competitiveness of asian economies

Part OneAnnual Report 2014—Competitiveness of Asian Economies

1

Part OneAnnual Report 2014—

Competitiveness ofAsian Economies

Boao Forum for Asia Asian Competitiveness Annual Report 2014

2


3

Internal and External Environments Affecting the Competitiveness of the Asian Economies

Chapter 1

1.1 Developed Economies on the Way of Recovery, with Emerging Economies Faced with Greater Downward PressureIn 2013, the global economy experienced a robust recovery, but the economic status of developed economies and emerging economies had deviated again. Unlike the situation a few years ago, the divergence this t ime was featured with the plunging growth rate of emerging economies, and the constant and steady recovery of developed economies, especially the US and Japan.

Developed economies saw increasingly solid foundation for recovery. In 2013, the global economy continued the momentum of a slow growth, and the annual growth rate was estimated to be 2 .9%. The growth rate of developed economies and emerging economies was projected at 1.2% and 4.5%, respectively, making the difference of projected growth rate between the two narrow to 3.3% in 2013, compared with the 4.5% in 2011 and 3.4% in 2012. The US and Japan enjoyed robust growth in 2013. The US economy grew 1.32%, 1.63%, and 1.97% year-on-year in the first three quarters of 2013, respectively, and the full year growth rate was estimated to surpass 1.6%. Thanks to the steady economic growth and the continuously declining jobless rate, the US Federal Reserve began to taper off the Quantitative Easing (QE) in December 2013. Stimulated by the Abenomics, the economic policies

advocated by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan’s economy maintained a strong growth momentum. In the first three quarters of 2013, the country’s economy grew 0.1%, 1.2% and 2.4% year-on-year, respectively. To avoid the risk of deflation, Japan launched another USD182 billion economic stimulus package in early December. At the same time, the economic recession was alleviating in the eurozone. The region’s quarterly economy growth rates stood at -1.8% and -0.5% year-on-year in the first two quarters of 2013, respectively, and the annual growth rate was forecast to be -0.4%. The eurozone will gradually step out of the recession interval in 2014. It will maintain the current loose monetary policy, but there will be little possibility to further expand the scale of the fiscal deficit. The debt ridden Ireland has been completely bailed out by international aids and its fiscal and debt situations will gradually get back on the right track in the medium term.

Emerging economies faced greater downward pressure. Though emerging economies were confronted with downward pressure in 2013, China’s economic growth was still thriving, maintaining a steady growth rate of 7.7%. The growth rates of Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa were all below 4%. Moreover, some emerging economies like Russia, India, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia were once on the verge of financial crisis. As for growth prospect, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) composite


4

leading index of the US, Japan and the eurozone in October 2013 were 100.69, 101.13 and 100.89, respectively (See Figure 1.1). These figures were not only above the critical value of 100, but all hit the new high in each economy in nearly two years. In contrast, over the same period, the index of India, Brazil and Russia were 97.88, 97.88 and 99.88, respectively, not only were they all below the reading of 100, but these figures refreshed or approached the lowest level since the financial crisis. The economic difficulties of emerging economies were not only reflected in the rapid decline of economic growth, but also reflected in the significant deterioration of the exchange rates, balance of international payments, and financial fragility. For example, the nominal exchange depreciation of Indian rupee and Brazilian real against the US dollar came to more than 20%. The substantial devaluation of the exchange rate failed to improve balance of international payment significantly. In the first ten months of

2013, India’s currency trade deficit crawled as high as USD129.4 billion, the highest among the BRICS countries. Other Asian emerging economies like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as Korea), China’s Taiwan, were faced with the similar problems in the 1997 Asian financial crisis—large scale of external debts, or high proportion of short- and medium-term external debts. Among the emerging economies, Latin American countries were also troubled by the continued downward pressure on economic growth. A number of countries were confronted with multiple challenges of the rising inflation, high fiscal deficit, imbalanced international payments, capital outflow, and currency devaluation. In summary, global economic recovery came on the way in 2013, which, this time, was not merely led by emerging economies, as developed economies had already kept pace with emerging economies to drive the growth.

Figure 1.1 OECD Composite Leading Index of Developed Economies and Emerging Economies

Source: Wind Info.

