije.
Stopa siromaštva je 15 procenata, sa oko 5 USD na dana po osobi i jednako je rasprostranjena u oba entiteta.
Nakon 2007. je došlo do umjerenog povećanja siromaštva.
Vladavina u BiH je slaba. Organizacija Transparency International rangira samo Albaniju i Kosovo kao
korumpiranije u regionu SEE od BiH. Većina ljudi u BiH vjeruje da postojeća institucionalna struktura u BiH
pogoduje slaboj vladavini i otežava reforme.
Nezaposlenost iznosi preko 27 procenata, a učestvovanje radne snage na tržištu je izuzetno nisko sa oko 50
procenata. Posebnu brigu predstavljaju mladi i dugoročno nezaposleni, kao i izuzetno niska stopa
učestvovanja žena u radnoj snazi.
Kada je ekonomija rasla, najsiromašnijih 40 procenata (B40) je ostvarivalo neproporcionalno više koristi od
ekonomskog rasta. To odražava obrazac otvaranja radnih mjesta i veliku redistribuciju državnog sektora.
Javni sektor je značajno najveći akter u ekonomiji. Rashodi državne, poddržavnih i lokalnih vlasti čine
približno 50 procenata BDP-a, bez uključivanja preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu.
Samo jedan od tri stanovnika BiH radno aktivne dobi ima posao, a samo jedan od četiri u formalnom sektoru.
Gotovo polovina formalne zaposlenosti otpada na javni sektor.
Broj stanovnika se rapidno smanjuje zbog niske stope rađanja i velike emigracije. Stanovništvo se od 1995.
smanjilo sa 4,5 miliona na procijenjenih 3,8 miliona, a do 2020. će u BiH živjeti tek oko 3,5 miliona ljudi, ako
se ovaj trend nastavi.
BiH je jedna od najmanje urbaniziranih zemalja Evrope, sa 60 procenata stanovništva koje živi u ruralnim
područjima.
Izvor: Tim za SCD za BiH
5
Turbulentna prošlost
BiH ima posebno mjesto u istoriji i razvoju Evrope. Atentat na austrougarskog prijestolonasljednika Franca
Ferdinanda u Sarajevu prije sto godina je bio povod izbijanju Prvog svjetskog rata. Prije dvadeset pet godina nakon
pada Berlinskog zida, te iza toga raspada Jugoslavije, BiH je ponovo bila bure baruta u regiji. Ratne strahote i
razaranja u BiH u periodu 1992-1995. su dobro dokumentovane i čak i 20 godina kasnije objašnjavaju neke od
razvojnih izazova BiH.
BiH se u devedesetim godinama prošlog vijeka suočila s jednim od najvećih ekonomskih padova u modernoj
istoriji, koji se procjenjuje na blizu 90 procenata. Nakon decenije ekonomske stagnacije tokom osamdesetih,
Bosna i Hercegovina – koja je i tada bila jedna od najsiromašnijih jugoslovenskih republika - se suočila s padom
komunizma u istočnoj Evropi, raspadom Jugoslavije i potom ratom u BiH. Po mnogim mjerilima, ni jedna druga
zemlja u istočnoj Evropi nije bila teže pogođena.
Smanjenje stanovništva zemlje je bilo drastično. Procjenjuje se da je BiH prije početka rata imala 4,5 miliona
stanovnika. Danas ih u zemlji živi samo oko 3,8 miliona. Taj će se trend nastaviti zbog dalje emigracije i niske stope
rađanja: do 2020. BiH će vjerovatno imati samo 3,5 miliona stanovnika. Od 2014. broj starih je veći od broja mladih,
što znači da se reforme moraju provoditi u vrijeme demografskog smanjenja (Slika ES.1).
Dejtonski sporazum iz 1995. je donio mir, ali je ograničio efikasnu vladavinu zemljom. Zemlju je administrativno
podijelio na slabu centralnu vlast i dva entiteta: Federaciju Bosne i Hercegovine i Republiku Srpsku, 2 pri čemu je
FBiH dalje podijeljena na 10 kantona. Poddržavnim nivoima vlasti su date značajne ovlasti. Takva je institucionalna
struktura rezultovala značajnom fragmentacijom i dupliranjem javnih službi i donošenja odluka. Dva ekstremna
primjera takve fragmentacije su postojanje 11 ministarstava zdravstva samo u FBiH, čime se smanjuje kvalitet
zdravstvene zaštite i povećavaju njeni troškovi; a zbog različitih željezničkih preduzeća u RS i FBiH, potrebna je
promjena lokomotiva kadgod kompozicija ulazi u drugi entitet. Uspostavljen je međunarodni nadzorni organ
poznat kao Ured visokog predstavnika (OHR). Uspostavljeni su Centralna banka i domaća valuta, vezana za
njemačku marku (kasnije euro), i one predstavljaju jedan od glavnih stubova nove države.
Poslijeratna obnova zemlje je pomognuta međunarodnim donatorskim sredstvima. Međunarodna pomoć je u
periodu 1996-1999. iznosila u prosjeku 26 procenata BDP-a. Institucionalne strukture uspostavljene prije dvadeset
pet godina su do danas ostale u velikoj mjeri nepromijenjene. Dok je Valutni odbor (sada vezan za euro) temelj
šire makrostabilnosti u BiH, njen javni sektor je postao jedan od najvećih na svijetu. Uz pomoć uspostavljanja
Uprave za indirektno oporezivanje (UIO), BiH je postala jedna od najuspješnijih zemlja u regiji po ubiranju poreza,
s naplatom poreskih prihoda u iznosu ekvivalentnom 45 procenata BDP-a. Velik javni sektor je po veličini sličan
skandinavskim zemljama, a ipak raspoloživost i kvalitet javnih usluga u BiH ne odražavaju tako velika poreska
izdvajanja.
