Chapter 3. Data Analysis and Application13
3. Analysis of National Variations
(1) Overview
As mentioned before, countries with any missing variables were excluded from indicator calculation with those variables. Consequently, China was excluded from the growth engine indicator calculation because the country did not have sufficient data about financial scale and activity to represent its financial development. However, considering the importance of China in the growth engine area for the past two decades, a growth engine2 indicator, instead, was made by using other remaining variables in growth engine except financial data.
We took a close look at the overall trends of all the surveyed countries by dividing into three periods of analysis: 1990s (1990-2000), 2000s (2000-2008), and the entire period (1990-2008). Then, the mean of all the surveyed countries and their growth rate of individual country were calculated by three categories (i.e. growth engine, social cohesion, and environment) and income (GDP per capita) during each period. The major findings of the overall trends and growth rates are summarized as the following:
First, the growth engine indicator increased the fastest among all of four indicators growth engine, social cohesion, environment, and especially income throughout all three
- 31 -
periods. Comparing the relative increase speed in the four indicators, growth engine was the fastest, followed by income, environment, and social cohesion. The reason why growth engine increased faster than the sub-class income is that other sub-class indicators consisting of growth engine (i.e. macroeconomic stability, financial development, economic openness, informatization, technological innovation, and human capital), partially or fully, improved faster than income. The increase speed of social cohesion was slowest because it seems to be caused by its properties in nature. In addition, this fact may reflect the difficulty in promoting social cohesion and producing its tangible outcomes in a short time, unlike economic and environmental indicators.
Second, growth engine and income showed a better performance in the 1990s than in the 2000s. This can be explained in many ways: While the financial crisis in the mid- to late-1990s broke out in some individual countries, the global financial crisis of year 2008 swept through the world and its influence was incomparably strong to all countries. On the other hand, the 1990s saw a long-term economic prosperity, noticeably the longest boom in the post-war United States. The economic boom lasted 120 months, at the same time the U.S.
economy had a cycle of high growth, high inflation, and a low unemployment rate, instead of high growth, low inflation, and a low unemployment rate as in the traditional economic theories. Differently from existing economies, this phenomenon was called New Economy, Digital Economy, or Internet Economy. As the U.S. economy which is the engine of global economy enjoyed prosperity in the period, the whole global economy sailed smoothly.
However, as the U.S. economy slowed down in the 2000s, the global economy experienced recession during the same period.
Third, we draw attention to the observation that whereas growth engine and income improved faster in the 1990s than in the 2000s, social cohesion improved more rapidly in the 2000s than in the 1990s. According to the comparison of growth rates between growth engine and social cohesion, while growth engine increased 3.11% in the 1990s, 2.33% in the 2000s on average annual growth rate (AAGR), social cohesion went up 0.12% in the 1990s and 0.57% in the 2000s. Therefore, the comparison of growth rates between growth engine and social cohesion during the two periods indicates that a high growth rate of growth engine
- 32 -
does not automatically enhance that of social cohesion in proportion to the rate of growth engine.
Fourth, according to the comparison of environment and social cohesion, environment always improved faster than social cohesion. The differences in growth rates of the two indicators remarkably narrowed from 0.48% in the 1990s to 0.03% in the 2000s.
Fifth, environment improved at the steady rate of 0.6% throughout all three periods.
Environmental issues have become a matter of global interest since the Tokyo Protocol on climate change was adopted in May 1992. To resolve global warming and other environmental issues, the international cooperative system has been established over years, which, we believe, made possible the constant improvement in environment.
<Table 6> Total mean and trend of growth rate
Mean AAGR (%)
1990 2000 2008 90-00 00-08 90-08
Growth engine 0.26 0.35 0.42 3.11 2.33 2.76
(growth engine2) (0.29) (0.38) (0.45) (2.72) (2.11) (2.45)
Social cohesion 0.46 0.46 0.49 0.12 0.57 0.32
Environment 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.60
GDP per capita (index) 0.22 0.27 0.32 2.16 2.11 2.13 GDP per capita ($) 18,574 22,755 26,706 2.05 2.02 2.04 Note: Growth engine2 indicates growth engine excluding financial data.
