ESCAP High-level Policy Dialogue Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia International Economic Summit 2013 Eleventh Bank Indonesia Annual International Seminar Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable Growth with Equity in East Asia 15-17 May 2013, Yogyakarta, Indonesia Jointly organized by UN ESCAP, Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia and Bank Indonesia Roundtable Discussion Rethinking Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in East Asia Presentation Global Growth Engines including USA, European Union, Japan & China to 12 Asian Economies (1980 to 2020), Further Asian Connectivity and Inclusive Growth by Dr Tan Khee Giap Co Directors, Asia Competitiveness Institute, Associate Professor of Public Policy Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore & Chairman, Singapore National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (SINCPEC) May 2013 The views expressed in the paper are those of the author(s) and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations. This paper has been issued without formal editing.
Global Growth Engines including USA, European Union, Japan & China to 12 Asian Economies (1980 to 2020), Further Asian Connectivity and Inclusive Growth* Dr Tan Khee Giap Co Directors, Asia Competitiveness Institute Associate Professor of Public Policy Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore & Chairman, Singapore National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (SINCPEC) Revised and prepared for presentation for ESCAP High level Policy Dialogue on Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable Growth with Equity in East Asia organised by ESCAP, Jogyakarta, 15 17 May 2013. Also presented at the Asia Pacific Real Estate Convention & Expo 2013, 20 22 March 2013, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore; also presented at the 27 th Pacific economic Seminar Regional Economic Integration Review AND Outlook organized by Chinese Taipei Pacific Economic Foundation Cooperation Committee, 4 5 October 2012, The Regent Hotel, Taipei, Taiwan; presented to China Europe Institute of Business Studies (CEIBS) delegation, 13 October 2012 at Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore Outline of Presentation The dynamic evolution of global growth engines including USA, EU, Japan, China to 11 selected Asian economies over past four decades, 1980-2010. Regional competitiveness landscapes including 34 Greater China economies, 35 States of India and ASEAN-10, 2000-2010. Differences in economic development approaches and characteristics amongst China, India and Singapore. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) versus Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a pathway to Free Trade Agreement for Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) which is the most widely supported approach for greater economic integration The Global economy in the decade ahead, 2010-2020: Dynamic shifts, challenges and opportunities
Estimating Growth Engines China now the largest export market for ASEAN-5 except Indonesia US, European Union and Japan are now weaker engines of growth for ASEAN-5 The importance of indirect growth multiplier US impact on Australia (US is a minor trading partner) through its effect on Japan and China (which are major Australian trading partners) Export shares and trade in intermediates products Growth Engines of ASEAN-5 Traditional external engines of growth: US, EU, Japan. When US sneezes the world catches cold New external engines: China, India??? How to assess? Trade flows versus multiplier effects China the largest export market, does it generate similar multiplier effects?
Decoupling Literature Number of studies on business cycle comovements at a global level (Kose and Prasad, 2010). Basic tool: Dynamic factor model. Identify a latent factor to represent global cycles and examine how this correlates with individual country cycles. Results are mixed, but less supportive of decoupling thesis. Focus of ACI-LKYSPP Studies Our focus, not on business cycle synchronization, but on the evolution of Asia s dependence of traditional and emerging growth engines and the dynamics of Asian integration. Common practice: look into direct trade and investment linkages. This ignores indirect multiplier effects and underestimates the power of growth engines.
Export shares and trade in intermediates products versus final demand ASEAN Components Japan Components China (Components & final assembly) Final Demand US Components NIEs The Importance of Indirect Growth Multiplier Japan Australia US China Major Impact Minor Impact
VAR Model of Estimation on the Engines of Growth The Four Engines of Growth Note: Figures in brackets for 2001 2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs. Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth. 10
The Four Engines of Growth Thailand Period China India Japan EU US 1980 1989 0.185 0.035 0.437 0.803 1.270 1990 1999 0.354 0.026 0.524 0.876 1.438 2001 2009 0.659 0.044 0.377 0.700 1.035 (1.74) (1.06) (1.57) Note: Figures in brackets for 2001 2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs. Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth. 11 The Four Engines of Growth Indonesia Period China India Japan EU US 1980 1989 0.076 0.013 0.445 0.312 0.782 1990 1999 0.183 0.015 0.322 0.415 0.661 2000 2009 0.333 0.034 0.243 0.344 0.491 (1.37) (1.03) (1.47) Note: Figures in brackets for 2000 2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs. Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth. 12
The Four Engines of Growth Singapore Period China India Japan EU US 1980 1989 0.165 0.049 0.442 0.650 1.377 1990 1999 0.396 0.039 0.441 0.869 1.520 2000 2009 0.748 0.063 0.297 0.703 1.006 (2.52) (0.94) (1.34) Note: Figures in brackets for 2000 2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs. Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth. 13 The Four Engines of Growth Philippines Period China India Japan EU US 1980 1989 0.020 0.003 0.068 0.104 0.251 1990 1999 0.043 0.004 0.068 0.121 0.256 2000 2009 0.110 0.005 0.063 0.115 0.175 (1.75) (1.05) (1.59) Note: Figures in brackets for 2000 2009 refer to: (i) under China: relative importance of China vs. Japan as an engine of growth; (ii) under US (EU): relative importance of US (EU) vs. China as an engine of growth. 14
Relative Importance of US vs China as an Engine of Growth for ASEAN-5 Period Ratio 1980 89 9.17 1990 99 4.30 2001 09 1.53 2010 19 0.65* * Figure projected assuming a linear trend for the natural logarithm of the ratio. Relative Importance of EU vs China as an Engine of Growth for ASEAN-5 Period Ratio 1980 89 4.49 1990 99 2.41 2001 09 1.02 2010 19 0.51* * Figure projected assuming a linear trend for the natural logarithm of the ratio.
Relative Importance of China vs Japan as an Engine of Growth for ASEAN-5 Period Ratio 1980 89 0.31 1990 99 0.71 2001 09 1.88 2010 19 4.52* * Figure projected assuming a linear trend for the natural logarithm of the ratio. Relative Importance of US vs China as an Engine of Growth (2001-2009) Country Ratio India 1.94 Malaysia 1.69 Philippines 1.59 Thailand 1.57 Japan 1.53 Indonesia 1.47 Singapore 1.34 Australia 1.15 Korea 1.09 Taiwan 0.99 Hong Kong 0.70
Relative Importance of EU vs China as an Engine of Growth (2001-2009) Country Ratio India 1.61 Malaysia 1.03 Philippines 1.05 Thailand 1.06 Japan 0.91 Indonesia 1.03 Singapore 0.94 Australia 0.92 Korea 0.76 Taiwan 0.63 Hong Kong 046 Country Relative Importance of China vs Japan as an Engine of Growth (2001-2009) Ratio Hong Kong 6.33 Taiwan 3.73 Korea 3.20 India 2.98 Singapore 2.52 Malaysia 2.04 Philippines 1.75 Thailand 1.75 Australia 1.52 Indonesia 1.37
Relative Importance of (US plus Japan) vs China as Engine of Growth (2001-2009) Country Ratio India 2.28 Malaysia 2.18 Philippines 2.14 Thailand 2.16 Indonesia 2.20 Singapore 1.74 Australia 1.81 Korea 1.40 Taiwan 1.26 Hong Kong 0.86 Engines of Growth among ASEAN-5 (2001-09) Indo Mal Phil Spore Thai Indo Mal 0.34 (0.49) Phil Spore 0.25 (0.16) 0.31 (0.43) Thai 0.22 (0.39) Note: figures in brackets refer to the period 1990 99
Conclusions China has rapidly become a major engine of growth for ASEAN-5 in the past decade The US growth engine is still 1.53 times more important than that of China for ASEAN-5 The EU growth engine is equally important as that of China for ASEAN-5 The Chinese growth engine has become 1.88 times more important than that of Japan for ASEAN-5 Conclusions US pus Japan is about twice as important as China as the growth engine for ASEAN-5, however, the continued economic integration of China to other Asian economies is unstoppable! India has not yet become a growth engine for ASEAN-5 though it is of increasing importance to Singapore and Malaysia Intra-ASEAN growth engines are confined to among Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. The growth engines have actually weakened over the past decade.
