《INSEAD&德科：2019年全球人才競爭力指數報告（英文版）（339頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《INSEAD&德科：2019年全球人才競爭力指數報告（英文版）（339頁）.pdf（339頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、The Global Talent Competitiveness Index2019 Entrepreneurial Talent and Global CompetitivenessBruno Lanvin and Felipe Monteiro,EditorsThe Global Talent Competitiveness Index2019Bruno Lanvin Felipe MonteiroEditors Entrepreneurial Talent and Global CompetitivenessINSEAD(2019):The Global Talent Competit

2、iveness Index 2019,Fontainebleau,France.Disclaimer:No representation or warranty,either express or implied,is provided in relation to the information con-tained herein and with regard to its fitness,sufficiency,or applicability for any particular purpose.The information contained in this report is p

3、rovided for personal non-com-mercial use and information purposes only and may be reviewed and revised based on new information and data.INSEAD,the Adecco Group,and Tata Communications dis-claim all liability relating to the content and use of the re-port and the information contained therein,and th

4、e report should not be used as a basis for any decision that may af-fect the business and financial interests of the reader or any other party.The indexs methodology and the rankings do not necessarily present the views of INSEAD,Adecco,and Tata Communications.The same applies to the substantive cha

5、pters in this report,which are the responsibility of the authors.2019 by INSEAD,the Adecco Group,and Tata Communications.The information contained herein is proprietary in nature and no part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted,in any form or by any means

6、,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,or other-wise without the prior permission of INSEAD,the Adecco Group,and Tata Communications.ISBN:979-10-95870-18-0Designed by Neil Weinberg,edited by Hope Steele,and printed by INSEAD,Fontainebleau,France.THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 iiiCONTENTSC

7、ontentsPreface.vBruno Lanvin,Executive Director for Global Indices,INSEAD Felipe Monteiro,Academic Director of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index and Affiliate Professor of Strategy,INSEADForeword.viiAlain Dehaze,Chief Executive Officer,the Adecco GroupForeword.ixVinod Kumar,Chief Executive Off

8、icer and Managing Director,Tata CommunicationsAdvisory Board,INSEAD GTCI Team and Editing Team.xiCHAPTERSChapter 1:Entrepreneurial Talent for Competitiveness.3Bruno Lanvin,Felipe Monteiro,and Michael Bratt,INSEADChapter 2:Education 2.0:Getting Ready for the Future of Work.37Alain Dehaze,the Adecco G

9、roupChapter 3:Leading through Change.41Vinod Kumar,Tata CommunicationsChapter 4:Gaining Global Competitiveness through Rendanheyi:Case Studies from the Haier Group.45Haier Model Research InstituteChapter 5:Entrepreneurial Talent and Global Competition:A Unicorns View.51An interview with Frdric Mazze

10、lla,Founder and Chairman of BlaBlaCarChapter 6:JRC Statistical Audit of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2019.55Michaela Saisana,Marcos lvarez-Daz,Marcos Domnguez-Torreiro,and William Becker,European Commission Joint Research CentreSPECIAL SECTION:CITIES AND REGIONSGrowing,Attracting,and Reta

11、ining Talents at City Level:Exploring the Local Dynamics around Entrepreneurial Talent.71Bruno Lanvin and Michael Bratt,INSEADCOUNTRY PROFILESHow to Read the Country Profiles.87Index of Country Profiles.89Country Profiles.91DATA TABLESHow to Read the Data Tables.219Index of Data Tables.221Data Table

12、s.223APPENDICESAppendix I:Technical Notes.301Appendix II:Sources and Definitions.305Appendix III:About the Contributors and Partners.317THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 vPREFACEPrefaceThe Global Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI)report continues to gain in visibility around the world,and

13、 today has firmly es-tablished itself as a global benchmark for issues related to talent competitiveness and the future of work.Now in its sixth year,this edition of the GTCI addresses the topic of Entrepreneurial Talent and Global Competitiveness and at-tempts to identify the ways in which large an

14、d small firms,na-tions,and cities can foster entrepreneurial talent in the era of digital transformation.Rapid advances in digital technology are redefining our world.But digital transformation is not always well understood,and this lack of understanding has fostered a number of myths that are obscu

15、ring the path to realising its potential for value creation.Action will be needed to maximise benefits and help foster entrepreneurial talent because the future of work will be driven by new generations of workers,rapid and unpredictable technological changes,and competition for intellectual capital

16、.Over the last few decades,entrepreneurial talent has been seen as critical to the development of vibrant innovation eco-systems,bringing focus to small and medium-size enterprises,including start-ups and unicorns.The analyses contained in this report underline the view that entrepreneurial talent i

17、s equally important for larger and more mature organisations,both public and private.The various chapters point to recent developments in this still underexplored field(at least by economists)and sug-gest ways in which the global talent scene might be affected by the way entrepreneurial talent is be

18、ing created,detected,at-tracted,and nurtured around the world.More importantly,such analyses and contextual content indicate ways in which action can be taken by firms,nations,and cities to make the best of a resource that is both scarce and widely distributed.The GTCI model went through some increm

19、ental changes this year.Although the number and type of variables have stayed the same,a few have been redefined to ease their interpretation and better capture their talent-related dimensions.Above all,the innovation dimension of the GTCI has been strengthened.The broad coverage of countries was al

20、so further increased,from 119 to 125 countries.As in the last two editions of the GTCI report,the present one includes a special section on cities,which considers(and at-tempts to measure)the many ways in which they contribute to reshaping the global talent scene.This year again,coverage con-tinues

21、to increase,and the Global Cities Talent Competitiveness Index(GCTCI)now includes 114 cities.One distinct new feature of this edition is the inclusion of the first time-series analysis of GTCI data.Since the report can now rely on six-year time series,it starts to make sense to com-pare various perf

22、ormances(on specific variables or pillars)across time.In subsequent editions,this approach will be refined and enriched.It is presented here in a first attempt to take a step back and assess how global talent competitiveness is changing globally.While striving to increase the economic and decisional

23、 im-pact of the GTCI report,we also devote specific efforts to mini-mise its potential negative impact on the environment.For this,we continue to decrease the number of printed copies of the re-port,and encourage our readers and faithful followers to down-load the electronic versions of GTCI from ou

24、r dedicated websites.In the coming months,new tools will be made available to en-rich web-based,social mediacentred,and app-centred GTCI experiences.This year again we want to express our deep feeling of gratitude to our two faithful partners,namely the Adecco Group and Tata Communications.Our thank

25、s go to the executives and teams involved in these organisations,and also to all the indi-viduals,institutions,and organisations that have contributed chapters to the present edition.As in previous years,we wish to direct special thanks to the European Commission Joint Research Centre(JRC),which has

26、 continued its highly professional and constructive evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the GTCI model.Finally,we ac-knowledge with gratitude the continued support of our prestig-ious Advisory Board,as well as the highly valuable contribution brought by Professor Paul Evans,founding academ

27、ic director of GTCI during the last five years.We continue to work hard at improving the relevance and value of this annual report,and count very much on the feed-back from our growing readership to do so.We hope you enjoy this edition!Bruno LanvinExecutive Director for Global Indices,INSEADFelipe M

28、onteiroAcademic Director of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index;Affiliate Professor of Strategy,INSEADTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 viiFOREWORDThe Adecco Group|ForewordTalent is the deciding factor in the global scramble for prosper-ity as skills grow ever more scarce and megatren

29、ds redefine our economies.Which countries and cities are setting the pace in talent competitiveness?Who is falling behind?How can we im-prove the way we enable,attract,grow,and retain talent every-where?Does talent have to be a finite resource?As the world of work changes rapidly around us,it is mor

30、e and more necessary to have this information available to bench-mark how we are competing against our peers,and to under-stand the trends affecting talent flows and talent competitive-ness in order to improve our performance.The sixth edition of the Global Talent Competitiveness Report(GTCI),produc

31、ed in collaboration with the Adecco Group,INSEAD,and Tata Communications,provides invaluable insights into these issues.Each year,we identify a burning topic that we believe is central to economic progress.Alongside the country and city talent competitiveness tables,this year we have placed a specia

32、l focus on entrepreneurial talent.Entrepreneurial talent combines the creativity,innovation,flexibility,adaptability,risk taking,and energy needed to success-fully navigate a world in constant flux.In this report,we provide practical tools and guidance to help countries,cities,and com-panies foster

33、entrepreneurial talent and harness its power.At the Adecco Group,as the worlds leading HR solutions partner,we understand that entrepreneurial talent is not just limited to start-ups or mavericks.It is now a necessary state of mind for everyone,even the biggest companies.Without this crucial attribu

34、te,we risk falling behind as our economies evolve.Whether you are a freelancer or a multinational,entrepreneurial talent will help you navigate an uncertain future of work.We have found that the concept of openness is crucial for entrepreneurial talent to thrive.Countries and cities must foster an a

35、tmosphere of innovation and ideas while also providing en-vironments that encourage and incentivise entrepreneurs.We need to make sure people and companies feel they can take risks to find new solutions.We are also seeing that cities are increasingly becoming entrepreneurial labs.Cities are hives of

36、 activity and experimenta-tion,each with a large customer base to try out new ideas.In fact,cities continue to grow in importance on the local and global talent scenes.If countries do not perform well as nations,we are seeing cities increasingly stepping up to fill the gap.The headline findings of t

37、he 2019 GTCI report show that we have some way to go before all of the worlds economies can realise their true potential through talent competitiveness.There remains a strong correlation between income per capita and talent performance.Looking back over the medium term,the GTCIs five-year analysis h

38、ints at a possible,and worrying,in-crease in talent competitiveness inequalities.The gap in talent between higher-and lower-income countries has increased over the past few years.This is most notable in Latin America and the Caribbean.Our top-performing countries remain Switzerland,Singa-pore,the Un

39、ited States,and the Nordicsall high-income na-tions.The best-performing upper-middle-income country is Malaysia at 27th place,while Rwanda is the highest-ranked low-income country at 73rd.It is important for global policymakers to ensure that,while we compete,the future works for everyone around the

40、 world,not just the few.One of the key economic challenges of our age will be how,as technology transforms the way we work and live,we can strive to improve talent competitiveness and,therefore,prosper-ity across the world.By sharing best practices,exploring key trends and factors,and providing a be

41、nchmarking index tool,it is our hope that the GTCI can play some part in helping countries and cities to under-stand more clearly the challenges ahead and to lay the seeds for success in the future.Alain DehazeChief Executive Officer,The Adecco GroupTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 ixI a

42、m delighted that Tata Communications is contributing to the Global Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI)for the second year.Businesses,of course,are about people,and I believe that suc-cess in todays world comes from fostering talent with an entre-preneurial orientation,curating diverse cognitive backg

43、rounds at all levels in an organisation,and building systems and culture where change is preferred to the status quo.Critically,learning should never stop;it must be viewed as a lifelong pursuit.The world is changing faster than ever.Disruption is the norm and opportunities can appear and disappear

