Rating and value of the global competitiveness index. World Competitiveness Index (IMD). Methodology for creating the Global Competitiveness Index

The competitiveness rankings are based on a combination of publicly available statistics and results from the CEO Survey, an extensive annual study conducted by the World Economic Forum in conjunction with a network of partner organizations - leading research institutions and companies in the countries analyzed in the report. This year, more than 14,000 business leaders were surveyed in 144 states. The questionnaire was designed to cover a wide range of factors influencing the business climate. The report also includes a detailed overview of countries' competitive strengths and weaknesses, enabling the identification of priority areas for the formulation of economic development policies and key reforms.

The WEF report presents two indices on the basis of which country ratings are compiled: (Global Competitiveness Index, GCI) and Business Competitiveness Index, BCI. The main means of generalized assessment of the competitiveness of countries is Global Competitiveness Index(GCI), created for the World Economic Forum by Columbia University professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin (Columbia University) and first published in 2004. The GCI is made up of 12 competitiveness components that characterize in detail the competitiveness of countries around the world at different levels of economic development. These components are: “Quality of institutions”, “Infrastructure”, “Macroeconomic stability”, “Health and primary education”, “Higher education and vocational training”, “Efficiency of the market for goods and services”, “Efficiency of the labor market”, “Development of financial market", "Technological level", "Domestic market size", "Competitiveness of companies" and "Innovation potential".

For each of the 144 economies covered in the study, the report contains detailed profiles of the country and national economy, detailing the overall ranking position and the most prominent competitive strengths and weaknesses that were identified based on the analysis used to calculate the index. Also included is a detailed statistical section with ranking tables for 110 different indicators. This year, the report includes thematic sections devoted to a more detailed study of a number of countries and regions.

The 2012–2013 global competitiveness ranking was topped by Switzerland, which has been ranked first for the fourth year in a row. Second and third places are occupied by Singapore and Finland, respectively. The countries of Northern and Western Europe continue to dominate the top ten of the list: Sweden (4th place), the Netherlands (5th), and Germany (6th) occupy the top positions.

The United States ranks 7th. Despite improvements in overall competitiveness, the United States continued to fall in the rankings for the fourth year in a row, slipping two places to seventh position. In addition to growing macroeconomic vulnerabilities, certain aspects of the country's institutional environment continue to cause growing concern among business leaders, in particular, the level of public trust in politicians remains low, and the effectiveness of the state is also not high enough. The positive factor is that the country still remains a global innovation center and its markets operate efficiently.

Next come the UK (8th place) and Hong Kong (9th). Japan, which rounds out the top ten most competitive economies, remains Asia's second-ranked economy despite a noticeable decline in its position in recent years.

The study shows that the competitiveness gap among European countries continues to widen. While Northern and Western European countries have strengthened their traditionally strong competitive positions since the economic crisis of 2008–2009, Southern European countries such as Portugal (49th), Spain (36th), Italy (42nd) and especially Greece (96th), continue to suffer from competitive disadvantages such as macroeconomic instability, poor access to finance, inflexible labor markets and a lack of innovation.

In the Middle East and North Africa region, the leaders are Qatar (11th place) and Saudi Arabia (18th). The United Arab Emirates (24th place) improved its performance, while Kuwait (37th place) fell slightly in the ranking.

Among sub-Saharan African countries, South Africa (52nd) and Mauritius (54th) appear in the top half of the ranking. However, most countries in the region require further external assistance to strengthen their economic development and competitiveness.

Among Latin American countries, Chile holds the lead (33rd place), and the competitiveness of a number of economies is also increasing, including Panama (40th place), Brazil (48th place), Mexico (53rd place) and Peru (61st place).

Large emerging market economies of the BRIC countries show different indicators. Despite a slight decline in the ranking by three positions, China (29th place) continues to lead the group. Brazil (48th place) moved up in the ranking this year, while India (59th) and Russia (67th) slightly decreased their positions.

