What Is the International Institute for Management Telling Us?

What Is the International Institute for Management Telling Us?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 22, 2011

The Swiss International Institute for Management (IMD) has published its 2011 World Competitiveness Report. The ROC's ranking increased from 8th place last year to 6th place this year. This is the highest ranking the ROC has ever achieved. The report does not necessarily reflect a nation's ultimate economic competitiveness. Nevertheless the report enables us to see the ROC's problems. For example, the United States was ranked number one. But its economic recovery is still in the doldrums. Its unemployment rate is still over 9%. The PRC ranked 19th. But its economic growth remains strong.

The competitiveness report is divided into four major categories, using four indices. Each index is subdivided into even finer indices. The first index is economic performance. In this, the ROC rose from 16th place to 8th place. The second is governmental effectiveness. In this, the ROC fell from 6th place to 10th place. The third index is business performance. In this, the ROC remained in 3rd place. Finally, there is infrastructure. In this, the ROC rose slightly, from 17th place to 16th place. Based on these numbers, Overall, the ROC rose from 8th place to 6th place, mainly because its eye-catching economic performance. Had the government not imposed a drag on its performance, it would have improved even more.

The IMD uses different methods of scoring. These include so-called "hard targets" (statistics). Much of the score is derived from questionnaires filled out by high-level corporate managers. Most are from large companies engaged in international trade. These include foreign multinationals. Some of the questionnaires may be somewhat subjective. But they also provide concrete data that cannot be obtained any other way. Consider the part relating to government efficiency, The scores on the questionnaires were higher than the numerical scores. They were just the opposite of the "economic performance" scores.

Taiwan has long scored poorly on governmental efficiency, usually below the top 20. In 2004 and 2005, it ranked 18th. In 2006 it fell to 23rd place. In 2008, it ranked 16th. In 2009, it fell to 18th place. Strangely enough, in 2010 it lept to 6th place. This year it it fell from 6th place to 10th place, the second highest ranking of all time. The media and the opposition DPP have made a great deal of this. The DPP has lambasted the ruling KMT as the embodiment of both incompetence and of evil. But it has scant justification for doing so. After all, when the DPP was in power, the government also ranked below the top 20 in efficiency. What right does it have to make such irresponsible remarks now?

Nevertheless a decline is a decline. If one's ranking falls, one must undergo a review process. Officials who imposed controls on oil prices complain that they were penalized for siding with the common man. This is not necessarily the case. Consider the many secondary indicators of governmental efficiency. The government has long underperformed fiscally. This time, its performance was even worse. This may have been due in part to the financial tsunami and tax cuts to enhance competitiveness. But the biggest factor was the impact of public shares on business activity. Here, the ROC fell from 12th place to 35th place. Consider bureaucratic meddling in business activities. Here, the ROC fell from 8th place to 20th place. These indicate a real pattern.

Many government agencies have gradually withdrawn from quasi-public enterprises. But some legislators and journalists have made populist demands, encouraging the government to "get tough." Government agencies responded by once again asserting themselves through publicly owned shares. The governments has increased its ownership in these businesses through state-owned enterprises and government funds. It has meddled in the affairs of company boards. It has even engaged in struggles for control, as if it was merely another competitor in the free market. It has violated the clear promises it made concerning public offerings. This is how the government influences business activities through public shares.

The FSC and the National Communications Commission (NCC) are charged with overseeing certain industries. Typically these agencies care nothing about ensuring profitability. They care only about fighting corruption. While overseeing these industries, these agencies have meddled inappropriately. They have gone overboard in meting out punishment. They have dragged their feet when reviewing corporate mergers and acquisitions. First instance reviews take almost a year. That means lost opportunities. While overseeing investments on the Mainland, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has been too slow to liberalize. Its review process is even slower. It is virtually strangling businesses. To characterize it as as "hobbling businesses bureaucratically" is no exaggeration.

Regarding environmental protection projects, such as renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions, increasing energy density, and addressing climate change, the government's response has been inadequate. The government should practice greater fiscal discipline. It should reduce bureaucratic meddling in business activities. It should liberalize the laws. It should avoid the path of "anti-privatization" and "officials enter, citizens exit." On environmental protection, it should implement energy conservation and carbon reduction, as soon as possible, It should not substitute sloganeering for reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases.

The ROC ranked third in industry performance, and third in manufacturing unit labor costs. On the plus side of the ledger, it has high labor productivity. On the minus side of the ledger, lower wage costs mean workers on Taiwan are "cheap" and offer "high value for money." The ROC's s overall economic picture is first rate. But the public does not feel it. That is why it does not feel the recovery.

