A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FOLIA OECONOMICA 182, 2004 D orota Starzyńska M E T H O D O L O G IC A L A S P E C T S O F T H E E C O N O M Y C O M P E T IT IV E N E S S . M IC R O A N D M A C R O E C O N O M IC A P P R O A C H E S 1. In trod u ction
In the econom ic literature, the concept o f com petitiveness, particularly international com petition, has evolved during the last several years. The concept o f com petitiveness em braces different elem ents depending on w hat is em phasized in a given research. Thereby, the com petitiveness m ay concern both static elem ents (in a given mom ent), as well as dynam ic and long-term ones, factors allow ing to im prove com petitive ability.
International com petitiveness o f the national econom y o f a given country is always the final result o f international com petitiveness o f various econom ic entities operating on the area o f the country. These entities (com panies) have to keep up with the com peting enterprises and therefore m ake appropriately high profit on business. It would be difficult to regard international com petitiveness o f econom y to be the sum o f com petitiveness o f entities functioning on its area, because the com petitiveness o f each o f them is characterized by different conditions o f the internal and external environm ent. From this point o f view, the external conditions are particularly im portant - dom estic and foreign (international) econom ic policy. This regards m ainly entities involved in the process o f international exchange o f goods and production factors.
T he aim o f this p aper is an attem pt to review the d efinitio ns o f internatio nal com petitiveness in m icro and m acroeconom ic scale, as well as specification o f determ inants and m easurem ent m ethods in term s o f this phenom enon.
2. D efin itio n s o f com p etitiven ess
The studies on com petitiveness have been influenced by three factors: strategic trade theory, clasic trade theory and econom ic practices, as well as P orter’s work on com petitiveness (as a m em ber o f the A m erican Industry C om petitiveness Presidential Com mission). Initially, P o rter’s investigations had more practical than theoretical nature. In the closing report, the above m entioned, C om m ission states that “com petitiveness can not be identified with positive trade balance or regarded only as processes related to international exchange” 1. In later works, Porter deepened his research on com petitiveness and observed that the most im portant factor in winning the com petition am ong different entities on the dom estic or international m arket is the im provem ent of efficiency o f m anagem ent. A ccording to Porter, com petition exists on the level o f com panies, nevertheless, there have to be some deeper reasons causing that com panies from one country are more often succeeding in this com petition. Such observations lead him to the conclusion that one can and should research com petitive advantages o f nations (Porter 1990).
At the m icroeconom ic level, a com pany can be regarded as com petitive when it im proves quality o f offered goods and services in a way that is higher than the average or w hen reduction o f relative costs allow s a com pany to increase its profit or share in the market (see: Dunford 2001, pp. 109-110).
The m ore a com pany reduces its costs at a given level o f quality (through the increase o f productivity, reduction in wages, in social security, in im provem ent o f w orking conditions or in organizational abilities) or the faster the quality o f its products increases at the assum ed level o f costs, the m ore com petitive this enterprise is. M oreover, long-term com petitiveness, apart from ability to sell goods allow ing to m ake profit, requires from m arket players the ability to keep up with changes on the market.
As follow s from the above m entioned definition, the m easurem ent of com pany’s com petitiveness is not only the level o f generated profit but, also is m ore im portant, its share in the market. Each com pany has som e com petitive abilities w hich determ ine the process o f flow o f dem and betw een the com pany and its com petitors. The dem and cannot be seized by the com pany, nor by its com petitors, it can be only gained or lost in favour o f com petitors. Increase of com pany’s m arket share be obtained from increasing these com petitive abilities and keeping them on the higher level than the abilities o f com petitors. T he basis for creating com petitive abilities are resources and skills accum ulated by the com pany and confronted with m arket chances. N evertheless, it is obvious that
1 See. President's C om m ission on Industrial Competitiveness, in: Global Competition: The N ew Reality, U.S. Government Printing Office, W ashington D.C. 1985 pp. 6 -7 .
com panies do not com pete with each other by m eans o f resources and skills but by means o f com petition instrum ents (product, price, etc.).
