Newsgroup: italia.firenze.discussioni
Titolo: Quest'anno siamo 42esimi

E' appena uscito il rapporto del World Economic Forum sulla 
competitività dei paesi:
Italy’s competitive position has continued on a downward trend, well 
established over the past few years, dropping four places to 42 in this 
year’s Report. The list of problems is long. Italy’s underlying 
macroeconomic environment is poor due to having run budget deficits 
without interruption for the past 20 years. The fiscal situation has 
deteriorated sharply since 2000 and public debt levels are well over 
100% of GDP, among the highest in the world. The poor state of Italy’s 
public finances may itself reflect more deep-seated institutional 
problems, which are shown in low rankings for variables such as the 
efficiency of government spending, the burden of government regulation 
and, more generally, the quality of public sector institutions.
**************
The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007: Country Highlights
• Switzerland is number one in The Global Competitiveness Report for the 
first time, reflecting the country’s sound institutional environment, 
excellent infrastructure, efficient markets and high levels of 
technological innovation. The country has a well developed 
infrastructure for scientific research, companies spend generously on 
R&D, intellectual property protection is strong and the country’s public 
institutions are transparent and stable.
• The United States, previously in first place, continues to enjoy an 
excellent business environment, efficient markets and is a global centre 
for technology development. However, its overall competitiveness is 
threatened by large macroeconomic imbalances, particularly rising levels 
of public indebtedness associated with repeated fiscal deficits. Its 
relative ranking remains vulnerable to a possible disorderly adjustment 
of such imbalances, including historically high trade deficits.
• As has been the case in recent years, the Nordic countries hold 
prominent positions in the rankings this year, with Finland (2), Sweden 
(3), and Denmark (4) all among the top ten most competitive economies. 
The Nordic countries have been running budget surpluses and have lower 
levels of public indebtedness on average than the rest of Europe. 
Prudent fiscal policies have enabled governments to invest heavily in 
education, infrastructure and the maintenance of a broad array of social 
services. Finland, Denmark and Iceland have the best institutions in the 
world (ranked 1, 2 and 3, respectively) and, together with Sweden and 
Norway, hold top ten ranks for health and primary education. Finland, 
Denmark and Sweden also occupy the top three positions in the higher 
education and training pillar, where Finland’s top ranking is remarkable 
for its durability over time.
• Germany and the United Kingdom continue to hold privileged positions, 
ranked 8th and 10th, respectively. In the areas of the safety of 
property rights and the quality of the judicial system, Germany is 
second to none. By contrast, both countries score poorly for their 
macroeconomic environments, though Germany does less well. In both cases 
public sector deficits and rising levels of public indebtedness as well 
as a strengthening of the currency in both countries in 2005 are the 
main causes of this. The United Kingdom excels in market efficiency, 
enjoying the most sophisticated financial markets in the world. Its 
flexible labour market and low levels of unemployment stand in sharp 
contrast to Germany, whose business community is burdened with sclerotic 
labour regulations. But Germany does somewhat better than the United 
Kingdom in innovation indicators and the sophistication of its business 
community is peerless.
• Italy’s competitive position has continued on a downward trend, well 
established over the past few years, dropping four places to 42 in this 
year’s Report. The list of problems is long. Italy’s underlying 
macroeconomic environment is poor due to having run budget deficits 
without interruption for the past 20 years. The fiscal situation has 
deteriorated sharply since 2000 and public debt levels are well over 
100% of GDP, among the highest in the world. The poor state of Italy’s 
public finances may itself reflect more deep-seated institutional 
problems, which are shown in low rankings for variables such as the 
efficiency of government spending, the burden of government regulation 
and, more generally, the quality of public sector institutions.
• As in previous years, Poland remains the worst performer among the EU 
economies, with a rank of 48, right behind Greece (47) and well behind 
Estonia (25), the Czech Republic (29) and Slovenia (33), Central and 
Eastern Europe’s top performers. Particular weaknesses in Poland stem 
from the highly protected and rigid labour markets, particularly harmful 
in a country where unemployment is close to 18%. As in many transition 
economies, businesses have to deal with uncertainties stemming from weak 
institutions, corruption and crime, favouritism, an easily influenced 
judiciary and a weak property rights regime. Deeper reforms will be 
necessary if Poland is to increase productivity and stay competitive in 
the face of rising labour costs. Among the candidate countries, Turkey 
and Croatia both seem to have benefited from the "EU bonus", moving up 
impressively in the rankings by 12 places each, to positions 59 and 51, 