We need not treat this report on competitiveness as if it were the Holy Bible. But the two sides have benefited from the cross-Strait thaw and ECFA. These have enabled the ROC to make the greatest improvements in its ranking ever. We still have reason to rejoice. The public and government both deserve praise. The report includes negative assessments. But it also provides us with important information. Does the government have the eyes to see? Does it have the courage to respond?

ＩＭＤ告訴了我們什麼？
2011-05-22 中國時報

瑞士國際管理學院（ＩＭＤ）公布二○一一年世界競爭力報告，台灣總排名由去年的第八名進步到第六名，是歷年最佳名次。雖然這份競爭力報告並不是完全反應出各國最終的經濟表現，例如美國位居第一，但經濟復甦仍遲緩、失業率仍超過九％；大陸名次十九名，但經濟成長快速強勁。不過，從報告中，我們還是可以看出台灣的問題。

這份競爭力報告中，共分四大類指標，指標下再細分許多細項。第一是經濟表現，我國由十六名升到八名；第二是政府效能，我國由第六名退到十名；再來是企業效能，維持同樣第三名；最後是基礎建設，由十七名小升到十六名。由這個數字來看，台灣的總排名可以由第八進步到第六，主要是「經濟表現」項目搶眼之故；而無法更進一步，則是因政府效能之拖累。

ＩＭＤ的評分方式，除了所謂「硬性指標」（各項統計數據）外，其餘很大部分是來自對企業高階經理人的問卷調查；接受問卷者多是國際貿易比重高的大型企業、外資跨國企業。雖然問卷部分有時可能失之主觀，但卻也可能更具體呈現數據無法道出的面向。政府效能部分，來自問卷的評分，則是高於數據。這點正好與「經濟表現」項目相反。

我們觀察台灣在政府效能項目的表現，一向就「表現欠佳」，大部分都在廿名上下。例如二○○四、二○○五年是十八名，二○○六退到廿三名，二○○八年十六名，二○○九年是十八名。奇特者倒是二○一○年一口氣進步到第六名，今年則再由第六名退步到第十名。這個名次，嚴格來講，還算是歷年次佳水準。對部分媒體與在野黨藉機拿此大作文章，似乎執政黨如何無能又大惡不赦，倒是大可不必。畢竟，民進黨執政時期，政府效能排名還只能在廿名上下，現在也不該有臉來說三道四吧？

不過，退步就是退步，退步就該檢討。官員辯稱是因政府為庶民著想、干預油價所以在此項目上被扣分，實情恐怕未必如此。觀察政府效能中的各細項指標，財政情況一直表現不佳，這次再惡化，或可推託是因應金融海嘯與提升競爭力的減稅措施所致；但實際上退步最多的項目是「公股影響企業的活動」，由十二名退到三十五名；再來是「官僚行政影響企業活動」，由八名退到廿名。而這兩項，確實是有跡可循。

例如，許多原本政府勢力逐漸淡出的半公營企業，在立委與部分媒體民粹式的要政府「硬起來」的鼓吹下，政府公股勢力又再抬頭；政府透過國營事業、政府基金，增加對這些企業的持股。政府不只是介入與民股協調董監事，甚至還形同市場派般的要爭奪經營權；對股權釋出時白紙黑字的承諾也可違背。這就是「公股影響企業的活動」。

而去年一年，包括金管會、國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）這兩個主管特許產業的機關，是標準的不見興利但見防弊，對其管理的產業與企業，做了許多不當的干預、過了頭的處罰。審查企業併購案也是拖拖拉拉、一審就是快一年，延誤企業商機。經濟部在管理企業赴大陸投資上，也是開放慢、審查效率更差，讓企業商機窒息近死。稱這些行為是「官僚行政影響企業活動」，應不為過吧？

此外，與環保相關的項目如再生能源、二氧化碳排放、能源使用密度、因應氣候變遷政策等，台灣的表現也不佳。整體而言，未來政府該強化財政紀律、減少官僚單位對企業活動的干預、制度法令上應更開放；同時，更該避免走上「反民營化」、「官進民退」之路。對環保相關議題，則該盡快落實在制度與政策上，而非在節能減碳、因應溫室氣體等議題上流於口號。

特別值得注意的是台灣排名高居第三的企業效能項目中，製造業單位勞動成本居第三名，正面看是國內勞動力生產力高，好事一樁；反面看，是台灣薪資成本低、勞工都是「價廉物美」、「物超所值」，而這正是台灣整體經濟表現一流，但社會大眾感受淺，有如無感復甦的原因。

雖然我們不必把這份競爭力報告當聖經看，但受惠於兩岸和緩、開放及ＥＣＦＡ簽訂等因素，讓台灣的排名進步創歷年最佳名次，仍值得高興，台灣社會與政府的努力也值得肯定。但，報告中對台灣負面評價項目中，其實還是告訴了我們不少事。政府，看到了嗎？有能力、有魄力改善嗎？