A ssum ing that the com petitiveness at the m acroeconom ic level is being observed, there is a need to define it. According to the sim plistic approach, com petitiveness o f economy is identified by means o f active trade balance or current surplus o f balance of payments (see: Lubiński, Michalski, M isala, 1995, pp. 8-9). The definition presented in such a way, forejudges at the same time the method of m easurement. However, most definitions are more com plex than that.
As for the way o f defining the com petitiveness o f econom y, tw o main approaches can be distinguished. The first one has more or less direct reference to the place in the country, in the global econom y and results o f international trade. In such a case, com petitiveness is regarded as the ability to m aintain or even increase m arket share. These m acroindicators can be evaluated, am ong others, on the basis o f trade balance, terms o f trade, relative prices, share in global trade, etc. (Lubiński 1995, p. 8).
The second approach puts more em phasis on general and periodical results o f the national econom y, e.g. the definition suggested by the O EC D , where com petitiveness is defined “as the ability o f a country to produce goods and services which under conditions o f free and fair trade are accepted on the global market, with m aintaining and increasing o f long-term , real revenues o f population at the sam e tim e” .
According to another definition o f the OECD “com petitiveness means both, ability o f com panies, industries, regions, nations or international organizations to keep up with international competition, as well as m aintaining relatively high rate o f return on used production factors, as well as relatively high level of employment based on solid foundation”. In the long run, increased com petitiveness leads to the growth o f global productivity. This is particularly important for the improvement o f competitiveness on markets open to international competition, because it aims at long-term improvement o f quality o f life and creation o f new jobs. Finally, the growth o f productivity results in better utilization o f com petitive advantages which will not be limited natural resources in economy and in global competition (see: W ysokińska 2001, pp. 37-38).
D efinition suggested by the OECD indicates three aspects o f com petitiveness:
• ability to create and m aintain high incom es o f production factors through the increase o f productivity,
• ability to create new jo b s and increase em ploym ent, • m aintaining high level o f openness to foreign com petition.
Such a definition o f com petitiveness allow s for considering not only traditional quantitative m easurem ents but also qualitative factors related to structure o f the econom y, technological developm ent and functioning o f the production factors’ market.
In the definitions suggested by the OECD it is pointed out that “com petitiveness is the ability to generate as a result o f exposition to international com petition, relatively high incom es derived from production factors, as well as high level o f em ploym ent based on solid foundation”.
A nother definition which deserves attention is a definition suggested by the W orld C om petitiveness R eport in 1994. Here com petitiveness is the ability of a country or com pany to create more wealth than the com petitors on the global market. A ccording to the m entioned report, com petitive ability o f a given country is a result o f conversion o f the country’s resources, both already existing (natural resources) and generated (infrastructure, human resources) by m eans of processes, e.g. production, into econom ic results which then are verified during a com petition on international markets*.
P articular attention, with respect to synthetic approach, deserves the definition suggested by L. Tysson. According to her, “com petitiveness o f a country m eans the ability o f the country to produce goods and services which are accepted on the international m arket and citizens to attain grow ing and sustained im provem ent o f living standard” (see: W ysokińska 2001, p. 38).
The m ost im portant issue related to com petitiveness is m aintaining and im provem ent o f long-term com petitiveness. A fairly im portant factor influencing the long-term im provem ent o f com petitiveness is the openness o f econom y. That is why the notion o f com petitiveness should be understood as - “the ability of the econom y, o r perhaps the ability o f entities operating in the econom y to adapt with regard to changing conditions, allowing for m aintaining or im proving their position on the global m arket” (see: Żurkow ska 1995). T his definition is corresponding to the one suggested by W. Bieńkowski: “com petitiveness is the ability to fight for econom ic survival within the environm ent o f increasing com petition. Econom ic entities possessing this quality are those w hich are able to m aintain their position on the market for a longer period (m icro approach). The com petitive ability according to the m acro approach, that is with respect to the whole open econom y, profit increase (positive accum ulation), which effect will be such a structure o f econom y and the structure o f its export, which corresponds to, or keeps up with, relevant changes in global econom y and global export” (see: Bieńkowski 1995, pp. 60-62).
W hile analysing international com petitiveness one should not forget about the tw o concepts closely related to this issue. These are namely:
• international com petitive ability, • international com petitive position.