Russia this year lost one position in the ranking and dropped to 67th place. Russia's neighbors on the list this time were Iran (66th place) and Sri Lanka (68th). The report notes that compared to the previous year, Russia's relatively stable position has worsened in terms of such components as the quality of institutions, competition in the markets for goods and services, antimonopoly policy and the development of the financial market. There was an improvement in only two components: the macroeconomic environment and infrastructure. As last year, business representatives cite corruption and inefficiency of the state apparatus, as well as high tax rates, as the key problems for economic development in Russia. However, this year the importance of problems with the availability of financing and labor qualifications has increased significantly. All these problems prevent Russia from taking advantage of its competitive advantages, such as a relatively low level of public debt and budget deficit, a significant size of the domestic market, a relatively high innovative potential and high-quality higher education.

Among the countries of the former USSR, Russia missed out on Estonia (34th place), Lithuania (45th), Azerbaijan (46th), Kazakhstan (51st), which improved its position by 21 points, and Latvia (55th). The remaining states of the post-Soviet space are ranked lower: Ukraine (73rd place), Georgia (77th), Armenia (82nd), Moldova (87th), Tajikistan (100th) and Kyrgyzstan (127th). Belarus is not included in the WEF ranking.

Comments Klaus Schwab, founder and chief executive of the World Economic Forum: “Persistent differences in competitiveness across and within regions of the world, particularly in Europe, lie at the heart of the instability we are experiencing today and it is threatening our future prosperity. We urge governments to act decisively and take long-term measures to strengthen competitiveness and return the world to a path of sustainable development."

Xavier Sala-i-Martin, professor of economics at Columbia University in the USA and co-author of the report, comments: “ Global Competitiveness Index provides insight into long-term trends that shape the competitiveness of national economies. From this perspective, the report can provide useful insights into the key areas countries need to act on to optimize the productivity that will shape their economic future.”

(reference)

The Global Competitiveness index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been published annually since 2004 (before that, a corresponding WEF report had been published since 1979) and is currently the most authoritative comprehensive study in this area .

The index is based on IZ variables that characterize in detail the competitiveness of countries around the world at different levels of economic development. The set of variables is 2/3 compiled based on the results of a survey of company executives in the analyzed countries and 1/3 based on open sources (statistical data, results of studies carried out on a regular basis by international organizations - partners of the WEF). All variables are combined into 12 benchmarks that measure national competitiveness. These include: quality of government institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, health and primary education, higher education and vocational training, efficiency of the market for goods and services, efficiency of the labor market, financial market development, level of technological development, size of the domestic market, competitiveness of companies, innovation potential.

The choice of these particular variables is determined by theoretical and empirical research, and WEF experts proceed from the fact that no single factor can alone ensure competitiveness. The most competitive countries are those whose governments pursue comprehensive policies that take into account the entire range of factors and the relationships between them. Factors that have a negative impact on the state of the economy include, for example, ineffective management of public finances, high inflation, etc. A reliable system for protecting private and intellectual property rights, a developed judicial system and other measures can have a positive effect. Along with institutional factors, education and the opportunity to improve the skills of the workforce and access to new knowledge and technologies can be decisive.

For each of the countries covered in the study, the report contains a detailed description with detailed conclusions about their position in the overall ranking, as well as the most outstanding competitive advantages and identified weaknesses. An integral part of the review is a detailed statistical section with rating tables for various indicators.

When compiling the index, WEF experts take into account the fact that states are at different stages of their development. Thus, the values ​​of individual factors of competitiveness growth are adapted to the current state of the economy of a particular country.

It is intended that the Index can be used by governments as a tool for analyzing problematic issues in economic policy and developing strategies to achieve sustainable growth.

