**Table C.1 Summary of cross-country comparisons based on alternative rankings of economic performance**

|**Ranking**<br>**based on**<br>**per capita**<br>**GDP**|**DBR 2007**<br>**(rank)**|**Ranking**<br>**ACR’07 (rank**<br>**within**<br>**sample)**|**_Demeaned_**<br>**Aggregate**<br>**Productivity**<br>**(rank)**|**Firms'**<br>**perceptions:**<br>**infras. As an**<br>**obstacle**<br>|**Perc. Contributions**<br>**log-productivity**|**of infrastructure to**|**Perc. contributions**<br>**productivity via sim**|**of infrastructure to**<br>**ulations**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||**% abs.**<br>**contribution**|**Average log-**<br>**productivity**|**Allocative efficiency**<br>**in logs**|<br>**Average**<br>**productivity**|**Allocative efficiency**|
|||||**(rank)**|**% abs. contribution**<br>**(rank)**|<br>**% abs. contribution**<br>**(rank)**|**% abs. contribution**<br>**(rank)**|**% abs. contribution**<br>**(rank)**|
|**MUS (1)**|32 (2)|2.0 (2)|4.2 (1)|13.9 (2)|26.6 (19)|17.1 (18)|21.8 (6)|12.4 (4)|
|<br>**SWZ (2)**|<br>76 (5)|<br>1.4 (7)|<br>n.a|<br>22.4 (10)|<br>25.6 (21)|<br>14.3 (20)|<br>27.4 (10)|<br>17.6 (10)|
|<br>**ZAF (3)**|<br>29 (1)|<br>2.3 (1)|4 (3)|<br>16.2 (5)|<br>28.6 (18)|<br>19.7 (17)|<br>17.4 (4)|<br>11.0 (2)|
|<br>**BWA (4)**|<br>48 (4)|<br>1.7 (3)|<br>3.4 (6)|<br>15.6 (4)|<br>17.5 (22)|<br>7.41 (23)|<br>23.2 (8)|<br>8.8 (1)|
|<br>**DZA (5)**|116 (12)|1.5 (4)|2.9 (7)|18.3 (7)|48.6 (7)|31.1 (4)|34.9 (18)|26.4 (17)|
|**NAM (6)**|42 (3)|1.5 (6)|4.2 (2)|18.3 (6)|16.5 (23)|32.9 (3)|22.7 (7)|36.7 (20)|
|<br>**EGY (7)**|<br>165 (22)|<br>1.5 (5)|<br>3.7 (4)|<br>14.0 (3)|<br>26.0 (20)|<br>23.8 (12)|<br>19.9 (5)|<br>16.1 (8)|
|<br>**MAR (8)**|<br>115 (11)|<br>1.1 (9)|<br>3.6 (5)|<br>9.9 (1)|<br>31.3 (15)|<br>16.6 (19)|<br>16.2 (3)|<br>14.8 (6)|
|<br>**CMR (9)**|<br>152 (18)|<br>0.8 (16)|<br>1.9 (18)|<br>27.5 (23)|<br>41.6 (10)|<br>25.4 (11)|<br>31.2 (13)|<br>23.2 (13)|
|**MRT (10)**|148 (16)|0.6 (19)|2.1 (15)|25.3 (17)|35.4 (11)|21.1 (15)|28.3 (12)|16.2 (9)|
|**SEN (11)**|146 (15)|0.9 (12)|n.a|22.7 (11)|58.5 (3)|40.9 (2)|52.1 (21)|42.2 (22)|
|<br>**BEN (12)**|<br>137 (13)|<br>0.6 (20)|2.1 (11)|<br>25.6 (18)|<br>59.9 (2)|<br>12.4 (21)|<br>33.3 (17)|<br>23.3 (14)|
|<br>**KEN (13)**|<br>83 (6)|<br>1.0 (11)|<br>2.8 (8)|<br>25.6 (19)|<br>30.3 (17)|<br>19.9 (16)|<br>26.1 (9)|<br>23.2 (12)|
|<br>**MLI (14)**|<br>155 (19)|<br>0.9 (14)|<br>2.1 (14)|<br>21.6 (9)|<br>42.7 (9)|<br>26.8 (9)|<br>42.5 (19)|<br>33.5 (19)|
|<br>**UGA (15)**|107 (9)|0.6 (21)|2 (17)|23.3 (12)|58.4 (4)|29.8 (5)|45.4 (20)|42.0 (21)|
|**BFA (16)**|163 (21)|0.8 (15)|2.1 (12)|26.9 (22)|35.3 (12)|27.0 (8)|27.6 (11)|12.0 (3)|
|<br>**ZMB (17)**|<br>102 (8)|<br>0.7 (18)|<br>n.a|<br>24.0 (14)|<br>50.6 (6)|<br>26.8 (10)|<br>15.4 (2)|<br>15.1 (7)|
|<br>**TZA (18)**|<br>142 (14)|<br>0.2 (23)|2.7 (9)|<br>24.3 (15)|<br>34.1 (14)|<br>28.3 (6)|<br>32.3 (15)|<br>29.1 (18)|
|<br>**NER (19)**|<br>160 (20)|<br>0.8 (17)|<br>n.a|<br>26.2 (20)|<br>34.7 (13)|<br>11.1 (22)|<br>31.6 (14)|<br>22.1 (11)|
|<br>**MWI (20)**|<br>110 (10)|<br>0.4 (22)|2.1 (13)|<br>24.5 (16)|<br>65.9 (1)|<br>45.8 (1)|<br>53.7 (22)|<br>55.2 (23)|
|<br>**MDG (21)**|<br>149 (17)|<br>1.4 (8)|<br>2 (16)|<br>23.5 (13)|<br>30.6 (16)|<br>27.9 (7)|<br>11.1 (1)|<br>14.3 (5)|
|<br>**ETH (22)**|<br>97 (7)|<br>1.0 (10)|<br>2.3 (10)|<br>26.7 (21)|<br>52.6 (5)|<br>21.9 (14)|<br>33.2 (16)|<br>25.0 (15)|
|<br>**ERI (23)**|<br>170 (23)|<br>0.9 (13)|<br>n.a|<br>20.7 (8)|<br>46.1 (8)|<br>22.5 (13)|<br>54.7 (23)|<br>25.3 (16)|