Conclusions The mutual growth dependence of Singapore and Malaysia has fallen over the past decade Indonesia has become a more important growth engine for Singapore over the past decade US participation in any Asian regional economic grouping is critical as it is still the most important engine of growth for all the Asian economies (except Taiwan and Hong Kong) Conclusions Based on existing trends, for ASEAN to strategically balance the rising dependence on China, the key network linkages with the most future potential are: (1) India-Indonesia-Singapore, Australia-India, Japan-Indonesia- Singapore. (2) Attracting Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Hong Kong labour intensive industries relocating from China to ASEAN to produce for the US, EU, Japan, India and ASEAN markets. (3) For greater Asian connectivity and integration, attracting massive infrastructure investment and financing from China and Japan to ASEAN in the area of transportation, telecommunication, power & utilities to ensure sustainable economic growth development bottlenecks in ASEAN
Regional tension and political agenda involving USA, China, Japan and Korea have disrupted CJK-FTA Further momentum of China-Japan-Korea Free Trade Agreement (CJK-FTA) is unlikely in the near future and not too optimistic in the medium term either. Trans-Pacific Strategic economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) evolved from the original P-4 FTA initiated by Singapore in 2006 currently have more than 11 members committed or interested. However, TPP so far has been overshadowed by political agenda with renewed Japanese interests, given the difficulties of China and Indonesia which are unlikely join such a high quality FTA. Japan proposed Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia (CEPEA) so as to play an active leadership role in East Asia which in fact is FTA of ASEAN 3+3 (i.e. India Australia and New Zealand) where all 16 members are members of the East Asian Summit; meanwhile China has taken keen initiative in discussion pertaining to East Asia Free Trade Agreement (EAFTA) where government officials are engaged in the discussions under the four working groups. We strongly urge USA to play an even more pro-active economic role in Asia where political role would emerge naturally later which would lead to greater stabilization of Asia. RCEP or TPP, which is a realistic path way FTAAP to better reflect balanced regional interests? The current American-driven high-quality Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have gained momentum from recent Japanese agreement to participate although two emerging giant Asian economies, namely China and Indonesia, continued to be not keen. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) can be seen as a compromise when China and Japan jointly proposed in August 2011 ASEAN to set up three working groups in goods, trade in services and investments. Hence ASEAN proposed in November 2011 an ASEAN-Led RCEP was affirmed by leaders from East Asia Summit in April 2012. RCEP could be the most realistic pathway to Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) which would be the most widely supported approach since USA, China and Japan (and surely Chinese Taipei too!) are included. Other interested potential members such as India and other smaller economies would surely be welcome. As Indonesia recovers steadily since 2005 as a rising middle power after her economic set back in Asian financial crisis of 1997, the importance and leadership of Indonesia is noticed especially in view of the recent rising regional tensions over territory sovereignty amongst some members of ASEAN and China.
Growth rates of China s GDP, 1986-2011 21/05/2013 29 China s GDP, 1978-2010 (at current prices, in USD millions) 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 21/05/2013 30
USA, European Union, China, Japan & India, 2013-2020 The US economy appears to be emerging from its worst since the 2008 2009 American sub-prime driven-financial crisis through rounds of quantitative easing. The fiscal non-sustainability and weak competitiveness of Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal would continue to drag down the economic prospect of European Union. The Chinese economy would continue to grow steadily at 7.5% per annum for the current decade with external demand, domestic consumption, regional infrastructure development and rapid urbanization as drivers for growth. India would continue to be bogged down by inertia in economic reform programs and the weak coalition government. The current Japanese attempt to restore trade competitiveness through currency depreciation and regionalization of Reminbi would have significant implications to exchange rate alignment for major world currencies. Global quantitative easing by the US Federal Reserves Board, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, and People s Bank of China would lead to competitive exchange rate devaluation and volatile capital flows with serious negative implications for Asian economies with potential inflationary pressure. 21/05/2013 31 Greater Asian Connectivity: Sustainable and Inclusive Growth In the APEC process, there are basically three pillars including trade & investment, regional integration and eco-tech. While APEC economies have made good progress in terms of trade & investment, regional integration in terms of Asian connectivity needed to be further enhanced. However the third pillar, namely eco-tech which encompasses inclusive, sustainable and equitable growth, has been lacking in focus and serious attention while the first two pillars progress ahead with good performance by multinational corporations and reward for employers. In view of widening income disparity amongst developing and developed economies, productivity tracking and efficiency monitoring of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) must be serious look into, in particular the management performance of professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) working in SMEs. Unlike Japan, as China is surely and steadily on the way to be the biggest economy in the world, further cooperation amongst SMES in Asia to gain greater access to the big, diverse and increasingly consumption driven Chinese markets would be paramount. Amongst the significant and effective way of ensuring fruits of economic growth to be inclusive and equitably shared, tracking on affordability indices in FOUR areas including education, housing, health and public transportation for public policies formulation and adjustments remained most critical. 21/05/2013 32