1.2 Major Asian Economies in Clearly Downward Trend, with Differences Between EconomiesAsia-Pacific region boasts most of the world’s major emerging economies. The region’s economic growth in 2013 lingered at a lower level, and was clearly in

a downward trend. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) released the Asian Development Outlook report in October 2013, saying that as growth of China and India, Asia’s two largest economies, staggered in 2013, growth rate of Asian developing economies was expected to drop to 6.0%, down from the 6.1% in 2012. The growth rate was lower than the


5

ADB’s previous prediction at the end of 2012, which forecast that Asia’s growth rate would be 6.7% in 2013. Other institutions also lowered their prediction made at the beginning of 2013. Following this trend, the situation of different Asian economies varied from each other.

As Asia’s largest economy, China is the largest trading partner of most Asian economies. China’s economic slowdown was the result of the Chinese government’s active economic control, and was basically immune to the impact of the financial turmoil in emerging markets. In 2013, China continued the strategy to expand domestic demand, especially the consumption demand. Due to unfavorable international and domestic economic situation in 2013, China’s quarterly economic growth declined for 13 consecutive quarters since the first quarter of 2010. Its economy grew 7.7% in the first quarter of 2013, and 7.5% in the second quarter. The growth rate finally rebounded to 7.8% in the third quarter. Accordingly, the ADB raised its forecast on China’s economic growth to 7.7% in December 2013, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from its previous forecast in October. In January 2014, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) tuned up its forecast for China’s economic growth for a second time to 7.5% (See Table 1.1), up 0.5 percentage point from its previous forecast. China’s national fixed-asset investment grew 19.6% in the first 11 months of 2013, of which private investment in fixed-assets increased by 23.1%, still higher than the overall growth rate of investment. Retail sales, an indicator reflecting household consumption grew by 13.1% in November. From the first quarter to the fourth quarter of 2013, consumption contributed 4.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.9 percentage points to economic growth, respectively, and the total contribution of capital formation was 2.3, 4.1, 4.3 and 4.2 percentage points, respectively. The contribution of net exports fell to -0.3 percentage point, down from the 1.1 percentage points in the first quarter. These indicators suggested that as China’s strategy of maintaining a steady growth went on, investment, once more, replaced consumption to become the top engine of economic growth, and exports turned sluggish again. As for the economic climate indexes, the consumer confidence index came to 98.9 in November of 2013, indicating a weak consumer confidence. The manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) was 51.4 that

month, unchanged from that in October, and was the highest level since May 2012. It was the 14th consecutive months that PMI standing above the critical point of 50, which indicated that the Chinese government’s policy to maintain a steady growth was effective, and China was getting out of the mire of overcapacity, with manufacturing continuing to turn better while achieving steady growth. In short, these trends indicate that China’s economy will become healthier and more sustainable.

Japan’s economic growth continued at a steady pace and was set to rebound, thanks to the Abenomics which offered the three stimuli of “ultra-loose monetary policy, expansionary fiscal policy and structural reforms “. In the first three quarters, the year-on-year growth of Japan’s economy was 0.1%, 1.2% and 2.4%, respectively. During the same period, private consumption grew 1.6%, 1.8% and 2.4% year-on-year, respectively, and gross fixed capital formation growth was -1.3%, 0.7% and 4.3%, respectively. Driven by a weaker yen, Japan’s exports ceased negative growth and grew 3% in the third quarter. Though the growth of private consumption contributed most to Japan’s economic growth, the Japanese government's massive public investment played an irreplaceable role to the overall growth. In January 2013, the Japanese government passed the USD117 billion spending on government investment, bringing a total stimulus package of USD226.76 billion. It later introduced another USD182 billion economic stimulus package in early December. These stimulus measures drove up Japan’s public investment by 19% year-on-year in the third quarter, hitting a new high in nearly two decades. Bank of Japan announced its ultra-loose monetary policy on April 4, 2013, promising to buy an unlimited amount of assets and double the monetary base to 270 trillion yen, and set the inflation target at 2%. On June 14, the Japanese government unveiled the new growth strategy, focusing on easing administrative control, and arousing private investment. At this point, “Abenomics” shot all the three “arrows” that made up the government’s plan to revitalize the Japanese economy. The economic climate indexes showed that Japan’s consumer confidence index averaged 43.8 in the first 11 months of 2013, well above the average level of 40 in 2012. The country’s manufacturing PMI in December went up to 55.2, reaching a new high in two decades. Besides, both


6

the leading economic index and composite index had hit the new high in recent years. The “Abenomics” would bring about negative impacts in the long run. However, at least in a short period of time, it did work in terms of driving Japan out of the shadow of the long-term deflation, and its consumer price index (CPI) rose 1.5% in November 2013, giving out an optimistic prospect for economic growth.