International com petitive ability - is defined as a com petitiveness o f the factor type and it determ ines long-term ability o f the econom y to keep up with
2 See: The World Com petitiveness Report 1994, World Econom ic Forum, Lausanna 1994, p. 18.
international com petition. It is related to relative evaluation o f potential possibilities o f enterprises and taking actions increasing chances for obtaining in the future, better results than the com petitors. Therefore the notion o f international com petitive ability regards not only real phenom ena but also econom ic system and econom ic policy.
T he com petitive ability o f econom ic entities is determ ined not by accum ulated outlays and results, but by realistic and developm ent plans.
The change o f com petitive ability is expressed as an aggregated change o f value o f factors w hich are attributable to it. A bility to com pete is determ ined by: • ability to sell produced goods and services to other countries,
• ability o f the goods and services produced on the area o f a given country to com pete with im ported goods and services,
• ability to prevail investors to choose the country as a location for their investm ent (see: H ildebrandt 2002, p. 69).
M uch more narrow notion is the international com petitive position. It concerns m ainly the participation o f a given co un try ’s econom y in the broadly understood international econom ic exchange, that is exchange o f products (goods and services), as well as production factors (w orkforce, capital and know-how ). T he com petitive position is to the great am ount determ ined by the situation on the current account, the level o f international debt and foreign currency reserves. In case o f com panies, com petitive position is determ ined, besides the m arket position, also by financial results, including indebtedness, obtained net incom e, cash flow, level o f ow nership capital, quality of m anagem ent, technological intensity, and capital links.
3. D eterm in an ts
In general, the issue o f econom y’s com petitiveness stem s from the exchange or grow th theory and what follow s econom ic growth. Position o f a country in global econom y depends largely on the condition o f the w hole econom y. One can agree that a country with high inflation rate or level o f unem ploym ent will not be able to m aintain high position in the global econom y. On the other hand, all contem porary theories o f growth consider the level o f com m itm ent o f the country in the international division o f labour. Foreign trade or even the whole econom ic relations with the environm ent are regarded to be the tool for obtaining developm ent goals. Com petition regards not only the m arketplace but concerns also technologies which determ ine the shape o f future econom ic activity, as well as capital and investments.
C om petitive advantage o f econom y is of the secondary nature and it is an important factor influencing com petitiveness at the level o f a com pany. Analysis o f gaining international advantage, aims at answ ering the question: how does a given national econom y create, for entities operating in this econom y, an environm ent allow ing for im provem ent o f their activity (introduction o f innovations, new technologies, etc.) and what follow s, w inning the international market com petition m ore often than their foreign com petitors?
M. P orter shifted concepts, m ethodology, and a theory o f com petitive advantages from the level o f a com pany to the level o f national econom y. He distinguishes four determ inants of obtaining international com petitive advantage by a country:
• equipping w ith production factors,
• dem and factors, form ation o f appropriate level and structure o f dem and, • form ation o f appropriate structure o f trades (supporting and related trades), • conditions o f creating, functioning, organizing and m anaging com panies (see:
G orynia 1996, p. 344).
Equipping a country with production factors includes: hum an resources, tangible resources, know ledge, capital, and infrastructure. R atios in which these factors are applied differ significantly am ong the traders. C hanges in technology contribute to changes in ratios o f factors ensuring obtaining technological advantage. G lobalisation often weakens the significance o f availability of specific factors in a given place. Human resources, know ledge, and capital are characterised at present by substantial m obility - they can be shifted between countries.
P roduction factors can be divided from the point o f view o f their specificity. O ne can distinct universal factors, concerning m any traders and specific factors. They have very narrow utilisation and can be applied only w ithin a certain trade. The origin o f production factors is also o f im portance. A country may be equipped with som e factors (natural resources, location) w hereas others are created in this country by means o f certain m echanism s. Insufficiency o f particular production factors in a given country can influence creation o f com petitive advantage through e.g. technological changes.
T he second determ inant consists o f dem and factors o f the dom estic market o f the country. F eatures o f dom estic dem and may allow com panies proper perception, interpretation, and fulfilling needs o f clients. T he m ost im portant, from this point o f view, features o f the dom estic dem and are: its structure according to the contribution o f respective segm ents, volum e o f dem and, initial tim e o f dem and for a given product, as well as the tim e point w hen the dom estic dem and is fulfilled.