Framework for constructing Competitiveness Ranking (1) Macroeconomic Stability (2) Government & Institutional Setting (3) Financial, Businesses & Manpower Conditions (4) Quality Of Life & Infrastructure Development 1.1 Regional Economic Vibrancy 2.1 Government Policies and Fiscal Sustainability 3.1 Financial Deepening and Business Efficiency 4.1 Physical Infrastructure 1.2 1.3 Openness To Trade and Services Attractiveness To Foreign Investors 2.2 Institutions, Governance and Leadership 3.2 Labour Market Flexibility 4.2 Technological Infrastructure 3.3 Productivity Performance 4.3 Standard of Living, Education and Social Stability 1. Indicators for Macroeconomic Stability (26 Indicators) Openness To Trade and Attractiveness To Foreign 1.1 Regional Economic Vibrancy 1.2 1.3 Services Investors 1.1.01 Gross Regional Product 1.2.01 Trade Balance (%) 1.3.01 Planned Foreign Direct Investment (Excl Regional Investment) 1.1.02 GRP Growth 1.2.02 International Merchandise Exports 1.3.02 Realized Foreign Direct Investment (Excl. Regional Investment) 1.1.03 GRP Per Capita 1.2.03 International Merchandise Imports 1.3.03 Foreign Funded Enterprises (%) 1.1.04 Primary Industry (%) 1.2.04 Openness To Trade 1.3.04 Total Taxes on Foreign Funded Companies 1.1.05 Secondary Industry (%) 1.2.05 International Visitor Arrivals 1.1.06 Tertiary Industry (%) 1.2.06 International Tourism Receipts 1.1.07 Gross Capital Formation (%) 1.1.08 Consumer Price Index 1.1.09 Retail Price Index 1.1.10 Net Regional Trade 1.1.11 Regional Tourist Arrivals 1.1.12 Regional Tourism Receipts 1.1.13 Planned Regional Investment 1.1.14 Realized Regional Investment 1.1.15 Industry Gross Output Value 1.1.16 Business Survey Index
2. Indicators for Government and Institutional Setting (13 Indicators) 2.1 Government Policies and Fiscal Sustainability 2.2 Institutions, Governance and Leadership 2.1.01 Government Revenue 2.2.01 Domestic Funded Enterprises 2.1.02 Tax Revenue 2.2.02 State-Owned Enterprises 2.1.03 Tax Revenue/Government Revenue 2.2.03 Collective-Owned Enterprises 2.1.04 Government Consumption Expenditure 2.2.04 Limited Liability Corporations 2.1.05 Budget Balance 2.2.05 Share Holding Corporations 2.2.06 Private Enterprises 2.2.07 Foreign Funded Enterprises 2.2.08 State-Owned Enterprises to Total Enterprises 3. Indicators for Financial, Businesses and Manpower Conditions (16 Indicators) Financial Deepening and 3.1 3.2 Labour Market Flexibility 3.3 Productivity Performance Business Efficiency 3.1.01 Total Savings Deposits 3.2.01 Total Employed Persons 3.3.01 Overall Labour Productivity 3.1.02 Total Loans 3.2.02 Self-Employed Persons (Urban Area) 3.3.02 Primary Industry, Value Added per Worker 3.2.03 Unemployment Rate (Urban Area) 3.3.03 Secondary Industry, Value-Added per Worker 3.2.04 Secondary & Tertiary Staff Workers (%) 3.3.04 Tertiary Industry, Value-Added per Worker 3.2.05 Average Annual Wage of Staff and Workers 3.2.06 Total Wages Bill of Employed Persons in Urban Units 3.2.07 Wages Paid Out by State-Owned Units 3.2.08 Wages Paid Out by Urban Collective Units 3.2.09 Wages Paid Out by Other Units 3.3.05 Investment in Fixed Assets
4. Indicators for Quality Of Life and Infrastructure Development (51 Indicators) Standard of Living, Education and Social 4.1 Physical Infrastructure 4.2 Technological Infrastructure 4.3 Stability 4.1.01 Population 4.2.01 Persons per Fixed Telephone Subscriber 4.3.01 Illiteracy Rate 4.1.02 Urban Population 4.2.02 Persons per Internet Subscriber 4.3.02 Number of Educational Institutions 4.1.03 Rural Population 4.2.03 Personal Computer 4.3.03 Disparity between Primary & Secondary Institutions 4.1.04 Population Density 4.2.04 High Technology Expenditure 4.3.04 Tertiary Institutions 4.1.05 Length of Railways in Operation 4.2.05 High Technology Proficiency 4.3.05 Student-Teacher Ratio (Primary) 4.1.06 Length of Highways 4.2.06 Persons per Mobile Telephone Subscriber 4.3.06 Student-Teacher Ratio (Secondary) 4.1.07 Length of Navigable Inland Waterways 4.2.07 Urban Television Sets 4.3.07 Student-Teacher Ratio (Tertiary) 4.1.08 Length of Total Civil Aviation Routes 4.2.08 Rural Television Sets 4.3.08 Health Expenditure 4.1.09 Passenger Distance of Railways in Operation 4.2.09 Expenditure on Science and Technology 4.3.09 Urban Population Growth 4.1.10 Passenger Distance of Highways 4.2.10 Scientific and Technical Journals 4.3.10 Air Pollution 4.1.11 Passenger Distance of Navigable Inland Waterways 4.2.11 Patents Granted 4.3.11 Ageing Profile 4.1.12 Passenger Distance of Total Civil Aviation Routes 4.3.12 Old Age Dependency Ratio 4.1.13 Motor Vehicles per Person 4.3.13 Birth Rate 4.1.14 Coal 4.3.14 Death Rate 4.1.15 Oil 4.3.15 Adequacy of Hospitals 4.1.16 Electric Hydropower 4.3.16 Population per Hospital Bed 4.1.17 Crude Steel 4.3.17 Population per Medical Personnel 4.1.18 Pig Iron 4.3.18 Per Capita Annual Urban Household Income 4.1.19 Steel Products 4.1.20 Cement 4.1.21 Total Land Area 4.1.22 Cultivated Land Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 34 Greater China Economies, 2000-2010 TOTAL Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Taiwan 1.4942 Hong Kong 1.1127 Guangdong 0.6370 Shanghai 0.2861 Beijing 0.2667 Jiangsu 0.2501 2001 Taiwan 1.4539 Hong Kong 1.1833 Guangdong 0.6989 Shanghai 0.3286 Beijing 0.3127 Jiangsu 0.2606 2002 Taiwan 1.3795 Hong Kong 