Današnji pedesetogodišnjak – rođen sredinom šezdesetih godina prošlog vijeka – živi većinu svoje odrasle dobi
u zemlji opterećenoj ekonomskom nestabilnošću. Osamdesete su bile desetljeće ekonomskih teškoća kada je
jugoslovenska privreda stagnirala, a inflacija dostizala do 70 procenata godišnje. U prvoj polovini devedesetih,
prosječan građanin BiH je iskusio teritorijalni raspad i rat. Ni nakon više od decenije poslijeratne rekonstrukcije,
zemlja, po nekim mjerilima, nije u potpunosti dostigla predratni životni standard, prije nego što je ponovo zapala
u ekonomsku stagnaciju kao posljedica svjetske ekonomske krize (Slika ES.2).3
2
Pored toga, Distrikt Brčko je autonomna administrativna jedinica sa samoupravom.
Imati na umu da je prihod po stanovniku u smislu eura u periodu 2000 - 2008. godine bio značajno niži zbog 40 procentnog rasta eura u
odnosu na USD.
3
6
Slika ES.1. Demografski izazovi BiH:
Smanjenje i starenje
Slika ES.2. Nedavna ekonomska prošlost BiH: Kolaps,
oporavak i stagnacija
BDP po stanovniku
7000
Stagnacija 80tih
6000
5.0
5000
USD (2012)
3000
Poslijeratni
oporavak
2000
Izvor: Procjene osoblja Svjetske banke na osnovu UN
Population Prospectus, 2012.
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
Ukupno
stanovništvo
Total
population
0
1986
Working
ages 15-64
Radne dobi,
15-64
1983
Youth 0-14
Mladi
0-14
Stariji
od 65
Older 65+
1000
1980
0.0
2013
1.0
2010
2.0
Finansijsk
a kriza
4000
2007
3.0
- Pad komunizma u istočnoj
Evropi
- Raspad Jugoslavije
- Izbijanje rata u BiH
2004
4.0
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
2008
2014
2020
2026
2032
2038
2044
2050
Stanovništvo, u milionima
Stanovništvo po dobnim grupama i
ukupno
Izvor: Procjene osoblja Svjetske banke na osnovu WDI, mjereno u
2012. USD; prijeratni podaci su grube procjene
BiH ima mnogo sličnosti sa susjednim zemljama i nekoliko značajnih razlika. Sličnosti potiču od zajedničke
prošlosti, kao dio Jugoslavije, tokom njavećeg dijela 20. vijeka. Ključne karakteristike su dominantna uloga države,
slaba ekonomska integracija (unutrašnja i vanjska), starenje stanovništva i visok nivo percepcije korupcije. Glavne
razlike su obim razaranja i ratne traume, koji su rezultirali jednim od najekstremnijih smanjenja ekonomskih
aktivnosti u modernoj istoriji. Dejtonski sporazum još uvijek dominira današnjim društvenim i političkim sistemima
i pogoršao je i zacementirao mnoge društvene i ekonomske slabosti državom vođenog sistema. Takva
institucionalna struktura je osnažila i vlastite interese pojedinih grupa za protivljenje institucionalnim i
ekonomskim reformama.
Ni bogata, niti ekstremno siromašna
BiH je ekonomija koja se oslanja na svoje domaće tržište. Uz prosječnu potrošnju od preko 100 procenata BDP-a
između 2010. i 2013., BiH je jedna od ekonomija u svijetu koje su najviše vođene potrošnjom. Takav model je
potaknut velikim javnim sektorom, koji daje prednost tekućoj potrošnji u odnosu na investicije i ojačan
preovladavanjem doznaka. Kreditni bum nakon rata je pružao podršku ekonomskom opravku do 2008., ali zemlja
nije uspjela u međunarodnim integracijama i pokretanju izvoza.
Prosječan prihod BiH građana je dostigao 4.740 USD (8.800 USD u PPP). Međutim, prihod od svjetske krize
stagnira i odgovara oko jednoj trećini EU prosjeka i 15 procenata je niži od susjednih zemalja iz jugoistočne Evrope
(SEE) koje nisu članice EU. Prihod je relativno ravnomjerno raspoređen u poređenju s drugim evropskim zemljama,
a od rasta u prošlosti su naročitu korist imala najsiromašnija domaćinstava po distribuciji prihoda (B40).
Siromaštvo ostaje značajno u oba entiteta, dok je u Distriktu Brčko (DB) smanjeno. Siromaštvo se od 2007. do
2011. donekle povećalo na nacionalnom nivou sa 14 na 15 procenata (iako ta promjena nije statistički značajna),
primarno zbog povećanja siromaštva u FBiH, za sadašnje projekcije ukazuju da je isto kao i u RS (Tabela ES.1).4
Siromaštvo je u BiH dominantno ruralna pojava, gdje je duplo veća vjerovatnoća za siromaštvo nego u urbanim
područjima. To predstavlja poseban izazov za BiH, koja za razliku od drugih ekonomija u nastanku, ostaje i dalje
većinom ruralna (60 procenata ukupnog stanovništva); ima nepovoljnu demografsku strukturu uz nedovoljno
radnih mjesta u gradovima, što stimulira emigraciju iz zemlje, a ne urbanizaciju.
4
Statistički značaj povećanja broja siromašnih u BiH u određenoj mjeri zavisi od izbora praga siromaštva.