44、seemingly in the blink of an eye.While technology is driving these opportuni-ties,its people who will seize them.Standing still is not an option in this changing world.In fact,evolving our skills and giving people the right tools to succeed is the surest way to success.I believe that all employeesre

45、gard-less of age,team,or locationshould see themselves in this context.They should see themselves as being in betaalways seeking out ways to improve,to learn,and to grow.This mindset will help them move forward,to try new things and to learn from missteps.The concept of openness is critical for entr

46、epreneurial tal-ent,and business culture plays a key role here.By instilling an open atmosphere that promotes learning and views failure as a lesson learned,businesses will thrive.We should encourage a culture of intrapreneurship that leverages all the talent in our organisations,because its impossi

47、ble to predict where the next great idea will come from.But you can predict that people who are curious about the world and seek out learning will spot op-portunities.They will revaluate our business practices,discover new revenue streams,and attract like-minded talent.As in previous editions of GTC

48、I,this years data confirm that there is a strong correlation between income and talent perfor-mance,although,interestingly,dynamics within income groups vary from country to country.Such developments deserve care-ful attention,since new best practices may emerge from all parts of the world.Technolog

49、y can play a role as an enabler,and Im fascinated by how humans and technology will interact in future workplac-es.Recently,we launched our AI and the Future of Work report,a global study of 120 business leaders in collaboration with Profes-sor Ken Goldberg from UC Berkeley.In addition to identifyin

50、g how Artificial Intelligence(AI)can enhance cognitive diversity in teams,it also found that AI will offload repetitive tasks,freeing people to focus on ideas that move businesses forward.Lifelong learning is a vital ingredient in the way business leaders must plan to ensure that people and teams ma

51、ke the most of focusing on what theyre great at:curiosity,creativity,and capitalising on opportunities.A lifelong commitment to learning and development is how well continue to evolve and adapt to our new and chang-ing environments.Tata Communications|ForewordFOREWORDVinod KumarChief Executive Offic

52、er and Managing Director,Tata CommunicationsTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 xiAdvisory BoardTalal Abu-GhazalehFounder and Chairman,Talal Abu-Ghazaleh OrganizationThierry BretonChairman and CEO,Atos;former Minister of the Economy,Finance and Industry for FrancePeter CappelliGeorge W.Tayl

53、or Professor of Management and Director,Center for Human Resources at The Wharton School,University of PennsylvaniaYoko IshikuraProfessor Emeritus,Hitotsubashi University;former Senior Manager at McKinsey&Company,Inc.,TokyoMats KarlssonDirector,The Swedish Institute of International Affairs;former V

54、ice-President of the World BankArnoud De MeyerPresident,Singapore Management UniversityVineet NayarFounder,Sampark Foundation;former CEO of HCL TechnologiesAdvisory Board and INSEAD GTCI TeamINSEAD GTCI TeamBruno LanvinExecutive Director for Global IndicesFelipe MonteiroAcademic Director of the Glob

55、al Talent Competitiveness Index;Affiliate Professor of StrategyMichael Bratt Lead ResearcherAnna HenryProject ManagerVirginie Bongeot MinetCoordinatorEditing TeamHope SteeleEditor,Steele Editorial ServicesNeil WeinbergPrincipal,Neil Weinberg Design GroupADVISORY BOARD AND INSEAD GTCI TEAMChaptersent

56、repreneurial talent and competitiveness relate to one anoth-er,and what issues does this raise for policy and decision mak-ers?and(3),more generally,what do the current GTCI data tell us about how talent competitiveness is evolving globally?DEFINING ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENTIn his seminal 1996 article

57、Entrepreneurship:Productive,Un-productive,and Destructive,William Baumol spoke of entrepre-neurial talent as an often-wasted resource,suffering from mas-sive misallocation:many entrepreneurial talents would end up working in inefficient and risk-averse organisational structures,in which their potent

58、ial contributions to innovation and growth would be ignored or stifled.1 In todays economy,such misalloca-tion remains frequent while its cost increases continuously,mak-ing it a priority target for improving talent competitiveness at all levels.One of the paradoxes surrounding entrepreneurial talen

59、t is that it is both a scarce resource and one that is widely dis-tributed around the world.Differences in performance(both This sixth edition of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index Report(GTCI)aims to advance the current debate around entrepreneur-ial talent,providing practical tools and approa

60、ches to leverage the full potential of individuals and teams as an engine and a ba-sis for innovation,growth,and ultimately competitiveness.One of the key working assumptions on which this report is based is that entrepreneurial talent cannot be reduced to some innate quality found in successful bus

61、iness founders and leaders.On the contrary,it can be regarded as an input to growth,innova-tion,and employment creation that can be measured and nur-tured.There are conditions under which entrepreneurial talent can thrive and be stimulated.There are others under which it will be stifled,to remain an

62、 untapped or wasted resource.The various chapters in this report cast different lights on this complex set of issues from the point of view of business(including,but certainly not limited to,small-and medium-size enterprises,start-ups,and unicorns),governments,or ana-lysts.In this initial chapter,we

63、 address three topics:(1)how do we define entrepreneurial talent?(2)what are the ways in which CHAPTER 1Entrepreneurial Talent for CompetitivenessBruno Lanvin,Felipe Monteiro,and Michael Bratt INSEADENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 3among busines

64、ses and among national economies)often point to insufficiencies in the firm-level strategies and national policies that should contribute to its development and better allocation across economies and societies.Although the literature on entrepreneurship is quite abun-dant(dating back to the 18th cen

65、tury,with Franois Quesnay and the physiocrats school of thought),2 it often relies on a double source of confusion.One consists of reducing entrepreneurial talent to entrepreneurial traits,focusing on the psyche and char-acter of entrepreneurs.The other consists of conflating entrepre-neurial traits

66、 with traits of successful entrepreneurs.While the second confusion neglects the fact that many entrepreneurial individuals will not necessarily meet success(at least not imme-diately),the first confusion leads to overlooking ways in which entrepreneurial talent can be grown,attracted,and nurtured.T

67、he core reason why the topic of entrepreneurial talent was selected as the theme of this years GTCI report is that it is a critical component of competitiveness and innovation,and will become even more so in a fast-changing world that continues to combine digitalisation and globalisation.The working

68、 assump-tions behind this approach are that(1)entrepreneurial talent can be defined and measured(to some extent),and(2)govern-ments,enterprises,and various parts of civil society can signifi-cantly contribute to its development and enhance its potential contribution to growth,employment,and competit

69、iveness.Subsequent chapters and analyses will amplify this point and illustrate it in practical fashions.Here we try to clarify the scope and approach offered in this years GTCI,and how it can lead to better-informed policy and business decisions relevant to talent competitiveness.ENTREPRENEURIAL TA

70、LENT IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITYIt has long been recognised that small-and medium-sized en-terprises(SMEs)play a critical role in employment creation.This reality is even more acute in developing economies,where SMEs often constitute 90%or more of local companies.3 Similarly(al-though

71、 a bit more recently)the role of entrepreneurial talent has been seen as critical on the innovation scene because of the part played by start-ups and unicorns.It is hence not surprising that much of the literature linking entrepreneurial talent to job crea-tion and growth has focused on smaller-size

72、d entities.As under-lined by Katrin Mayer-Haug et al.:As the broad link between small and medium-sized firm activity and key policy goals such as employment or economic growth has become generally accepted,the conversation has focused on a more nuanced understanding of the entrepreneurial engines of

73、 economic activity.A significant body of research looking at antecedents to venture performance has identified that entrepreneurial talent variables account for meaningful differences in venture performance and that significant heterogeneity exists across performance measures.These are important iss

74、ues for institutions and policy makers seeking to achieve specific economic goals(e.g.,survival or growth of ventures,employment or revenue).4Yet,in this report,we want to stress the fact that(much like innovation)entrepreneurial talent reflects a state of mind that should pervade whole economic and

75、 social systems to be fully leveraged.In other words,and as emphasised before,entrepre-neurial talent should not be seen as strategic only in nascent and smaller structures,but also in larger organisations as well as central and local governments.Once this is acknowledged,available data and experien

76、ce point to some practical ways in which entrepreneurial talent can indeed be grown,attracted,and nurtured.DEFINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAITS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENTOne would expect that business and psychology literatures(as opposed to economic research)should address entrepr

77、eneurial talent very much from a personality angle,and this is very much the case.5 Although this has increased the confusions noted ear-lier(and somewhat diminished the interest that entrepreneurial talent should have received from economists and policymakers)the research it has generated offers a

78、promising basis for further exploration of entrepreneurial talent as a source of growth,em-ployment,competitiveness,and innovation at national and local levels.Referring to the personality traits approach to entrepre-neurial talent,Katrin Mayer-Haug and her co-authors underline thatMany researchers

79、compare the traits of entrepreneurs to employed workers or the general population to identify characteristics that define entrepreneurs as a group.It may seem a foolish or unnecessary task to compare Steve Jobs or Elon Musk to the average person,and many books describe the special biographies and pe

80、rsonalities of these great entrepreneurs.For every Jobs or Musk,we have thousands of entrepreneurs seeking growth-oriented businesses and many more seeking to build a business for themselves as self-employed proprietors.The collective impact of these individuals on our economy is enormous,even if th

81、ey dont start Apple or SpaceX.6One tool that has been used thoroughly and successfully in such research has been the Big Five model,which became widely used in the 1980s but refers back to early research by vi-sionaries such as Francis Galton(1883)and Gaston Berger(1950)on identifying character cate

82、gories.The Big Five traits are open-ness to experience,conscientiousness,extraversion,agreeable-ness,and neuroticism(often abbreviated as OCEAN),with each dimension containing six facets or lower-level traits.7 The model has gained wide consensus among personality psychologists as representing the h

83、ighest order of an individuals personality and it has been applied in many fields beyond psychology,including economics,8 political science,9 and even zoology.10With respect to entrepreneurship,Kerr et al.(2018)provide an analytic overview of personality traits and entrepreneurs.CHAPTER 14 THE GLOBA

84、L TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019They point out that entrepreneurship is a complex process that involves many variables that interact with each other to provide the context for starting and operating new businesses.In par-ticular,successful entrepreneurship is the outcome of how per-sonality,human

85、 capital,and environment feed into active perfor-mance that is self-starting,proactive,and persistent.The process invariably takes place within the context of a specific national culture.They illustrate this process in a diagram adapted from Frese(2009)and Brandsttter(2010)(Figure 1).From a talent c

86、ompetitiveness point of view,the key ques-tion suggested by this diagram is:which among the factors men-tioned can influence(or be influenced by)strategies,policies,and targeted measures?As noted by Kerr et al.,Researchers in some disciplines(but rarely economics)go further than the study of interac

87、tions to con-struct“a complex process model of the entrepreneur,”in which the relationships among these variables are mapped out and ultimately govern venture success.11 However,the approach described above offers a valuable starting point for translating personality traits into reproducible skills,

88、which could then be translated into pol-icy priorities and targeted action adapted to various economic environments.ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT IS CRITICAL TO REDUCE TALENT INEQUALITIESThe mere fact that entrepreneurial talent cannot be reduced to personality traitsthat,on the contrary,it can be defined