AAGR=average annual growth rate
Analysis of individual country was done by its indicator level and growth rate during three periods: the 1990s, 2000s, and the entire period. Then, the levels and growth rates of countries were ranked by category during three periods and questioned: 1) whether the indicators moved (increased or decreased) more than three steps; 2) whether they moved (increased or decreased) one to two steps only; and 3) whether they stayed at the same rank.
As for each category, countries with available data of 1990 and 2008 were classified into three groups: High (30%), Middle (40%), and Low (30%) group, to see how individual country was ranked and moved from one group (as of 1990) to another group (as of 2008).
This classification resulted in nine cases in total. This analysis revealed that three countries, namely Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, belonged to High-High both in years 1990 and 2008
- 33 -
in all three categories of growth engine, social cohesion, and environment. As of 2008, countries with the highest level by category were Luxembourg in growth engine, Sweden in social cohesion, and Ireland in environment. Countries recording the fastest improvement in three categories were Poland, Ireland, and China. The next section presents a detailed analysis of individual country by each category.
(2) Growth engine
According to the trend of the category growth engine by country, Luxembourg ranked first both in years 1990 and 2008 and second in 2000. The United States ranked second in 1990 and jumped up greatly during the 1990s to rank first in year 2000, then dropped to the second ranking in 2008. This fact reflects the slowdown in growth in the 2000s (See <Figure 13>). The overall trend in Luxembourg, the United States, and other high ranked countries shows that their growth rates were lower than the mean of surveyed countries. This trend depicts that as economies develop and their sizes become larger, their growth rates tend to become lower.
<Figure 13> Trend of growth engine indicators by country
- 34 -
Next, the trend and growth rate of the category growth engine were analyzed by period and country. In the 1990s, Europe's relatively small countries, Poland (5.46%), Greece (5.28%), Ireland, and Portugal, achieved a fast growth. In the 2000s, Russia (6.13%), Hungary (5.77%), Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Turkey, and Poland took the lead in growth. Russia's growth engine turned for the better in the 2000s, compared to the 1990s, due to strong international oil prices which is the core of the Russian economy. Chile and Brazil recorded solid growth both in the 1990s and 2000s. Overall, the growth rates of countries with high growth engine indicators slowed. By contrast, former East European countries (e.g.
Poland and the Czech Republic) and developing countries in Latin America (e.g. Brazil and Chile) displayed high growth rates. Therefore, the growth engine demonstrates a rapid convergence between these two groups of countries.
Considering individual country's growth rate, Indonesia's growth engine recorded the lowest level among all the countries in 2008 by decreasing in the 1990s and in 2000 falling below the level of 1990. As their growth engines weakened in the 2000s, Argentina and India
- 35 -
recorded low growth, compared to that of the 1990s. In particular, Argentina showed rapid growth in the 1990s but then met with a downturn in growth in the 2000s. This country was the only case of all the participated countries, which may reflect Argentina's financial crisis.
Except a few countries mentioned above, however, most of the countries improved their level of growth engine in the 2000s, compared to the 1990s.
