Country-level Competitiveness Research Articles

Competitiveness, country economic inequality and adolescent well-being: Analysis of 60 countries

IntroductionCompetitiveness might impact on adolescent well-being considering the social salience distinct from the other age groups. However, there is only sizable research on competitiveness and well-being. Also, most previous studies did not distinguish between individual-level and country-level competitiveness and lacked consideration of contextual effects such as country inequality. MethodsUsing cross-sectional data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), we analyzed individual- and country-level competitiveness and its interaction with country inequality in relation to well-being (life satisfaction and purpose of life) in approximately 350,000 adolescents from 60 countries. Competitiveness and well-being were assessed via questionnaires. The Gini index retrieved from the World Bank was used for country inequality. A multilevel model was applied. ResultsIndividual-level competitiveness was positively associated with both life satisfaction (β = 0.087, 95%CI = 0.084 to 0.091) and purpose of life (β = 0.214, 95%CI = 0.211 to 0.217), while country-level competitiveness was not. Although adolescents in the least unequal countries were satisfied with life the most and those in the most unequal countries reported the strongest purpose of life, there observed a nonlinear effect modification as a stronger association in middle unequal countries (p for interaction <0.05) compared to both less and more unequal countries. DiscussionIndividual-level competitiveness was positively associated with life satisfaction and purpose of life. The stronger association between competitiveness and well-being in middle unequal countries suggested that encouraging adolescents to compete within their activities or competition may work to mitigate the impact of country inequality.

Theory vs practice: Patterns of the ASEAN-10 agri-food trade

Abstract During the past decades, agricultural trade is enormously expanded. One of its driving factors is the World Trade Organization. However, regional agreements can give further trade opportunities for the participating countries. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is one of them. This article aims to give a detailed overview of ASEAN members’ agri-food trade by using the world and regional level data. The country level competitiveness is calculated by four different Balassa-type indices and highlights whether the agri-food trade (practice) of these countries is in line with the revealed comparative advantages/competitiveness of the different product groups (theory). According to the results, commodities with the highest comparative advantages overlap with the most important export products. This confirms a tight connection between theory and practice. It should also be noted that world level values are generally higher than that of the regional levels. Moreover, countries with significant agri-food production (Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Malaysia) can be characterized by higher comparative advantages compared to the other ASEAN member states. These results can help to better understand these countries’ trade specialization and international trade performance.

Impacts of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Research Framework

In this study, we propose a CSR research model focusing on the impacts of CSR on stakeholder perceptions and company outcomes. Research questions posited mainly involve a quadripartite view of the impacts of CSR. We propose a stakeholder-centric model of CSR, conceptualizing the factors that cause company stakeholders to form assessments of CSR initiatives. Specifically, we argue that the impacts of CSR on stakeholder perceptions should be investigated using perspectives from individual-, company-, policy-, and country-level factors. Moreover, we use the relationship marketing literature to suggest a route through which CSR likely translates into innovation, a major source of company and country level competitiveness. Specifically, we argue that CSR likely influences stakeholder-related behavioural and attitudinal outcomes (i.e., company trust, identification and commitment), which in turn increases stakeholders’ tendencies to co-create value with the firm. In this respect, we introduce to the literature a new CSR outcome, namely co-creation of value intentions.