7
Rast za siromašne je bio od koristi putem prihoda od rada, kao i socijalnih transfera. BiH je tokom posljednje
decenije postala ujednačenija zemlja u smislu dobrostanja. Od 2004 – 2011. (period za koji postoje podaci o
domaćinstvima), rashodi domaćinstava iz grupe B40 su porasli za oko pola procenta više nego u grupi B60 (Slika
ES.3). To je odraz snažnog rasta i učinka zapošljavanja u oblastima poput poljoprivrede, prerađivačke industrije i
građevinarstva u periodu prije krize – sektor u kojem se zapošljavaju mnogi iz grupe B40. Razvrstavanje prihoda
po izvoru u periodu 2004 – 2007. ukazuje da trećina sveukupnog rasta prihoda B40 u tom periodu potiče od
povećanja prihoda od rada. Tokom perioda 2004 – 2007. goine, gotovo polovina sveukupnog rasta prihoda grupe
B40 bila je zasnovana na transferima socijalne pomoći – što je predstavljalo značajniji doprinos rastu prihoda nego
rad. Ta mreža sigurnosti ne bi bila moguća bez snažnog ekonomskog rasta u BiH.
Slika ES.3. Siromašni su imali koristi od rasta u BiH
% promjene
4.0
Tabela ES.1. Siromaštvo u BiH je uglavnom ruralno,
2007 – 2011.
2007.
2011.
Promjena
3.0
Državno
14,0
15,0
0,9
2.0
Urbano
8,2
9,2
1,0
Ruralno
17,8
19,0
1,2
FBiH
13,4
15,1
1,8
RS
15,0
14,9
-0,2
BDD
18,8
10,4
-8,4
1.0
Entitet
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
2004-2007
2007-2011
Gornjih
Bottom
40
Top 60
Donjih 40
60
2004-2011
All
Svi
Izvor: Svjetska banka (2014.), podaci iz ankete EHBS
2011.
Izvor: Svjetska banka (2014.), podaci iz ankete EHBS
2011.
Istovremeno, javni transferi su često slabo usmjereni i ne obuhvataju dovoljno siromašnih. Priroda
redistributivne fiskalne politike je neodrživa i često slabo usmjeravana, a od nje bogati imaju gotovo jednake koristi
kao i siromašni. Usmjeravanje socijalnih davanja je neefikasno, pri čemu samo 37 procenata socijalnih davanja ide
za najsiromašnijih 20 procenata stanovništva, a 56 procenata ide grupi B40, što je znatno lošije nego u drugim
zemljama regiona SEE. Istovremeno, preko 12 procenata javne potrošnje na socijalna davanja ide za 20 procenata
najbogatijeg stanovništva. BiH troši oko 4 procenta BDP-a na socijalna davanja koja nisu zasnovana na doprinosima
(najviši nivo u regionu SEE), a manje od 10 procenata socijalnih transfera podliježe imovinskom cenzusu.
Najsiromašnija petina stanovništva dobiva samo 17 procenata naknada koje nisu zasnovane na doprinosima, dok
najbogatijoj petini ide 20 procenata. Kao posljedica, utjecaj socijalnih transfera na smanjenje siromaštva je, stoga,
značajno manji nego što bi mogao biti da je sistem socijalne zaštite efektivniji.
U periodu 2007 - 2011. uslovi za stanovništvo iz grupe 40 su ostali nesigurni. Ipak, u relativnom smislu, grupa
B40 je bolje prošla nego ostatak stanovništva tokom tog teškog perioda; nivo njihove potrošnje je opao za 0,8
procenata u poređenju s padom od 1,1 procent kod bogatijih 60 procenata stanovništva (T60 - gornjih 60
procenata po dohotku).5 U poređenju s tim, siromašni na Kosovu i u Crnoj Gori su još uvijek ostvarivali povećanje
životnog standarda tokom krize, dok je grupa B40 u Srbiji bila pogođena teže od prosjeka. Utjecaj krize na
siromašne u Albaniji je bio sličan kao i u BiH (Slika ES.40). I u BiH, je tokom krize dobar dio podrške dolazio kroz
penzije, a ne socijalnu pomoć. Promjena strukture prihoda po izvoru u periodu 2007 – 2011. pokazuje smanjenje
prihoda od plata i samozaposlenosti kod grupe B40, što je dijelom bilo kompenzovano rastom transfera socijalne
5
Imati na umu da je analiza zajedničkog prosperiteta zasnovana na harmoniziranoj ECAPOV zbirnoj potrošnji.
8
pomoći, a naročito penzija (sveukupno, ne samo za grupu B40). Ipak, grupa T60 je imala čak i veće koristi od
povećanja penzija i socijalnih davanja tokom perioda od 2007. do 2011. nego grupa B40.
Slika ES.4. Zajednički prosperitet na Zapadnom Balkanu
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
2007-2010
Serbia
Srbija
2003-2008
2008-2012
FYR
Albania
BJR
Makedonija Albanija
Macedonia
2007-2011
2006-2011
2006-2011
BiH
BiH
Montenegro
Crna Gora
Kosovo
Kosovo
Growth
rate
the 40
bottom
40 percent
Stopa
rasta
za of
donjih
procenata
2006-2010
EU-CEE
Prosjek
za EU-CEE
average
Growth
rate
the overall
population
Stopa rasta
zaof
ukupno
stanovništvo
Izvor: Domaći Zavodi za statistiku i procjene osoblja Svjetske banke
Stanovništvu iz grupe B40 je bilo teško naći stabilno i kvalitetno zaposlenje koje bi povećalo njihov kapacitet za
ostvarivanje prihoda. B40 često ima brojnije domaćinstvo o kojem treba brinuti, niže obrazovanje i obuku i druge
resurse. Pored toga, stopa zaposlenosti kod B40 je niža, posebno za žene, a nezaposlenost je naročito velika među
mladima. Štaviše, veći je udio onih koji su zaposleni na Slika ES.5. Stabilan rast u prvom desetljeću ovog
privremeno zaposlenje ili rade bez ugovora, a veća je vijeka, stagnacija od krize
vjerovatnoća da su zaposleni u zanimanjima i sektorima koji
18.0%
koriste nekvalifikovanu radnu snagu. Mogućnost nalaska
16.0%
posla je ključna determinanta vjerovatnoće da neko pripada
14.0%
grupi B40.