<Table 7> Level and growth rate of growth engine indicator by country
Country
Level AAGR (%)
1990 2000 2008 90-00 00-08 90-08
Average 0.26 0.35 0.42 3.11 2.33 2.76
Argentina 0.15 0.25 0.25 5.00 -0.06 2.72
Australia 0.31 0.42 0.50 2.90 2.22 2.60
Austria 0.29 0.39 0.47 3.01 2.31 2.70
Belgium 0.30 0.42 0.49 3.44 1.91 2.76
Brazil 0.15 0.22 0.30 4.35 3.70 4.06
Canada 0.33 0.43 0.51 2.73 2.05 2.43
Chile 0.17 0.28 0.36 4.94 3.14 4.14
Czech Republic 0.21 0.31 0.41 4.07 3.50 3.82
Denmark 0.31 0.45 0.50 3.61 1.45 2.65
Finland 0.30 0.46 0.49 4.28 0.91 2.77
France 0.31 0.38 0.45 1.95 2.36 2.13
Germany 0.31 0.41 0.46 2.86 1.62 2.30
Greece 0.17 0.29 0.36 5.28 2.82 4.18
Hungary 0.18 0.25 0.39 3.34 5.77 4.41
Iceland 0.28 0.44 0.51 4.73 1.81 3.42
India 0.17 0.20 0.22 2.13 0.86 1.57
Indonesia 0.18 0.15 0.19 -2.20 3.34 0.22
Ireland 0.27 0.43 0.48 4.88 1.43 3.33
- 36 -
Italy 0.24 0.33 0.38 3.09 1.98 2.59
Japan 0.37 0.43 0.47 1.33 1.16 1.26
Korea 0.25 0.37 0.46 4.10 2.76 3.50
Luxembourg 0.43 0.55 0.66 2.48 2.46 2.47
Mexico 0.16 0.23 0.29 3.41 2.84 3.15
Netherlands 0.33 0.46 0.52 3.53 1.56 2.65
New Zealand 0.29 0.39 0.46 2.88 2.08 2.52
Norway 0.35 0.40 0.50 1.53 2.63 2.02
Poland 0.15 0.25 0.34 5.46 3.86 4.75
Portugal 0.22 0.33 0.38 4.13 1.74 3.06
Russia 0.23 0.19 0.30 -2.04 6.13 1.51
Saudi Arabia 0.18 0.21 0.33 1.95 5.61 3.56
Slovak Republic 0.24 0.27 0.40 1.12 4.83 2.75 Republic of South
Africa 0.18 0.22 0.27 2.35 2.41 2.38
Spain 0.25 0.35 0.43 3.47 2.67 3.11
Sweden 0.31 0.46 0.53 3.79 1.84 2.92
Switzerland 0.36 0.49 0.52 3.33 0.65 2.13
Turkey 0.16 0.17 0.25 0.93 4.92 2.69
United Kingdom 0.29 0.42 0.52 4.02 2.55 3.36
United States 0.39 0.56 0.59 3.58 0.70 2.29
China - - - - - -
Next, the changes in rank of the category growth engine between countries were examined.8 Countries whose ranking of growth engine jumped more than three steps for the entire period included Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom saw
8 For overall changes in rank of countries by category, see <Appendix Table 1> and
<Appendix Table 2>.
- 37 -
an noticeable increase of more than three steps both in the 1990s and 2000s because two classes of growth engine (i.e. stable growth and industrial competitiveness) increased more than three steps. To put it in detail, the United Kingdom recorded considerable achievements in the variables of income, macroeconomic stability, informatization, and human capital. As another conspicuous example, Korea, in spite of the financial crisis of 1997, achieved an increase of one to two steps in growth engine in the 1990s and 2000s. Its two classes stable growth and industrial competitiveness, particularly and the sub-classes (e.g. income, macroeconomic stability, economic openness, informatization, and technological innovation) greatly contributed to its hike in ranking.
Countries whose ranking in growth engine fell more than three steps for the entire period included France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, and the Republic of South Africa. Germany showed a continuous decrease in growth engine, which may reflect that in the aftermath of its unification. Two classes, stable growth and industrial competitiveness, decreased in the country. Specifically, Germany showed poor performance in income, financial development, technological innovation, and human capital. Japan also saw its ranking in growth engine fall more than three steps for the entire period. Japan's growth engine weakened due to its drop in stable growth. Of the sub-classes, Japan's income, macroeconomic stability, financial development, and human capital all deteriorated. This may be caused by the long-term recession called the "lost decade" of the 1990s and a sharp rise in government debt. New Zealand's ranking dropped more than three steps in the 1990s and one to two steps in the 2000s. This country showed poor performance in the sub-classes of financial development and economic openness from the aspect of stable growth.