respectively.
• Russia has fallen from its 53rd rank in 2005 to 62nd in 2006. The 
private sector in Russia has serious misgivings about the independence 
of the judiciary and the administration of justice. Legal redress in 
Russia is neither expeditious, transparent nor inexpensive, unlike in 
the world’s most competitive economies. A ranking of only 110 among 125 
countries in 2006 suggests that it is time-consuming, unpredictable and 
a cost burden to enterprises. Partly because of this, the property 
rights regime is extremely poor and worsening. Russia’s ranking in this 
indicator during the last two years has suffered a precipitous decline, 
from 88 in 2004 to 114 in 2006, among the worst in the world.
• Leading within Asia are Singapore and Japan, ranked 5th and 7th 
respectively, closely followed by Hong Kong (11) and Taiwan (13). These 
economies are characterized by high-quality infrastructure, flexible and 
efficient markets, healthy and well-educated workforces and high levels 
of technological readiness and innovative capacity. Malaysia, ranked 
26th overall, has one of the most efficient economies in the region with 
flexible labour markets, relatively undistorted goods markets and public 
institutions which in many areas (e.g., rule of law, the legal system) 
are already operating at the level of the top performing new EU members.
• Korea’s (24) performance is slightly more uneven than that of 
Malaysia. The country has already reached world-class levels in certain 
areas, such as macroeconomic management, school enrolment rates at all 
levels, penetration rates for new technologies and scientific 
innovation, as captured by data on patent registration. However, Korea 
continues to be held back by institutional weaknesses, both public and 
private, for which it has not yet reached the standards of Finland, 
Sweden, Denmark or Chile. Taiwan (13) continues to operate at a high 
level of efficiency but has dropped below last year’s "top-ten" status. 
It is an innovation powerhouse, with levels of per capita patents 
registration exceeded only by the US and Japan. It continues to excel in 
higher education and training indicators (ranked 7th overall) but, like 
Korea, its overall rank is weighed down by weaknesses in the 
institutional infrastructure.
• India ranked 43rd overall with excellent scores in capacity for 
innovation and sophistication of firm operations. Firm use of technology 
and rates of technology transfer are high, although penetration rates of 
the latest technologies are still quite low by international standards, 
reflecting India’s low levels of per capita income and high incidence of 
poverty. Despite these encouraging results, insufficient health services 
and education as well as a poorly developed infrastructure are limiting 
a more equitable distribution of the benefits of India’s high growth 
rates. Moreover, successive Indian governments have proven remarkably 
ineffective in reducing the public sector deficit, one of the highest in 
the world.
• China’s ranking has fallen from 48 to 54, characterized by a 
heterogeneous performance. On the positive side, China’s buoyant growth 
rates coupled with low inflation, one of the highest savings rates in 
the world and manageable levels of public debt have boosted China’s 
ranking on the macroeconomy pillar of the GCI to 6th place – an 
excellent result. However, a number of structural weaknesses need to be 
addressed, including in the largely state-controlled banking sector. 
Levels of financial intermediation are low and the state has had to 
intervene from time to time to mitigate the adverse effects of a large, 
non-performing loan portfolio. China has low penetration rates for the 
latest technologies (mobile telephones, Internet, personal computers), 
and secondary and tertiary school enrolment rates are still low by 
international standards. By far the most worrisome development is a 
marked drop in the quality of the institutional environment, as 
witnessed by the steep fall in rankings from 60 to 80 in 2006, with poor 
results across all 15 institutional indicators, and spanning both public 
and private institutions.
• As in previous years, Chile, ranked 27th, leads the rankings in Latin 
America and the Caribbean. Chile’s position reflects not only solid 
institutions – already operating at levels of transparency and openness 
above those of the EU on average – but also the presence of efficient 
markets that are relatively free of distortions. The state has played a 
supportive role in the creation of a credible, stable regulatory regime. 
Extremely competent macroeconomic management has been a critical element 
in creating the conditions for rapid growth and sustained efforts to 
reduce poverty. The resources generated by Chile’s virtuous fiscal 
policy have gone to finance investment in infrastructure and, 
increasingly, education and public health. Given Chile’s strong 
competitive position, the authorities will have to focus attention on 
upgrading the capacity of the labour force with a view to rapidly 
narrowing the skills gap with respect to Finland, Ireland and New 
Zealand, the relevant comparator group for Chile.
• Brazil’s ranking, 66th overall, down from 57th last year, reflects a 
particularly poor position in the macroeconomy pillar of the GCI (114th, 
as compared to 91st in 2005), resulting from a large budget deficit 