12.0%
Izolirani otok
Po okončanju rata BiH je više od cijele decenije prolazila
kroz ekonomski oporavak u periodu od 1996. do 2008. Taj
oporavak je imao dvije faze. Prva, neposredno nakon rata
(1996 - 1999.) kad je došlo do skoka sa stopama rasta od
preko 10 procenata godišnje, potaknutim velikim prilivom
pomoći, koja je u prosjeku iznosila 26 procenata BDP-a
godišnje. Poslijeratna povratna migracija je dovela do toga
da je rast BDP-a po stanovniku bio nešto niži od rasta
ukupnog BDP-a. U drugoj fazi (2000 - 2008.), pomoć je pala
9
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
BiH
1996-2000
EU-CEE
2000-08
Izvor: WDI i kalkulacije osoblja
SEE
2008-13
na ispod 10 procenata BDP-a,6 a prosječni godišnji rast po stanovniku je smanjen za 5 procenata, ali je još uvijek
bio u skladu sa prosjekom za region SEE (Slika ES.5).
Tokom poslijeratnog ekonomskog oporavka BiH nije stvorila nove temelje za održiv ekonomski rast. Od početka
prvog desetljeća ovog vijeka BiH se ekonomski oslanja na doznake – koje u prosjeku iznose oko 20 procenata BDPa – za podsticanje rasta potrošnje. Ti su finansijski prilivi bili značajni za poslijeratni oporavak, ali kad su se tokom
globalne finansijske krize rapidno smanjili, strukturalni problemi ekonomije su postali evidentniji. U periodu 2000
- 2008. rast je bio vođen potrošnjom od neizvoznih sektora. Među njima su veleprodaja/maloprodaja, nekretnine
i finansijske usluge činili preko jedne trećine ekonomskog rasta u tom periodu. Čak i danas, potrošnja ostaje na
nivou preko 100 procenata BDP-a. Nasuprot tome, izvoz iznosi samo 30 procenata BDP-a, što je jedan od najnižih
nivoa u Evropi i znak slabe konkurentnosti zemlje.
Kako se BiH borila za oporavak nakon globalne krize, izbili su na površinu temeljni izazovi. BiH ima slab poslovni
ambijent, velike poreze na rad, te nefleksibilne politike tržišta rada, jednu od najlošijih transportnih infrastruktura
u Evropi, veliko urbano zagađenje i veliku osjetljivost na katastrofe. Te barijere otežavaju firmama razvoj i
otvaranje radnih mjesta, čak i u najboljim vremenima. Firme su, tokom krize, bile pod pritiskom i nisu se mogle
prilagoditi novom ekonomskom okruženju. Neizvozni sektori, poput maloprodaje, građevinarstva, usluga su dobro
poslovali od prvog desetljeća ovog vijeka, dajući dvije trećine ekonomskog rasta, dok su izvozni sektori kao što su
prerada i poljoprivreda doprinijeli samo jednoj trećini rasta.
Značajna strukturalna uska grla su otežala međunarodnu konkurentnost. Javni sektor ostaje velik – troši blizu
50 procenata BDP-a – više od nivoa u većini zapadnoevropskih zemalja, ali bez javnih usluga koje bi odgovarale
tom nivou potrošnje. Pored toga, investicije – javne i privatne – su bile pogođene tokom krize, nagovještavajući
utjecaj na budući ekonomski rast. Dio izazova predstavlja nasljeđe neefikasnih preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu,
koja su tek djelomično riješena. Mnoga preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu nikako ne rade, dok su druga „na
aparatima za preživljavanje“. Njihove ogromne neizmirene obaveze, uključujući doprinose za socijalno osiguranje,
otežavaju privatizaciju. Plate i ostali direktni troškovi radne snage (tj. socijalni doprinosi) su u 2013. progutali dvije
trećine bruto dodatne vrijednosti radnika, ostavljajući malo prostora za profit, investicije ili druge poreze. Pored
toga, razlika između bruto i neto plate se posljednjih godina povećala, sve više otežavajući firmama da budu
konkurentne, posebno kako se infrastruktura pogoršava, a tržište nekretnina loše funkcioniše. Tradicionalno
snažan energetski sektor BiH se ne održava dobro, a nanosi mulja u glavnoj luci u zemlji na rijeci Savi
onemogućavaju pristup većim plovilima. U BiH je najlošija poslovna klima u regiji, a stanje je naročito loše u oblasti
lakoće plaćanja poreza, dobivanja priključka na električnu energiju i pribavljanja građevinske dozvole (Slika ES.7).
Nove granice, naročito s Hrvatskom i Srbijom, otežavaju trgovinu. Različite valute, zakoni i propisi, sigurnosni
standardi (npr. u poljoprivredi ili transportu), kao i produžetak vremena potrebnog za prelazak granice, su samo
neki od izazova s kojima se suočavaju BiH izvoznici. U kombinaciji s gubitkom sigurnog tržišta za robe i usluge koje
je BiH ranije pružala cijeloj Jugoslaviji (kao što su energija ili vojna oprema) i psihološkim „efektom granice“, jasno
je da je, iako bivše jugoslovenske republike ostaju značajni partneri, obim trgovine s njima daleko ispod nivoa koji
su ostvarivani u doba Jugoslavije. Dok je BiH prije rata izvozila, kako se procjenjuje, 98 procenata BDP-a, ako se
uključi i trgovina s bivšim jugoslovenskim republikama, danas je ukupni izvoz opao na 31 procent, što je jedan od
najnižih u Evropi (Slika ES. 6).
6
U periodu od 2001-2005. godine pomoć je iznosila 8 procenata BDP-a, a u periodu od 2006 – 2008. godine 4 procenta BDP-a.