India’s economy continued the slowing pace in 2013, due largely to its staggering economic reforms and the limited room for macroeconomic policy. In the first three quarters of 2013, India’s real GDP growth came to 4.8%, 4.4% and 4.8% year-on-year, respectively, a significant decline compared with that of previous years. In response to the economic downturn, India’s central bank cut its benchmark interest rate for three times. In September 2012, Indian announced a new round of economic reform measures, by opening up more sectors like retailing and the aviation, and lifting caps on foreign investment in the country’s insurance and pension market. As for economic indicators, India’s monthly industrial production growth index averaged 0.68% in the first ten months of 2013, a record low in recent years. Its manufacturing PMI fell below the critical value of 50 for the first time in 2013, as the August PMI dropped to a record low of 48.5. The PMI gradually went up to 51.3 in November after India adjusted its economic policy. But it was still below the average monthly level of 54 in 2012. The slowdown of the real economy also cast a shadow of recession on India’s prominent service industry, as India’s services PMI dropped to a record low of 47.2 in November. In terms of balance of international payment, India’s goods trade deficit accumulated to USD129.4 billion in the first three quarters of 2013. Although service trade remained a surplus of USD52.2 billion, India’s current account deficit was still up to USD45.2 billion in the first three quarters of 2013. India’s foreign exchange reserves experienced a rare decline in this circumstance, which scaled back by USD45 billion in the recent two years. In summary, the relatively poor infrastructure and the lagging economic structural reforms become the bottleneck that hindered India’s economic growth. Therefore, the IMF expected India’s economy to grow 3.8% in 2013, below China’s growth rate.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economies’ economic growth followed the synchronized downward trend among emerging economies in the world. In 2013, ASEAN economies

gradually narrowed the gap between member economies through relying on rising domestic demand, and mutual connection of infrastructure, thus to achieve the target of building up the ASEAN community in 2015. The ADB estimated that the ten ASEAN members’ economy would increase by around 4.9% in 2013. That would be 0.8 percentage points lower than the previous year’s 5.7% and 0.5 percentage points lower than the ADB’s prediction of 5.4% in the beginning of the year. The region’s three largest economies, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, all saw a marked decline in economic growth rate. In 2013, the three countries’ economies were expected to grow 5.3%, 4.7% and 3.1% year-on-year, respectively, which fell by 0.9, 0.9 and 3.4 percentage points compared with those of 2012. The Philippines enjoyed a sound economic situation, which was expected to grow 6.8% year-on-year, and that was the same as that of 2012. The predicted economic growth for Brunei was 1.4% year-on-year, Laos 8.3%, Cambodia 7.0%, Myanmar 6.8%, Singapore 3.5%, and Vietnam 5.3%. The slowed growth of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand was the result of a weak exports and dwindling investment. As one of the world’s largest coal and palm oil producers, Indonesia was hit hard by the world’s sluggish commodity market. In the first three quarters of 2013, Indonesia’s current account deficit climbed to USD24.3 billion, which was the primary cause of its lingering financial turmoil. In the first three quarters of 2013, Thailand’s economic rose 5.5%, 2.9% and 2.6% year-on-year respectively. Malaysia saw its investment growth slowed to 9.3% in the first half of 2013, down from the 21% in 2012. Indonesia’s investment growth fell to 5.2% from the average 9% in the past three years. Due to the political unrest in Thailand, the country’s investment growth slowed to 5.1% in the first half, declining from the 13.3% in 2012. This trend drove all ASEAN economies’ economic growth on the slow lane. Vietnam’s economic growth was stilled troubled by the banking system, and credit and investment were both subject to oppression. Its economic growth in 2013 was also slower than that in previous years, as its economy grew 4.9%, 5.14% and 5.42% year-on-year, respectively, in the first three quarters of 2013.

