Future-proof Denmark?

Our latest blog entry about the Nordic EU member state, Two freedoms of competitive Denmark, highlighted the relative absence of poisonous corruption and media repression.

Here we are going to take a look at what what it takes to shape a future-proof society.  

WEF Annual Meeting 2017

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) report from the Annual Meeting 2017, the gathering focused on five challenges: strengthening global collaboration, revitalising economic growth, reforming capitalism, preparing for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and restoring a sense of shared identity.

Each theme is introduced in the report, against the background of remarkable retreats from globalisation and new protagonists of global cooperation, the framework for one humanity on our common planet.  

At a regional level, the European Union’s Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the Political Guidelines of the Juncker Commission and the national reform programmes of the member states, such as Denmark’s NRP, contain many of the elements of the fourteen WEF System Initiatives.

WEF System Initiatives

However, if the EU and its members want to be at the cutting edge, they need to adapt to the emerging qualities the System Initiatives bring. The projects were introduced in the WEF meeting report and later briefly described (pages 41-42):

Leaders in Davos called for collaborative action to drive economic growth while safeguarding social inclusion. The 14 System Initiatives are the vehicles through which the Forum will respond to this call to action and drive change in the coming year. Two themes will be woven throughout the work of all of the systems. The first theme is responding to challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution through driving more accountable systems of control, mechanisms for policy development and space for public deliberation. The second is ensuring that the Forum’s work is complementary to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs), from mobilizing private capital, technology and know-how for inclusive and sustainable investments to the compelling economic case for business leadership and engagement. From increasing financial inclusion to defining the workforce of the future, from responding to epidemics to strengthening infrastructure, the System Initiatives will focus on driving lasting, systemic change through public-private cooperation.   

With the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs) omnipresent, here are just the  headlines of the reform agenda projects to follow:

Shaping the Future of Consumption

Shaping the Future of Education, Gender and Work

Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and Society

Shaping the Future of Energy

Shaping the Future of Growth and Social Inclusion

Shaping the Future of Environment and Natural Resource Security

Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems

Shaping the Future of Information and Entertainment

Shaping the Future of Mobility

Shaping the Future of Food Security and Agriculture

Shaping the Future of International Trade and Investment

Shaping the Future of Production

Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare

Shaping the Future of Long-Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development  

EU and Denmark?  

Here, I believe, the European Commission should go beyond drafting recommendation to the member states, by using the European Semester process in order to inspire cutting edge responses to global challenges.

Is Denmark future-proof? After European Semester reading, the National Reform Programme and international comparisons, I venture that Denmark has a sound base for reform policies. But I am less sure about the qualitative aspects: if the actions under way are radical or forceful enough to improve Denmark’s competitiveness.

Do we need to eat more of the pudding containing the proof?

Ralf Grahn

Productive and sustainable Denmark

Three magic words: competitiveness, productivity, prosperity.

Studying innovative and competitive independent countries, or states of the USA, much of the Europe 2020 growth strategy (EU2020) is about learning from the best.

Before turning to the WEF pillars of competitiveness, we had already taken a peek at the economy and society of Denmark.

We have also seen that among the 142 countries and territories compared by the World Economic Forum, Denmark ranked eighth according in the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2011-2012 (table 3, page 15):

Klaus Schwab (Editor): The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 (World Economic Forum WEF; 527 pages)

Tables 4 to 7 allow us to get a more detailed view of how competitive Denmark (or another country) is with regard to different groups of criteria or pillars, more fully explained on pages 47-49. According to the summary on page 24, Denmark has quality institutions, infrastructure and education like its Nordic neighbours, but its labour market flexibility is a distinguishing feature.

A fourth magic word is 'sustainability'.

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index (SCI; beta version) was presented by the WEF for the first time. The challenging and interesting SCI tries to determine the level of productivity while ensuring the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The SCI is an effort to integrate factors of economic, social and environmental sustainability. Denmark came in eighth in the integrated GCI as well.

Country presentation

You find the country presentation of Denmark on the pages 162-163, including the most problematic factors for doing business, as well as the scores for about a hundred different factors.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020 and WEF: Competitiveness

Just as the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) aims for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is increasingly trying to actually measure or assess ”quality growth”, especially sustainable growth.

The 527 pages of the global comparison The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 from the WEF offer a cornucopia of questions of method about competitiveness factors (Part 1) and substantive information about how well prepared the countries are for the future (Part 2). In other words, we can learn from both the general and the country-specific parts of the comparative study.

The Global Competitiveness Index takes into account twelve interrelated groups or ”pillars” of competitiveness: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness (ICT), market size, business sophistication and technological innovation.

As in previous years, this year’s top 10 remained dominated by a number of European countries, with Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands confirming their place among the most competitive economies. Singapore continued its upward trend to become the second-most competitive economy in the world, overtaking Sweden, while the United Kingdom returned to the top 10 as it recovers from the crisis, said the WEF.



Ralf Grahn

Competitiveness in the EU: Who finished where and why?

Somewhat uncharitably, as in earlier blog posts, in EU Reflection Group delivered report: Project Europe 2030 (10 May 2010) we spoke about the “lost decade” of the EU’s Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, and the next day, in Mario Monti: A new strategy for the single market, we said that the European Union and especially the member states had “squandered” the decade of the Lisbon strategy.


No need to take my word for it, though. Others have looked at these matters in detail.




First let us recall, in Lisbon 23 and 24 March 2000 the heads of state or government had set the European Union the new strategic goal for the next decade:

to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

WEF




Now let us see what the World Economic Forum (WEF) has to say about goal attainment on the front page of The Lisbon Review. We find the following quote from senior economist Jennifer Blanke:

Ten yea[r]s after European leaders announced their intention of making the region the most competitive economy by 2010, Europe has not yet met that goal.

The headline of the detailed press release is to the point: The European Union failed to meet its goal to become the most competitive region in the world (9 May 2010).



Who finished where and why?


On the basis of the fifth and final assessment of the Lisbon strategy decade, just a few highlights and subjective remarks to set you thinking about competitiveness in the European Union:


• The Nordic countries Sweden, Finland and Denmark were the most competitive, followed by the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany. Is a social market economy based on equal opportunities the bane of competitiveness?

• Estonia, Cyprus, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, who were not yet EU members when the Lisbon decade started, finished ahead of many old member states. Dedicated reform efforts seem to pay off.

• PIGS: The old member states with less dynamics and competitiveness also happen to be among those with the bad enough public finances to have threatened the very existence of the eurozone: Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (not in that order regarding lack of competitiveness). Are they going to wake up during the decade of the EU 2020 strategy and start on a virtuous circle?

• The latest EU entrants, Romania and Bulgaria, generally perceived to have the highest levels of crime and corruption and the greatest challenges to establish the rule of law, are at the bottom of the league table. Are the EU’s powers to intervene after accession too weak?



You can read the full report:



World Economic Forum: The Lisbon Review 2010 – Towards a More Competitive Europe? (32 pages)




Ralf Grahn