Abstract
The term competitiveness stems from the analysis of firms and is usually thought to be well defined at the firm level. Today, however, the notion competitiveness has become a prominent concept in the assessment of countries, regions and locations. The competitive advantage of nations and the competitiveness of locations have become important topics in economic policy. Interest in this field has been notably stimulated by the work of Michael Porter. Although the diversity of approaches presented in this issue may appear large to the reader, it is in reality dwarfed by the multiplicity of concepts, articles and books which have been written in reference to the term competitiveness. The vagueness of the general term, the lack of theoretical background, implicit preferences and prejudices, and finally the scope of policy recommendations made in reference to this term have induced outstanding researchers to warn that the term competitiveness of a nation could be dangerous, obsessive, elusive or meaningless.1 The articles presented in this volume share some elements of this critique, but also demonstrate that research is being continued, and that it is indeed relevant to the design and evaluation of economic policy, most notably, the so-called Lisbon Strategy of the European Union.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiginger, K., Die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Österreichs. WIFO: Wien, 1987.
Aiginger, K., “The use of unit values for discriminating between price and quality competition.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1996.
Aiginger, K., “A framework for evaluating the dynamic competitiveness of countries,” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 9(2), pp. 159–188, 1998.
Aiginger, K., Europe’s Position in Quality Competition, Enterprise paper for The European Competitiveness Report 2000, 2000.
Krugman, P.R., “Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 73(2), pp. 28–44, March–April, 1994A.
Krugman, P.R., “The fight over competitiveness: A zero sum debate: Response: proving my point.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 73(4), July–August 1994B.
Krugman, P., “Making Sense of the Competitiveness Debate,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 12(3), pp. 17–25, 1996.
Porter, M.E., “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” The Free Press, New York, 1990.
Porter, M.E., “Building the Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity: Findings from the Business Competitiveness Index”, in Porter, M.E. et al. (eds.), Global Competitiveness Report 2003–2004 of the World Economic Forum, Oxford, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 29–56, 2004.
Wolfmayr, Y., “Trade Performance of CEECs According to Technology Class,” in The Competitiveness of Transition Economies, OECD proceedings, 1998.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
1All four adjectives are found in articles by Krugman (1994A, B, 1996): Krugman asserts that the concept of competitiveness is elusive or meaningless when applied to national economies (since there is no well-defined bottom line, like going out of business); for economies with little international trade, competitiveness is specifically maintained to be a funny way of saying “productivity.” Thinking and speaking in terms of competitiveness is claimed to be dangerous because it may lead to the wasteful spending of government money, as well as to trade wars and protectionism, and to the support of bad policy on a wide spectrum of important issues.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aiginger, K. Revisiting an Evasive Concept: Introduction to the Special Issue on Competitiveness. J Ind Compet Trade 6, 63–66 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-006-9471-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-006-9471-x