A nother determ inant o f obtaining the international advantage is the existence o f appropriate structure o f traders in a given econom y. T he existence o f com petitive suppliers is particularly im portant in com parison with foreign
com petitors. They can enable fast and som etim es preferential access to tangible resources. The advantages related to location can be also o f great im portance. Proxim ity o f suppliers in relation to the m arketplace has a positive influence on stim ulating innovative processes. The existence o f the appropriate set o f related traders is, in a given econom y, o f sim ilar im portance. T here can be com plem entary or related traders, w hose existence is likely to influence synergy effect, e.g. in the field o f technology or marketing.
C onditions o f creation, organization, and m anagem ent o f a com pany, as well as the nature o f com petition on the dom estic m arket constitute the fourth and the last determ inant o f obtaining the international com petitive advantage. Strategies and structure o f com panies vary in different countries. There is not a universal and optim al system o f m anagem ent. D ifferences betw een countries are so strong that it is often referred to national m anagem ent system s. In order to create a com petitive advantage o f a given trade on the international m arket, the nature o f com petition on the dom estic m arket is o f great im portance. W e may assum e that the ability to succeed on the international m arket is closely related to the intensity o f com petition on the dom estic market. In return, pressure o f dom estic com petitors depends, am ong others, on the conditions o f establishing new enterprises.
W hile analysing com petitive advantage o f a given country, particular traders are considered. T here is no national econom y which would possess com petitive advantage in com parison with another econom y in all spheres o f activity. There are, how ever, countries which win with others within particular traders, whereas within other traders do not obtain such advantages. U sually, the com petitive advantage does not exist in only one trade, but in groups o f linked traders (there are horizontal and vertical correlations).
The four discussed factors determ ining international advantage are defined as the “P o rter’s D iam ond”. These factors should be regarded as a system. The impact o f each o f these factors alone is o f no im portance, only it com bined they allow for obtaining desirable effect. These factors can weaken or support each other. The optim al situation is when all factors determ ine international com petitiveness. T here can also be a situation when only one or two factors can decide about obtaining the advantage, but it is very risky and can lead to the loss o f m arket position.
Tw o years later, that is in 1992, P o rter’s considerations were extended and supplem ented with follow ing factors by J. H. D unning (see: M isala 2000, p. 111). H e suggested the follow ing two factors:
• more or less favourable external and internal coincidences (chances),
• international econom ic activity, e.g. big foreign corporations on the area of a given country, as well as dom estic ones abroad.
R elations and references am ong all m entioned factors are presented on the picture 1.
Fig. 1. Determinants o f com petitiveness o f countries (nations) according to M .E. Porter, extended by observations o f J. H. Dunning
S o u r c e: J. M isala (2000, p. 112).
The above m entioned factors determ ining creation o f international com petitive advantage are additionally influenced by a factor called chance (coincidence, luck, or opportunity), as well as im pact o f the governm ent on the m arket (econom ic policy). Only the appropriate com bination o f these factors, also allow ing for interaction with large foreign corporations, may contribute to obtaining com petitive advantage on the international level. Significance o f these factors, intensity o f their influence and configuration change in time. Once obtained com petitive advantage should be developed, supported and protected in order to prevent its erosion.
B eside the observations o f Porter and Dunning, the so called “Pyram id o f C om petitiveness” suggested by The European C om m ittee is o f great im portance for the issue o f com petitiveness (see: picture 2). V arious m odels o f com petitiveness on m any levels are created on the basis o f this pyram id. As we can see in the pyram id o f com petitiveness, there is m uch place devoted to com petitiveness on the level o f com pany, which suggests that the long-term com petitiveness o f a com pany translates to com petitiveness o f the econom y in w hich the com pany operates. Among the factors determ ining com petitiveness o f com panies, we can distinguish: intangible investm ents - particularly in R&D
base, innovations, investm ents in fixed assets, and form o f financing o f these investm ents where o f great im portance is capital from inflow o f direct foreign investm ents, as well as public infrastructure - particularly taxes.