10
Slika ES.6. Slab učinak izvoza i loša povezanost …
250.0
Slika ES.7. … i na dnu po Doing Businessu u
jugoistočnoj Evropi
90
MKD (rank 30)
74.1
MNE (rank 36)
72.0
80
200.0
70
60
150.0
50
40
100.0
CRO (rank 65)
66.5
ALB (rank 68)
66.1
KSV (rank 75)
64.8
30
20
50.0
10
IRL
SRB (rank 91)
62.6
SGP
MYS
PAN
MKD
MNE
HRV
ALB
SRB
BIH
0
KSV
0.0
B&H (rank 107)
60.6
Izvoz, kao
% BDP-a
Exports,
% GDP
Indeks globalne povezanosti (0-100, desna
strana)
Gobal connectedness Index (0-100, rhs)
Izvor: WDI, Izvoz roba i usluga, % BDP-a 2012. i DHL, Bodovanje
po globalnoj povezanosti, 0 (=najlošiji) do 100 (=najbolji), 2013.
0
20
40
60
80
Izvor: Izvještaj Poslovanje (Doing Business) 2015.
Napomena: 0=najgori do 100=vodeći u najboljim praksama
Postjugoslovensko ekonomsko okruženje bi zahtijevalo sistematske i ambiciozne reforme za uspostavljanje
potpuno funkcionalne tržišne ekonomije. Rezultat neprovođenja ključnih ekonomskih reformi je da je BiH manje
integrisana sa svojim susjedima i ostatkom svijeta, nego što je potrebno za održivo dobar ekonomski učinak,
naročito obzirom da manje zemlje generalno trebaju snažnije vanjskotrgovinske odnose. Do 2012. BiH je bila
rangirana kao jedna od najslabije povezanih zemalja u regiji. Kako su susjedne zemlje sada dio EU (Hrvatska) ili
napreduju u tom pravcu (Srbija, Crna Gora), troškovi interakcije će se povećati. Ukoliko se reforme ne ubrzaju, BiH
rizikuje da postane izolirani otok bez izlaza na more, okružen članicama EU. Povećava se i rizik da će čak i veći
ekonomski zidovi izolirati BiH, kako EU zahtjevi budu nametali više standarde (npr. u poljoprivredi ) i unapređenje
graničnih i inspekcijskih sistema za trgovinu s EU.
Približavanje prosječnom evropskom životnom standardu i dalje izmiče. S današnjim prihodom po stanovniku
od oko 4.700 USD, BiH bi trebalo dva desetljeća snažnog rasta da dostigne status zemlje s visokim prihodom. Ako
bi se ponovio učinak iz perioda od 2000. do 2008. kada je rast prihoda po stanovniku bio u prosjeku 5,1 procenata,
BiH bi postala zemlja s visokim prihodom, 12.500 USD po stanovniku, u 2033.
Politička ekonomija reforme
BiH je izabrala razvojni put koji je doveo do velike socijalne, ekonomske i institucionalne neuravnoteženosti.
Politike i podsticaji su takvi da idu u korist javnom sektoru i uvozno orijentisanim sektorima (obično onim vezanim
za potrošnju) na uštrb privatnog sektora i izvozno orijentisanih sektora (Slika ES.8). Rezultat toga su ekonomska
stagnacija, emigracija i masovna nezaposlenost i nedovoljna zaposlenost.
11
Slika ES.8. Sadašnji model: Neuravnotežena ekonomija
Slika 9: Uspostavljanje ravnoteže u pravcu proizvodnje i
integracije
Politike i
podsticaji
Politike i
podsticaji
Privatni sektor
Javni sektor
Investicije
Potrošnja
Izvoz
Uvoz
Izvor: Tim za SCD za BiH
Slaba vladavina i prevelik javni sektor, dijelom rezultat institucionalne strukture, smanjuju djelotvornost javne
politike i onemogućavaju reforme. BiH ima loš učinak u brojnim aspektima vladavine, korupciji i institucionalnim
indikatorima. Bertelsmannov indeks transformacije (BTI) ukazuje na slabljenje učinka u statusu demokratije i
učinku ekonomskog upravljanja između 2006. i 2013., dok Rangiranje po globalnom integritetu (GIS) navodi pad u
oblastima odgovornosti izvršnih organa, zakonodavnoj odgovornosti, pravosudnoj odgovornosti i budžetskom
procesu između 2007. i 2011. I pored toga, javni sektor kontroliše preko polovine ekonomije. GIS navodi da je velik
javni sektor dobar u donošenju zakona, ali ih često ne uspijeva djelotvorno primjenjivati.
Građani i privredni subjekti se suočavaju s nefleksibilnim pravnim sistemom i značajnom korupcijom. Privredni
subjekti se suočavaju s velikim kašnjenjima u obradi predmeta, čije je trajanje gotovo dvostruko duže od prosjeka
za Vijeće Evrope i skoro tri puta duže od prosjeka EU i EU-CEE. Ta su kašnjenja zabilježena i u Izvještaju o poslovanju
(Doing Business), gdje je BiH za 2015., po lakoći izvršenja ugovora, rangirana na 95. mjestu od 189 ekonomija.
Organizacija Transparency International rangira BiH kao jednu od najkorumpiranijih zemlja u Evropi (73. od 175
zemalja u svijetu). Oko 10 procenata firmi navodi da su u prethodnoj godini morali podmititi javne zvaničnike,
između jedne i dvije trećine građana vjeruje da je veza neophodna da bi se dobio posao, da bi se upisalo u školu
ili dobilo službene isprave.
Da bi BiH dostigla nivo zemlje s visokim prihodom morala bi „okrenuti list“ i temeljno preokrenuti svoj društveni
i ekonomski model. Prosperitetna BiH bi se mogla ostvariti stvaranjem većeg, življeg i međunarodno
konkurentnijeg privatnog sektora, koji bi dao nove podsticaje za mlade da ostanu u BiH ili za dijasporu da se vrati
ili investira u izvozno orijentisane sektore. Kako je domaće tržište zasićeno, jedan od ključnih faktora za veći rast i
otvaranje radnih mjesta je proizvodnja roba i pružanje usluga za izvoz van teritorije zemlje (Slika ES.9).