1.1134 Guangdong 0.7650 Shanghai 0.3590 Beijing 0.3400 Jiangsu 0.3101 2003 Taiwan 1.4942 Hong Kong 1.1127 Guangdong 0.6370 Shanghai 0.2861 Beijing 0.2667 Jiangsu 0.2501 2004 Taiwan 1.3125 Hong Kong 1.0644 Guangdong 0.7916 Jiangsu 0.4323 Shanghai 0.3638 Zhejiang 0.3308 2005 Taiwan 1.2732 Hong Kong 0.9137 Guangdong 0.7813 Jiangsu 0.4995 Shanghai 0.4110 Zhejiang 0.3541 2006 Taiwan 1.1827 Hong Kong 0.9063 Guangdong 0.8221 Jiangsu 0.5514 Zhejiang 0.4268 Beijing 0.3932 2007 Taiwan 1.0637 Hong Kong 0.9221 Guangdong 0.8385 Jiangsu 0.5988 Beijing 0.4517 Zhejiang 0.4326 2008 Taiwan 0.9719 Guangdong 0.8343 Hong Kong 0.8215 Jiangsu 0.6608 Beijing 0.4631 Zhejiang 0.4542 2009 Taiwan 0.8664 Guangdong 0.8525 Hong Kong 0.7956 Jiangsu 0.7136 Zhejiang 0.4768 Beijing 0.4753 2010 Taiwan 0.8555 Guangdong 0.8535 Jiangsu 0.7714 Hong Kong 0.7531 Zhejiang 0.4699 Beijing 0.4401 TOTAL Rank 7 8 9 10 11 12 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Zhejiang 0.1620 Shandong 0.1414 Macau 0.1202 Liaoning 0.1075 Fujian 0.0821 Hebei 0.0109 2001 Zhejiang 0.2312 Shandong 0.1875 Macau 0.1227 Liaoning 0.1017 Fujian 0.0897 Hebei -0.0066 2002 Zhejiang 0.2648 Shandong 0.2361 Liaoning 0.1176 Fujian 0.0911 Macau 0.0857 Hebei 0.0128 2003 Zhejiang 0.1620 Shandong 0.1414 Macau 0.1202 Liaoning 0.1075 Macau 0.0610 Hebei 0.0101 2004 Beijing 0.3255 Shandong 0.3200 Macau 0.0806 Fujian 0.0615 Liaoning 0.0472 Hebei 0.0098 2005 Shandong 0.3531 Beijing 0.3353 Liaoning 0.0708 Fujian 0.0294 Hebei 0.0294 Macau 0.0230 2006 Shandong 0.3843 Shanghai 0.3793 Liaoning 0.0735 Macau 0.0462 Fujian 0.0369 Hebei 0.0239 2007 Shanghai 0.4237 Shandong 0.3550 Liaoning 0.1091 Macau 0.0555 Hebei 0.0230 Fujian 0.0079 2008 Shanghai 0.4516 Shandong 0.3766 Liaoning 0.1519 Hebei 0.0467 Fujian 0.0037 Macau -0.0069 2009 Shanghai 0.3911 Shandong 0.3574 Liaoning 0.1854 Hebei 0.0533 Fujian 0.0371 Tianjin -0.0232 2010 Shanghai 0.4228 Shandong 0.3543 Liaoning 0.1992 Hebei 0.0432 Fujian 0.0294 Sichuan -0.0065 TOTAL Rank 13 14 15 16 17 18 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Hubei -0.0319 Sichuan -0.0451 Tianjin -0.0502 Heilongjiang -0.0856 Henan -0.1194 Inner Mongolia -0.1306 2001 Sichuan -0.0373 Hubei -0.0641 Tianjin -0.0814 Heilongjiang -0.1244 Inner Mongolia -0.1423 Jilin -0.1525 2002 Sichuan -0.0233 Hubei -0.0875 Tianjin -0.1107 Heilongjiang -0.1110 Henan -0.1467 Chongqing -0.1475 2003 Sichuan -0.0122 Hubei -0.0742 Heilongjiang -0.1164 Chongqing -0.1217 Tianjin -0.1323 Henan -0.1570 2004 Sichuan -0.0314 Hubei -0.0866 Tianjin -0.0976 Henan -0.1197 Heilongjiang -0.1395 Hunan -0.1490 2005 Sichuan -0.0597 Henan -0.0747 Hubei -0.0882 Tianjin -0.1019 Chongqing -0.1339 Hunan -0.1455 2006 Henan -0.0530 Hubei -0.0541 Sichuan -0.0628 Tianjin -0.0748 Hunan -0.1457 Inner Mongolia -0.1689 2007 Sichuan -0.0452 Hubei -0.0624 Henan -0.0756 Tianjin -0.0918 Hunan -0.1487 Inner Mongolia -0.1599 2008 Hubei -0.0452 Tianjin -0.0473 Sichuan -0.0575 Henan -0.0809 Inner Mongolia -0.1477 Chongqing -0.1505 2009 Macau -0.0234 Hubei -0.0290 Sichuan -0.0390 Henan -0.0528 Anhui -0.1258 Inner Mongolia -0.1377 2010 Hubei -0.0093 Tianjin -0.0113 Macau -0.0441 Henan -0.0805 Anhui -0.0992 Inner Mongolia -0.1459
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 34 Greater China Economies, 2000-2010 TOTAL Rank 19 20 21 22 23 24 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Jilin -0.1407 Shanxi -0.1656 Anhui -0.1689 Chongqing -0.1773 Hunan -0.1841 Xinjiang -0.1856 2001 Hunan -0.1608 Chongqing -0.1783 Henan -0.1882 Shanxi -0.1913 Anhui -0.1947 Hainan -0.2251 2002 Jilin -0.1501 Hunan -0.1609 Anhui -0.1805 Shanxi -0.1837 Inner Mongolia -0.1950 Xinjiang -0.2047 2003 Hunan -0.1690 Anhui -0.1816 Inner Mongolia -0.1838 Xinjiang -0.1849 Jilin -0.1979 Shanxi -0.2199 2004 Anhui -0.1544 Chongqing -0.1546 Inner Mongolia -0.1645 Xinjiang -0.1934 Jilin -0.2114 Jiangxi -0.2189 2005 Heilongjiang -0.1485 Inner Mongolia -0.1579 Jiangxi -0.1775 Anhui -0.1792 Jilin -0.1810 Xinjiang -0.2163 2006 Heilongjiang -0.1726 Jiangxi -0.1789 Anhui -0.1791 Jilin -0.1811 Chongqing -0.1970 Guangxi -0.2265 2007 Anhui -0.1762 Chongqing -0.1766 Jilin -0.1771 Xinjiang -0.1838 Heilongjiang -0.1898 Jiangxi -0.1901 2008 Hunan -0.1530 Heilongjiang -0.1620 Anhui -0.1647 Jilin -0.1753 Xinjiang -0.2007 Jiangxi -0.2077 2009 Chongqing -0.1509 Jilin -0.1549 Hunan -0.1655 Heilongjiang -0.1745 Shaanxi -0.1980 Jiangxi -0.2043 2010 Chongqing -0.1518 Hunan -0.1563 Jilin -0.1743 Shaanxi -0.1811 Heilongjiang -0.1913 Shanxi -0.2027 TOTAL Rank 25 26 27 28 29 30 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Guangxi -0.2132 Hainan -0.2161 Yunnan -0.2180 Ningxia -0.2221 Shaanxi -0.2244 Jiangxi -0.3097 2001 Xinjiang -0.2309 Guangxi -0.2360 Ningxia -0.2381 Yunnan -0.2386 Shaanxi -0.2688 Jiangxi -0.2818 2002 Ningxia -0.2286 Guangxi -0.2392 Hainan -0.2480 Yunnan -0.2647 Jiangxi -0.2679 Shaanxi -0.2801 2003 Jiangxi -0.2355 Ningxia -0.2464 Guangxi -0.2625 Shaanxi -0.2737 Yunnan -0.2818 Hainan -0.3086 2004 Guangxi -0.2435 Ningxia -0.2558 Shanxi -0.2596 Shaanxi -0.2833 Yunnan -0.2959 Hainan -0.2961 2005 Guangxi -0.2394 Shaanxi -0.2467 Ningxia -0.2655 Yunnan -0.2737 Shanxi -0.2852 Qinghai -0.3199 2006 Xinjiang -0.2283 Shaanxi -0.2488 Shanxi -0.2582 Yunnan -0.2855 Ningxia -0.3029 Qinghai -0.3539 2007 Guangxi -0.2130 Shaanxi -0.2509 Shanxi -0.2587 Ningxia -0.2966 Yunnan -0.3120 Hainan -0.3619 2008 Guangxi -0.2160 Shanxi -0.2414 Shaanxi -0.2428 Yunnan -0.3062 Ningxia -0.3618 Hainan -0.4052 2009 Guangxi -0.2059 Shanxi -0.2312 Xinjiang -0.2411 Yunnan -0.3156 Ningxia -0.3787 Hainan -0.3870 2010 Jiangxi -0.2054 Xinjiang -0.2227 Guangxi -0.2356 Yunnan -0.3293 Ningxia -0.3706 Hainan -0.3898 TOTAL Rank 31 32 33 34 Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score 2000 Qinghai -0.3586 Gansu -0.3902 Guizhou -0.4226 Tibet -0.6109 2001 Qinghai -0.3300 Gansu -0.3877 Guizhou -0.4208 Tibet -0.5911 2002 Qinghai -0.3478 Guizhou -0.4314 Gansu -0.4600 Tibet -0.6058 2003 Qinghai -0.3359 Guizhou -0.4459 Gansu -0.4623 Tibet -0.5498 2004 Qinghai -0.3349 Guizhou -0.4673 Gansu -0.4707 Tibet -0.5118 2005 Hainan -0.3730 Gansu -0.4192 Guizhou -0.4421 Tibet -0.5448 2006 Hainan -0.3877 Guizhou -0.4530 Gansu -0.4590 Tibet -0.5549 2007 Qinghai -0.3934 Guizhou -0.4672 Gansu -0.4802 Tibet -0.5708 2008 Qinghai -0.4092 Gansu -0.4214 Guizhou -0.4472 Tibet -0.5856 2009 Gansu -0.4356 Guizhou -0.4525 Qinghai -0.4546 Tibet -0.6234 2010 Gansu -0.4458 Qinghai -0.4575 Guizhou -0.4585 Tibet -0.6228 Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 35 States and Federal Territories of India, 2000-2010 TOTAL Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Maharashtra 1.098245 Tamil Nadu 0.640821 Delhi # 0.618374 Lakshadweep # 0.375167 Uttar Pradesh 0.340205 2001 Maharashtra 1.13581 Delhi # 0.691053 Tamil Nadu 0.481231 Lakshadweep # 0.387643 Uttar Pradesh 0.35295 2002 Maharashtra 1.093355 Delhi # 0.57142 Tamil Nadu 0.489779 Lakshadweep # 0.378609 Karnataka 0.356376 2003 Maharashtra 1.098245 Tamil Nadu 0.640821 Delhi # 0.618374 Lakshadweep # 0.375167 Uttar Pradesh 0.340205 2004 Maharashtra 1.197973 Delhi # 0.494827 Tamil Nadu 0.45917 Karnataka 0.415928 Gujarat 0.399783 2005 Maharashtra 1.239308 Delhi # 0.512666 Tamil Nadu 0.426796 Karnataka 0.382369 Lakshadweep # 0.347421 2006 Maharashtra 1.187489 Delhi # 0.488915 Tamil Nadu 0.418075 Karnataka 0.396654 Lakshadweep # 0.384123 2007 Maharashtra 1.250754 Delhi # 0.464661 Tamil Nadu 0.429929 Karnataka 0.382121 Lakshadweep # 0.344002 2008 Maharashtra 1.150723 Delhi # 0.471413 Tamil Nadu 0.376032 Karnataka 0.346045 Lakshadweep # 0.338577 2009 Maharashtra 1.174888 Delhi # 0.497664 Tamil Nadu 0.391829 Karnataka 0.350084 Uttar Pradesh 0.336564 2010 Maharashtra 1.232075 Delhi # 0.444077 Tamil Nadu 0.36754 Lakshadweep # 0.345353 Karnataka 0.339292 TOTAL Rank 6 7 8 9 10 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Sikkim 0.275462 Andhra Pradesh 0.252288 Gujarat 0.224269 Karnataka 0.20717 West Bengal 0.193719 2001 Sikkim 0.322713 Andhra Pradesh 0.300379 Gujarat 0.283423 Karnataka 0.250783 West Bengal 0.156147 2002 Uttar Pradesh 0.333013 Gujarat 0.329932 Sikkim 0.326165 Andhra Pradesh 0.274869 West Bengal 0.139608 2003 Sikkim 0.275462 Andhra Pradesh 0.252288 Gujarat 0.224269 Karnataka 0.20717 West Bengal 0.193719 2004 Lakshadweep # 0.333871 Andhra Pradesh 0.322763 Uttar Pradesh 0.290749 Sikkim 0.290255 West Bengal 0.108573 2005 Gujarat 0.32243 Uttar Pradesh 0.29783 Andhra Pradesh 0.264769 Sikkim 0.21638 West Bengal 0.123528 2006 Uttar Pradesh 0.309431 Gujarat 0.303031 Andhra Pradesh 0.264159 Sikkim 0.226392 West Bengal 0.105952 2007 Andhra Pradesh 0.295684 Gujarat 0.281901 Uttar Pradesh 0.270557 Sikkim 0.203786 Madhya Pradesh 0.112822 2008 Andhra Pradesh 0.281556 Uttar Pradesh 0.275488 Gujarat 0.26568 Sikkim 0.23224 Madhya Pradesh 0.103518 2009 Lakshadweep # 0.325895 Gujarat 0.280855 Andhra Pradesh 0.234622 Sikkim 0.206479 Madhya Pradesh 0.11327 2010 Gujarat 0.317991 Uttar Pradesh 0.268128 Andhra Pradesh 0.265209 Sikkim 0.158365 Madhya Pradesh 0.129438
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 35 States and Federal Territories of India, 2000-2010 TOTAL Rank 21 22 23 24 25 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Nagaland 0.12852 Dadra & Nagar Haveli # 0.14886 Jammu & Kashmir 0.15515 Haryana 0.18673 Tripura 0.21627 2001 Haryana 0.13449 Dadra & Nagar Haveli # 0.15539 Arunachal Pradesh 0.15614 Orissa 0.18567 Himachal Pradesh 0.22393 2002 Himachal Pradesh 0.13242 Daman & Diu # 0.14011 Dadra & Nagar Haveli # 0.16543 Orissa 0.17504 Arunachal Pradesh 0.18619 2003 Pondicherry # 0.10082 Arunachal Pradesh 0.10168 Jammu & Kashmir 0.17995 Orissa 0.20163 Himachal Pradesh 0.21583 2004 Pondicherry # 0.13275 Daman & Diu # 0.13675 Arunachal Pradesh 0.15412 Manipur 0.20698 Andaman & Nicobar Islands 0.22302 # 2005 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.10379 Punjab 0.1175 Haryana 0.12098 Himachal Pradesh 0.15471 Uttaranchal 0.19907 # 2006 Jammu & Kashmir 0.12609 Haryana 0.1424 Himachal Pradesh 0.14345 Arunachal Pradesh 0.15141 Uttaranchal 0.15922 2007 Punjab 0.1288 Himachal Pradesh 0.1296 Kerala 0.13375 Haryana 0.13705 Orissa 0.14264 2008 Pondicherry # 0.12582 Daman & Diu # 0.13563 Uttaranchal 0.14459 Punjab 0.15227 Orissa 0.15873 2009 Haryana 0.12806 Himachal Pradesh 0.13649 Kerala 0.14121 Manipur 0.17151 Punjab 0.17857 2010 Kerala 0.13524 Punjab 0.1379 Haryana 0.1504 Orissa 0.15451 Manipur 0.17986 TOTAL Rank 26 27 28 29 30 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score Himachal Pradesh 0.23473 Meghalaya 0.24744 Orissa 0.26691 & Nicobar 0.27584 Bihar 0.2898 2000 Andaman Islands # 2001 Nagaland 0.22688 Andaman & Nicobar 0.23306 Manipur 0.27552 Tripura 0.28328 Meghalaya 0.29191 Islands # 2002 & Nicobar 0.20401 Nagaland 0.22942 Uttaranchal 0.25923 Manipur 0.27967 Meghalaya 0.28269 Andaman Islands # 2003 Andaman & Nicobar Islands # 0.22182 Manipur 0.22809 Uttaranchal 0.23749 Nagaland 0.2457 Meghalaya 0.29115 2004 Orissa 0.22481 Himachal Pradesh 0.22616 Uttaranchal 0.26274 Nagaland 0.26621 Meghalaya 0.28355 2005 Orissa 0.22257 Manipur 0.23272 Nagaland 0.23811 & Nicobar 0.24019 Meghalaya 0.28717 Andaman Islands # 2006 Orissa 0.16793 & Nicobar 0.17621 Nagaland 0.18385 Manipur 0.25098 Meghalaya 0.2723 Andaman Islands # 2007 & Nicobar 0.19775 Uttaranchal 0.21593 Nagaland 0.22666 Manipur 0.26919 Meghalaya 0.27602 Andaman Islands # 2008 Haryana 0.16994 Andaman & Nicobar 0.17289 Nagaland 0.1985 Manipur 0.22655 Meghalaya 0.25575 Islands # 2009 & Nicobar 0.19247 Orissa 0.20456 Nagaland 0.21908 Uttaranchal 0.23216 Meghalaya 0.27468 Andaman Islands # 2010 Daman & Diu # 0.19356 & Nicobar 0.20062 Uttaranchal 0.23086 Bihar 0.23312 Nagaland 0.23854 Andaman Islands # Overall Competitiveness Ranking of 35 States and Federal Territories of India, 2000-2010 TOTAL Rank 31 32 33 34 35 Economy Economy Economy Economy Economy Score Score Score Score Score 2000 Manipur 0.31752 Uttaranchal 0.31959 Assam 0.34989 Jharkhand 0.41507 Chattisgarh 0.45956 2001 Uttaranchal 0.29698 Assam 0.34883 Chattisgarh 0.3819 Bihar 0.38613 Jharkhand 0.44426 2002 Tripura 0.31118 Assam 0.31707 Bihar 0.31803 Chattisgarh 0.40031 Jharkhand 0.42795 2003 Assam 0.32841 Chattisgarh 0.3714 Bihar 0.39834 Tripura 0.40325 Jharkhand 0.43749 2004 Assam 0.28713 Jharkhand 0.3479 Bihar 0.3486 Chattisgarh 0.36411 Tripura 0.41352 2005 Assam 0.33469 Bihar 0.36079 Chattisgarh 0.37493 Jharkhand 0.38276 Tripura 0.38906 2006 Assam 0.31556 Chattisgarh 0.32333 Bihar 0.34353 Tripura 0.42228 Jharkhand 0.49841 2007 Assam 0.30441 Bihar 0.3328 Chattisgarh 0.33637 Jharkhand 0.37067 Tripura 0.42255 2008 Bihar 0.30023 Assam 0.33631 Chattisgarh 0.34875 Jharkhand 0.35041 Tripura 0.41183 2009 Bihar 0.2905 Assam 0.29815 Chattisgarh 0.37658 Tripura 0.38639 Jharkhand 0.41068 2010 Assam 0.25685 Meghalaya 0.2797 Chattisgarh 0.33267 Jharkhand 0.40756 Tripura 0.41814