When preparing the 2016 rating, more than 14 thousand company executives from 138 countries were surveyed. As a main message, the mentioned report states that in conditions of weak growth rates of the world economy, turbulence in monetary and financial markets, geopolitical tensions and high levels of sovereign debt in developing countries, it is necessary at the national and international levels to focus on finding new factors for economic growth and competitiveness . At the same time, although the importance of the basic drivers of the economy - infrastructure, healthcare, education, as well as market regulation remains, stimulating the growth of the WEF

connects with the so-called “fourth industrial revolution”, the development of innovation and the ability of states to use new technologies to gain competitive advantages.

In 2016-2017, for the eighth year in a row, the status of the most attractive country in the world for the development of production and business was assigned to Switzerland. Singapore took second place in the competitiveness index. The United States was again awarded third position, despite the slowdown in the development of American industrial production. However, according to the WEF, Washington should not “rest on its laurels.” To stimulate high rates of economic growth and further development of the labor market, the “monetary” efforts of the Federal Reserve alone are no longer enough; it is necessary to launch a set of reforms to develop infrastructure, increase the efficiency of market mechanisms, and also those related to the sphere of innovation.

The top ten also included the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, Japan, Hong Kong and Finland. Greece is named the least competitive EU country (86th place, in 2015 - 81st).

Of the BRICS countries, the highest place - 28th - is occupied by China (no changes over the past 2 years). The gap is rapidly closing in India (39th place, in 2015 - 55th), which is explained by the active reform policy of the Indian government under the leadership of Prime Minister N. Modi. South Africa has made slight progress - 47th place (in 2015 - 49th). Brazil's rating, on the contrary, is going down - 81st place (in 2015 - 75th).

It is noted that Russia has increased its competitiveness by 2 positions - 43rd place out of 138 countries (third position among the BRICS, first place in the EAEU). The positive dynamics continue for the fifth year in a row. The WEF explains this by strengthening the fundamental factors of competitiveness, including the quality of education, strengthening innovative potential and improving the business climate, as well as improving a number of macroeconomic indicators, in particular, public debt. At the same time, it is indicated that Russia remains under the influence of a sharp drop in commodity prices (but to a lesser extent than other EAEU countries). This affects the reduction of budget revenues and the persistence of high inflation. It is emphasized that the Russian financial sector is experiencing serious difficulties, primarily due to current restrictions on access to international credit resources. Along with external factors, the lack of structural reforms, corruption, problems in the field of tax regulation, and insufficiently effective public administration have a negative impact.

States all over the world are trying to gain recognition not only of their people, but also to take over the first lines of various ratings. Every country tries to be the best at one thing or everything at once. Powers are recognized as the most cultural, most democratic, economically developed, peaceful or powerful. The state will not be able to succeed everywhere. Nevertheless, there are also such powers that fight for primacy in everything.

From the whole variety of honorary awards, you can choose first place in another ranking, which depends on the global competitiveness index. We'll talk about this in more detail later.

Economics is not an easy thing

Most countries in the world have their own strategic goals. But there are those that every power tries to fulfill. It is important for the state to ensure economic growth. This also includes the struggle for the well-being of every citizen.

This strategy involves not only the authorities’ efforts to improve living standards, but also defines additional requirements for managing socio-economic development. Some states have chosen the path through innovative technologies. As the experience of international relations has shown, it was thanks to this strategy that the “economic miracle” countries were able to improve their financial growth. It turns out that the global competitiveness index is influenced by the stimulation of innovation.

But such an economic model is beyond the control of all states. There are also those who still cannot establish an effective strategy for the development of innovation. These include not only the Russian Federation, but also the rest

Something needs to be done

Entrepreneurial activity is the driving force in the development of competitiveness. Of course, along with it there are many factors, however, it is thanks to entrepreneurship that it is possible to influence innovative technologies. In turn, this type of activity is subject to many indicators that reflect the economic policy of the country and the position of government institutions.

Who's in charge?