relative to that of other countries, if not to its historical 
performance. High levels of government debt and a wide interest rate 
spread give an indication of the heavy intermediation costs in the 
Brazilian banking sector, which negatively affect private sector 
investment and contribute to lower economic growth.
• Mexico’s ranking has remained broadly stable, moving up one place to 
58. The country’s somewhat uneven performance over the various pillars 
of the GCI is shown by relatively high scores for health and primary 
education, goods’ market efficiency and selected components of 
technological readiness, e.g., FDI and technology transfer, no doubt 
reflecting the close links of the Mexican market to the US in the 
context of NAFTA. However, this is offset by the same institutional 
weaknesses as are prevalent in the rest of Latin America.
• A lack of sound and credible institutions remains a significant 
stumbling block in many Latin American countries. Bolivia (97), Ecuador 
(90), Guyana (111), Honduras (93), Nicaragua (95) and Paraguay (106) 
achieve low rankings overall and, in particular, are among the worst 
performers for basic elements of good governance, including reasonably 
transparent and open institutions. These countries all suffer from 
poorly defined property rights, undue influence, inefficient government 
operations, as well as unstable business environments. Perceived 
favouritism in government decision-making, an insufficiently independent 
judiciary, and security costs associated with high levels of crime and 
corruption make it difficult for the business community to compete 
effectively.
• As in previous years, Venezuela’s overall performance (88, down four 
places) continues to deteriorate, despite the emergence of a government 
budget surplus, a phenomenon seen in all oil-exporting countries. The 
single most important obstacle to development, however, appears to be 
the insufficient quality of Venezuelan institutions, especially to 
combat corruption, undue influence in decision-making and to reduce 
government intervention, all areas in which Venezuela figures among the 
worst ranks. For all the talk about the social dimension of the 
government’s "benign" revolution, school enrolment rates are either 
mediocre or poor, with Venezuela ranking 84th, just behind Vietnam, 
Suriname and China, at the secondary school level. Venezuela’s infant 
mortality rate of 16 per 1,000 live births is on a par with Albania and 
is higher than that of Russia or the Ukraine, two countries still 
recovering from decades of public health neglect.
• Within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the Gulf States 
continue to perform quite well in the overall GCI rankings. The United 
Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked 32nd while Qatar moved up eight places to 
rank 38th. Terms-of-trade gains linked to oil prices have boosted growth 
rates and reinforced already high levels of confidence in the business 
community, resulting from ongoing institutional modernization and 
improvements in macroeconomic management. However, in many of the 
resource-rich countries, the availability of public finance appears – at 
least for now – not to have translated into improvements in human 
capital, which would play an important role in helping these economies 
that are highly dependent on oil and vulnerable to external shocks to 
diversify their economic base.
• Tunisia, the most competitive economy in the region ranked 30th, 
Algeria (76) and Morocco (70) all improved remarkably from last year, 
thanks in part to significant improvements in institutions. Egypt 
dropped nine ranks to 63rd this year, due to an extremely sharp drop of 
58 places to rank 108 in the macroeconomy pillar, as it struggled with 
worsening government finances and a large debt ratio. It also fell back 
in the areas of higher education and training and innovation.
• In sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa (45th) does particularly well in a 
number of areas typically reserved for rich, innovation-driven 
economies. Its economic sophistication is reflected in high ranks for 
property rights, private institutions, goods and financial market 
efficiency, business sophistication and innovation.
• Botswana, ranked 81st, has succeeded in using its wealth from key 
natural resources to boost the growth rate. Key to Botswana’s success 
have been its reliable and legitimate institutions, the prudence of 
government spending and public trustworthiness of its politicians. The 
transparency and accountability of public institutions have contributed 
to a stable macroeconomic environment, efficient bureaucracy and 
market-friendly regulation.
• On the other hand, Tanzania and Uganda ranked 104th and 113th, 
respectively, suffer from large weaknesses in health and education. 
Their failure to make a significant improvement in these basic 
requirements is likely to continue to dent their growth prospects. 
Nigeria is down 18 places to 101, on the back of poor macroeconomic 
management despite the surge in oil export revenues and Zimbabwe at 119 
continues its rapid descent to the bottom of the rankings, due to a 
further deterioration of the institutional climate, including the 
erosion of property rights and rule of law, as well as problems of 
corruption and the implications these and other factors have had for 
macroeconomic management.
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm

Il successo del comunismo. >:|
Yeah.
-- 
Tommaso
Difensore della Certezza Prematurata

 Yeah.
Guarda che ero veramente ironico con U.Q. e le sue teorie sulla 
"Svizzera rossa" :D
-- 
Andrea de Florence © - Blog TLC: 
http://andtrap.mondo3.com

 "Svizzera rossa" :D
allora vatti a riprendere quei post, e rileggili meglio ;-)
comunque ti do un indizio in più: la "svizzera rossa" era un riferimento 
ad una certa cultura presente, ad esempio, in posti tipo Ginevra (ma, a 
scanso di equivoci, non è che tutti i ginevrini siano "rossi").
ecco l'indizio: Ginevra (e la Svizzera francese) non è il motore 
trainante della Svizzera, anzi...
ovvero, in altre parole, non è la parte "rossa" della Svizzera (che 
fortunatamente, a differenza dell'Italia, è minoritaria) che ha 
determinato questo risultato nella classifica del World Economic Forum.
una curiosità: il World Economic Forum (la fondazione) è a Ginevra. nel 
2003 c'è stato il G8 a Evian (lì vicino). ecco, se tu fossi stato a 
Ginevra (magari qualche partecipante di IFD c'è andato davvero...) 
avresti visto che oltre alla Ginevra che produce ricchezza ce n'è 
un'altra -numerosa- che la ricchezza la distrugge.

 ricchezza la distrugge.
Ah questo è innegabile, ma non è figlio solo di Ginevra.


 
ti do un altro elemento per capire meglio la Svizzera: Ginevra è 
sicuramente una città dalla qualità della vita alta. sicuramente più 
alta di (ad esempio) Basilea, Olten, Zug, San Gallo. ma sono questi 
posti che ti ho citato a caso che "trainano" la Svizzera, e che fanno in 
modo che Ginevra, che ne è una delle due capitali, risulti poi una città 
di prim'ordine.
gli svizzeri francesi spesso si lamentano di essere costantemente in 
minoranza (ovviamente quando lo dicono, esagerano). nel senso che loro 
magari votano in un referendum "a sinistra", ma gli svizzeri tedeschi 
(che sono i 2/3 della popolazione) votano "a destra" (spesso imitati dai 
ticinesi), e quindi la Svizzera decide in un certo modo, nonostante loro.
giusto per farti un esempio: dipendesse dagli svizzeri romandi, la 
svizzera sarebbe già nell'Unione Europea e nell'Euro.

 sarebbe già nell'Unione Europea e nell'Euro.
Niente di nuovo, ma sono parametri "a sinistra" e "a destra" ben 
diversi a cui potrebbe pensare il lettore tipo del ng. E finora, ne' io 
ne' tu, forse lo avevamo spiegato adeguatamente...
