DEVELOPMENT
The pdf-version - Eesti Koostöö Kogu
The pdf-version - Eesti Koostöö Kogu
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Figure 4.1.2<br />
Components of Estonian competitiveness 2006-2013<br />
(ranking: the larger it is, the worse it is)<br />
2006—2007 2009—2010 2012—2013<br />
Innovation<br />
Business<br />
sophistication<br />
Size of the market<br />
Technological<br />
maturity<br />
Developement of<br />
financial markets<br />
Labour market<br />
efficiency<br />
Efficiency of<br />
the goods markets<br />
Higher education and<br />
in-service training<br />
Health and primary<br />
education<br />
Macro economy<br />
Infrastructure<br />
Basic institutions<br />
Source: World Economic Forum<br />
0 20 40 60 80<br />
0 20 40 60 80<br />
Estonia’s strengths included both technological readiness<br />
and macro economy (Figure 4.1.2). Meanwhile, the crisis<br />
caused a great decline in the assessment results, but<br />
now a position among the top twenty has been regained.<br />
Unfortunately, we have partially lost our technological<br />
advantage. However, according to the GCR, our newest<br />
strength is labour market efficiency, which the other indices<br />
do not always confirm.<br />
Apparently, we have to reconcile ourselves to the<br />
poor position achieved due to the size of our market.<br />
However, we should be worried about the poor rating for<br />
sophistication, and also its decline. This refers, primarily,<br />
to the low developmental level of business networks and<br />
clusters in Estonia, which is accompanied by a modest<br />
role in the value chain (see chapter 4.5 for details).<br />
As a whole, the favourable institutional base for<br />
economic development created by Estonia, and also its<br />
sufficiently good “marketing” to the international public,<br />
was reflected in the competitiveness indicators. This<br />
may be sufficient for development in the resource- and<br />
efficiency-based phase, but would, unfortunately, not be<br />
enough to rise to the level of the world’s top countries in<br />
the innovation-based stage of development.<br />
4.1.2<br />
Economic freedom<br />
The fact that the assessment of institutional development<br />
is often executed under the label of economic freedom<br />
results from the central role played by the guarantee<br />
of individual property rights and the rule of law in an<br />
effective market economy model. Without this, there<br />
is no hope of entrepreneurial activity, which presumes<br />
motivated individuals. Undoubtedly, there is a need for<br />
competences and capabilities, but without motivation,<br />
this is only (unused) potential. Without initiative and<br />
entrepreneurship, there is no innovation or development.<br />
Economic freedom does not mean that everything is<br />
permissible, but rather, that the environment for these<br />
activities is transparent and secure. We can also speak<br />
about real freedom when the economic agents do not<br />
need to fear attacks on their person or property (Gwartney,<br />
Lawson 2006: 5). This is the principal condition for<br />
avoiding all kinds of dilemma structures, or rationality<br />
traps, which inhibit development (Homann, Suchanek<br />
2012). At the same time, the risk of attack from both the<br />
state as well as private individuals must be precluded.<br />
Economic freedom is a complex phenomenon, in<br />
which the excessive development of one component can<br />
damage the others. In any case, the goal cannot be to<br />
minimise the size (spending) of the state, which may be<br />
detrimental to other aspects of economic freedom (for<br />
example, the rule of law). 7<br />
The measurement of economic freedom does not<br />
have a long tradition. The Fraser Institute (FI) started<br />
dealing with this concept in the 1980s, and compiled its<br />
first summarised comparative analysis in 1996. This analysis<br />
retrospectively assessed economic freedom back to<br />
1975. The Heritage Foundation (HF) has been compiling<br />
summaries of economic freedom since 1995. Before that,<br />
economists tried to examine the impact of institutional<br />
frameworks indirectly, by using indicators about the<br />
spread of democracy. Unfortunately, the empirical studies<br />
showed that the impact of democracy on economic<br />
development was far from unambiguous (Apolte, Peters<br />
2009). 8 On the other hand, the positive impact of economic<br />
freedom on the objective indicators of economic<br />
development – on both the level (GDP per capita) as well<br />
as the growth – has supposedly been confirmed empirically,<br />
including, by the author of this essay (Sepp 2006<br />
and Sepp, Eerma 2007).<br />
The last study by the Fraser Institute rated the economic<br />
freedom of 144 states in 2010, on a scale of 1 to 10,<br />
7 The descriptive factor and regression analysis conducted by us, as a background study, confirmed that the size of the state itself (if all the other<br />
conditions are equal) does not correlate with the economic development level.<br />
8 The current discourse on this topic is significantly shaped by Acemoglu and Robinson, with their book Why Nations Fail (2012), which<br />
analyses the importance of extractive and inclusive institutions in both the economy and politics, as well as the connection between these two<br />
spheres, whereas one of the central themes is the struggle related to the distribution of well-being in society. Essentially, this approach can be<br />
considered to be an elaboration of the concept of open and limited access societies (North et al., 2006).<br />
152<br />
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013