In the third quarter of 2013, the economy of Korea grew 1.1% quarter-on-quarter, showing a sound growth momentum. The Bank of Korea issued Korea Economic Outlook Report 2013-2014 in October,


7

predicting that the country’s GDP will grow 2.8% year-on-year in 2013. This growth rate was lower than the 6.0% in 2010, and the 3.7% in 2011 but higher than the 2.0% in 2012. In 2013, the country’s private consumption grew by 1.9%, equipment investment fell 1.2%, construction investment went up by 6.1%, and goods exports rose 5.5% while imports increased by 3.8%. Korea’s economic authority believed that the Korean economy was recovering in 2013, and the economic climate was turning up. The major driver of the second quarter growth was the government’s additional and adjusted fiscal investment, and that of third quarter growth could be attributed to the recovery of consumption and exports, and the positive growth in equipment investment. To maintain the current growth momentum, the Korean government must stabilize the exchange rate, expand fiscal spending, and lower taxes and other policies to promote investment, and create enough jobs, which would facilitate the stable and healthy development of its real economy. Korea’s economic growth will jump to 3.7% in 2014, up from 2.8% in 2013. Korea’s economic growth will maintain 4.0% in 2015.

The Australian economy experienced persistent low growth rates in first three quarters of 2013. The quarterly economic growth was 2.1%, 2.4% and 2.3% year-on-year, respectively, and the annual growth rate was estimated to be 2.5%. The reason behind the slowdown was that Chinese economic downturn in 2012 led to a shrinking global demand for Australia’s resources, making Australia’s mineral resources investments decline faster than expected, while investment in non-resource sector recovery is extremely slow. In fact, in the global commodity super cycle since the 21st century, Australia’s resource exports grew faster than the non-resource products. But when its expanded initial investment and growing production capacity encountered with the situation when global resource products prices fell and demand shrank, Australia’s exports growth fell sharply in 2012. As for its economic growth prospect and the economic climate, Australia’s consumer confidence index fell to 105 points in December 2013, declining nearly 5% from the 110.3 points in November, and hit the lowest level since July 2013. The consumer confidence fell mainly because of the sharp deterioration in the unemployment situation, making residents feel even uncertain about the future. Australia’s unemployment rate was 5.8% in

November 2013. Its long-term jobless population reached the highest level in nearly 11 years, with the number of people unemployed for more than one year came to 144,100, more than twice of its lowest level of 63,400 in August 2008. The November jobless data also hit the new high since September 1998, and the jobless rate was expected to rise to 6.25% in 2013, as Australia’s economic growth will continue to be a little below potential levels after the mining investment reached its peak.

Turkey’s economic recovery was evident in 2013. In the first half of 2013, the Turkish economy went up 3.7%, higher than the previous forecast of 3%. Its second quarter growth rate was 4.5%, 1.6 percentage points higher than that in the first quarter, and its third quarter growth came to 4.3%. Turkey’s fast economic growth was mainly benefited from the recovery of domestic demand and rising public spending. But as the US Federal Reserve adjusted its monetary policy and unrest in Syria posed challenges, the Turkish economy is faced with increasing downside risks. Data showed that the Turkish export growth plunged from 11% in January to 8.23% in October. In addition, since May of 2013, the volatility of global financial markets drove a massive amount of capital out from the emerging markets, which made the Turkish lira fall sharply against the US dollar, further deteriorating Turkey ‘s economic growth prospects in the second half. As of the end of October 2013, Turkey’s current account deficit reached USD52.8 billion, higher than the USD40.2 billion in the same period of 2012. The current account deficit came as a result of a substantial increase in energy imports and a surging amount of interest payment to external debt. However, the Turkish domestic savings rate was only 12.6%, far below the average 33.1% in other emerging economies, making Turkey heavily dependent on foreign capital to balance the current account deficit. In short, the high current account deficit has posed to be the biggest challenge to Turkey’s growth prospect.

Saudi Arabia is a major economy in the Middle East. The Saudi Ministry of Finance predicted that the country’s GDP would reach USD745.3 billion in 2013, an increase of 3.8% year-on-year. Its exports volume would total USD367 billion, down 5.5% year-on-year, and total imports would reach USD153.1 billion, growing 8.0% year-on-year. Therefore, the country would achieve a trade surplus of USD213.9 billion, down 13.3% year-on-year. Judging from


8

segments, the non-oil private sector continued to maintain strong growth, with an increase of 5.5% year-on-year. The construction, retail, transportation, communication and non-oil manufacturing sectors all grew more than 5% year-on-year. Current account balance of oil export revenues reached USD129.8 billion, accounting for 17.4% of the country’s GDP. Saudi Arabia invested as much as 18 billion riyals in

the information industry, making information security the country’s most potential sector in recent years. It is worth noting that as Saudi Arabia implements industrial restructuring to reduce its reliance on the energy sector, exports of the country’s non-energy sectors have surged in recent years. Its non-oil exports amounted to approximately USD4.8 billion, representing an increase of 12.6%.