Fig. 2. The pyramid o f com petitiveness suggested by the European Com m ittee in 1997 S o u r c e : Benchmarking the Com petitiveness o f the European Industry, COM (96) 463, Brussels, 9 .1 0 .1 9 9 6 .
The pyram id o f com petitiveness presents a set o f factors determ ining com petitiveness, where at the top we can see one o f the m ost im portant - a standard o f living. T his factor has already appeared several tim es in the above presented definitions o f com petitiveness. Standard o f living can be regarded as synthetic indicator o f com petitiveness o f a given econom y (G D P for a citizen). This factor is influenced by two determ inants - rate o f em ploym ent and productivity, these in return decom pose further into factors determ ining both values. Rate o f em ploym ent is influenced by: rate o f professional activity, creation o f w orkplaces, labour market, dem ographic aspects o f a society and intangible investm ents, first o f all as investm ents in hum an resources (im provem ent o f qualifications).
O ne should notice that the above m entioned tools determ ining com petitiveness o f econom y aim at reaching significant econom ic growth, w hich finally should lead to higher standard o f living o f the society. Foreign direct investm ents have positive important impact on high econom ic growth, as well as on a higher standard o f living.
4. M ethod s o f m easu rem en t o f com p etitiven ess on a m acro scale
Evaluation o f com petitiveness o f a given country and its com parison with other w orld econom ies is not an easy task. As we can see, there are m any factors which directly or indirectly influence the level of com petitiveness. C onsidering the fact that one has to com pare the com petitiveness of both, highly developed, as well as developing countries, large and small econom ies, w hich encounter different problem s and have different structure, uniform m easurem ent seems to be very difficult. B elow , we present unified m ethods o f com petitiveness’ evaluation which are currently used.
4.1. Current Competitiveness Index (CCI)'
The CCI m easures factors which determ ine m aintained level o f productivity o f a given country. T hese factors are divided into two categories:
1) factors influencing the level o f com petition am ong com panies in a country (know ledge, technology, strategic and m anaging abilities, as well as tangible assets) all o f which are linked to G D P per capita, from the statistical point o f view,
2) factors influencing the whole econom ic environm ent in the country: • quality o f flow am ong com panies (inform ation availability, labourforce etc.), • availability and quality level o f local suppliers and services (availability o f technologies),
• level o f dem and for advanced products and processes,
• principles o f m anagem ent (particularly with regard to com petition am ong com panies).
The CCI levels constructed on the above m entioned factors, for chosen countries are presented in the Table 1.
Table 1. C om petitiveness o f chosen countries measured by means o f the CCI (Current Com petitiveness Index)
Country Position in the ranking
(year 1999)
Position in the ranking (year 200 0 ) Finland 2 1 USA 1 2 Germany 6 3 Holland 3 4 Switzerland 5 5 United Kingdom 10 8 Singapore 12 9 Austria 11 13 Japan 14 14 France 9 15 Spain 23 23 Hungary 33 32 Czech Republic 41 34 Rep. o f Slovakia 48 36 POLA ND 37 41 Russia 47 51 Bulgaria 54 55 Ukraine 56 56
S o u r c e : Own elaboration, based on the Global C om petitiveness Ranking Report, 2000.
As we can see, Poland took the 41st place in the ranking o f 2000. It means that the Polish position was by four places low er than in the previous year and worse than positions o f com petitor countries from M iddle-E astern Europe. Countries qualified for the highest places are characterised by the highest level o f developm ent.
4.2. Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI)4
The GCI m easures factors which influence the value o f the G D P per capita grow th rate. It is calculated as the arithm etical mean based on three values: • econom ic productivity o f innovations and technological changes,
• productivity o f public finances’ system (com prises rate o f savings and investm ents),
• im pact o f a given econom y on global economy.
C om petitiveness o f chosen countries m easured by m eans o f the GC1 has been presented in the T able 2. As in case of the previously presented index, countries which qualified for the highest places are characterised by relatively higher developm ent. In the year 2000 Poland reached 35lh position in the ranking, w hich, in com parison to the previous year, was higher by 8 places. Sim ilar increase o f position in the ranking was shown by the rem aining countries o f the M iddle-Eastern Europe. Last places in the ranking w ere occupied by the countries w hich em erged after the decom position o f the USSR: R ussia and Ukraine.