Countries whose growth engine maintained a high 30% (High) both in the 1990s and 2000s, included Australia, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Iceland and the United Kingdom enhanced their growth engine from a middle 40% (Middle) in the 1990s to a High in the 2000s. Greece and Hungary improved their growth engine from a low 30% (Low) to a Middle rate. Countries whose growth engine were Low-Low included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the Republic of South Africa, and Turkey.
- 38 -
As another analysis, growth engine2 indicator was developed without two variables on financial development in the category of growth engine, since China was excluded in the preceeding growth engine indicatordue to its missing data on financial development. The growth engine2 indicator did not show much difference from the existing growth engine indicator except that the AAGR of growth engine2 by period was lower in all cases than that of growth engine.
Looking at China in detail, its income grew rapidly but growth engine2 showed an growth rate lower than the total mean throughout the 1990s, 2000s, and the entire period.
This is likely caused by the trend that along with its economic growth in all factors of growth engine-including classes. sub-classes, and descriptions. Inflation rose, macroeconomic stability weakened and its ranking in human capital dropped. Although China's GDP per capita and informatization have been steadily improved, they still remained in the low rankings with growth engine2 in the low ranking as well.
In comparison of China's growth engine2 in two decades, China improved relatively faster in the 1990s than in the 2000s. This fact was caused by its slackened growth in macroeconomic stability, income, economic openness, informatization in the 2000s.
Although China recorded better performance in the 2000s in terms of technological innovation and human capital, its good performance could not offset the other factors slowing its growth.
<Figure 14> Trend of growth engine2 indicator by country
- 39 -
<Table 8> Level and growth rate of growth engine2 by country
Country
Level AAGR (%)
1990 2000 2008 90-00 00-08 90-08
Average 0.29 0.38 0.45 2.72 2.11 2.45 Argentina 0.19 0.30 0.28 4.91 -0.70 2.38 Australia 0.36 0.46 0.54 2.46 1.90 2.21 Austria 0.34 0.44 0.52 2.74 2.04 2.43 Belgium 0.36 0.48 0.55 3.03 1.78 2.47 Brazil 0.18 0.26 0.34 4.20 3.02 3.67 Canada 0.37 0.47 0.54 2.37 1.73 2.08 Chile 0.20 0.32 0.41 4.87 3.01 4.04 China 0.25 0.28 0.30 1.15 1.09 1.12 Czech Republic 0.24 0.37 0.47 4.54 3.01 3.86 Denmark 0.36 0.50 0.54 3.29 0.83 2.19 Finland 0.35 0.48 0.54 3.34 1.28 2.42
- 40 -
France 0.36 0.41 0.49 1.50 2.16 1.79 Germany 0.35 0.45 0.51 2.46 1.47 2.02 Greece 0.20 0.32 0.40 4.89 2.81 3.96 Hungary 0.21 0.29 0.45 3.40 5.58 4.36 Iceland 0.32 0.49 0.54 4.29 1.29 2.95 India 0.20 0.23 0.25 1.77 0.63 1.26 Indonesia 0.22 0.17 0.22 -2.66 3.27 -0.07 Ireland 0.32 0.49 0.52 4.43 0.82 2.81 Italy 0.28 0.37 0.42 2.66 1.78 2.27 Japan 0.39 0.44 0.49 1.11 1.39 1.23 Korea 0.28 0.40 0.50 3.53 2.95 3.27 Luxembourg 0.48 0.61 0.72 2.36 2.08 2.23 Mexico 0.20 0.27 0.34 3.40 2.65 3.06 Netherlands 0.37 0.49 0.55 2.90 1.48 2.27 New Zealand 0.34 0.43 0.50 2.56 1.82 2.23 Norway 0.40 0.45 0.54 1.22 2.46 1.77 Poland 0.17 0.30 0.39 5.65 3.43 4.66 Portugal 0.26 0.37 0.41 3.63 1.44 2.65 Russia 0.27 0.22 0.33 -2.21 5.37 1.09 Saudi Arabia 0.20 0.25 0.36 2.18 5.00 3.42 Slovak Republic 0.29 0.32 0.45 1.10 4.42 2.56 Republic of South
Africa
0.19 0.23 0.27 1.88 2.04 1.95
Spain 0.29 0.38 0.46 2.81 2.23 2.55 Sweden 0.35 0.49 0.57 3.49 1.86 2.76
- 41 -
Switzerland 0.39 0.50 0.53 2.41 0.77 1.68 Turkey 0.19 0.20 0.29 0.36 5.06 2.42 United Kingdom 0.31 0.45 0.53 3.71 2.20 3.04 United States 0.43 0.57 0.61 2.82 0.86 1.95
(3) Social cohesion
The most conspicuous feature of social cohesion is that countries with high rankings in social cohesion indicators, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland, have constantly improved the degree of social cohesion. Their growth rate of social cohesion indicators was 0.32%, which is higher than the total mean. On the other hand, countries with low rankings in social cohesion indicators, including Turkey and Mexico, could not achieve improvement in social cohesion. In other words, whereas the AAGR of the five top countries tend to be higher during the entire periods than the total mean, that of the five bottom countries tend to be lower than the total mean (See <Table 9>).