Dilema slabih dobitnika i jakih gubitnika. Dobitnici u reformi će biti siromašne mase, čiji se glas često ne čuje,
koje će ostvariti koristi tek nakon nekoliko godina. Za razliku od toga, potencijalni gubitnici će biti mala grupa
osoba, koje se lako mogu identifkovati i koje imaju veliku mogućnost da utječu na reforme. Dominantni državni
sektor daje mnoge prilike za ostvarivanje i dijeljenje koristi. Reformske aktivnosti su još više otežane
fragmentiranim političkim sistemom, gdje dva entiteta, koja se ponekad ponašaju antagonistički, imaju utjecaj na
ključne ekonomske odluke. Na nižim nivoima vlasti, kantoni imaju značajne ovlasti, naročito u zdravstvenom
sektoru. Siromašni i ugroženi su ostavljeni izvan sistema, a oko polovine stanovništva se može smatrati, po nekim
mjerilima, u riziku od socijalne isključenosti. Romi, mladi i djeca su naročito u riziku i bez očitih vođa. Biće potrebna
12
značajna poboljšanja sistema vladavine i standarda u BiH, da bi se zemlja vratila na put smanjenja siromaštva i
ostvarivanja zajedničkog prosperiteta.
Prioriteti za BiH: Usklađivanje podsticaja za zajednički prosperitet i održiv razvoj
Najveći prioritet za BiH je ubrzanje rasta na inkluzivan način. Iskustvo od raspada Jugoslavije i druga iskustva
ukazuju da je lakše podijeliti nešto kad raste, nego redistribuirati kad stagnira, naročito u zemlji s jakim regionalnim
identitetom. Ranije je ekonomski rast bio ključni faktor za smanjenje siromaštva i povećanje životnog standarda
za grupu B40. Anketni podaci pokazuju da je tokom godina pozitivnog rasta grupa B40 bilježila brži rast potrošnje
nego T60. Pored toga, sadašnji razvojni model, fokusiran na potrošnju vođenu doznakama i javnim sektorom,
dostigao je svoje granice. Jačanje proizvodnje kao faktora rasta i smanjenje relativne veličine javnog sektora, uz
održavanje nivoa potrošnje, biće gotovo nemogući bez ekonomskog rasta.
Grupe u riziku od socijalne isključenosti se suočavaju s istim izazovima kao i ostatak stanovništva. Podaci o
domaćinstvima pokazuju da se neki od glavnih problema s kojima se suočavaju siromašni i B40 odnose na
zapošljavanje. Žene, mladi i Romi imaju naročito niske stope zaposlenosti i visoke stope nezaposlenosti. Slično
tome, konsultacije obavljene za ovaj SCD, otkrivaju da mladi, penzioneri, Romi i LGBT zajednica navode, pored
pitanja (ne)zaposlenosti, i izazove vezane za poslovni ambijent i korupciju.
Iako grupa B40 ima koristi od rasta i suočava se sa sličnim izazovima kao i ostatak stanovništva, siromašni i
ugroženi imaju i brojne specifične potrebe. Siromašnije grupe, koje su često isključene s tržišta rada, naročito iz
zvanične zaposlenosti, zbog većeg poreskog opterećenja rada i nefleksibilnog radnog zakonodavstva, imale bi više
koristi od poreskih reformi i reformi tržišta rada, nego bogatije grupe, posebno ako bi se smanjili porezi/socijalni
doprinosi za one koji zarađuju manje. Potrebna je i određena ciljana pomoć, da bi se osigurala socijalna inkluzija,
naročito zbog velikog nivoa siromaštva među djecom, u cilju smanjenja međugeneracijskog prenosa siromaštva,
te među Romima, koji se mogu suočavati s diskriminacijom u nekim oblastima, kao što su obrazovanje i
zapošljavanje.
Postojeći razvojni model BiH je dugoročno neodrživ, naročito obzirom da je zemlja izložena brojnim rizicima. U
proteklim godinama BiH se suočila s teškim vremenskim nepogodama, nasilnim protestima i ekonomijom bez
fiskalnih amortizera, koji bi ublažili buduće krize. BiH je posebno osjetljiva na prirodne nepogode, naročito suše i
poplave. Gubici i štete od poplava iz 2014. su zemlju koštali blizu 15 procenata BDP-a, pogodivši bukvalno sve
aspekte njene ekonomije i firme u mnogim sektorima. Mnoga domaćinstva su osjetljiva na vremenske nepogode,
naročito ona koje se bave poljoprivredom, u kojoj je posao našao svaki peti radnik, uključujući i one koji proizvode
za vlastitu potrošnju.
Ovaj SCD je razvio metodologiju utvrđivanja prioriteta, da bi se identifikovali najznačajniji prioriteti za BiH koji
mogu doprinijeti ostvarivanju dvostrukog cilja smanjenja siromaštva i ostvarivanja zajedničkog prosperiteta u
BiH. Metodologija uključuje kvalitativne i kvantitativne dimenzije i ispitana je tokom procesa konsultacije.
Provedeno je i nekoliko provjera stabilnosti. Proces utvrđivanja prioriteta je urađen kroz četiri koraka (za više
informacija o detaljnom pregledu i procesu utvrđivanja prioriteta i metodologiji pogledati Odjeljak 6 u glavnom
dokumentu i Aneks XV):
13

Prvi korak: Članovi tima su identifikovali niz od sedam početnih pretpostavki, donesenih da bi se pomoglo
boljem razumijevanju ključnih pitanja. Članovi tima su potom testirali te pretpostavke na osnovu opsežnih
konsultacija i dublje analize.

Drugi korak: Na osnovu dublje analize – prikazane u ovom Izvještaju – i opsežnih konsultacija članovi tima
su identifikovali teme koje utiru put formulaciji reformskih oblasti.

