NZ drops two places on global competitiveness chart
New Zealand has slipped two places to 25th of 142 countries in the Global Competitiveness Index, overtaken by Israel and Malaysia.
However, the country’s score has remained stable since last year,
New Zealand’s overall performance was limited by innovation and business sophistication, the most important drivers of economic performance in advanced economies.
The Global Competitiveness Report is produced annually by the World Economic Forum. Switzerland ranked first for the third year in a row followed by Singapore, which overtook Sweden to claim second position.
Australia dropped four places to 20th while the US declined for a third year to fifth as macroeconomic vulnerabilities continued to build and some aspects of the institutional environment raised concern among business leaders.
Canada (12th) slipped out of the top 10, replaced by the UK. China improved by one place to 26th, continuing to lead the way for large developing economies.
Among the BRICS economies, South Africa (50th) and Brazil (53rd) moved upward while India (56th) and Russia (66th) declined.
The New Zealand Institute director Rick Boven said New Zealand needed to lift its performance more or its competitive position would continue to slide.
”The government has increased efforts and investment in innovation but we cannot yet see evidence of improvement. Other countries are doing more,” Dr Boven said.
The Global Competitiveness Index is made up of 111 indicators categorised into twelve pillars of competitiveness in three sub-indices: Basic requirements, Efficiency enhancers, and Innovation and sophistication factors.
New Zealand continued to do well in Basic requirements and Efficiency enhancers, ranking 17th (14th last year) and 18th (same as last year) respectively.
Strongest performance was in strength of investor protection (1st), diversion of public funds (1st), number of procedures to start a business (1st), quality of primary education (7th), and quality of math and science education (7th).
Areas that continued to constrain overall competitiveness included government procurement of advanced technology products (71st), availability of scientists and engineers (69th), state of cluster development (60th) and value chain breadth of exporting companies (59th).
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions6
The biggest problem with the innovation process in NZ is that the government funding that is avaliable is being controlled by the same people and organisations that have effectively under delivered over the past 10 years. NZTE, MSI, NZVIF, CRIs, Universities and Incubators etc.
Why do we expect putting more money in the hands of the same people, doing the same things will achieve any better results.
In fact as this shows we are going backwards because other countries are in my view doing it much smarter and with more resources.
NZ has dropped in international competitive ratings because we are regulated by government to ensure we don't face the risk of innovation:
http://tiny.cc/w072f
That is, the government is the problem, not the solution, as always.
Lack of engineers and scientists.
Too many politicians and bureaucrats.
How many cabinet ministers are from a technology background (engineer, scientist, tradesman, etc) .... ??
Do the math, the fat waste settles to the top.
The fact is that the Government pays lip service to innovation, unless it is in areas of "sexy" technology that sound and look good to bureaucrats who spend too much time aping overseas trends. None of these people have ever run a real business, or had their money at risk in a start up based on new ideas.
Agree with comments above - time to deregulate this economy to get it moving. Instead JKEY et al and in particular the now seriously should be questioned S Power think the future is in regulation. There are many who think they were members of the Progressive party standing in a Trojen horse (ie the Nats).
Disappointing that NZ has not improved but has slipped down
We should have done better given the vast political capital accruing to Key & co
Time for a plan for the longer term not just the next election
liberte