In 1971, the World Economic Forum (WEF) was created. This organization is known for annually gathering heads of state in Davos. In addition to leaders, business leaders and journalists come here. For 45 years now, the forum has been discussing issues related not only to the economy, but also to other pressing global problems: environmental protection and healthcare.

It is worth noting that this is a Swiss organization, founded by Professor Klaus Schwab. At the moment, he is also the permanent leader. There is also a permanent executive body - the Board of Directors. About 1,000 companies and organizations around the world have membership in the EEF.

The World Economic Forum is not just for discussion. Another of his tasks remains the study of the spheres of politics and economics. In 1979, an annual report on global competition was introduced. It assessed more than a hundred countries around the world based on two criteria: potential growth index and competitiveness.

Expert analytical research

Previously, it only released reports. But already in 2004, it created a direct rating of states, which was based on the index. This indicator assesses the country's ability to ensure a high level of well-being for its citizens. The efficiency of using internal resources, maintaining living standards, labor productivity and quality of services were also taken into account.

WEF objectives

Before calculating the global competitiveness index, experts must analyze publicly available statistical information and the results of a global survey of company heads.

According to the organization's definition, national competitiveness is the ability of a power and its institutions to influence the stable growth of the economy. Researchers have found a connection between the level of competitiveness and the well-being of citizens. The higher the first indicator, the more positive the second.

Index Purpose

The idea of ​​the forum is that the state needs to use the research results. This assessment allows us to understand that the country must strive to eliminate difficulties on the path to improving economic development and competitiveness. The index is a tool for studying problematic sectors of economic policy and developing strategies to improve the policy model.

Influence

Representatives of the WEF argue that to determine competitiveness, attention must be paid to numerous and diverse factors. Obviously, the impact on the economy can be negative for a number of reasons: this includes unproductive regulation of the country’s budget and high inflation rates.

In turn, there are also factors that have a positive impact on the economy: ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights, a progressive judicial system, and balanced political decisions.

Not only institutional factors can affect the financial system. There is also training and retraining of working personnel, the possibility of round-the-clock education and technological development. All factors can influence a particular economic system in different ways.

Components

It is known that in the analysis the WEF global competitiveness index is combined with the business competitiveness index. The decisive word lies with the first indicator. By the way, this index was created by the scientist Xavier Sala i Martin, who teaches at He was the one who developed this assessment for the World Economic Community.

So, to determine the score, you need to look at 113 variables. Some of these factors are formed thanks to global surveys, some consist of statistical data and research results. All 113 variables are divided into 12 categories. They were selected due to empirical and theoretical research.

But it is worth noting that none of these variables can independently produce a state. In addition, all factors are interconnected. The productivity of the market for goods and services depends on the qualifications and professionalism of the workforce.

To control macroeconomic consistency, it is necessary to effectively manage the country's budget, curb corruption and ensure transparency of the economic system. Entrepreneurs can organize new technologies only if the profits received exceed investment costs.

Thus, it is clear that the countries that top the Global Competitiveness Index are those that can pursue comprehensive policies by looking at a range of factors and the interrelationships between them.

What is the difference?

WEF researchers primarily take into account the progress of the economy of a particular power. At the same time, they trace its development at different stages. The interpretation of each variable for a state is related to its initial circumstances or to structural and organizational parameters. These data make it possible to position a power among others through the prism of development.

Scientists are working every day on a calculation methodology so that the global competitiveness index remains an objective and adequate mechanism for monitoring the level of the economy with constant changes in the global environment.

Methodology

So, as mentioned earlier, the study analyzes 113 indicators. They are combined into 12 categories. Only 34 variables were calculated from publicly available statistics. This includes external debt, living standards and other indicators. The rest of the factors relate to a global survey, which includes the opinions of more than 14 thousand company executives.

According to this principle, states are distributed according to stages of economic development. In this case, only GDP per capita is taken into account. Although there are exceptions, for example, for Russia in this case the second criterion is used - the degree of dependence of the country's development on the main factors. This privilege is applicable when the state is dependent on mineral resources.