Table 2. C om petitiveness o f chosen countries measured by means o f the GCI
Country Position in the ranking
(year 1999)
Position in the ranking (year 2000) USA 2 1 Singapore 1 2 Luxembourg 7 3 Holland 9 4 Ireland 10 5 Finland 11 6 United K ingdom 8 9 Germany 25 15 Austria 20 18 Japan 14 21 France 23 22 Spain 26 27 Hungary 38 26 Czech Republic 39 32 POLA ND 43 35 Rep. o f Slovakia 45 39 Russia 59 55 Ukraine 58 57 S o u r с e: A s same as Tab. I .
4.3. National Competitiveness Score (NCS)
C om petitiveness m easured by the NCS (see: D unning 1998, p. 7) is considered to present the ability o f a given country to “generate” m ore wealth for its citizens than its com petitors on the global m arket. The value o f this indicator is influenced by eight com ponents (each o f them m easuring in a specific way the level o f productivity o f analysed econom y):
1) national econom ic strength (level o f com petitiveness within the econom y),
2) "internationalisation” (degree to which the econom y participates in the international trade and investm ents),
3) m anagem ent o f the country (degree to which the governm ent and its policy support com petitiveness),
4) condition o f finances (level o f capital m arket and quality o f financial services),
5) infrastructure (degree to which the system is adequate to basic needs represented on the m icro econom ic level),
6) m ethod o f m anaging com panies, 7) level o f science and technology,
8) people (availability and education on work m arket).
In the T able 3 we present results concerning com petitiveness o f chosen countries m easured by m eans o f the NCS.
In the year 1996 (according to the NCS) the US econom y was most com petitive and therefore the level obtained by this econom y was accepted as the m axim um level - that is 100 points. It is easy to see that as in case of previously presented indexes better developed countries w ere also highly qualified in the ranking. Also in this case, Poland was situated below its com petitors from the group o f M iddle-Eastern European countries (except Russia) and took the 43rd place in the ranking.
Table 3. C om petitiveness o f chosen countries measured by means o f the N C S method (situation for the year 1996)
Country Level o f the NCS index Position in the ranking
USA 100.0 1 Singapore 88.6 2 Hong Kong 78.6 3 j Japan 7 5 .0 4 J Denmark 72.9 5
j
Holland 71. 4 7 Luxemburg 71. 3 8 Germany 71. 1 10 Austria 64.3 16 U nited Kingdom 60.7 19 France 60.6 20 Spain 38.6 29 Thailand 37.9 30 Czech Republic 32.1 34 Hungary 25.7 39 POLA ND 21.4 43 Russia 5.0 464.4. National Competitiveness Index (NCI)
In order to calculate the NCI (D unning 1998, p. 10), one should consider G D P grow th, grow th o f export volume and inflow o f direct foreign investm ents. The index focuses on factors which are the consequence (not the reason) o f the level o f com petitiveness in a given country. O penness o f econom y, governm ent sector’s role, productivity o f the financial sector, and flexibility on the work m arket is m ore im portant in this case than the quality o f infrastructure, technology, political institutions are and the level o f com panies m anagem ent in a m icroeconom ic scale.
In the T able 4 we present the value o f the NCI obtained by chosen countries.
Table 4. C om petitiveness o f chosen countries measured by means o f the NCI (situation for the year 1996)
Country Level o f the NCI index P osition in the ranking
Singapore 2.19 1 Hong Kong 1.89 2 N ew Zealand 1.57 3 USA 1.34 4 Luxemburg 1.29 5 Japan 0.65 13 United Kingdom 0.63 15 Austria 0.40 19 Germany 0.27 22 France 0.24 23 Spain -0.57 32 Czech Republic -0.64 35 POLA ND -1. 15 44 Hungary -1. 48 46 Russia -2.36 49
S o u r c e : Own elaboration, based on the J. H. Dunning 1998, p. 11.
In this ranking Poland obtained the 44lh position, while the C zech Republic was classified by 9 positions higher and Hungary by 2 positions lower.