89、as a combination of skills that can be measured,improved,and bet-ter leveragedis particularly important in poorer and fast-grow-ing economies,since(as underlined later in this chapter)talent inequalities tend to increase between rich and poor countries.Lerner et al.(1997)showed that entrepreneurial

90、talent is more likely to vary across developing economies,particularly because of the formers higher and more consistent education policies.One also cannot neglect the fact that becoming an entrepre-neur may be a choice(or an ambition)in advanced countries,but is often just a necessity of survival i

91、n poorer environments.12The example of China is particularly illuminating in this con-text.It is quite striking that the rise of China has been heavily cor-related with the transfer of significant amounts of talent from the public sector(including state-owned enterprises)to the private sector,13 lea

92、ding to the rapid emergence of giants such as Ten-cent,Alibaba,and Haier.All of these successes have been linked to the blossoming of specific entrepreneurial talents,incarnated by charismatic leaders such as Ma Huateng(Pony Ma),Jack Ma,Figure 1The Complex Process Model of EntrepreneurshipSource:Ada

93、pted from Kerr et al.(2018,p.30).PERSONALITYNeed for achievementLocus of controlSelf-efficacyInnovativenessRisk attitudeOpennessConscientiousnessExtraversionAgreeablenessNeuroticismACTIVE PERFORMANCEActive goals and visionsEntrepreneurial orientationActive task strategyActive action planningEffectua

94、tion,innovationActive social strategy for networkingActive feedback seekingActive approach to mistakesActive approach to learningHUMAN CAPITALEducation and trainingExperienceMental abilityKnowledgeENVIRONMENTLife cycleDynamismHostilityIndustrySUCCESSNATIONAL CULTUREENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETI

95、TIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 5and Zhang Ruimin.What is more striking is that China has be-come the origin of new approaches to identifying and stimu-lating entrepreneurial talent across large entities,as described in Haiers Rendanheyi Model,to which a chapter of this report i

96、s devoted.Researchers such as W.Zhang and others have long argued thatthe economic miracle of China in the past three decades can be attributed to the reallocation of entrepreneurial talent from the government/state and agricultural sectors to business activities.This change is unprecedented in the

97、past two thousand years of Chinese history.When entrepreneurial talent was moved more to business activities,it created wealth,and the economy boomed.Three dominant groups of entrepreneurs are identified:(1)Peasants-turned entrepreneurs,(2)officials-turned entrepreneurs,and(3)overseas-returned,and e

98、ngineers-turned,entrepreneurs.They have emerged sequentially,and successively led three decades of economic growth.The success of the Chinese economy arises from a gradual replacement of position-based rights with property-based rights that has triggered this reallocation of entrepreneurial talent.1

99、4These are elements that should progressively translate into an improvement of Chinas GTCI rankings.ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FROM A GTCI PERSPECTIVE:A SPATIAL ANALYSISA key element in enhancing talent competitiveness is to nurture the kind of entrepreneurship that is required in todays knowl-edge econ

100、omythat is,one that has an appetite and ability for mobility,adaptability,and innovation.There are several dimen-sions of the GTCI that have a bearing on how such entrepreneur-ship is evolving around the worldwith respect to both input and output components.That said,the pillar that best captures en

101、trepreneurial talent is the one related to Global Knowledge Skills(pillar 6).In particular,the Talent Impact sub-pillar(6.2)is directly concerned with innovation and entrepreneurship,with the variable New product entrepreneurial activity(6.2.3)being of specific interest.A closer look at these two me

102、asurements can yield insights into the building of entrepreneurial talent.Tracking Entrepreneurial ActivityThe GTCI variable 6.2.3,New product entrepreneurial activ-ity,is an absolute measure that provides an indication not only of products or services that are new,but also of those that are origina

103、l and not available elsewhere(or only to a limited ex-tent).15 Thus,countries that perform well in this indicator would be expected to be strong in entrepreneurship that is innovative(which can itself be considered as a proxy for entrepreneurial tal-ent performance).The distribution of GTCI countrie

104、s on that di-mension(Figure 2)shows a high degree of variety across regions,Figure 2New product entrepreneurial activity:Scores used in the GTCINote:Entrepreunerial activity ranges from 0(dark blue)to 100(dark red);countries with no available data are shown in white.CHAPTER 16 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMP

105、ETITIVENESS INDEX 2019as well as some remarkably high scores from countries such as Luxembourg(1st)and Chile(2nd).One also finds in the top 5 for this variable countries located in three regions,namely Europe(France,3rd),Northern America(Canada,5th),and also Western Asia(Lebanon,4th).Interestingly,R

106、ussia is one of the lowest-scor-ing countries in the sample,with Sub-Saharan Africa,South Asia,and Latin America represented among the worst-perfoming regions.The high geographic dissemination of top and bottom per-formers in new product entrepreneurial activity suggests that all types of economies,

107、in all regions,have significant benefits to draw from boosting their entrepreneurial talent.Assessing Entrepreneurial Talent ImpactThe sub-pillar Talent Impact(6.2)includes the variable New product entrepreneurial activity(variable 6.2.3,considered in the previous section),but also encompasses indic

108、ators on Innova-tion output(6.2.1),High-value exports(6.2.2),New business den-sity(6.2.4),and Scientific journal articles(6.2.5).Being a broader measure that is made up of several indicators,it provides a fuller picture on the impact of entrepreneurship and innovation in tal-ent competitiveness.In c

109、ontrast to the variable New product entrepreneurial ac-tivity,the highest scores in the aggregated Talent Impact sub-pillar are distinctly more concentrated in terms of income groups and geographic regions(Figure 3).High-income countries in Europe,Northern America,and Oceania are heavily represented

110、 among the top performers on this sub-pillar.This indicates that,when it comes to the wider role of entrepreneurial talent,it is not enough for a country to focus on a single or even a few di-mensions.Rather,a more holistic course of action must be pur-sued.In this,as in the GTCI at large,it is the

111、talent champions that have the upper hand:developing strong and vibrant ecosystems around innovation remains one of the areas in which inequalities remain strong between talent champions and their competitors.One possible implication of this for the development of entre-preneurial talent is that suc

112、h talent needs to be cross-border and cross-sector:successful entrepreneurs are not just those who can create and lead a business,but increasingly those who can formulate a vision and convince other players(banks and other financial sources,academia and research,suppliers and consum-ers,workers and

113、collaborators)of its value.KEY MESSAGES EMERGING FROM THE GTCI 2019 Message 1:Talent inequalities are broadening.Looking back at the first six years of the GTCI and comparing available data across time,one cannot escape the conclusion that the gap separating the talent champions from the rest has be

114、en growing rather than diminishing.The statistical correlation between income per capita and talent performance remains high,while some regions seem to be facing continued issues Figure 3Talent impact:Scores used in the GTCINote:Talent impact ranges from 0(dark blue)to 63.76.(dark red);countries wit

115、h no available data are shown in white.ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 7in identifying entry points to talent competitiveness(this is the case for most of Sub-Saharan Africa,and some of the least-developed economies elsewhere)or are witnessing a

116、 progressive erosion of their talent base(as is the case for Latin America and the Caribbean in particular).Message 2:Talent issues have become a mainstream con-cern for firms,nations,and cities.The mere fact that the GTCIs database has been increasing in coverage and quality is just one piece of ev

117、idence demonstrating that all types of organisations(private and public,governmental or not)have been devoting significant resources and energy to identify-ing ways to measure talent and its related dimensions.But,more importantly,the reverse causality link is gaining visibility and importance.This

118、means that analyses and assessments are not carried out only to measure how better-endowed and richer economies foster talent,but more and more to meas-ure the impact of talent performance on other broad objec-tives such as growth,job creation,and innovation.Message 3:Entrepreneurial talent can both

119、 broaden and reduce inequalities.Entrepreneurial talent plays a vital role in smaller firms(which are critical to job creation,especially in developing economies)and start-ups(which are critical to innnovation).Yet analyses such as the GTCIs,as well as recent evidence from the business and economic

120、scenes,show that entrepreneurial talent also has critical roles to play in larger or-ganisations and even in governments.All components of the innovation ecosystem now need to enhance their efforts to attract,nurture,and retain more entrepreneurial talent.This talent should be seen as a state of min

121、d that can be grown,improved,and nurtured with a mix of policies,incentives,and management approaches that should be adapted to the spe-cific context of individual countries.Message 4:New approaches are emerging to stimulate entrepreneurial talent.Such approaches include radically different manageme

122、nt systems,some of which have not originated in the countries with the highest GTCI rankings.These approaches recognise that entrepreneurial talent is not an homogenous or fungible resource:an efficient entrepre-neurial talent strategy needs to reflect the typical stages of a firms life cycle(start-

123、up,scale-up,up to major player in a particular sector or geography),and requires different new tactics at every step.Such tactics have yet to be fully reflected in the curricula and practices of existing educational institu-tions,including business schools.Message 5:Digitalisation and globalisation

124、will increase the role of entrepreneurial talent.Because the future of work will be radically affected by the rapid spread of artifi-cial intelligence(itself fed by the internet of things,big data,and deep learning),the proportion of salaried workers will continue to be reduced and the number of fre

125、e agents to grow.Simultaneously,new business models(especially in a platform economy context)will emerge,triggering new ways to extract and share value from information.Such a fluid busi-ness and economic context will clearly favour the countries and organisations that have the ability to mobilise r

126、elevant entrepreneurial talents.Message 6:Cities will play increasingly central roles as entrepreneurial talent hubs.Because entrepreneurial tal-ent is strongly related to innovation,the building and man-agement of dynamic(and open)ecosystems will be an in-creasingly important part of building an en

127、trepreneurial culture and state of mind.The critical role already played by cities and regions to set up incubators and accelerators will become more and more relevant.Currenty,most cities tend to build talent strategies around similar criteria(quality of life,connectivity,and sustainability,e.g.);f

128、ew are targeting specialised talent linked to particular local issues or typical municipal issues(waste management,transport,and inclu-sion,among others)but this should be expected to emerge rapidly,in particular around smart cities strategies.There,too,entrepreneurial talent will be a key asset.THE

129、 GTCI CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKAs underlined in the previous five editions of the GTCI,countries are competing globally to grow better talent;attract the talent they need;and retain those workers who contribute to com-petitiveness,innovation,and growth.Countries seek to put eco-nomic and social policies

130、in place that will facilitate this.In such a context,governments,businesses,and various other stakehold-ers need quantitative instruments that can inform their decisions(as investors,employers,employees,or jobseekers)and can help them design and implement better policies in areas such as edu-cation,

131、employment,and immigration,to name a few.This is the purpose of the GTCI.Who Is Expected to Use the GTCI and Why?Decisions regarding the development,attraction,and empower-ment of talent are remarkably complex and multi-layered.They involve a multi-disciplinary endeavour to tackle talent dilemmas th

132、at have been raised in the fields of economics,education,human resource management and organisational behaviour,entrepreneurship,innovation,and strategy.At the policy level,this complexity is compounded by emotional dimensions and the international consequences of choices to be made in terms of immi