ASEAN-10 Economies Indicators List (29 July 2012) - 2000 to 2010 1 MACROECONOMIC STABILITY 1.1 Economic Vibrancy 1.1.01 Gross Domestic Production 1.1.02 GDP Growth 1.1.03 GDP Per Capita 1.1.04 Output Agriculture (Value Added) 1.1.05 Output Industry (Value Added) 1.1.06 Output Manufacturing (Value Added) 1.1.07 Output Services (Value Added) 1.1.08 Gross Domestic Savings 1.1.09 Gross Fixed Capital Formation 1.1.10 Consumer Price Index 1.1.11 Inflation 1.1.12 Money Supply Growth (M2) 1.2 Openness To Trade and Services 1.2.01 Current Account Balance 1.2.02 Exports of Goods and Services 1.2.03 Imports of Goods and Services 1.2.04 Openness To Trade 1.2.05 International Tourism Receipts 1.3 Attractiveness To Foreign Investors 1.3.01 Foreign Direct Investment Inflows 1.3.02 Foreign Owned Companies 1.3.03 Total Taxes on Foreign Owned Companies 1.3.04 Discrimination Against Investors 1.3.05 Levelness of Playing Field 1.3.06 Transparency of Processes for Investors 1.3.07 Nationalism as an Impediment 2 GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING 2.1 Government Policies and Fiscal Sustainability 2.1.01 Government Revenue 2.1.02 Tax Revenue 2.1.03 Tax Revenue/Government Revenue 2.1.04 Government Consumption Expenditure 2.1.05 External Debt 2.1.06 International Reserves 2.1.07 Foreign Assets 2.1.08 International Monetary Fund Credit 2.1.09 Budget Balance 2.1.10 Tax Burden 2.1.11 Money Supply (M2) 2.1.12 Deposit Interest Rate 2.1.13 Lending Rate 2.1.14 Interest Rate Spread 2.1.15 Official Exchange Rate 2.2 Institutions, Governance and Leadership 2.2.01 Quality of Government Policies 2.2.02 Government Effectiveness 2.2.03 Government Environmental Protection Policies 2.2.04 Quality of Central Bank/Monetary Authority 2.2.05 Government Stability 2.2.06 Government Responsiveness 2.2.07 Quality of Political Leadership 2.2.08 Political System Risk 2.2.09 Legislature/Parliament (Functioning of Government System) 2.2.10 Conduct of State Affairs by Key Institutions 2.2.11 Institutional Sophistication 2.2.12 Bureaucracy/Red Tape 2.2.13 Corruption 2.2.14 Cronyism 2.2.15 State-Owned Enterprises 2.3 Competition, Regulatory Standards and Rule of Laws 2.3.01 Corporate Governance 2.3.02 Quality of Regulatory Environment 2.3.03 Transparency of Government 2.3.04 Monopolies and Cartel 2.3.05 Public-Private Sector Competition 2.3.06 Ease of Starting Business 2.3.07 Barriers to Trade 2.3.08 Intellectual Property Rights Protection 2.3.09 Regional Competitiveness 2.3.10 Quality of Judiciary 2.3.11 Effectiveness of Legal System 2.3.12 Integrity of Legal System 2.3.13 Quality of Police 2.3.14 Political Change 2.3.15 Social Stability
3 FINANCIAL, BUSINESSES AND MANPOWER CONDITIONS 3.1 Financial Deepening and Business Efficiency 3.1iBanking Efficiency 3.1.01Claims on Private Sector 3.1.02Domestic Credit to Private Sector 3.1.03Quality of Banking and Financial System 3.1.04Domestic Credit Provided by Banking Sector 3.1iiStock Market Efficiency 3.1.05Listed Domestic Companies 3.1.06Market Capitalisation 3.1.07Total Value of Stocks Traded 3.1.08Sovereign Rating 3.1.09Quality of Stock Market Regulatory Authority 3.2 Labor Market Flexibility 3.2.01Labour Force 3.2.02Unemployment Rate 3.2.03Cost of Production Labour 3.2.04High Quality Production Staff 3.2.05Cost of Management Staff 3.2.06High Quality Management Staff 3.2.07Skill Level 3.2.08Work Ethics 3.2.09Labour Turnover 3.3 Productivity Performance 3.3.01Agriculture, Value Added Per Worker 3.3.02Industry, Value-Added Per Worker 3.3.03Manufacturing, Value-Added Per Worker 3.3.04Services, Value-Added Per Worker QUALITY OF LIFE AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4 DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Physical Infrastructure 4.1.01Population 4.1.02Local Road System 4.1.03Rail Facilities 4.1.04Airport Facilities 4.1.05Port Facilities 4.1.06Public Transport System 4.1.07Electric Power 4.1.08Water and Other Utilities 4.2 Technological Infrastructure 4.2.01Telecommunications System 4.2.02Telephone Main Lines 4.2.03Internet Subscribers 4.2.04Cellular Mobile Telephone Subscribers 4.2.05Internet and Services Supporting IT 4.2.06Personal Computers Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 4.2.07Expenditure 4.2.08High Technology Proficiency 4.3 Standard of Living, Education and Social Stability 4.3.01Literacy Rate 4.3.02Primary Schooling 4.3.03Secondary Schooling 4.3.04University and Post Graduate Education 4.3.05Human Development Index 4.3.06Health Expenditure 4.3.07Urban Population 4.3.08Urban Population Growth 4.3.09Public Security and Safety 4.3.10Freedom of Press 4.3.11Freedom of Speech 4.3.12Information Flows 4.3.13Freedom of Religion 4.3.14Religious Unrest 4.3.15Labour Unrest 4.3.16Racial Unrest 4.3.17Labour Activism 4.3.18Water Quality 4.3.19Air Quality 4.3.20Noise Pollution 4.3.21Traffic Congestion