5. Final rem arks
D espite various m ethodologies used for the purpose o f establishing com petitiveness o f countries on the global market, results obtained through all m ethods presented above are significantly related to each other. Highly
developed countries and young and dynam ic Asiatic econom ies, play the leading role w hereas countries o f M iddle-Eastern Europe are classified on a distinctly much low er level.
R eferences
B i e ń k o w s k i W. (1 9 9 5 ), R eagonom ika i j e j w pływ na konkurencyjność g o sp o d a rk i am erykań skiej, PW N, Warszawa.
D u n f o r d M. (2 0 0 1 ), C om petition, C om petitiven ess a n d E n terprise P o licies, Oxford. D u n n i n g J H. (1998), G lobalization , trade an d fo re ig n d irect investm ent, Bergman.
G o r y n i a M. (1 9 9 6 ), M iędzyn arodow a konkurencyjność p o lsk iej g o sp o d a rk i, „Ekonom ista”, nr 3.
H i l d e b r a n d t A. (2 0 0 2 ), K onkurencyjność — P róby zdefiniow ania i p om iaru zjaw iska, W spólnoty Europejskie nr 3.
L u b i ń s k i M. , M i c h a l s k i T., M i s a l a J. (1995), M ięd zyn a ro d o w a konkurencyjność gospodarki. P o jęcie i s p o s o b y m ierzenia, [w:] S tudia n a d konku rencyjnością, Warszawa. L u b i ń s k i M. (1 9 9 5 ), Konkurencyjność gospodarki. P o jęcia i s p o s o b y m ierzen ia , [w:] Studia
n a d konkurencyjnością, Warszawa.
M i s a l a J. (2 0 0 0 ), Istota i m ierniki m iędzyn arodow ej konkurencyjności g o sp o d a r k i w św ietle teo rii w ym ian y m iędzyn arodow ej, [w:] Konkurencyjność g o sp o d a r k i P o lski w d o b ie integracji z Unią E uropejską i g lo b a liza c ji, red. J. Bossak, W. Bieńkow ski, 1 .1, Warszawa.
P resid en t's C om m ission on Industrial C om petitiven ess, [in:] G lo b a l C om petition : The N ew R eality, W ashington DC 1985.
P o r t e r M .E. (1 9 9 0 ), The C om petitive A dvan tage o f N ations, N ew York. The G lo b a l C o m petitiven ess R eport, 2 000, World Econom ic Forum, Oxford 2000. The W orld C o m petitiven ess R eport 1994, World Econom ic Forum, Lausanna 1994.
W y s o k i ń s k a Z. (2 0 0 1 ), Konkurencyjność w m iędzyn arodow ym i glo b a ln ym handlu tech n ologiam i. Warszawa.
Z u r k o w s k a K. (1 9 9 5 ), U m iędzyn arodow ien ie p ro d u k cji a konkurencyjność, [w:] M iędzyn arodow a konkurencyjność g o sp o d a rk i P olski - uw arun kow ania i persp ek tyw y, IR i SS , Warszawa.
Dorota Starzyńska
M E T O D O L O G IC Z N E A S P E K T Y PO M IARU K O N K U R E N C Y J N O Ś C I G O S P O D A R K I W UJĘCIU M IK RO I M A K R O E K O N O M IC Z N Y M
Pojęcie konkurencyjności jest pow szechnie stosow ane w literaturze ekonom icznej, chociaż termin ten nie zaw sze traktowany jest jednoznacznie. Autorka podejmuje próbę przedstawienia różnych sp osob ów definiow ania konkurencyjności w ujęciu mikro- i makroekonomicznym. Określone zostały rów nież determinanty konkurencyjności gospodarki i m etody jej mierzenia. S zczegółow o zaprezentowano następujące mierniki: indeks bieżącej konkurencyjności (ang. CCI), indeks konkurencyjności rozwoju (ang. GC1), indeks konkurencyjności narodowej (ang. NCI) i wynik konkurencyjności narodowej (ang. N C S) oraz przykłady ich zastosow ań dla Polski, krajów Unii Europejskiej, U SA , Rosji i innych wybranych krajów świata.
