Jump to content

Thailand Drops In The Rankings


Liverish

Recommended Posts

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT : Thai ranking slips down further

Published on October 14, 2004

Kingdom now 34th with poor corruption, technology gradings

Thailand’s global competitiveness rating has fallen for the second year in a row, amid worsening corruption and deteriorating technological capabilities.

A report unveiled by the internationally recognised World Economic Forum (WEF) ranked Thailand at No 34, down from 32 last year and 31 in 2002. The Kingdom now lags behind countries like Slovenia (33), Estonia (20), Malaysia (31), Malta (32) and Bahrain (28), the report announced yesterday.

Finland, the US and Sweden maintained the three most competitive economies, respectively, in the world, said the Global Competitiveness Report. The report ranks 104 economies, taking into account three major factors – the macro-economic environment; the quality of public institutions, such as the independence of the judiciary and lack of government corruption; and technology.

Augusto Lopez-Claros, chief economist at the WEF, said among the greatest concerns for Thailand in regard to its international competitiveness is the country’s poor performance in the areas of Corruption and information and communications technology (ICT).

“Thailand does well in the macro-environment (ranked 23rd), but needs to improve in some areas of the Technology and Public Institutions indexes,” said Lopez-Claros in an e-mail interview with The Nation.

“In particular, within the Public Institutions Index, Thailand ranks 52nd on the Corruption sub-index, and within the Technology Index, 55th on the ICT sub-index.”

The WCF’s reporting format for each economy usually consists of two parts – notable economic advantages, which include those areas in which a country performs well; and notable competitive disadvantages that spell out those areas in which a country performs below average. The 2004 report, however, includes not one single competitive advantage for Thailand in the Public Institutions Index.

Among the country’s notable competitive disadvantages in this year’s report are: Irregular Payments in Exports and Imports (ranked 72nd out of 104 economies); Organised Crime (58th); Favouritism in Decisions of Government Officials (50th); Judicial Independence (44th); Real Effective Exchange Rates (47th); Interest Spread (43rd); Property Rights (41st); Telephone Lines (72nd); Internet Hosts (64th); Pervasiveness of Money Laundering through Non-Bank Channels (87th); and Freedom of Press (81st).

This year’s report shows a drastic change from last year, when Favouritism in Decisions of Government Officials, Property Rights and Organised Crime were among comparative advantages for Thailand, with high scores in each of those areas.

Recognising growing public dissatisfaction with growing corruption, the Thaksin government last month announced a war on corruption. Many critics, however, remain suspicious of the administration’s ability and sincerity to tackle this chronic and long-standing issue.

However, Lopez-Claros noted that Thailand’s overall competitiveness score (4.6) is actually unchanged from last year. But with more countries – such as Malta and Luxembourg – added to this year’s survey, Thailand’s relative ranking has dropped.

He said for most Asean countries, Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) scores have remained quite steady. The Philippines and Vietnam, nonetheless, have witnessed a significant decline in their competitiveness rankings, while Indonesia has climbed three places to No 69.

Japan, meanwhile, moved up to No 9, from No 11 last year, thanks partly to its strong economic recovery, which boosted business confidence, and notable improvements in several indicators that assess transparency in its public institutions, the report said.

The report also includes a Business Competitiveness Index, which found Thailand doing well in areas like Prevalence of Foreign Technology Licensing and Extent of Locally Based Competitors, but rates it poorly on Extent of Bureaucratic Red Tape, Foreign Ownership Restrictions and Availability of Scientists and Engineers.

Pichaya Changsorn

The Nation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a presidential election coming up it will be interesting to see how

the USA fares for corruption.

The last election was far from transparent.

Mind you, if you are the one preparing the statistics it does not matter too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a presidential election coming up it will be interesting to see how

the USA fares for corruption.

The last election was far from transparent.

Mind you, if you are the one preparing the statistics it does not matter too much.

"Far from transparent" - that's a very polite way of saying "a rigged scam" Astral!

I'm most impressed by your self restraint these days, mate.

As far as US corruption goes, the more I read about the antics of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and now Baker & Carlyle group) with their overt connections to the oil-weapons industry complex, the more I realise that Tax-sin and his cronies are mere wannabes on a global scale of corruption. The Dead Kennedy's had it about right in their song: "MTV get off the air", which included a line about "the Stars and Stripes of corruption".

Then we've got our very own "stars" like the Boy Scratcher, Lord Archer, ex-MP Hamilton with "that wife" and other stalwarts of the Tory party. Makes yer proud, lad.................... :D

If Saddam in a Santa hat stood against that lot, I'd probably vote for him.......couldn't be any worse, eh? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Executive Summary