Overall Competitiveness Ranking of ASEAN-10, 2000-2010 TOTAL Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Singapore 1.4672 Malaysia 0.5160 Thailand 0.2955 Brunei 0.2254 Philippines -0.0811 2001 Singapore 1.4498 Malaysia 0.5316 Thailand 0.3002 Brunei 0.2651 Philippines -0.1238 2002 Singapore 1.4135 Malaysia 0.6048 Thailand 0.3236 Brunei 0.2356 Philippines -0.1733 2003 Singapore 1.3501 Malaysia 0.5889 Thailand 0.3299 Brunei 0.2620 Philippines -0.1996 2004 Singapore 1.4022 Malaysia 0.6305 Thailand 0.3007 Brunei 0.2420 Indonesia -0.1723 2005 Singapore 1.4242 Malaysia 0.6353 Thailand 0.3078 Brunei 0.2670 Philippines -0.1917 2006 Singapore 1.3837 Malaysia 0.6625 Thailand 0.2756 Brunei 0.2567 Indonesia -0.1647 2007 Singapore 1.3996 Malaysia 0.6450 Thailand 0.2423 Brunei 0.2074 Indonesia -0.1082 2008 Singapore 1.3887 Malaysia 0.6174 Thailand 0.2330 Brunei 0.1933 Indonesia -0.1068 2009 Singapore 1.4518 Malaysia 0.5322 Thailand 0.2247 Brunei 0.2077 Indonesia -0.0857 2010 Singapore 1.4463 Malaysia 0.5766 Thailand 0.2210 Brunei 0.2039 Indonesia -0.0657 TOTAL Rank 6 7 8 9 10 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Vietnam -0.2847 Indonesia -0.2945 Cambodia -0.4205 Laos -0.7111 Myanmar -0.7121 2001 Vietnam -0.2653 Indonesia -0.2726 Cambodia -0.4272 Laos -0.6723 Myanmar -0.7856 2002 Vietnam -0.2155 Indonesia -0.3018 Cambodia -0.4363 Laos -0.6590 Myanmar -0.7918 2003 Vietnam -0.2242 Indonesia -0.2808 Cambodia -0.4382 Laos -0.6693 Myanmar -0.7189 2004 Philippines -0.2161 Vietnam -0.2718 Cambodia -0.4918 Laos -0.6582 Myanmar -0.7653 2005 Indonesia -0.2167 Vietnam -0.2762 Cambodia -0.5098 Laos -0.6682 Myanmar -0.7716 2006 Philippines -0.1822 Vietnam -0.2739 Cambodia -0.5331 Laos -0.6436 Myanmar -0.7810 2007 Philippines -0.1811 Vietnam -0.2548 Cambodia -0.5243 Laos -0.6387 Myanmar -0.7873 2008 Philippines -0.1900 Vietnam -0.2074 Cambodia -0.5387 Laos -0.6314 Myanmar -0.7581 2009 Vietnam -0.1866 Philippines -0.2432 Cambodia -0.5203 Laos -0.6154 Myanmar -0.7653 2010 Vietnam -0.1878 Philippines -0.2574 Cambodia -0.5151 Laos -0.6295 Myanmar -0.7923 Macroeconomic Stability Ranking, 2000-2010 MACROECONOMIC STABILITY Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Singapore 1.5599 Malaysia 0.5190 Thailand 0.3588 Indonesia -0.1372 Brunei -0.1811 2001 Singapore 1.4976 Malaysia 0.4891 Thailand 0.3885 Brunei -0.0398 Indonesia -0.1213 2002 Singapore 1.4192 Malaysia 0.5790 Thailand 0.4109 Brunei -0.0551 Indonesia -0.1220 2003 Singapore 1.4240 Malaysia 0.5244 Thailand 0.3939 Brunei -0.0421 Indonesia -0.1537 2004 Singapore 1.4970 Malaysia 0.6201 Thailand 0.3736 Indonesia -0.0010 Brunei -0.1019 2005 Singapore 1.5559 Malaysia 0.6221 Thailand 0.3836 Brunei 0.0131 Indonesia -0.0881 2006 Singapore 1.4779 Malaysia 0.5924 Thailand 0.3824 Brunei 0.0590 Indonesia -0.0451 2007 Singapore 1.4575 Malaysia 0.5919 Thailand 0.3549 Indonesia 0.0773 Brunei -0.0510 2008 Singapore 1.3234 Malaysia 0.5446 Thailand 0.3809 Indonesia 0.1279 Brunei -0.0581 2009 Singapore 1.5067 Malaysia 0.4129 Thailand 0.3658 Indonesia 0.0893 Brunei -0.0852 2010 Singapore 1.5447 Malaysia 0.4814 Thailand 0.3429 Indonesia 0.0668 Brunei 0.0243 MACROECONOMIC STABILITY Rank 6 7 8 9 10 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Cambodia -0.2359 Philippines -0.2464 Vietnam -0.2482 Myanmar -0.6496 Laos -0.7394 2001 Vietnam -0.2041 Cambodia -0.2461 Philippines -0.2838 Laos -0.6428 Myanmar -0.8373 2002 Vietnam -0.1656 Philippines -0.2900 Cambodia -0.2979 Laos -0.6437 Myanmar -0.8347 2003 Vietnam -0.2281 Cambodia -0.2697 Philippines -0.3311 Myanmar -0.6508 Laos -0.6667 2004 Vietnam -0.3173 Philippines -0.3303 Cambodia -0.3364 Laos -0.6700 Myanmar -0.7339 2005 Cambodia -0.3175 Vietnam -0.3677 Philippines -0.4122 Laos -0.6669 Myanmar -0.7223 2006 Vietnam -0.3300 Philippines -0.3570 Cambodia -0.3705 Laos -0.6391 Myanmar -0.7699 2007 Philippines -0.3073 Vietnam -0.3098 Cambodia -0.4248 Laos -0.6203 Myanmar -0.7685 2008 Vietnam -0.2032 Cambodia -0.3793 Philippines -0.3821 Laos -0.6322 Myanmar -0.7218 2009 Vietnam -0.1723 Cambodia -0.4504 Philippines -0.4598 Laos -0.5605 Myanmar -0.6465 2010 Vietnam -0.2077 Philippines -0.4283 Cambodia -0.4709 Laos -0.6677 Myanmar -0.6855
Government and Institutional Setting Ranking, 2000-2010 GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Singapore 1.6287 Malaysia 0.5221 Thailand 0.4551 Brunei 0.3959 Philippines -0.0204 2001 Singapore 1.6542 Malaysia 0.5543 Thailand 0.4524 Brunei 0.3819 Philippines -0.0718 2002 Singapore 1.5226 Malaysia 0.6612 Thailand 0.5045 Brunei 0.3627 Philippines -0.1303 2003 Singapore 1.5044 Malaysia 0.6646 Thailand 0.5390 Brunei 0.3896 Vietnam -0.1716 2004 Singapore 1.4614 Malaysia 0.7101 Brunei 0.4588 Thailand 0.4587 Philippines -0.2289 2005 Singapore 1.4468 Malaysia 0.7533 Brunei 0.4814 Thailand 0.4808 Philippines -0.1731 2006 Singapore 1.4556 Malaysia 0.7257 Brunei 0.4680 Thailand 0.3344 Philippines -0.1660 2007 Singapore 1.5036 Malaysia 0.6925 Brunei 0.4282 Thailand 0.2409 Indonesia -0.1853 2008 Singapore 1.6060 Malaysia 0.6040 Brunei 0.3924 Thailand 0.1975 Philippines -0.2009 2009 Singapore 1.6057 Malaysia 0.4761 Brunei 0.4725 Thailand 0.1701 Indonesia -0.1222 2010 Singapore 1.6183 Malaysia 0.5324 Brunei 0.3965 Thailand 0.1635 Indonesia -0.0784 GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING Rank 6 7 8 9 10 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Vietnam -0.2637 Cambodia -0.4327 Indonesia -0.6183 Laos -0.8141 Myanmar -0.8526 2001 Vietnam -0.2610 Cambodia -0.4687 Indonesia -0.6085 Laos -0.7743 Myanmar -0.8584 2002 Vietnam -0.2106 Cambodia -0.4137 Indonesia -0.6225 Laos -0.7942 Myanmar -0.8798 2003 Philippines -0.2108 Cambodia -0.3983 Indonesia -0.5271 Laos -0.8666 Myanmar -0.9233 2004 Vietnam -0.2799 Indonesia -0.3500 Cambodia -0.4730 Laos -0.8152 Myanmar -0.9421 2005 Vietnam -0.2918 Indonesia -0.3671 Cambodia -0.5673 Laos -0.8258 Myanmar -0.9372 2006 Indonesia -0.2432 Vietnam -0.3241 Cambodia -0.5246 Laos -0.7946 Myanmar -0.9313 2007 Philippines -0.1893 Vietnam -0.3192 Cambodia -0.4620 Laos -0.7743 Myanmar -0.9350 2008 Indonesia -0.2119 Vietnam -0.3214 Cambodia -0.4681 Laos -0.7090 Myanmar -0.8887 2009 Philippines -0.2831 Vietnam -0.2960 Cambodia -0.4453 Laos -0.6952 Myanmar -0.8826 2010 Philippines -0.2924 Vietnam -0.3205 Cambodia -0.4254 Laos -0.6712 Myanmar -0.9227 Financial, Businesses