133、gration,social equity,and fiscal incentives,among other issues.Faced with such intricate issues,decision-makersboth public and privateneed quantitative tools that will enable them to benchmark the efforts made and results obtained in dif-ferent socioeconomic environments in terms of talent manage-me

134、nt and talent competitiveness.The GTCI has been designed to help address this challenge by providing a composite view of talent competitiveness applicable to a large number of countries(125 this year).Although a number of composite indices con-cerning skills,talent,and human capital have been develo

135、ped in recent years,both private and public players in the field see the need for a neutral,global,and respected index that would CHAPTER 18 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019enable them to assess the effectiveness of talent-related policies and practices,identify priorities for action in

136、relevant areas,and inform international and local debate in this arena.The Structure of the GTCI ModelIn the context of the GTCI,talent competitiveness refers to the set of policies and practices that enable a country to develop,at-tract,and empower the human capital that contributes to pro-ductivit

137、y and prosperity.The GTCI is an Input-Output model(see Figure 4)in the sense that it combines an assessment of what countries do to produce and acquire talents(Input)and the kind of skills that are available to them as a result(Output).Feedback received on previous editions,additional research,and t

138、he avail-ability of new data have allowed refinements to the model,though its basic structure is robust and unchanged.The Input pillars of the GTCI are inspired by the Attract-Grow-Retain framework used by corporations to steer talent management.Multinational corporations frame talent manage-ment in

139、 these terms,defining talent management as an organi-sations efforts to attract,select,develop,and retain talented em-ployees to meet their strategic needs.16 The GTCI focuses on ef-forts by countries and thus the model is fed by macroeconomic and country-level variables.Attracting talent,in the con

140、text of national competitiveness,should be viewed in terms of luring foreign valuable resources,both productive businesses(through foreign direct investment and the like)and creative people(through high-skilled migration),while internal attraction is fo-cused on removing barriers to entering the tal

141、ent pool for groups such as those from underprivileged backgrounds,women,and older people.Growing talent has traditionally meant education,but its definition should be broadened to include apprentice-ships,training,and continuous education as well as experience and access to growth opportunities(alt

142、hough we may acknowl-edge that most skill development occurs through experience,much remains to be done to conceptualise and measure its role).The more talented the person,the wider the global opportuni-ties he or she can find elsewhere.Retaining talent is thus neces-sary to ensure sustainability,an

143、d one of the main components of retention is quality of life.In addition,the regulatory,market,busi-ness,and labour landscapes within a country facilitate or impede talent attraction and growth;the GTCI classifies these elements as parts of the Enable pillar.Together,Enable,Attract,Grow,and Retain c

144、onstitute the four Input pillars of the GTCI model.Regarding Output,the GTCI differentiates between two levels of talent,which can be broadly thought of as mid-level and high-level skills.Mid-level skills,labelled Vocational and Technical Skills(or VT Skills),describes skills that have a technical o

145、r profes-sional base acquired through vocational or professional training and experience.The impact of VT Skills is measured by the de-gree of employability to which they lead.Employability is meas-ured by indicators of skills gaps and labour market mismatches and by the adequacy of educational syst

146、ems.High-level skills,Figure 4The GTCI 2019 modelGlobal Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI)InputOutputAttractEnableGrowRetainGKSkillsVTSkillsRegulatory LandscapeMarket LandscapeBusiness and Labour LandscapeExternal OpennessInternal OpennessFormal EducationLifelong LearningAccess to Growth Opportuniti

147、esHigh-Level SkillsTalent ImpactSustainabilityLifestyleMid-Level SkillsEmployabilityNote:GK Skills=Global Knowledge Skills;VT Skills=Vocational and Technical Skills.ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 9labelled Global Knowledge Skills(or GK Skills),

148、deal with knowl-edge workers in professional,managerial,or leadership roles that require creativity and problem solving.Their economic impact is evaluated by indicators of innovation,entrepreneurship,and the development of high-value industries.Together,VT Skills and GK Skills constitute the two Out

149、put pillars of the GTCI model.The GTCI attempts to offer an approach to talent competi-tiveness issues that is comprehensive,action-oriented,analytical,and practical.As described earlier,the GTCI is a composite index,relying on a simple but robust Input-Output model,composed of six pillars(four on t

150、he Input side and two on the Output side),as illustrated in Figure 4.The GTCI generates three main indices that are the most visible focus for analysis,namely:1.The Talent Competitiveness Input sub-index,which is composed of four pillars describing the policies,resources,and efforts that a particula

151、r country can harness to foster its talent competitiveness.Enable(Pillar 1)reflects the extent to which the regulatory and business environmentin-cluding issues about competition,management practices,and the functioning of labour marketscreate a favoura-ble climate for talent to develop and thrive.T

152、he other three pillars describe the three levers of talent competitiveness,which focus respectively on what countries are doing to Attract(Pillar 2),Grow(Pillar 3),and Retain(Pillar 4)talent.The Input sub-index is the simple arithmetic average of the scores registered on these four pillars.2.The Tal

153、ent Competitiveness Output sub-index,which aims to describe and measure the quality of talent in a country that results from the above policies,resources,and efforts.It is composed of two pillars describing the current situation of a particular country in terms of Vocational and Technical Skills(Pil

154、lar 5)and Global Knowledge Skills(Pillar 6).The Output sub-index is the simple arithmetic average of the scores obtained on these two pillars.3.The Global Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI),which is computed as the simple arithmetic average of the scores registered on each of the six pillars describ

155、ed above.The GTCI model has been refined in this 2019 edition with respect to the 2018 edition,even as the number and type of vari-ables have remained the same.The one modification of note is that efforts have been made to strengthen the innovation di-mension of the GTCI.Although there is always an

156、element of en-trepreneurship to an innovative activity,it is not the case that an entrepreneurial activity is invariably innovative.The model has therefore been slightly altered to capture entrepreneurship that is original and geared to new products and approaches.The total number of variables in th

157、is years model has stayed unchanged at 68.Country coverage,however,has increased from 119 to 125 countries,representing almost 98%of the worlds GDP and 93%of its population.The audit carried out by the Joint Research Centre(JRC)of the European Commission(see Chapter 6)has confirmed that the changes

158、introduced in the model have improved its accuracy,while maintaining its solidity and robust-ness.17 Further details of the variable definitions and the method of calculation can be found in the Sources and Definitions and Technical Notes sections in the Appendices.Improvements will continue to be m

159、ade to the GTCI model in the future,based on further discussions with academics and business and govern-ment leaders,as well as feedback from users of the GTCI.GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019:MAIN FINDINGSThe top positions in the ranking of the GTCI scores continue to be dominated by develo

160、ped,high-income countries(see Table 1 on pages 1113),and there is a high correlation between GDP per capita and GTCI scores(see Figure 5 on pages 1415).The Statistical Annex to this chapter presents more detailed in-formation on country performance for the different sub-pillars and variables.Europea

161、n countries continue to lead the GTCI rankings;16 of them are in the top 25.Switzerland maintains its position at the top,followed by Singapore and the United States.If we consider the top 25,seven additional non-European coun-tries make the grade:New Zealand,Australia,Canada,the United Arab Emirate

162、s,Israel,Japan,and Qatar.An assessment of the top 15 countries in this ranking can be found in the Statistical Annex,along with an analysis and com-mentary on the 125 countries according to five income groups and seven regional groups.LONGER-TERM TRENDS IN TALENT COMPETITIVENESSThis year marks the s

163、ixth edition of the GTCI,which provides an opportunity to detect how,if at all,talent competitiveness is evolving in countries around the world.The present section,therefore,takes a longer perspective than the rest of the chap-ter by comparing performances in the GTCI over two three-year periods:201

164、42016 against 20172019.18 There are three reasons why doing so is of interest.First,comparing and contrasting an earlier period with a later period can be useful for spotting gen-eral trends in talent competitiveness that are easily missed in a year-by-year analysis.Second,the identification of such

165、 trends can provide additional insights into why talent competitiveness in a given country or grouping might be changing in any one particular direction(or,for that matter,why it might be staying fixed).Third,and more technically,the aggregation of three years into a single period allows for some sm

166、oothing of annual fluctua-tions in the data that,in turn,results in more reliable conclusions.Similarly,the aggregation absorbs year-to-year changes because of improvements in the methodology of GTCI.19Only countries that feature in all six GTCI reports are includ-ed in the analysis:all in all,86 co

167、untries.Of these,42 are high-income countries,27 are upper-middle-income countries,16 are lower-middle-income countries,and 1 is a low-income country.The regional breakdown,meanwhile,is the following:7 in Cen-tral and Southern Asia;13 in Eastern,Southeastern Asia and Oce-ania;33 in Europe;16 in Lati

168、n America and the Caribbean;11 in Northern Africa and Western Asia;2 in Northern America;and 4 in Sub-Saharan Africa.CHAPTER 110 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019Table 1Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2019 rankingsCOUNTRY SCOREOVERALL RANK INCOME GROUPREGIONAL GROUPREGIONAL GROUP RANK

169、Switzerland81.821High incomeEurope1Singapore77.272High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania1United States of America76.643High incomeNorthern America1Norway74.674High incomeEurope2Denmark73.855High incomeEurope3Finland73.786High incomeEurope4Sweden73.537High incomeEurope5Netherlands73.028High

170、 incomeEurope6United Kingdom71.449High incomeEurope7Luxembourg71.1810High incomeEurope8New Zealand71.1211High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania2Australia71.0812High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania3Iceland71.0313High incomeEurope9Germany70.7214High incomeEurope10Canada70.4315Hig

171、h incomeNorthern America2Ireland70.1516High incomeEurope11Belgium68.4817High incomeEurope12Austria68.3118High incomeEurope13United Arab Emirates65.9019High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia1Israel63.2620High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia2France61.8221High incomeEurope14Japan61.5622High

172、 incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania4Estonia60.7423High incomeEurope15Qatar60.5024High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia3Czech Republic59.3825High incomeEurope16Malta59.1026High incomeEurope17Malaysia58.6227Upper-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania5Portugal55.6628High inc

173、omeEurope18Slovenia54.4429High incomeEurope19Korea,Rep.54.1930High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania6Spain52.8531High incomeEurope20Chile52.2032High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean1Cyprus52.2033High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia4Costa Rica51.4734Upper-middle incomeLatin Amer

174、ica and the Caribbean2Lithuania50.7535High incomeEurope21Brunei Darussalam49.9136High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania7Latvia49.3937High incomeEurope22Italy49.2138High incomeEurope23Saudi Arabia48.7839High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia5Bahrain48.4540High incomeNorthern Africa and

175、 Western Asia6Slovakia48.3741High incomeEurope24(continued on next page)ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 11Table 1(continued)Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2019 rankingsCOUNTRY SCOREOVERALL RANK INCOME GROUPREGIONAL GROUPREGIONAL GROUP RANKP

176、oland47.4142High incomeEurope25Azerbaijan45.9443Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia7Greece45.4944High incomeEurope26China45.4445Upper-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania8Uruguay45.2246High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean3Mauritius45.1447Upper-middle incomeSub-Sah