Most of European countries, known for their emphasis on social cohesion importantly, had a high degree of social cohesion as well as a solid growth rate, resulting in a significant performance in social cohesion. On the other hand, Turkey with a low social cohesion indicator recorded an growth rate of 0.20%, lower than the average growth rate of all the surveyed countries. Among the countries with low social cohesion indicators, including Greece, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Korea, and Italy, only Mexico and Portugal showed higher growth rates than the global average rate. This is in contrast to the result of the category growth engine as described in the previous section. In other words, while the growth rate of countries with high growth engine indicators tends to decrease, the growth rate of countries with low growth engine indicators tends to increase (See <Table 9>).
- 42 -
<Table 9> Level and growth rate of social cohesion indicator by country
Country Level AAGR (%)
1990 2000 2008 90-00 00-08 90-08
Average 0.46 0.46 0.49 0.12 0.57 0.32 Australia 0.51 0.51 0.54 0.09 0.64 0.33 Austria 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.59 0.53 0.56 Belgium 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.63 0.77 0.69 Canada 0.51 0.50 0.53 -0.33 0.84 0.19 Czech Republic 0.42 0.39 0.41 -0.85 0.81 -0.12 Denmark 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.62 0.38 0.51 Finland 0.54 0.52 0.56 -0.29 0.88 0.22 France 0.47 0.47 0.51 -0.08 0.98 0.39 Germany 0.48 0.47 0.49 -0.15 0.51 0.14 Greece 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.10 0.31 0.19 Hungary 0.38 0.37 0.38 -0.36 0.43 -0.01 Iceland 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.44 0.27 0.37 Ireland 0.44 0.46 0.51 0.59 1.16 0.84 Italy 0.39 0.37 0.39 -0.29 0.58 0.10 Japan 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.04 Korea 0.39 0.38 0.41 -0.12 0.74 0.26 Luxembourg 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.66 0.46 0.57 Mexico 0.33 0.33 0.35 -0.07 0.85 0.34 Netherlands 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.34 -0.44 -0.01 New Zealand 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.13 0.27 0.19 Norway 0.55 0.55 0.58 -0.02 0.78 0.34
- 43 -
Poland 0.38 0.37 0.38 -0.10 0.33 0.09 Portugal 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.92 0.07 0.54 Slovak Republic 0.38 0.37 0.41 -0.28 1.21 0.38 Spain 0.44 0.43 0.47 -0.30 1.04 0.29 Sweden 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.49 0.65 0.56 Switzerland 0.51 0.53 0.58 0.32 1.15 0.69 Turkey 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.16 0.24 0.20 United Kingdom 0.47 0.47 0.49 -0.11 0.50 0.16 United States 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.15 0.18 0.16
Chile - - - - - -
Russia - - - - - -
Brazil - - - - - -
China - - - - - -
India - - - - - -
Indonesia - - - - - -
Republic of South Africa
- - - - - -
Argentina - - - - - -
Saudi Arabia - - - - - -
The second feature related to social cohesion is that the growth rates of social cohesion are very low, compared to those of growth engine. In particular, as the growth rate of social cohesion in the 1990s stalled at 0.12% on average, the levels of the 2000s were the same or even lower than those of the 1990s in the following countries, including Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Among them, Korea was affected by the financial crisis of 1997, which accelerated
- 44 -
the collapse of its middle class. In the case of Germany, similarly to growth engine, its lower level is likely influenced by the nation's unification more than anything else. The Netherlands and Hungary, with the degree of social cohesion in 2008 lower than that of 1990, showed weakened social cohesion for the entire period (See <Figure 15>).