Treći korak: Članovi tima su koristili dvije komplementarne metodologije za identifikaciju najznačajnijih
prioritetnih reformskih oblasti. To uključuje kvalitativni metod i jedan kvantitativni metod u kojima su
reformske oblasti rangirane po dimenzijama ekonomskog rasta, inkluziji i održivosti, da bi se klasifikovale
kao najveći prioriteti, visoki prioriteti i srednji prioriteti.

Četvrti korak: Članovi tima su uporedili rezultate različitih metodologija, razmatrali ih s internim
stručnjacima za BiH (koji nemaju direktan interes za rezultate nalaza SCD-a) i identifikovali prioritetne
reformske oblasti i prioritete drugog reda.
Rezultat ove aktivnosti izbora prioriteta je deset prioriteta za BiH, od kojih se četiri najveća prioriteta fokusiraju
na uravnoteženje ekonomije, da bi se stvaralo i održavalo više radnih mjesta i da se osigura da ta radna mjesta
budu bolja. Provođenje tih reformi bi preusmjerilo podsticaje i politike na privatni sektor sa specifičnim fokusom
na uspješne međunarodne integracije. Drugu grupu čine tri prioriteta koji bi ubrzali društveni i ekonomski razvoj
BiH, nakon što se „ekonomski voz“ stavi na pravi kolosijek, da bi reforme bile održive. I zadnja grupa od tri
prioriteta se tiče dugoročnih investicija u socijalni sektor i unapređenja za isključene grupe, za koje veći rast i više
prilika za zapošljavanje neće biti dovoljni (Okvir ES.2).
Za uspješan preokret ekonomije BiH biće potrebne fokusirane reformske aktivnosti. Unutar šireg konteksta
prevelikog javnog sektora, nefleksibilnog tržišta rada i slabe konkurentnosti, lista prioritetnih reformi prikazana u
narednom dijelu teksta bi pomogla reaktiviranju ekonomije BiH i unapređenju pružanja usluga na održiv način, uz
naročite koristi za B40. Te su reforme neophodne za ekonomsku, okolišnu i socijalnu stabilnost, putem postizanja
bolje uključenosti, povećanja konkurentnosti i omogućavanja stvaranja fiskalnih rezervi za ublažavanje šokova
kojima je BiH sklona.
Okvir ES.2. Prioriteti za BiH: Uravnoteženje podsticaja za zajednički prosperitet i održivi razvoj
Najveći prioriteti – Ubrzanje rasta i otvaranje radnih mjesta
Vraćanje BiH na posao: reforma tržišta rada, unapređenje pružanja socijalne zaštite i smanjenje troškova rada
Obrazloženje: Pravila tržišta rada i poreski sistem podstiču u BiH ekonomiju vođenu potrošnjom, štiteći 'insajdere'
na štetu mladih i socijalno isključenih, žena i Roma. Poreski sistem obeshrabruje (zvanično) zapošljavanje – naročito
slabije plaćenih – i proizvodnju za izvoz, a podstiče potrošnju i uvoz. Pored toga, vezivanje zdravstvenog osiguranja i
prijavljivanja na službama za zapošljavanje demotiviše (zvanično) zapošljavanje i povećava budžetske troškove.
Pravila tržišta rada takođe otežavaju preduzećima prilagođavanje na promjenu ekonomskih uslova, što znači da ona
prvenstveno ne zapošljavaju.
Olakšanje poslovanja: unapređenje konkurentnosti, preduzetništva i investicione klime
Obrazloženje: BiH je jedno od najlošijih mjesta za poslovanje u regiji Evrope i centralne Azije (ECA). Investitori nemaju
povjerenje u institucije i uglavnom se upuštaju u investicije koje su isplative u kratkom roku (npr. građevinarstvo,
usluge). Nasuprot tome, investicije u poljoprivredno-prerađivački sektor, preradu ili turizam trebaju stabilnu
investicionu klimu s dugoročnom perspektivom. Osnovne potrebe za poslovanje, kao što su izgradnja novih objekata,
sticanje vlasništva nad zemljištem i/ili pribavljanje prava pristupa, dobijanje priključka na električnu energiju, uvoz i
izvoz, te plaćanje poreza, su još uvijek preteški. To je i razlog zašto je preduzetništvo još uvijek slabo, uključujući i u
uslužnom sektoru i pokretanju firmi u oblasti informatičkih tehnologija, gdje bi BiH mogla ostvariti uspjeh.
Stvaranje efikasne i djelotvorne vlade: smanjenje veličine javnog sektora uz osiguranje fiskalne održivosti i
unapređenje pružanja usluga
Obrazloženje: Uz rashode od blizu polovine BDP-a i preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu koja povećavaju vladinu
kontrolu nad ekonomijom, BiH ima jedan od najvećih javnih sektora na svijetu. Njegova veličina vjerovatno šteti
ekonomskom rastu i zapošljavanju, a naročito utječe na perspektive za grupu B40. Većina javnih rashoda je
neefikasna, ne dopire do ljudi ili investicionih oblasti kojima je najpotrebnija. Postojeća situacija pogoduje prilikama
za slabu vladavinu.
14
Ulaganje u ekonomsku infrastrukturu za rast i inkluziju: osnaživanje i uvezivanje BiH sa svijetom
Obrazloženje: Postojeće stanje infrastrukturnih usluga je loše i prisutan je rizik od značajnog pogoršanja. Unapređenje
transportne i informaciono-komunikacione infrastrukture bi izvoznicima olakšalo pristup tržištima i povećalo
zaposlenost. Pomoglo bi i unapređenju ruralne povezanosti i povećanju tržišne proizvodnje, jačajući zajednički
prosperitet kroz poboljšanje kvaliteta života u ruralnim područjima, gdje žive mnogi iz grupe B40. Razuman
sveukupan energetski učinak BiH skriva jednu od energetski najneefikasnijih ekonomija u Evropi i ekonomija s
najvećom emisijom ugljenika, što je štetno po konkurentnost firmi i doprinosi velikom urbanom zagađenju, dok se
istovremeno gube glavne izvozne prilike.