Stages

As mentioned earlier, you first need to determine the stage of development of the power. There are 5 of them in total: 37 countries’ economies belong to factor development. These include most African states, as well as India, the Kyrgyz Republic, Vietnam, etc.

The second group is a transitional stage from factor development to effective development. There are 16 states in this category: Azerbaijan, Iran, Moldova, Mongolia, etc. The third group includes the second stage of development - effective. There are 30 economies here: Ukraine, China, Serbia, South Africa, Bulgaria, Armenia, etc.

The fourth group is also considered a transitional stage, but from effective to innovative. There are 24 economies in this category: Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Uruguay, Poland, UAE, etc. The last group is the third stage of development. 37 countries are classified as innovative economies: most of them are European, as well as the USA, Australia and New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, etc.

2016 study

The World Economic Forum was already held in 2016. This time the study covered the analysis of 138 countries. competitiveness 2016-2017 again ranked the states. Now every government has a result that it can rely on.

Switzerland remains the leader in this race. She has been ranked first for eight years in a row. After her, Singapore and the USA still remained. Their 2016 global competitiveness index is 5.8 and 5.7 units. These countries are leaders in supplying the world with innovative products and services.

Not even the top ten leaders have changed since last year. After Switzerland, Singapore and the USA, the Netherlands and Germany received an Index of 5.6, Sweden, Great Britain, Japan and Hong Kong received an Index of 5.5, Finland and Norway received an Index of 5.4.

Losing positions

This year's study showed that there are also negative trends. The 2016 Global Competitiveness Index also depends on the impact of other organizations on countries. We are talking about the EU. The efforts of this institution maintain a gap between European powers. The ranking shows that the countries of Northern and Western Europe lead the economic hit parade. But the Southern part suffers from financial decline, which affects the Index's performance. Spain took 32nd place, Italy - 44th, Greece has moved down five positions over the past year and occupies 86th place.

The Middle East and North Africa are still going downhill. Qatar was in 14th place last year and is now in 18th place. Saudi Arabia also lost four positions and is in 29th place. Once again this year, Iraq failed to score on the global competitiveness index. This indicates that the situation in the country is very dire.

Central and Southern Africa also graze the rear. The leaders remain: Mauritius at 45th place, South Africa at 47th and Rwanda at 52nd. All other states that are located in this territory are far behind. Each of them needs external assistance that would strengthen economic development and raise the global competitiveness index.

CIS countries

The Russian Federation, unlike many other powers, managed to rise two steps and took 43rd place. The country's economy is currently in recession, but positive results have been achieved thanks to the efficiency of the domestic market and the reduction of bureaucratic obstacles. There is also progress in education. The country is being dragged down by high inflation and low capital inflows.

Kazakhstan received 53rd place in the global competitiveness index. Compared to last year, this is a very bad result, as the country dropped as much as 11 positions. According to five criteria out of 12, Kazakhstan has noticeably improved, the remaining 7, on the contrary, show regression. There are factors that positively influenced the Global Competitiveness Index 2016. Kazakhstan has made progress in innovative technologies, entrepreneurship, secondary and higher education.

Ukraine showed a negative result. She fell from 79th place to 85th. The country's main problems are considered to be political instability, corruption, inflation, government bureaucracy and high taxes.

Azerbaijan improved its last year result by three steps and took 37th place. Nowadays this state is a leader among the CIS countries. Tajikistan showed a positive result, moving from 80th place to 77th. Armenia also improved by three positions and is in 79th place. But Moldova (100) and Kyrgyzstan (111) significantly worsened their readings. In the first case, the country dropped by as much as 16 positions, and in the second - by 9.

The 2012-2013 global competitiveness ranking was topped by Switzerland, which has been ranked first for the fourth year in a row. Second and third places are occupied by Singapore and Finland, respectively. The countries of Northern and Western Europe continue to dominate the top ten of the list: Sweden (4th place), the Netherlands (5th), and Germany (6th) occupy the top positions.