<Figure 15> Trend of social cohesion indicator by country
Next, the rankings and growth rates of the social cohesion area were examined (See
<Appendix Table 1> and <Appendix Table 2>). From year 1990 through year 2008, the countries whose rankings increased more than three steps were several European countries, including Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Switzerland. Except for Portugal, other four countries had relatively high social cohesion indicators. Switzerland, whose ranking increased the highest of these five countries, greatly improved its performance in welfare distribution and social capital.
Countries whose rankings in social cohesion plummeted included Canada, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Of them, Germany showed a decrease of more than three steps, not just in social cohesion but also in growth engine. Also, Germany's
- 45 -
drop in the ranking of individual freedom and life security in the 1990s greatly worked to decrease its social cohesion ranking. The country also showed a trend towards a continuous fall in the rankings of social tolerance and trustworthy government.
Considering the ranked groups by the growth rates in social cohesion, countries whose rankings were at the High-High levels both in the 1990s and 2000s included Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. The Netherlands still remain at the High-High levels in spite of its fall of more than three steps in growth rate.
Derived from their remarkable improvement in social cohesion, Luxembourg and Switzerland shifted to Middle-High levels. Portugal improved its level to Low-Middle capitalizing on the increase in ranking of the 1990s. Countries at the Low-Low levels in social cohesion included Greece, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey.
(4) Environment
First, the trends of individual country in the category environment were examined.
Countries with high environmental indicators, including Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, showed insignificant improvement since they had already achieved a certain degree of improvement in environment. By contrast, countries with low environmental indicators, including China, India, and Mexico, accomplished rapid improvement in environment. As a consequence, the gap in the environment area among countries reduced as the environment in developing countries have been drastically improved. Factors, such as enhanced awareness of the importance of environment, developed countries' strengthening of environmental restrictions on imported products and setting strategies for long-term environment-friendly development, are likely to have worked for this improvement. Overall, the category environment tends to have a convergence, similar to the category growth engine but different from the category social cohesion.
Regarding the rankings of countries in the environmental indicator, Norway ranked highest in the 1990s and 2000s and then Iceland occupied the top ranking in 2008. Although
- 46 -
New Zealand along with Norway showed a decrease in environmental indicators throughout the 1990s, 2000s, and the entire period, both countries belonged to high ranked countries in environment (See <Figure 16>).
<Figure 16> Trend of environmental indicators by country
The features of growth rate in individual country are presented (See details at <Table 10>). First of all, China ranked lowest in the environmental level as of 1990, 2000, and 2008 consecutively. However, its growth rate of environmental indicators ranked highest.
Throughout the entire period, China displayed a high growth rate of 5.57% in environment, exceeding nine times of the world's AAGR 0.60%. In particular, China's extraordinary growth rate of 8.11% in the 1990s was unsurpassed by any other country. In addition to China, Mexico and India showed relatively high improvement in environment in the 1990s.
- 47 -
China, Iceland, Russia and Turkey achieved great improvement in the 2000s. Mexico and Turkey made great progress by exceeding two times of the world's AAGR. In summary of the growth rate in environment, in comparison to growth engine and social cohesion, environment improved in most of countries relatively higher than social cohesion but less than growth engine.