Table 1.1 Economic Growth Trends of Major Economies in Asia-Pacific Region, 2011-2014 (%)

Economy 2011 2012 2013 2014Australia 2.4 3.7 2.5 2.8

Japan -0.6 2.0 2.0 1.2

New Zealand 1.4 2.7 2.5 2.9

East Asian Economies 8.2 6.6 6.7 6.6China, People’s Republic of 9.3 7.7 7.6 7.5

China’s Hong Kong 4.9 1.5 3.0 4.4

Korea, Republic of 3.7 2.0 2.8 3.7

China’s Taiwan 4.1 1.3 2.2 3.8

South Asian Economies 6.4 3.5 4.0 5.2Bangladesh 6.5 6.1 5.8 6.0

India 6.3 3.2 3.8 5.1

Sri Lanka 8.2 6.4 6.3 6.7

ASEAN Economies 4.7 5.7 4.9 5.3Brunei 3.4 0.9 1.4 6.2

Cambodia 7.1 7.3 7.0 7.2

Indonesia 6.5 6.2 5.3 5.5

Laos 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.8

Malaysia 5.1 5.6 4.7 4.9

Myanmar 5.9 6.4 6.8 6.9

The Philippines 3.6 6.8 6.8 6.0

Singapore 5.2 1.3 3.5 3.4

Thailand 0.1 6.5 3.1 5.2

Vietnam 6.2 5.2 5.3 5.4

West Asian Economies 3.9 4.6 2.3 3.6Bahrain 2.1 4.8 4.4 3.3

Jordan 2.6 2.8 3.3 3.5

Kuwait 6.3 6.2 0.8 2.6

Oman 4.5 5.0 5.1 3.4

Pakistan 3.7 4.4 3.6 2.5

Qatar 13.0 6.2 5.1 5.0

Saudi Arabia 8.6 5.1 3.6 4.4

Emerging Market Economies in Asia 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.5Asia 5.8 5.1 5.1 5.3Note: The 2013 and 2014 data are of the predicted value. Emerging market economies in Asia: China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the

Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.Source: www.imf.org.


9

1.3 Some Asian Economies Faced with Similar Internal and External Environment of the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997Starting from 2013, emerging economies, including Asian economies, were once again confronted with the similar internal and external environment of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Historically, from the year 1994 to 1997, the US Federal Reserve cumulatively raised the benchmark interest rate for 250 basis points, which finally reached 5.5% before the breakout of that crisis. I t not only increased Asian economies’ burden in terms of foreign currency debt, but also led to a stronger dollar and the reversal of interest rate differential, resulting in massive capital backflow to the US, and directly triggered the crisis. The US Federal Reserve is gradually withdrawing from the QE, and the country’s 10-year bond rate had rebounded to 2.8%, initiating mounting pressure on emerging economies in terms of short-term capital outflow in 2013. In the last week of August, emerging markets saw an equity fund outflow of USD3.8 billion, and a bond fund outflow of USD2 billion, of which, fund outflow in Asia (excluding Japan) was the most significant. The capital massively flowed to the equity markets of developed economies like the US and Europe. In the first seven months of 2013, net inflow to the Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) in the North American equity market accumulated to USD102.4 billion, and that to Japanese market came to USD28 billion, with the European market receiving a net inflow of USD4.3 billion.

Some emerging economies in Asia, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, China’s Taiwan, are also faced with the problem similar to that in the Asian financial crisis, large scale of external debts, or a high proportion of short-term external debts. The ratio of external debts to GDP in the above mentioned economies had all come above 30%, and for the latter four economies, short-term external debts had accounted for more than a third of their total foreign debts. In the case of Indonesia and Korea, their total external debt had already outnumbered their foreign exchange reserves. This indicates that once there is a reversal of capital f lows, the solvency of Asia’s some emerging economies would be worrisome. The

occurrence of this situation is an inseparable result of the developed economies’ credit expansion after their quantitative easing monetary policy in recent years, which exacerbated the financial fragility. Particularly for India, Indonesia and some other Asian economies, there is an obvious trend of expanding credit and rising leverage in recent years. The M2/GDP proportion had risen sharply, and asset price bubbles like the real estate had become the severe ills of the economies. After the economic slowdown, emerging economies should cut interest rates to boost growth, but the increased pressure of capital outflows forced central banks of India and Indonesia to raise interest rates to support the exchange rate of their currencies. Once the real estate bubble bursts, financial institutions will be cornered with surging bad debts, which will further amplify the financial market turmoil.