177、aran Africa1Oman43.8848High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia8Russian Federation43.4749Upper-middle incomeEurope27Trinidad and Tobago43.4350High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean4Montenegro43.3451Upper-middle incomeEurope28Panama43.2052High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean5Hungary42.89

178、53High incomeEurope29Bulgaria42.7254Upper-middle incomeEurope30Croatia42.2755High incomeEurope31Kazakhstan41.7956Upper-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia1Jordan40.9657Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia9Philippines40.9458Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania9Le

179、banon40.8559Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia10Argentina40.6560High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean6Armenia39.9561Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia11Botswana39.8662Upper-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa2Ukraine39.4163Lower-middle incomeEurope32Kuwait39.1764Hi

180、gh incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia12Colombia38.9365Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean7Thailand38.6266Upper-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania10Indonesia38.6167Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania11Serbia38.4568Upper-middle incomeEurope33Roma

181、nia38.1169Upper-middle incomeEurope34Mexico38.0070Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean8South Africa37.9471Upper-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa3Brazil37.5772Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean9Rwanda37.4873Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa4Turkey37.4474Upper-middle incomeNort

182、hern Africa and Western Asia13Albania37.3575Upper-middle incomeEurope35Georgia37.3276Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia14Mongolia36.4177Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania12Namibia36.1478Upper-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa5Peru36.1179Upper-middle incomeLatin A

183、merica and the Caribbean10India35.9880Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia2Tajikistan35.1781Low incomeCentral and Southern Asia3Sri Lanka34.7982Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia4Bhutan34.6283Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia5(continued on next page)CHAPTER 112 THE GLOBA

184、L TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019Table 1(continued)Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2019 rankingsCOUNTRY SCOREOVERALL RANK INCOME GROUPREGIONAL GROUPREGIONAL GROUP RANKTunisia34.3784Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia15Kenya34.2185Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa6Bosnia and

185、 Herzegovina33.9786Upper-middle incomeEurope36Ecuador33.9487Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean11Guatemala33.9188Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean12Moldova,Rep.33.8689Lower-middle incomeEurope37Dominican Republic33.7990Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbea

186、n13Lao PDR33.5691Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania13Viet Nam33.4192Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania14Gambia32.8093Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa7Ghana32.7294Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa8Kyrgyzstan32.4395Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asi

187、a6Egypt31.6896Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia16Iran,Islamic Rep.31.5997Upper-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia7Honduras30.0598Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean14Nigeria29.7299Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa9Morocco29.68100Lower-middle incomeNorthern Af

188、rica and Western Asia17Paraguay29.64101Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean15Senegal29.38102Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa10Nicaragua28.92103Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean16Zambia28.91104Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa11Algeria28.13105Upper-middle incomeNorthern

189、 Africa and Western Asia18El Salvador27.12106Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean17Cambodia26.57107Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania15Pakistan26.37108Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia8Uganda25.99109Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa12Lesotho25.98110Lower-mid

190、dle incomeSub-Saharan Africa13Tanzania,United Rep.25.87111Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa14Venezuela,Bolivarian Rep.25.70112Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean18Cameroon25.02113Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa15Liberia24.45114Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa16Malawi23.79115Low incomeSub

191、-Saharan Africa17Mali23.70116Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa18Ethiopia23.15117Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa19Bangladesh22.73118Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia9Madagascar22.70119Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa20Nepal22.57120Low incomeCentral and Southern Asia10Zimbabwe22.31121Low incomeSub-Saha

192、ran Africa21Mozambique20.32122Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa22Burundi19.18123Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa23Congo,Dem.Rep.18.44124Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa24Yemen11.97125Low incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia19ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019

193、 13GTCI scoreHigh incomeUpper-middle incomeLower-middle incomeLow income6.57.08.09.010.011.012.01020304050607080KWARHRHUPATTOMUYGRPLSKBHSAITLVBNLTCYCLESKRSIPTMTCZQAEEJPFRILAEATBEIECADEISAUNZLUGBNLSEFIDKNOUSSGCHYECDBIMZZWNPMGETMLMWLRTZUGSNGMTJRWBDCMLSPKKHSVZMMANGNIHNEGKGGHVNLAMDKETNBTLKINMNGEIDUAPHVE

194、DZPYIRDOGTECBAPENAALTRBRZAMXRORSTHCOBWAMLBJOKZBGMERUMUCNAZCRMYFigure 5GTCI scores versus GDP per capitaGDP per capita in PPP$(natural logarithm)Note:GDP per capita in PPP$and population data(represented by the size of the bubbles)are for 2017 or the latest year available.The data are drawn from the

195、World Banks World Development Indicators database.The trend line is a polynomial of degree two(R2=0.77).CHAPTER 114 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019Figure 5(continued)GTCI scores versus GDP per capita:ISO-2 country codesCODECOUNTRYAEUnited Arab EmiratesALAlbaniaAMArmeniaARArgentinaATAust

196、riaAUAustraliaAZAzerbaijanBABosnia and HerzegovinaBDBangladeshBEBelgiumBGBulgariaBHBahrainBIBurundiBNBrunei DarussalamBRBrazilBTBhutanBWBotswanaCACanadaCDCongo,Dem.Rep.CHSwitzerlandCLChileCMCameroonCNChinaCOColombiaCRCosta RicaCODECOUNTRYCYCyprusCZCzech RepublicDEGermanyDKDenmarkDODominican Republic

197、DZAlgeriaECEcuadorEEEstoniaEGEgyptESSpainETEthiopiaFIFinlandFRFranceGBUnited KingdomGEGeorgiaGHGhanaGMGambiaGRGreeceGTGuatemalaHNHondurasHRCroatiaHUHungaryIDIndonesiaIEIrelandILIsraelCODECOUNTRYINIndiaIRIran,Islamic Rep.ISIcelandITItalyJOJordanJPJapanKEKenyaKGKyrgyzstanKHCambodiaKRKorea,Rep.KWKuwait

198、KZKazakhstanLALao PDRLBLebanonLKSri LankaLRLiberiaLSLesothoLTLithuaniaLULuxembourgLVLatviaMAMoroccoMDMoldova,Rep.MEMontenegroMGMadagascarMLMaliCODECOUNTRYMNMongoliaMTMaltaMUMauritiusMWMalawiMXMexicoMYMalaysiaMZMozambiqueNANamibiaNGNigeriaNINicaraguaNLNetherlandsNONorwayNPNepalNZNew ZealandOMOmanPAPa

199、namaPEPeruPHPhilippinesPKPakistanPLPolandPTPortugalPYParaguayQAQatarRORomaniaRSSerbiaCODECOUNTRYRURussian FederationRWRwandaSASaudi ArabiaSESwedenSGSingaporeSISloveniaSKSlovakiaSNSenegalSVEl SalvadorTHThailandTJTajikistanTNTunisiaTRTurkeyTTTrinidad and TobagoTZTanzania,United Rep.UAUkraineUGUgandaUS

200、United States of AmericaUYUruguayVEVenezuela,Bolivarian Rep.VNViet NamYEYemenZASouth AfricaZMZambiaZWZimbabweENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 15The calculation of the averages of the two three-year peri-ods is based on the GTCI scores that the co

201、untries have achieved.More specifically,the calculation comprises two simple steps:(1)averaging overall GTCI scores for 20142016 and 20172019,respectively,and(2)computing country rankings based on the resulting averages.The advantage of this approach is that it is straightforward and yields distinct

202、 rankings for each country.The drawback is that the scores are not necessarily fully comparable from one year to the next because of changes in data or meth-odological improvements.An alternative approach that does not suffer from this drawback would be to calculate the averages based on relative ra

203、nkings rather than absolute scores.That is,rankings for the 86 countries would first be computed for each single year before being averaged across the two three-year pe-riods.These averages would then form the basis for the rankings of 20142016 and 20172019,respectively.20 However,a problem with thi

204、s approach is that it yields many ties(i.e.,two or more countries with the same ranking),which makes analysis less clear.In the end,therefore,the results presented in this section stem from an analysis based on the first approach,while the second approach is used to corroborate the findings.The Stab

205、ility of Talent Champions versus the Fluctuations of Talent LaggardsFigure 6 depicts visually how the relative positions of countries in the GTCI have changed in the two periods 20142016 and 20172019.The left-hand and right-hand columns of the figure rank the countries according to their GTCI scores

206、 in the earlier and later periods,respectively.Hence,an upward(downward)slope implies an improvement(deterioration)in the ranking over the two periods,which in turn suggests strengthening(weaken-ing)talent competitiveness.It is immediately obvious from the figure that,in line with each GTCI edition,

207、better rankings are associated with higher in-come levels.Thus,in both periods,all but a few of the 43 coun-tries in the top two quartiles are high-income countries,21 where-as upper-middle-income countries dominate the second quar-tile and lower-middle-income countries form the largest group in the

208、 bottom quartile.This distribution is also clearly reflected in regional termsfor instance,in the prevalence of European countries in the top half of the rankings and all four Sub-Saharan African countries placed in the bottom half.Focusing on the leading countries,it can be seen that eight of the c

209、ountries in the top 10 in 20142016 are also in that top 10 group in 20172019.Switzerland and Singapore are at the peak of the rankings in both periods,while the United States climbs from 4th to 3rd.The three other countries that make strides in the top 10 are Norway,Finland,and Australia,while Swede

210、n and the Netherlands maintain the same rankings in both peri-ods.Denmark and the United Kingdom each slip one position,but the largest decreases are seen in Luxembourg and Canada,which are in the top 10 in the 20142016 period but drop out of this group in 20172019.However,it should be noted that th

211、e big falls in ranking for Luxembourg and Canada are not the result of lower scoresoverall GTCI scores rise over the two periods,in factbut because they are outperformed by other countries.Figure 6GTCI rankings in 20142016 and 20172019Note:Colours refer to income groups,which range from dark blue(hi

212、gh income)to light blue(upper-middle income),light brown(lower-middle income),and dark brown(low income).20142016 Switzerland 1 Singapore 2 Luxembourg 3 United States 4 Sweden 5 Denmark 6 United Kingdom 7 Canada 8 Netherlands 9 Norway 10 Finland 11 Australia 12 Germany 13 Austria 14 New Zealand 15 I

213、reland 16 Iceland 17 Belgium 18 Japan 19 France 20 Estonia 21 Czechia 22 UAE 23 Israel 24 Qatar 25 Slovenia 26 Latvia 27 Slovakia 28 Chile 29 South Korea 30 Spain 31 Malaysia 32 Portugal 33 Poland 34 Hungary 35 Lithuania 36 Italy 37 Costa Rica 38 Saudi Arabia 39 Bulgaria 40 Croatia 41 Panama 42 Chin

214、a 43 Uruguay 44 Kazakhstan 45 Greece 46 Russia 47 South Africa 48 Armenia 49 Brazil 50 Romania 51 Philippines 52 Argentina 53 Colombia 54 Lebanon 55 Azerbaijan 56 Mongolia 57 Turkey 58 Mexico 59 Moldova 60 Botswana 61 Thailand 62 Peru 63 Ukraine 64 Ecuador 65 Namibia 66 Guatemala 67 Dominican Rep.68