_Source:_ Authors’ calculations using ICA data, DBR (2007), ACR (2007), and Penn World Table. _Note:_ n.a = not available.

The rankings presented in the first five columns are very consistent. In particular, the ranking based on demeaned aggregate productivity (column 4) shows a clear positive correlation to per capita GDP and with the ranking based on the DBR rankings. From the results of the rankings obtained from the first five columns we find two groups of African countries, as was suggested by looking at the growth rates of per capita GDP (see figure 1.2, panel B). That is: (a) countries in the north and south of Africa are relatively more successful, and (b) countries from the central-east and central-west regions of Africa are relatively less successful.

The last four columns show two alternative measures of the percentage absolute contribution of infrastructure to productivity, along with the ranking in parentheses. In particular, column 6 shows a negative correlation between the ranking based on the contribution of IC to average log TFP and per capita GDP and also with the ranking based on the DBR, indicating that low infrastructure quality is one of the key growth bottlenecks in Africa. The results show a great homogeneity among the rankings in the first four columns and the results from the econometric analysis. Thus, for instance, Mauritius is ranked 1st in terms of per capita income and quality of overall infrastructure in the ACR (2007), 2nd according to the DBR (2007) and firms’ perceptions, 19th (out of 23) according to the impact of the INF variables on the average log productivity, and 18th (out of 23) with respect to the allocative efficiency in logs. In these cases the correlation with firm growth is negative, signaling again that infrastructure quality is an important growth bottleneck in Africa.

38