<Table 10> Level and growth rate of environmental indicator by country
Year
Level AAGR (%)
1990 2000 2008 90-00 00-08 90-08
Average 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.60
Argentina 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.55 0.33 0.45
Australia 0.54 0.59 0.61 0.98 0.48 0.76
Austria 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.17 0.08 0.13
Belgium 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.29 0.52 0.39
Brazil 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.55 0.41 0.49
Canada 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.33 0.42 0.37
Chile 0.57 0.60 0.64 0.56 0.77 0.66
China 0.17 0.36 0.44 8.11 2.49 5.57
Czech Republic 0.55 0.62 0.65 1.11 0.71 0.93
Denmark 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.31 0.13 0.23
Finland 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.38 0.29 0.34
France 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.25 0.18 0.22
Germany 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.45 0.39 0.42
Greece 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.28 0.47 0.37
Hungary 0.51 0.56 0.62 0.88 1.13 0.99
Iceland 0.70 0.73 0.81 0.47 1.30 0.84
India 0.40 0.46 0.54 1.39 1.97 1.65
- 48 -
Ireland 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.47 0.30 0.39
Italy 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.04 0.09 0.06
Japan 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.13 0.29 0.20
Korea 0.51 0.55 0.61 0.69 1.32 0.97
Luxembourg 0.63 0.67 0.68 0.61 0.13 0.40
Mexico 0.43 0.53 0.56 2.10 0.83 1.53
Netherlands 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.34 0.28 0.31
New Zealand 0.65 0.64 0.64 -0.24 -0.03 -0.15
Norway 0.75 0.75 0.74 -0.05 -0.10 -0.07
Poland 0.49 0.58 0.62 1.71 0.75 1.28
Portugal 0.57 0.61 0.62 0.56 0.21 0.40
Russia 0.41 0.41 0.48 -0.11 2.05 0.85
Slovak Republic 0.52 0.60 0.66 1.51 1.15 1.35 Republic of South
Africa
0.45 0.49 0.54 0.90 1.25 1.05
Spain 0.60 0.60 0.63 0.14 0.60 0.35
Sweden 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.17 0.09 0.13
Switzerland 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.14 0.09 0.12
Turkey 0.46 0.49 0.58 0.82 2.01 1.35
United Kingdom 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.28 0.34 0.31
United States 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.66 0.61 0.64
Saudi Arabia - - - - - -
Indonesia - - - - - -
Next, the rank and change in rank of individual country in the category environment were presented (See details at <Appendix Table 1> and <Appendix table 2>). Most of all, countries whose ranking jumped more than three steps included Chile, the Czech Republic,
- 49 -
Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, and the Slovak Republic. Considering the factors for their increase, Finland achieved improvement in environment due to its development of environmental technology. Germany displayed a contrast among three categories: Its ranking in growth engine and social cohesion fell more than three steps, whereas its ranking in environment rose more than three steps. Unlikely to Germany, Ireland's ranking increased in all three categories. Luxembourg showed a big hike of more than three steps in environmental conditions in spite of its decrease in the class of regenerative capability. This country's increase of more than three steps is likely to result from its ranking rise in resource efficiency and environmental hazards.
Countries whose ranking in environment dropped more than three steps included Argentina, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United States.
Greece and Italy showed a large decrease in the class of environmental conditions. The United States recorded a decrease of more than three steps in regenerative capability. Italy's ranking in environment fell more than three steps during in the 1990s and 2000s in the category of environment, in the class of environmental conditions, and in the sub-class of environmental hazards respectively. In the case of Greece, its ranking in environmental conditions dropped more than three steps largely due to its big fall in resource efficiency and environmental hazards. In contrast, Greece's increased supply rate of water and sewage in the sub-class contributed to its great improvement in regenerative capability in the 2000s.
Countries with high rankings High-High in environment both in the 1990s and 2000s included Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Countries whose rankings remained in the middle in the 1990s, then moved up to high rankings in the 2000s, included Finland, Germany, and Ireland. Countries with low rankings in environment in both periods included Australia, China, Hungary, India, Korea, Mexico, Russia, the Republic of South Africa, and Turkey.
(5) GDP per capita