Visoki prioriteti – Osiguranje otporne i dugoročne budućnosti
Izgradnja otpornosti: pomaganje BiH da se nosi s vremenskim neprilikama
Obrazloženje: BiH je veoma osjetljiva na vremenske neprilike, kao što su poplave, od kojih su neke rezultat klimatskih
promjena ili degradacije životne sredine. Jačanje njene otpornosti će pomoći na smanjenju socijalnih i ekonomskih
posljedica takvih nepogoda, a naročito će pomoći B40, od kojih neki još uvijek žive dijelom od poljoprivrede.
Povećanje znanja: unapređenje obrazovnih usluga i vještina za tržište rada
Obrazloženje: Obrazovanje je blisko povezano sa siromaštvom. Neke grupe su naročito pogođene, uključujući B40 i
Rome. BiH zaostaje po obrazovanju u ranom djetinjstvu, što dovodi do rizika od međugeneracijskog prenosa
siromaštva, a standardi kvaliteta u srednjem i visokom obrazovanju nisu ujednačeni. Postoje značajne nepokrivene
oblasti u znanju koje trebaju biti popunjene, uključujući i identifikovanje potreba privatnog sektora, s čim bi trebalo
početi što prije.
Življenje zdravim životom: unapređenje zdravstvenih usluga i pristup vodosnabdijevanju i kanalizaciji
Obrazloženje: Bez obzira na razumnu očekivanu dužinu života, zdravstveni ishodi su loši, naročito kada su u pitanju
nezarazne bolesti, što je dijelom rezultat velike upotrebe duhana. Zdravstveni ishodi su lošiji kod siromašnih, a preko
polovine Roma se smatra neuhranjenima. Prisutno je veliko rasipanje novca kod nabavke lijekove, što daje prostora
za budžetske uštede. Siromašni koji žive u ruralnim područjima takođe imaju lošiji pristup vodosnabdijevanju i
kanalizaciji, zbog čega su mnogi prisiljeni koristiti skupa privatna postrojenja.
Srednji prioriteti – Osiguranje stabilnih i održivih ekonomskih prilika
Povećanje finansijske moći: održavanje finansijske stabilnosti i poboljšanje pristupa finansiranju
Obrazloženje: Iako je stabilnost finansijskog sektora u širem smislu očuvana, javljaju se novi rizici, uključujući
nenaplative kredite (NPL). Finansijska ograničenja onemogućavaju rast firmi. Rješavanje NPL-ova može pomoći da se
oslobode dodatna sredstva za kredite. Pristup finansiranju bi se mogao poboljšati za neke grupe koje se sada
suočavaju s rizikom od isključivanja. Iako se bankarski sistem – u kojem dominiraju banke u stranom vlasništvu – čini
u širem smislu zdravim, među bankama postoje značajne tačke osjetljivosti. Brojne manje banke se bore sa
zadovoljavanjem zahtjeva za kapitalom, pri čemu se neke suočavaju s velikom koncentracijom rizika i u velikoj mjeri
oslanjaju na javni sektor. Štaviše, postoje značajni nedostaci u mreži finansijske sigurnosti, uključujući i nedostatke
koji se odnose na ovlasti za rješavanje problematičnih banaka, institucionalnu odgovornost za rješavanje i
finansiranje rješavanja.
Čišćenje BiH: smanjenje zagađenja i zaštita okoliša
Obrazloženje: BiH rasipa dosta svojih resursa, a zagađenje zraka ostaje glavni izazov, naročito u gradovima, zbog
korištenja tradicionalnih načina grijanja tokom zime. To doprinosi i većem broju respiratornih oboljenja u BiH, a
međunarodni dokazi ukazuju da je veća vjerovatnoća da to opterećuje siromašne. Pored toga, velike količine čvrstog
otpada i otpadnih voda zagađuju vodotoke i prirodu u BiH. To nameće zabrinutost za zdravlje i direktno, ali i
indirektno putem zagađenja vode za piće i poljoprivrednih proizvoda, naročito za vrijeme poplava.
Jačanje poljoprivrede: povećanje poljoprivredne produktivnosti i mogućnosti za bavljenje poljoprivredom
15
Obrazloženje: Većina siromašnih živi u ruralnim područjima, stope ruralnog siromaštva su veće od urbanog, a veća je
vjerovatnoća da u poljoprivredi rade siromašni nego bogatiji. Unapređenje poljoprivredne produktivnosti bi
poboljšalo njihov život. Poljoprivreda bi dobila podršku i kroz reformu tržišta zemljištem i unapređenja ruralne
transportne mreže.
Put BiH prema prosperitetu će se otvoriti većim rastom i boljim uslugama, koje će biti podstaknute boljom
vladavinom i povećanjem udjela privatnog sektora u ekonomiji. Nasilni raspad Jugoslavije je skrenuo zemlju s
puta prosperiteta. Nakon određenog napretka u deceniji nakon rata, zemlja je u riziku od trajne stagnacije ako ne
počne rješavati osnovne uzroke postojeće socijalne, ekonomske i institucionalne stagnacije. Od ključnog značaja
će biti prelazak s ekonomskog modela okrenutog prema unutra na model usmjeren na ekonomske integracije, u
kombinaciji sa strategijom otvaranja radnih mjesta koja omogućavaju iskorištavanje prednosti privatnog sektora.
Ako nova vlada provede te reforme, BiH se takođe može pridružiti grupi evropskih zemalja u razvoju, koje su već
ostvarile značajan napredak na smanjenju siromaštva i ostvarivanju zajedničkog prosperiteta za sve svoje građane.
16