The United States ranks 7th. Despite improvements in overall competitiveness, the United States continued to fall in the rankings for the fourth year in a row, slipping two places to seventh position. In addition to growing macroeconomic vulnerabilities, certain aspects of the country's institutional environment continue to cause growing concern among business leaders, in particular, the level of public trust in politicians remains low, and the effectiveness of the state is also not high enough. The positive factor is that the country still remains a global innovation center and its markets operate efficiently.

Next come the UK (8th place) and Hong Kong (9th). Japan, which rounds out the top ten most competitive economies, remains Asia's second-ranked economy despite a noticeable decline in its position in recent years.

The study shows that the competitiveness gap among European countries continues to widen. While Northern and Western European countries have strengthened their traditionally strong competitive positions since the economic crisis of 2008-2009, Southern European countries such as Portugal (49th), Spain (36th), Italy (42nd) and especially Greece (96th), continue to suffer from competitive disadvantages such as macroeconomic instability, poor access to finance, inflexible labor markets and a lack of innovation.

In the Middle East and North Africa region, the leaders are Qatar (11th place) and Saudi Arabia (18th). The United Arab Emirates (24th place) improved its performance, while Kuwait (37th place) fell slightly in the ranking.

Among sub-Saharan African countries, South Africa (52nd) and Mauritius (54th) appear in the top half of the ranking. However, most countries in the region require further external assistance to strengthen their economic development and competitiveness.

Among Latin American countries, Chile holds the lead (33rd place), and the competitiveness of a number of economies is also increasing, including Panama (40th place), Brazil (48th place), Mexico (53rd place) and Peru (61st place).

Large emerging market economies of the BRIC countries show different indicators. Despite a slight decrease in the ranking by three positions, China (29th place) continues to lead the group. Brazil (48th place) moved up in the ranking this year, while India (59th) and Russia (67th) slightly decreased their positions.

Russia this year lost one position in the ranking and dropped to 67th place. Russia's neighbors on the list this time were Iran (66th place) and Sri Lanka (68th). It is noted that, compared to the previous year, Russia’s relatively stable position has worsened in terms of such components as the quality of institutions, competition in the markets for goods and services, antimonopoly policy and the development of the financial market. There was an improvement in only two components: the macroeconomic environment and infrastructure. As last year, business representatives cite corruption and inefficiency of the state apparatus, as well as high tax rates, as the key problems for economic development in Russia. However, this year the importance of problems with the availability of financing and labor qualifications has increased significantly. All these problems prevent Russia from taking advantage of its competitive advantages, such as a relatively low level of public debt and budget deficit, a significant volume of the domestic market, a relatively high innovative potential and high-quality higher education.

Among the countries of the former USSR, Russia missed out on Estonia (34th place), Lithuania (45th), Azerbaijan (46th), Kazakhstan (51st), which improved its position by 21 points, and Latvia (55th). The remaining states of the post-Soviet space ranked lower: Ukraine (73rd place), Georgia (77th), Armenia (82nd), Moldova (87th), Tajikistan (100th) and Kyrgyzstan (127th). Belarus is not included in the WEF ranking.

Comments Klaus Schwab, founder and chief executive of the World Economic Forum: “Persistent differences in competitiveness across and within regions of the world, particularly in Europe, are at the heart of the instability we experience today and are threatening our future. prosperity. We urge governments to act decisively and take long-term measures to strengthen competitiveness and return the world to a path of sustainable development."

XavierSala-i-Martin, professor of economics at Columbia University in the USA and co-author of the report, comments: “The Global Competitiveness Index provides insight into the long-term trends that shape the competitiveness of national economies. From this perspective, the report can provide useful insights into the key areas countries need to act on to optimize the productivity that will shape their economic future."

The study of the competitiveness of countries around the world is carried out by the leading European Institute of Management Development (IMD), based in Lausanne, (Switzerland).