215、 Kyrgyzstan 69 Albania 70 Sri Lanka 71 Viet Nam 72 El Salvador 73 Nicaragua 74 India 75 Paraguay 76 Indonesia 77 Egypt 78 Cambodia 79 Morocco 80 Venezuela 81 Iran 82 Uganda 83 Pakistan 84 Bangladesh 85 Algeria 86201720191 Switzerland2 Singapore3 United States4 Norway5 Sweden6 Finland7 Denmark8 Unite

216、d Kingdom9 Netherlands10 Australia11 Luxembourg12 New Zealand13 Ireland14 Iceland15 Canada16 Germany17 Belgium18 Austria19 UAE20 Japan21 Estonia22 France23 Israel24 Qatar25 Czechia26 Malaysia27 Portugal28 Slovenia29 South Korea30 Spain31 Chile32 Lithuania33 Latvia34 Costa Rica35 Italy36 Slovakia37 P

217、oland38 Saudi Arabia39 Greece40 Uruguay41 China42 Hungary43 Panama44 Croatia45 Bulgaria46 Russia47 Azerbaijan48 Kazakhstan49 Philippines50 Argentina51 Lebanon52 Romania53 Botswana54 Armenia55 Ukraine56 South Africa57 Colombia58 Turkey59 Thailand60 Mexico61 Mongolia62 Brazil63 Albania64 Indonesia65 P

218、eru66 Namibia67 Moldova68 Sri Lanka69 Dominican Rep.70 Ecuador71 India72 Guatemala73 Viet Nam74 Kyrgyzstan75 Iran76 Egypt77 Paraguay78 Morocco79 El Salvador80 Nicaragua81 Algeria82 Uganda83 Venezuela84 Cambodia85 Pakistan86 BangladeshCHAPTER 116 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019It is also

219、 of interest to take a look at how talent competitive-ness has evolved in the large emerging countries that form the BRICS group(Brazil,Russia,India,China,and South Africa).The results among the five countries vary considerably.On the one hand,China(up two spots to 41st),India(up four spots to 71st)

220、,and Russia(up one spot to 46th)improve their rankings some-what,with fairly stable performances in all six pillars.On the other hand,Brazil and South Africa register two of the largest declines in the sample:the formers rank plunging 12 positions(from 50th to 62nd),the latters rank dropping 8 place

221、s(from 48th to 56th).In the case of Brazil,the lower ranking is primarily driven by a sub-par performance in the Attract pillar,while,for South Africa,it is the ranking in the Global Knowledge Skills pillar that has fallen the most.One striking feature of Figure 6 is that,as ones eyes move from top

222、to bottom,the criss-crosses become increasingly prev-alent.This suggests,therefore,a general tendency of changes in rankings(especially larger shifts)to be more likely at lower positions than at higher ones.Further in-depth analysis of the frequency and magnitudes of changes in rankings within vario

223、us percentiles corroborates the visual impression of the figure.What might be the underlying reasons for this tendency?One plausible explanation is that the set of policies and practices that bring about talent competitiveness in more-developed countries are less susceptible to political and socioec

224、onomic fluctuations.Conversely,talent competitiveness in less-devel-oped countries might be expected to be more vulnerable to short-term vicissitudes,whereby a positive(negative)changesuch as more(less)business-friendly regulations and greater(lower)tolerance of minority groupscan have a relatively

225、large impact on its GTCI score.A case in point is talent competitiveness in Indonesiathe country that has climbed the most in the rankings(from 77th to 64th)which might well have benefited from greater openness and a growing economy within a stable political context.Viewed in this light,it will be i

226、nteresting to see in the years ahead whether the tendency of lower fluctuations higher up in the rankings will remain as strong against a back-drop of greater political and socioeconomic uncertainties in high-income countries(e.g.,the rise in populism in developed countries and Brexit in the United

227、Kingdom).Groups with High Talent Competitiveness Steam Ahead,Leaving the Rest BehindGiven what we know from Figure 6 and,more generally,from each overall GTCI ranking,it is not surprising to see in Figure 7 that the group of high-income countries achieves significantly higher scores than those of up

228、per-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries(Uganda is the only low-income country in the sample,which is why that particular group is not included in the figure).By the same token,the distribution of scores across re-gions is also much as expected(Figure 8),with Northern America and Europe l

229、eading the way and Sub-Saharan Africa and Central and Southern Asia placed at the bottom.22Introducing a time dimension by comparing the 20142016 and 20172019 periods leads to some additional findings.In the case of income groups,it can be seen that the distribution of scores for the high-income gro

230、up has shifted upwards,where-as the trend is the opposite for the upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income groups.More specifically,the 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles have all increased for high-income coun-tries,whereas they have decreased for the other two income groups,apart from the 75th perc

231、entile of upper-middle-income Figure 7GTCI scores in 2014-2016 and 2017-2019 by income groupNote:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles.Black bars indicate 20142016 values and blue bars indicate 20172019 values.There was only one low-income

232、country,so that income group has been excluded.020406080100 High income Upper-middle income Lower-middle income MinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentile 20142016 20172019ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 17countries(which is virtually th

233、e same).The same applies to the group averages(not shown).The tendencies are similar from a regional perspective,with the higher-scoring regionsEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania;Europe;Northern Africa and Western Asia;and North-ern Americaimproving their medians and means over the two periods,wh

234、ile Central and Southern Asia,Latin America and the Caribbean,and Sub-Saharan Africa have seen their correspond-ing values decline.In sum,therefore,there seem to be two opposing trends:talent competitiveness strengthening in groups of countries where it is already comparatively high and weakening in

235、 those where it is relatively low.There are presumably several forces at play here.One possible reason for this widening gap is that the economic expansion of several more developed countries in recent years has generated greater demands for talent that,in turn,have led to an uptick in policies and

236、practices that promote talent competitiveness.Coupled with these increased demands,it is also possible that the upward trend of the group of high-income countries reflects a wider recognition among them of the challenge they face in addressing skills gaps and the more resolute measures they have imp

237、lemented to do so.As GTCI time series continue to grow,they will offer addi-tional possibilities to deepen the initial approach offered here.Considering ways in which individual countries and groups have changed along specific pillars and variables of the GTCI model sounds like a particularly promis

238、ing way to identify trends and draw additional policy conclusions about the various compo-nents of talent competitiveness can be better fostered.This will remain a key objective of the GTCI report in the coming years.ENDNOTES 1 Baumol(1996).2 See in particular Quesnay(1758).3 Small and medium enterp

239、rises(SMEs)play a major role in most economies,particularly in developing countries.Formal SMEs contribute up to 60%of total employment and up to 40%of national income(GDP)in emerging economies.These numbers are significantly higher when informal SMEs are included.See World Bank(2018).4 Mayer-Haug e

240、t al.(2013),p.1251.5 See for example Lee et al.(2016).6 Mayer-Haug et al.(2013).7 As described in John et al.(2008,p.138)these traits correspond to:Openness to experience:describes the breadth,depth,originality,and complexity of an individuals mental and experimental life Conscientiousness:describes

241、 socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task-and goal-orientated behavior Extraversion:implies an energetic approach towards the social and material world and includes traits such as sociability,activity,assertiveness,and positive emotionality Agreeableness:contrasts a prosocial and co

242、mmunal orientation towards others with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism,tender-mindedness,trust,and modesty Neuroticism:contrasts emotional stability and even-temperedness with negative emotionality,such as feeling anxious,nervous,sad,and tense 8 Almlund et al.(2011).9 Gerber et al.(2

243、010).10 Freeman&Gosling(2010).11 Kerr et al.(2018,pp.2930).Figure 8GTCI scores in 2014-2016 and 2017-2019 by regional groupNote:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles(the figure for Northern America has only two bars because it contains only

244、 two countries:Canada and the United States).020406080100Sub-SaharanAfricaNorthernAmericaNorthern AfricaandWestern AsiaLatin Americaand theCaribbeanEuropeEastern,Southeastern Asiaand OceaniaCentral andSouthern AsiaMinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentileCHAPTER 118 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPET

245、ITIVENESS INDEX 2019 12 See,for example,Kelley et al.(2012)in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor context,and Venkataram(2004).13 See in particular Zhang et al.(2010,p.190):History has shown that the economic development of a nation depends more on the efficient allocation of entrepreneurial talent

246、than on simply the endowment of such talent.Talented people can thus work well either with government or business.In the latter case,they generally create value for society,while in the former they are mainly engaged in redistributive,or possibly less productive,activities.In the long history of Chi

247、na,talented individuals were generally concentrated in the government.However,the“economic miracle”of China in the past three decades has been due largely to a reallocation of entrepreneurial talent from the government/state and agricultural sectors to business activities.14 Zhang et al.(2010,p.178)

248、.15 The variable is based on a survey conducted by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project.Specifically,it refers to the percentage of total early-stage entrepreneurs who indicate that their product or service is new to at least some customers AND that few/no other businesses offer the same prod

249、uct.16 See Cappelli&Keller(2014);Stahl et al.(2012).17 The method and results of this audit are the subject of Chapter 6 in this report.18 The years 2014,2015,and 2016 refer to the results reported in The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2013,The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2014,and The G

250、lobal Talent Competitiveness Index 201516,respectively.The reason for the apparent year discrepancy is as follows.The GTCI reports are always printed towards the end of the calendar year.The first two editions of the GTCI referred to this in their titles(The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2013

251、and The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2014).However,because the launch of the report is held in January,a change was made in the third edition,whereby the title would refer to the launch year.Thus,the third edition became The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 201516;the two subsequent editio

252、ns were entitled The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2017 and The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2018.19 One caveat to the results discussed in this section is that the GTCI model has evolved since its first edition,with the possible implication that a score that changes from one year to th

253、e next might primarily be a reflection of a methodological adjustment rather than new data.To some extent,this potential problem is addressed by the averaging of scores across three years,since it implies some smoothing of modifications to the GTCI model.Moreover,the analysis focuses on aggregate ov

254、erall GTCI scoresrather than scores at the pillar level,let alone at the level of indicatorswhich likewise entails a degree of cancelling-out effects.20 More concretely,the country with the best average rank for a three-year period would be ranked 1st,the country with the next-best rank would be ran

255、ked 2nd,and so on.21 There were 39 high-income countries in the sample in 20142016 and 40 in 20172019.22 To be sure,the higher median of Sub-Saharan Africa against Central and Southern Asia and,for 20172019,Latin America and the Caribbean could be seen as unexpected,but this is the result of the low

256、 number of Sub-Saharan African countries included in the analysis.Adding more countries from the region to the analysis would lower the group median.REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGSAhn,T.(2010).Attitudes toward risk and self-employment of young workers.Labour Economics,17(2),43442.Almlund,M.,Duckwort