GCI GCI GCI

Country 2004 rank 2004 score 2003 rank*

Finland 1  5.95 1

United States 2  5.82 2

Sweden 3  5.72 3

Taiwan 4  5.69 5

Denmark 5  5.66 4

Norway 6  5.56 9

Singapore 7  5.56 6

Switzerland 8  5.49 7

Japan 9  5.48 11

Iceland 10  5.44 8

United Kingdom 11  5.30 15

Netherlands 12  5.30 12

Germany 13  5.28 13

Australia 14  5.25 10

Canada 15  5.23 16

United Arab Emirates 16  5.21 —

Austria 17  5.20 17

New Zealand 18  5.18 14

Israel 19  5.09 20

Estonia 20  5.08 22

Hong Kong SAR  21  5.06 24

Chile 22  5.01 28

Spain 23  5.00 23

Portugal 24  4.96 25

Belgium 25  4.95 27

Luxembourg 26  4.95 21

France 27  4.92 26

Bahrain 28  4.91 —

Korea 29  4.90 18

Ireland 30  4.90 30

Malaysia 31  4.88 29

Malta 32  4.79 19

Slovenia 33  4.75 31

Thailand 34  4.58 32

Jordan 35  4.58 34

Lithuania 36  4.57 40

Greece 37  4.56 35

Cyprus 38  4.56 —

Hungary 39  4.56 33

Czech Republic 40  4.55 39

South Africa 41  4.53 42

Tunisia 42  4.51 38

Slovak Republic 43  4.43 43

Latvia 44  4.43 37

Botswana 45 4 .30 36

China 46  4.29 44

Italy 47 4 .27 41

Mexico 48  4.17 47

Mauritius 49 4  .14 46

Costa Rica 50 4.12 51

Trinidad and Tobago 51 4.12 49

Namibia 52 4.11 52

El Salvador 53 4.10 48

Uruguay 54 4.08 50

India 55 4.07 56

Morocco 56 4.06 61

Brazil 57 4.05 54

Panama 58 4.01 59

Bulgaria 59 3.98 64

Poland 60 3.98 45

Croatia 61 3.94 53

Egypt 62 3.88 58

(cont’d.)

GCI GCI GCI

Country 2004 rank 2004 score 2003 rank*

Romania 63 3.86 75

Colombia 64 3.84 63

Jamaica 65 3.82 67

Turkey 66 3.82 65

Peru 67 3.78 57

Ghana 68 3.78 71

Indonesia 69 3.72 72

Russian Federation 70 3.68 70

Algeria 71 3.67 74

Dominican Republic 72 3.63 62

Sri Lanka 73 3.57 68

Argentina 74 3.54 78

Gambia 75 3.52 55

Philippines 76 3.51 66

Vietnam 77 3.47 60

Kenya 78 3.45 83

Uganda 79 3.41 80

Guatemala 80 3.38 89

Bosnia and Hercegovina 81 3.38 —

Tanzania 82 3.38 69

Zambia 83 3.36 88

Macedonia, FYR 84 3.34 81

Venezuela 85 3.30 82

Ukraine 86 3.27 84

Malawi 87 3.24 76

Mali 88 3.24 99

Serbia and Montenegro 89 3.23 77

Ecuador 90 3.18 86

Pakistan 91 3.17 73

Mozambique 92 3.17 93

Nigeria 93 3.16 87

Georgia 94 3.14 —

Nicaragua 95 3.12 90

Madagascar 96 3.11 96

Honduras 97 3.10 94

Bolivia 98 3.09 85

Zimbabwe 99 3.03 97

Paraguay 100 2.99 95

Ethiopia 101 2.93 92

Bangladesh 102 2.84 98

Angola 103 2.72 100

Chad 104 2.50 101

* Note that these are the published rankings from 2003. The three countries not

covered this year (Cameroon, Haiti, and Senegal) are not shown.

Table 1: Growth Competitiveness Index rankings and 2003 comparisons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the league table Tax. Just goes to show that corruption doesn't have a high weighting factor in the overall results, as USA comes out at No. 2 and Canada at No. 15. Those Canadians are so ###### honest sometimes it's embarassing. Gotta love'em, esp. that old rocker Neil Young. (The one glaring exception to the rule is the engineering firm Acres, which recently got debarred from World Bank contracts for bribery and corruption in Lesotho :o )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FINLAND

Finnish people believe that Father Christmas (Santa Claus) lives in the north part of Finland called (or Lapland), north of the Arctic Circle. People from all over the world send letters to Santa Claus in Finland.

Where would all the kids xmas letters of the world be without em.......bless em all.....

finnish joke....

Finman... "Shall we try a different position tonight?"

Finshe..."That's a good idea.... you stand by the ironing board while I sit on the sofa and fart."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT : Thai ranking slips down further

Published on October 14, 2004

Kingdom now 34th with poor corruption, technology gradings

Thailand’s global competitiveness rating has fallen for the second year in a row, amid worsening corruption and deteriorating technological capabilities.

A report unveiled by the internationally recognised World Economic Forum (WEF) ranked Thailand at No 34, down from 32 last year and 31 in 2002. The Kingdom now lags behind countries like Slovenia (33), Estonia (20), Malaysia (31), Malta (32) and Bahrain (28), the report announced yesterday.

I came across this posting two years ago saying that Thailand had slipped from 32nd in 2002 to 34th place in the GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT.

Fast forward two years to 2006 and the same report that just came out shows Thailand slipping to 35th place...definitely headed in the wrong direction.

Hmmm.

For the report

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competit...006_summary.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...