and Manpower Conditions Ranking, 2000-2010 FINANCIAL, BUSINESSES AND MANPOWER CONDITIONS Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Singapore 1.2168 Malaysia 0.4277 Brunei 0.3154 Thailand 0.1618 Philippines -0.0093 2001 Singapore 1.2317 Malaysia 0.4858 Brunei 0.3209 Thailand 0.1487 Philippines -0.0782 2002 Singapore 1.3047 Malaysia 0.5372 Brunei 0.2830 Thailand 0.1082 Philippines -0.0998 2003 Singapore 1.1351 Malaysia 0.5111 Brunei 0.3303 Thailand 0.1939 Philippines -0.1180 2004 Singapore 1.3215 Malaysia 0.5326 Brunei 0.2733 Thailand 0.1886 Indonesia -0.1432 2005 Singapore 1.3431 Malaysia 0.4744 Brunei 0.2337 Thailand 0.1809 Philippines -0.0650 2006 Singapore 1.2774 Malaysia 0.6156 Brunei 0.1971 Thailand 0.1829 Indonesia -0.1277 2007 Singapore 1.2633 Malaysia 0.6595 Thailand 0.1853 Brunei 0.1351 Indonesia -0.0939 2008 Singapore 1.2631 Malaysia 0.6948 Thailand 0.2030 Brunei 0.0851 Indonesia -0.1231 2009 Singapore 1.3299 Malaysia 0.6298 Thailand 0.2164 Brunei 0.1070 Indonesia -0.0913 2010 Singapore 1.2535 Malaysia 0.7064 Thailand 0.2365 Brunei 0.0932 Indonesia -0.0913 FINANCIAL, BUSINESSES AND MANPOWER CONDITIONS Rank 6 7 8 9 10 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Indonesia -0.0915 Vietnam -0.3454 Myanmar -0.5001 Laos -0.5840 Cambodia -0.5913 2001 Indonesia -0.1019 Vietnam -0.3067 Myanmar -0.5426 Cambodia -0.5744 Laos -0.5832 2002 Indonesia -0.1189 Vietnam -0.2776 Myanmar -0.5435 Laos -0.5528 Cambodia -0.6405 2003 Indonesia -0.1621 Vietnam -0.2759 Myanmar -0.3983 Laos -0.5512 Cambodia -0.6651 2004 Philippines -0.2097 Vietnam -0.2793 Myanmar -0.4562 Laos -0.5461 Cambodia -0.6814 2005 Indonesia -0.1990 Vietnam -0.2399 Myanmar -0.4866 Laos -0.5869 Cambodia -0.6546 2006 Philippines -0.1324 Vietnam -0.2489 Myanmar -0.4697 Laos -0.5568 Cambodia -0.7375 2007 Philippines -0.1445 Vietnam -0.2553 Myanmar -0.4539 Laos -0.5761 Cambodia -0.7196 2008 Philippines -0.1306 Vietnam -0.1828 Myanmar -0.4530 Laos -0.6081 Cambodia -0.7482 2009 Philippines -0.1826 Vietnam -0.2320 Myanmar -0.5008 Laos -0.6197 Cambodia -0.6566 2010 Philippines -0.1992 Vietnam -0.2276 Myanmar -0.5204 Laos -0.5903 Cambodia -0.6607
Quality Of Life and Infrastructure Development Ranking, 2000-2010 QUALITY OF LIFE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Singapore 1.4633 Malaysia 0.5952 Brunei 0.3714 Thailand 0.2063 Philippines -0.0484 2001 Singapore 1.4156 Malaysia 0.5974 Brunei 0.3973 Thailand 0.2113 Philippines -0.0613 2002 Singapore 1.4076 Malaysia 0.6419 Brunei 0.3520 Thailand 0.2708 Philippines -0.1730 2003 Singapore 1.3370 Malaysia 0.6556 Brunei 0.3702 Thailand 0.1928 Philippines -0.1384 2004 Singapore 1.3291 Malaysia 0.6593 Brunei 0.3379 Thailand 0.1821 Philippines -0.0954 2005 Singapore 1.3511 Malaysia 0.6912 Brunei 0.3398 Thailand 0.1859 Philippines -0.1165 2006 Singapore 1.3240 Malaysia 0.7164 Brunei 0.3027 Thailand 0.2025 Philippines -0.0734 2007 Singapore 1.3740 Malaysia 0.6362 Brunei 0.3172 Thailand 0.1884 Philippines -0.0836 2008 Singapore 1.3624 Malaysia 0.6260 Brunei 0.3538 Thailand 0.1506 Philippines -0.0462 2009 Singapore 1.3650 Malaysia 0.6100 Brunei 0.3367 Thailand 0.1467 Vietnam -0.0460 2010 Singapore 1.3686 Malaysia 0.5865 Brunei 0.3015 Thailand 0.1413 Vietnam 0.0047 QUALITY OF LIFE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Rank 6 7 8 9 10 Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score Economy Score 2000 Vietnam -0.2817 Indonesia -0.3311 Cambodia -0.4222 Laos -0.7068 Myanmar -0.8459 2001 Indonesia -0.2586 Vietnam -0.2893 Cambodia -0.4194 Laos -0.6891 Myanmar -0.9039 2002 Vietnam -0.2082 Indonesia -0.3436 Cambodia -0.3932 Laos -0.6451 Myanmar -0.9090 2003 Vietnam -0.2211 Indonesia -0.2805 Cambodia -0.4196 Laos -0.5927 Myanmar -0.9034 2004 Indonesia -0.1952 Vietnam -0.2106 Cambodia -0.4764 Laos -0.6017 Myanmar -0.9292 2005 Vietnam -0.2056 Indonesia -0.2126 Cambodia -0.4998 Laos -0.5932 Myanmar -0.9403 2006 Vietnam -0.1926 Indonesia -0.2429 Cambodia -0.4997 Laos -0.5840 Myanmar -0.9531 2007 Vietnam -0.1348 Indonesia -0.2308 Cambodia -0.4907 Laos -0.5840 Myanmar -0.9917 2008 Vietnam -0.1220 Indonesia -0.2200 Cambodia -0.5591 Laos -0.5763 Myanmar -0.9691 2009 Philippines -0.0472 Indonesia -0.2187 Cambodia -0.5291 Laos -0.5863 Myanmar -1.0312 2010 Philippines -0.1096 Indonesia -0.1598 Cambodia -0.5036 Laos -0.5888 Myanmar -1.0407 Overall Ranking for 79 Asian Economies, Year 2010 Rank Economy Score Rank Economy Score 1 Macau 1.7181 41 Gansu -0.0977 2 Taiwan 1.3985 42 Tamil Nadu -0.1031 3 Hong Kong 1.0655 43 Guizhou -0.1047 4 Guangdong 0.8045 44 Uttar Pradesh -0.1283 5 Singapore 0.7705 45 Ningxia -0.1390 6 Jiangsu 0.6636 46 Chandigarh -0.1423 7 Shanghai 0.5166 47 Sikkim -0.1671 8 Indonesia 0.4955 48 Qinghai -0.1738 9 Beijing 0.4412 49 Arunachal Pradesh -0.1882 10 Shandong 0.4386 50 Andhra Pradesh -0.1891 11 Zhejiang 0.4161 51 Mizoram -0.1962 12 Tianjin 0.3208 52 Dadra & Nagar Haveli -0.2151 13 Liaoning 0.3182 53 Madhya Pradesh -0.2203 14 Maharashtra 0.3175 54 West Bengal -0.2332 15 Inner Mongolia 0.3067 55 Gujarat -0.2353 16 Malaysia 0.2511 56 Daman & Diu -0.2390 17 Henan 0.2253 57 Pondicherry -0.2695 18 Thailand 0.1675 58 Uttaranchal -0.2942 19 Hebei 0.1634 59 Tibet -0.2952 20 Sichuan 0.1556 60 Rajasthan -0.3035 21 Delhi 0.1546 61 Jammu & Kashmir -0.3121 22 Fujian 0.1499 62 Goa -0.3148 23 Xinjiang 0.1258 63 Himachal Pradesh -0.3471 24 Hunan 0.1076 64 Nagaland -0.3543 25 Heilongjiang 0.0974 65 Bihar -0.3635 26 Hubei 0.0843 66 Laos -0.3665 27 Jilin 0.0667 67 Meghalaya -0.3905 28 Anhui 0.0640 68 Kerala -0.3918 29 Shaanxi 0.0622 69 Haryana -0.3939 30 Shanxi 0.0497 70 Andaman & Nicobar Islands -0.3986 31 Guangxi 0.0493 71 Manipur -0.4016 32 Jiangxi 0.0239 72 Punjab -0.4422 33 Chongqing 0.0179 73 Chattisgarh -0.4492 34 Vietnam 0.0163 74 Orissa -0.4626 35 Yunnan -0.0050 75 Assam -0.4659 36 Brunei -0.0151 76 Tripura -0.4667 37 Philippines -0.0154 77 Jharkhand -0.4693 38 Lakshadweep -0.0298 78 Cambodia -0.4700 39 Karnataka -0.0502 79 Myanmar -0.6389 40 Hainan -0.0745