257、h,A.L.,Heckman,J.J.,&Kautz,T.D.(2011).Personality psychology and economics.In Hanushek,E.A.,Machin,S.J.,&Woessmann,L.(eds.).Handbook of the economics in education,Volume 4.Amsterdam:North Holland,1181.Ardagna,S.&Lusardi,A.(2010).Explaining international differences in entrepreneurship:The role of in

258、dividual characteristics and regulatory constraints.In Lerner,J.&Schoar,A.(eds.).International differences in entrepreneurship.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1762.Audretsch,D.&M.P.Feldman.(2003).Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation.In J.V.Henderson&J.Thisse(eds.).Handbook of urb

259、an and regional economics:Cities and geography,Volume 4.Amsterdam:North Holland,27132739.Baumol,W.(1996).Entrepreneurship:Productive,unproductive,and destructive.Journal of Business Venturing,11(1),322.Berger,G.(1950).Trait pratique danalyse du caractre,Presses Universitaires de France(new edition i

260、n 1979).Blanchflower,D.G.&A.J.Oswald.(1998).What makes an entrepreneur?Journal of Labor Economics,16,2660.Bosma,N.,Wennekers,S.,&Amors,J.E.(2012).Global entrepreneurship monitor 2011 extended report:Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees across the globe,available at https:/www.gemconsortium.or

261、g/report/48326Brandsttter,H.(2010).Personality aspects of entrepreneurship:A look at five meta-analyses.Personality and Individual Differences,51(3),222230.Caggese,A.(2012).Entrepreneurial risk,investment,and innovation.Journal of Financial Economics,106(2),287307.Cappelli,P.&Keller,J.R.(2014).Talen

262、t management:Conceptual approaches and practical challenges.Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour,1,305331.Cowling,M.(2000).Are entrepreneurs different across countries?Applied Economics Letters,7(12),785789.Decker,R.,Haltiwanger,J.,Jarmin,R.,&Miranda,J.(2014).The r

263、ole of entrepreneurship in US job creation and economic dynamism.Journal of Economic Perspectives,28,324.Falck,O.,Fritsch,M.,&Heblich,S.(2011).The phantom of the opera:Cultural amenities,human capital,and regional economic growth.Labour Economics,18(6),755766.Fallick,B.,Fleischman,C.,&Rebitzer,J.(20

264、06).Job-hopping in Silicon Valley:Some evidence concerning the microfoundations of a high-technology cluster.Review of Economics and Statistics,88(3),472481.Florida,R.(2004).The rise of the creative class.New York:HarperCollins.Freeman,H.D.&Gosling,S.D.(2010).Personality in nonhuman primates:A revie

265、w and evaluation of past research.American Journal of Primatology,72(8),653671.Frese,M.(2009).Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship:An action theory perspective.Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,5,437496.Galton,F.(1883).Inquiries into human faculty and its development.Originally publishe

266、d in 1883 by Macmillan;Second edition published 1892 by Macmillan;Reissued in 1907 by JM Dent&Co.(Everyman).Gartner,W.B.(1988).Who is an entrepreneur?Is the wrong question.American Journal of Small Business,12(4),1132.GEM(Global Entrepreneurship Monitor).(2018).GEM global report 2017/18.Global Entre

267、preneurship Research Association(GERA),available at https:/www.gemconsortium.org/report/50012Gerber,A.S.,Huber,G.A.,Doherty,D.,Dowling,C.M.,&Ha S.E.(2010).Personality and political attitudes:Relationships across issue domains and political contexts.Am.Polit.Sci.Rev.,104,111133.Greene,F.J.&Saridakis,

268、G.(2007).Understanding the factors influencing graduate entrepreneurship.National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship Research Report,1,2007.Hsu,D.H.,Roberts,E.B.,&Eesley,C.E.(2007).Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities:Evidence from MIT.Research Policy,36(5),768788.Hunt,J.(2011).Which

269、immigrants are most innovative and entrepreneurial?Distinctions by entry visa.Journal of Labor Economics,29(3),417457.John,O.P.,Naumann,L.P.,&Soto,C.J.(2008).Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy:History,measurement,and conceptual issues.In John,O.P.,Robins,R.W.,&Pervin,L.A.(eds.

270、).Handbook of personality:Theory and research.New York:Guilford Press,114158.ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 19Kelley,D.J.,Singer,S.,&Herrington,M.(2012).The global entrepreneurship monitor 2011 global report,available at http:/www.babson.edu/Ac

271、ademics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/GEM%20Global%202011%20Report.pdfKerr,S.A.,Kerr,W.A.,&Xu,T.(2018).Personality Traits of Entrepreneurs:A Review of Recent Literature.Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,14(3),279356,available at http:/dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000080Kilby,

272、P.(1971).Hunting the heffalump.Entrepreneurship and Economic Development,140.Knight,F.(1921).Risk,uncertainty,and profit.Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co.Lanvin,B.&Evans,P.(eds.)(2013).The global talent competitiveness index 2013.Singapore:INSEAD and HCL.(2014).The global talent competitiveness index 2014

273、.Singapore:INSEAD and HCL.(2015).The global talent competitiveness index 201516.Fontainebleau,France:INSEAD,Adecco,and HCLI.(2016).The global talent competitiveness index 2017.Fontainebleau,France:INSEAD,Adecco,and HCLI.(2017).The global talent competitiveness index 2018.Fontainbleau,France:INSEAD,t

274、he Adecco Group,and Tata Communications.Lazear,E.P.(2005).Entrepreneurship.Journal of Labor Economics,23(4),649680.Lee,J.,Shim,K.,&Lee,H.(2016).Entrepreneurial characteristics:A systematic literature review,PACIS 2016 Proceedings,81.Lerner,M.,Brush,C.,&Hisrich,R.(1997).Israeli women entrepreneurs:An

275、 examination of factors affecting performance.Journal of Business Venturing,12,315339.Liang,J.,Wang,H.,&Lazear,E.P.(2014).Demographics and entrepreneurship.NBER Working Paper 20506.Mayer-Haug,K.,Read,S.,Brinckmann,J.,Dew,N.,&Grichnik,D.(2013).Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance:A meta-ana

276、lytic investigation of SMEs.Research Policy,42(2013),12511273.Mueller,S.L.&Thomas,A.S.(2001).Culture and entrepreneurial potential:A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness.Journal of Business Venturing,16(1),5175.Murphy,K.,Shleifer,A.,&Vishny R.(1991).The allocation of talent:Impl

277、ications for growth.Quarterly Journal of Economics,106,503530.Parker,S.C.(2009).The economics of entrepreneurship.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.Quesnay,F.(1758).Maximes gnrales de gouvernement economique dun royaume agricole,later issued as part of Physiocratie by Pierre Samuel Dupont de N

278、emours(1768).Stahl,G.K.,Bjrkman,I.,Farndale,E.,Morris,S.S.,Paauwe,J.,Stiles,P.,&Wright,P.(2012).Six principles of effective global talent management.MIT Sloan Management Review,53,2532.Thomas,A.S.&Mueller,S.L.(2000).A case for comparative entrepreneurship:Assessing the relevance of culture.Journal o

279、f International Business Studies,287301.Unger,J.M.,Rauch,A.,Frese,M.,&Rosenbusch,N.(2011).Human capital and entrepreneurial success:A meta-analytical review.Journal of Business Venturing,26(3),341358.Venkataraman,S.(2004).Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship.Journal of Busi

280、ness Venturing,19,153167.World Bank.(2018).Small and medium enterprises(SMEs)finance,available at https:/www.worldbank.org/en/topic/smefinanceZhang,W.,Cooper,W.W.,Deng,H.,Parker B.R.,&Ruefli,T.W.(2010).Entrepreneurial talent and economic development in China.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,44(2010)

281、,17892.CHAPTER 120 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019Statistical Annex to Chapter 1OVERVIEWThe statistics in this annex analyse country performance in the GTCI 2019 in terms of its overall score and also in terms of its pil-lars and sub-pillars.Performance data are broken down in differ-en

282、t ways:by top performers(the top 15 GTCI score leaders)and by region and income group(high,upper-middle,lower-middle,and low income).1Figure A1 presents the dispersion of GTCI scores by income group and region.With respect to the former,although scores are widely dispersed among high-income countrie

283、s,even the groups poor performers are well above countries in the other income groups(the worst performer of the high-income group is above the median of countries in the upper-middle income group).As for regions,the greatest dispersion of scores can be seen in Europe and in Eastern,Southeastern Asi

284、a and Oceania,which is made clear by the range of scores between the 25th and 75th percentiles(as reflected by the wide bars in the figure).The list of countries that make up the top 25 in this years in-dex is identical to that of last year,although some of the rankings within this group have change

285、d.Since the GTCI model of this year is,by and large,unaltered compared with the 2018 edition,the changes in ranking from last year can be considered reliable,particularly in the fourth quartile of countries.For lower positions in the GTCI ranking,one should take into account the two coun-tries(the P

286、lurinational State of Bolivia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)that have dropped out of the GTCI this year because of a lack of available data as well as the eight coun-tries that are new additions to the index.2As before,European countries continue to lead the GTCI rankings,with 16 of

287、them in the top 25 and Switzerland main-taining its position at the very top.With respect to non-European countries,two of themSingapore(2nd)and the United States of America(United States,3rd)feature in the top 10,while the seven additional countries in the top 25 are New Zealand(11th),Australia(12t

288、h),Canada(15th),the United Arab Emirates(19th),Israel(20th),Japan(22nd),and Qatar(24th).The non-European leaders of the GTCI rankings can be broadly classified into two groups:economies that have long FigureA1Country dispersion of GTCI scoresNote:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide

289、bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles(the figure for Northern America has only two bars because it contains only two countries:Canada and the United States).By income groupBy region 0255075100Sub-Saharan AfricaNorthern AmericaNorthern Africa and Western AsiaLatin America and the CaribbeanEuro

290、peEastern,Southeastern Asia and OceaniaCentral and Southern Asia0255075100LowLower-middleUpper-middleHighMinimumMedianMaximum25th percentile75th percentileGTCI scoreGTCI scoreENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 21FigureA2Dispersion of country scores

291、 for each pillar020406080100GK SkillsVT SkillsRetainGrowAttractEnableMinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentilebenefitted from global talent(the United States,Canada,and Australia),and economies that have a clear focus on becoming talent hubs(Singapore,the United Arab Emirates,and Qatar).The

292、 large differences in GTCI scores across countries are driven by differences in performance in particular pillars.For instance,the dispersion of scores is largest in the Retain pil-lar(standard deviation=20.1)and smallest in the Attract pillar(standard deviation=14.4),which suggests that the ability

293、 of countries to retain talent sets them apart more than their capac-ity to attract talent.The dispersions of scores in the other pillars,meanwhile,are fairly similar,as can be seen in Figure A2.The heatmap of Figure A3(beginning on page 24)pre-sents the overall rankings in the GTCI and those in eac

294、h pillar,coloured by the quartile to which the rankings of each of the 125 countries belong.A cursory look at the figure makes it clear that countries that are among the best and worst performers in the overall GTCI rankings are also among the best and worst per-formers in the six pillars.Thus,25 of