By the competitiveness of a country, the Institute of Management understands the ability of the national economy to create and maintain an environment in which competitive business arises. The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook is an annual analytical study of competitiveness that the Institute has conducted since 1989 in collaboration with research organizations around the world.

Today, The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook is one of the most comprehensive studies on the problems of competitiveness of states and regions, which in a number of countries is used to formulate public policy and determine further government actions to increase the competitiveness of the national economy, as well as strategic business decisions in large companies . Each state in the ranking is assessed based on an analysis of 331 criteria according to four main indicators:

• · state of the economy;
• · government efficiency;
• · state of the business environment;
• · state of infrastructure.

Each indicator has equal weight and includes five factors. Thus, the aggregate rating of the competitiveness of states is based on 20 different indicators from four key aspects of the country’s economic life. The calculation uses data from international organizations, including the UN, WTO, ILO, OECD, IMF, World Bank and others, as well as 57 partner institutions around the world. The rating is carried out on the basis of the inverse ratio: two thirds - statistical data and one third - expert assessments. The business climate in the countries covered by the study is assessed based on the opinions of analysts, surveys of executives of large corporations and specialists.

According to the recent ranking of the World Economic Forum (WEF) for 2011-2012, the country ranks 66th out of 142. Russia found itself behind not only developed, but also many developing countries - in particular, other BRIC members. Since 2005, when the methodology for calculating the WEF Global Competitiveness Index has changed significantly, Russia, which was in third place among the BRIC countries after India and China, has worsened its position in relation to Brazil and moved to last position. During this time, China, on the contrary, entered the top thirty most competitive countries.

From 2000 to 2004, Russia ranked lowest in the top four in the WEF Growth and Business Competitiveness Indexes, the equivalent of the modern Global Competitiveness Index. The Russian global competitiveness index itself has remained at a constant level of 4.2 (out of 7) for the last three years. According to WEF estimates, the compliance with basic macroeconomic requirements and the efficiency of the business environment in Russia have improved slightly over the past seven years. The best dynamics were shown by the level of infrastructure development and technological level (+0.8 points to values ​​of 4.5 and 3.7, respectively). Indicators of health, primary education, higher education and vocational training have declined. The level of business excellence has also deteriorated, in particular the competitiveness of companies and innovative potential.

Particularly low scores for the country in 2011 were observed in terms of the level of development of institutions (rules of the game) and financial markets, the efficiency of commodity markets and business organization. As follows from this, although Russian business is far from ideal, and its business strategies, according to many estimates (and not only in this rating), are often primitive and short-sighted, although the wage gap within Russian companies is simply unreasonable, the state is even worse at executing its functions and needs deep reform. The five main factors hindering business development in Russia include corruption, bureaucracy, crime, high tax rates and difficulties in accessing finance.

At the same time, Russia in terms of average per capita GDP is noticeably (from 1.5 to 5 times) higher than its BRIC partners, which means that their institutions are most likely not suitable for it. In terms of hourly labor productivity, Russia is also higher (2-5 times), but the efficiency of wages (“salary return”) in the country is two times lower. This means that it is impossible to keep the standard of living in Russia from falling without rapid modernization. But this cannot be achieved by relying only on pensioners, blue collar workers and part of the raw materials technostructure. We can't do without a creative class. And he doesn’t want to play by the old rules.

On January 12, 2012, the Heritage Foundation research center published its latest ranking of countries in terms of economic freedom. Like last year, Russia scored 50.5 points out of 100 (with the world average of 59.5 points). Note that states that receive a score below 50 points are considered by the center as “not free.” The country is in 144th place, closing the list of “mostly unfree” economies and behind not only China - 138th place - but also Brazil and India, which occupy 99th and 133rd place respectively in the economic freedom ranking.