295、 the 31 countries that make up the top 25%of the overall GTCI scores(the fourth quartile)are also among the top 25%in at least five of the six pillars.Similarly,15 of the 31 countries that are in the bottom 25%of the overall GTCI scores(the first quartile)are ranked in the bottom 25%in at least five

296、 pillars.TOP 15 COUNTRIES IN THE GTCI 2019Almost all the countries ranked in the top 15 in the GTCI 2019 were in that highest-performing group in last years index.In fact,only one countryIreland(16th,down from 13th)has dropped out of the top 15,with Germany(14th,up from 19th)being the new addition t

297、o the list.As would be expected,the 15 countries with the highest overall GTCI scores typically perform well in each of the six pillars of the GTCI model.More specifically,13 of the 15 countries are also among the top 15 performers in at least four of the six pillars.The one pillar where several of

298、the top 15 countries have relatively lower rankings is Vocational and Technical Skills.As for high-performing countries just outside the top 15,many of them are leaders in specific pillars.For instance,Austria(18th overall)has the third-highest score in the Vocational and Technical Skills pillar.Sim

299、ilarly,the United Arab Emirates(19th)has the third-highest score in the Attract pillar,with Qatar(24th)also being a strong magnet for talent.Other countries that stand out in certain pillars are Israel(20th),which is a top performer in the Global Knowledge Skills pillar,and Japan(22nd),which scores

300、well in the Enable pillar.Further down the rankings,it is interesting to note that Bahrain(40th)is among the top-perform-ing countries when it comes to attracting talent.For a second year in a row,Switzerland,Singapore,and the United States occupy the first three positions in the overall GTCI.Switze

301、rland consistently ranks among the top-performing coun-tries in each pillar;in fact,its position in 5th place in the Attract pillar is the lowest ranking it achieves.While Singapores perfor-mance across rankings is more varied,it is the highest-scoring country in no fewer than three pillars:Enable,A

302、ttract,and Global Knowledge Skills(Table A1).The United States,meanwhile,excels in growing talent and in harnessing the skills present in the coun-try(scoring highly in both pillars related to Output).Switzerland(1st)is at the top overall by virtue of its strong performance across all six pillars of

303、 the GTCI model.It is the glob-al leader with respect to the Retain and Vocational and Technical Skills pillars and runner-up in the Enable and Grow pillars.It is also among the top-performing countries in the Global Knowl-edge Skills(4th)and Attract(5th)pillars.Switzerland also achieves high scores

304、 in various sub-pillars.It is the top performer with re-spect to Lifelong Learning,Sustainability,and Employability.Its weakest performances,meanwhile,are in the sub-pillars Internal Openness(14th)and Access to Growth Opportunities(10th).In the former case,the score is dragged down by gender equalit

305、y GTCI scoreNote:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles.GK Skills=Global Knowledge Skills;VT Skills=Vocational and Technical Skills.CHAPTER 122 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019variables such as Female graduates(85th)and Gender ea

306、rnings gap(27th);in the latter case,it performs relatively poorly with respect to Use of virtual social networks(41st).Singapore(2nd)is the highest-ranked country in the En-able,Attract,and Global Knowledge Skills pillars,with uniformly high scores in the top 10 of each of the underlying sub-pillars

307、.The city-state is also one of the strongest performers with re-spect to the pillar on Vocational and Technical Skillsdespite its low rankings on Workforce with secondary education and Popu-lation with secondary education(69th in both cases).Singapores lowest pillar rank is in Retain(26th),where the

308、re is room for im-provement in both sub-pillars(Sustainability,23rd,and Lifestyle,31st).The United States(3rd)continues to stand out as a top performer in the Grow pillar(1st)as a result of its high ranking in all three sub-pillars:Formal Education(3rd),Lifelong Learning(2nd),and Access to Growth Op

309、portunities(1st).This allows it to have an outstanding pool of Vocational and Technical Skills(2nd)and Global Knowledge Skills(3rd).The United States is also a global leader in terms of enabling talent(4th),with the Market Landscape(1st)and Business and Labour Landscape(4th)sub-pillars being particu

310、larly strong.Its lowest rankings are in the pil-lars related to Attract(14th)and Retain(13th).In the former case,the performance is dragged down by gender equality variables,among others.In the latter case,it has relatively low scores with respect to the Lifestyle sub-pillar(29th).Norway(4th)is one

311、of the top countries in retaining its talent(2nd),which is driven by wide access to social protection and benefits(it is 2nd in Sustainability)and also by a high-quality Lifestyle(4th),particularly in terms of personal health and safety.The country is also one of the global leaders when it comes to

312、growing talent(5th)and harnessing vocational and technical skills(5th).The two pillars with the most scope for improvement are Attract and Global Knowledge Skills(both 13th):the former is dragged down by a weak performance in External Openness(31st)and the latter would be boosted by greater innovati

313、on and entrepreneurship(Norway ranks 18th in the Talent Impact sub-pillar).Denmark(5th)is a top performer in the Enable(3rd)and Retain(4th)pillars.In the former case,the strong Regulatory and Market Landscapes(ranking in 10th in both)are complement-ed by an exemplary Labour and Business Landscape(3r

314、d)that combines flexible labour markets with comprehensive social protection.As for retaining talent,the country boasts strong per-formances in both the Sustainability(7th)and Lifestyle(6th)sub-pillars.The only pillar where Denmark ranks outside the top 10 is that related to attracting talent(17th),

315、with particular room for improvement in luring foreign talent and strengthening gender equality.Finland(6th)is one of the leading countries in the Grow and Vocational and Technical Skills pillars,in both of which it is ranked 4th.Its strong performance in these areas can primarily be attributed to a

316、n education system that does not only provide world-class schooling(it ranks 2nd in the Formal Education sub-pillar),but that is also one of the best at matching the skills of people with the needs of the economy(2nd in Employability).In addition,the country ranks high in the Retain pillar(5th)by vi

317、rtue of its strong social safety net and its high level of personal safety.Finland performs less well in the Enable(14th),Attract(15th),and Global Knowledge Skills(15th)pillars.In the case of attracting tal-ent,there is a clear discrepancy between Finlands strength in Internal Openness(2nd)and its w

318、eakness in External Openness(33rd).Sweden(7th)performs consistently well across all six pillars,belonging to the top 15 of each of them.One of the countrys strengths is in retaining talent(6th in the Retain pillar),with a par-ticularly strong showing in the Lifestyle(3rd)sub-pillar.Excellent Access

319、to Growth Opportunities(3rd)through high levels of co-operation and collaboration,and good possibilities for Lifelong Learning(7th),contribute to the country being a top performer in the Grow(7th)pillar.The only pillar where Sweden is ranked outside the top 10Vocational and Technical Skills(11th)sug

320、-gests that two areas for improvement are secondary education and the skills gap between labour market demand and work-force supply.The Netherlands(8th)is one of the worlds leading coun-tries in growing talent(3rd).This is the result of high scores in all three sub-pillars:Formal Education(4th),Life

321、long Learning(3rd),and Access to Growth Opportunities(2nd).The country is also a top performer in the Retain(7th)and Vocational and Techni-cal Skills(6th)pillars,particularly by virtue of robust Sustainability(5th)in the former case and talent that matches very well the needs of the economy(it ranks

322、 5th in Employability)in the latter case.That the Netherlands does not rank higher in the overall GTCI is mainly due to it lagging slightly behind in attracting tal-ent(16th)and in its pool of Global Knowledge Skills(17th).The United Kingdom(9th)is a consistently strong per-former in all pillars exc

323、ept Vocational and Technical Skills(27th).Its highest ranking is in respect to the pool of Global Knowledge Skills(5th),where it performs well in both the High-Level Skills(10th)and Talent Impact(6th)sub-pillars.The United Kingdom is also among the top 10 leading countries in the Enable,Attract,and

324、Grow pillars(9th in all three),which can mainly be attributed to a strong business environment,an ability to appeal to foreign resources and talent,and world-class educational institutions.Apart from a need to strengthen both Mid-Level Skills(40th)and Employability(23rd)with respect to Vocational an

325、d Technical TableA1Countries with highest GTCI scores by pillarPILLARTOP 3 COUNTRIESEnableSingapore,Switzerland,DenmarkAttract Singapore,Luxembourg,United Arab EmiratesGrow United States,Switzerland,NetherlandsRetain Switzerland,Norway,AustriaVocational and Technical(VT)SkillsSwitzerland,United Stat

326、es,GermanyGlobal Knowledge (GK)Skills Singapore,Iceland,United StatesENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT FOR COMPETITIVENESSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019 23COUNTRYGTCI RANKINGENABLEATTRACTGROWRETAINVT SKILLSGK SKILLSCountries ABOVE the median in the overall GTCI scoreSwitzerland1252114Singapore211

327、112671United States341411323Norway471352513Denmark531764107Finland6141545415Sweden71010761110Netherlands8131637617United Kingdom999911275Luxembourg10172198269New Zealand115414152016Australia121981012218Iceland131818169122Germany148201310323Canada1511712181912Ireland16161115161311Belgium1721198141518

328、Austria181521173925United Arab Emirates191232224849Israel2022492119176France21303318171819Japan2264520202326Estonia23243026282814Qatar2420623361452Czech Republic25252825222232Malta26262433213422Malaysia27232629341629Portugal28312731234133Slovenia29384734272924South Korea30278128393720Spain3137393225

329、4830Chile32354027403238Cyprus33442957423121Costa Rica34392530383660Lithuania35295036325827Brunei Darussalam36283765482451Latvia37405146374231Italy38538435303039Saudi Arabia39344152333854Bahrain40331239575278Slovakia41455640353942Poland42426443463545Azerbaijan43484481412568Greece44768647314936China45

330、437624626743Uruguay46463438298673Mauritius47324259504381Oman48512379446280Russia498110944524728Trinidad and Tobago50543864564471Montenegro51615867643348Panama52692271516474Hungary53507883455346Bulgaria54568962476341Croatia55839955494647Kazakhstan56576378545650Jordan57554882537061Philippines586462419

331、27334Lebanon59879361844035Argentina60886037555977Armenia616572101655044Botswana62493549948567Ukraine639610568664537(continued on next page)FigureA3Heatmap:Rankings on GTCI overall and by pillarCHAPTER 124 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019COUNTRYGTCI RANKINGENABLEATTRACTGROWRETAINVT SKILLS

332、GK SKILLSCountries BELOW the median in the overall GTCI scoreKuwait64624399437583Colombia65599050775775Thailand66477072768358Indonesia67606551875194Serbia68859458715462Romania69749877597953Mexico70828742797466South Africa717152451026864Brazil72798054638876Rwanda733636739098108Turkey746611366609057Al

333、bania75675375706198Georgia765292107618056Mongolia778479858110040Namibia785831809710179Peru79897176866970India80709548967272Tajikistan8198101100585585Sri Lanka826810490736588Bhutan834182867592119Tunisia841099692678155Kenya857554701107691Bosnia and Herzegovina869411163826695Ecuador8710310756787790Guatemala88787353989596Moldova899210087749165Dominican Republic907355104919387Lao PDR9172591086910486Vie