Based on the results of the last decade, the situation in Russia has not shown any significant improvement. The index of economic freedom during this period fluctuated at 50-51 points. Of course, economic freedom is far from the only criterion of economic success, however, in other, more comprehensive ratings, in particular the ratings of the International Institute of Management Development (IMD) and the World Economic Forum (WEF), Russia’s position does not correspond to its basic potential. The country should have a higher position not only due to its large domestic market and natural resources (Brazil, China, and South Africa have all this), but also due to a very high-quality labor force. At the same time, the growth rates of the Russian economy in 2000-2010 were not extremely high, but generally corresponded to the level of development of the country, since the natural decline in GDP by 8% in 2009 returned it to a predictable growth trajectory.

Fig.1

If you look at the ratings, which, according to their creators, speak not about the past and present, but about the future of the country, then the prospects for Russia’s economic survival in the new world as a “promising giant” are a big question mark. Of course, you can brush aside the opinion of foreign countries in the Soviet way, but where are those Soviets now? Or you can try to understand the stubborn reluctance of Western experts to recognize the value of the special path of a large authoritarian economy with an extremely corrupt state apparatus. Even the best representatives of which in the early 2000s reasoned something like this: let development institutions steal 30-40% of budget money, but 60-70% will go into the native economy, and not into capital outflow, as in the dashing 1990s. But for some reason it turned out that now money is being cut, and the outflow of capital is only growing.

According to IMD research, in 2011 Russia ranked 49th (out of 59 countries) in the world competitiveness ranking. In 2001, the country occupied 43rd place - the same as in 2011, without taking into account the new countries included in the ranking. During the same period, India and China were not only higher, but also showed better dynamics. Thus, India rose by 10 positions (32nd place in 2011), China - by 7 (19th place). Only Brazil was ranked lower than Russia, and then only twice - in 2004 and 2007, and dropped by 4 positions in 11 years to 44th place.

Such assessments of the social and institutional environment - a component of state effectiveness according to IMD - such as the sufficiency of protection of personal safety and private property, the integrity of the judicial system, political stability, transparency of public policy, the absence of bureaucracy and corruption are much lower for Russia than for Brazil and India or China. As for the business environment, doing business in the country remains extremely difficult, and legislative support for starting a company has improved little over 10 years. Russia's brain drain hampers the economy's competitiveness much more than other BRIC countries, and the country's ability to attract foreign talent has fallen from first to last compared to other fast-growing countries. At the same time, most of these and other indicators in the country over ten years have rather decreased or remained at the same, low level.

Fig.2 Level of corruption in BRIC countries according to IMD competitiveness rating (10-point scale)

Growing Competitiveness Index(Growth Competitiveness Index - GrowthCI) determines the ability of an economy to achieve stable growth in the medium term.

• basic (state and public institutions, infrastructure, healthcare and school education);
• increasing efficiency (higher and vocational education, market efficiency, technological development);
• innovative (business development, innovation itself).

According to the new methodology of the World Economic Forum, the number of factors taken into account increased from 35 to 90: assessments of the efficiency of the labor market, the development of infrastructure and business, healthcare, etc. were added. After recalculating the rating according to the new methodology, Russia in 2005 reached 53rd place (Appendices 11 -12). According to the WEF, in addition to the high macroeconomic indicators that were previously taken into account (low level of public debt, budget surplus, etc.), Russia has a very effective labor market: flexibility in hiring and firing employees, determining wages. There is a fairly developed railway system, and the level of technology penetration (mobile phones, computers, Internet) is growing. In the 2006 ranking, Russia dropped to 62nd place. This year, experts conducted a survey not only in relatively prosperous regions of Russia, where the activities of large companies are concentrated, but also in other areas. In the territorial aspect, the quality of the business climate is extremely heterogeneous. Opportunities for the development of small and medium-sized businesses are very limited. Very low and worsening indicators:

• quality of institutions;
• independence and predictability of the judicial system;
• objectivity of officials' decisions;
• protection of the rights of minority shareholders.