However, it is undeniable that compared with 1997, most Asian economies have significantly improved their ability of resisting financial risks. First, their foreign exchange reserves are relatively high, as most economies’ see their foreign exchange reserves to GDP ratio well above 30%, except for Indonesia, which only has a ratio of 10%. Second, unlike the situation in the 1990s, when most Asian economies adopted the fixed exchange rate mechanism, they are now mostly applying a floating exchange rate system, making the exchange rate significantly flexible, thus capable to alleviate the impact of external shocks. On the one hand, the two-way exchange rate fluctuations ease central banks’ pressure as to intervene in the market at any specific point of time, reducing the consumption of foreign exchange reserves to maintain exchange rate stability. On the other hand, increased exchange rate flexibility will prevent short-term capital betting on “unilateral devaluation”, and add up the speculative costs.

Third, in recent years, the majority of Asian economies have established a relative complete international coordinating mechanism against financial crises, such as the anti-crisis fund and currency swap mechanisms. These regional coordination and cooperation enable Asian economies to offer timely and mutual supports to each other, and greatly enhance their strength in terms of withstanding external financial risks.


10


11

2.1 Updated China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (FTA) to Enhance China-ASEAN CooperationThe year 2013 marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of China-ASEAN strategic partnership. As the world’s largest free trade area among developing economies, the China-ASEAN free trade area covers a population of 1.9 billion, with its economic size surpassing USD10 trillion. The free trade area has made great progress in terms of cooperation and development. After ten years’ endeavor, China and ASEAN have realized a comprehensive, multi-level and wide-ranging cooperation.

As for bilateral trade, the overall tax rate that China levies on ASEAN falls to 0.1% on average, after its four rounds of tax cuts in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010. The six founding members of the ASEAN impose zero tariffs on more than 90% of Chinese products, with their average tax rate on Chinese products dropping to 0.6%. The significantly reduced tariffs greatly stimulated bilateral trade, as bilateral trade volume rose to USD400.1 billion in 2013, up from the USD54.8 billion in 2002, which represented an average annual growth of more than 20%. China has been the largest trading partner of ASEAN for five consecutive years, while ASEAN has overtaken Japan to become China’s third largest trading partner after the EU and the US.

As for investment, bi lateral investment

between China and ASEAN members grows rapidly. Meanwhile, Chinese enterprises’ investment to ASEAN members expands from the traditional sectors of construction and project contracting to new energy, manufacturing, business services and other fields. The implementation of the China-ASEAN Investment Agreement provides a more stable and open investment environment for enterprises from China and ASEAN, and further promotes bilateral investment. As of the end of 2012, the two parties’ bilateral investment totaled USD100.7 billion, of which, the newly-added Chinese non-financial direct investment to ASEAN increased 52% year-on-year to USD4.42 billion, with ASEAN’s actual investment to China growing to USD7.07 billion. The scope of Chinese investment in ASEAN expands to producing and supply of electricity, gas and water, leasing and business services, wholesales and retailing, manufacturing, mining, finance, and construction. Chinese enterprises also established overseas economic and trade cooperation zones in Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. ASEAN has become the top destination for Chinese enterprises’ overseas investment. China has also become the biggest investor in ASEAN members like Myanmar, Cambodia, and keeps expanding investment cooperation with ASEAN, which boosts local employment and tax income.

In addition, China and ASEAN economies’ culture, education, tourism exchanges are becoming increasingly frequent.

China’s Economic and Trade Cooperation Strategy of Sharing Prosperity with Neighboring Economies

Chapter 2


12

In the future, it would be the common choice of China and ASEAN members to deepen cooperation in the free trade zone and update the China-ASEAN economic and trade cooperation. Currently, China and ASEAN are experiencing a similar stage of development, meaning that there are great potentials and bright prospects for bilateral cooperation in fields like infrastructure construction, energy, science and technology, and agriculture.

2.2 Construct the Silk Road Economic Belt Jointly to Realize the Common Prosperity of China and Central Asian EconomiesIn 2013, China proposed to jointly build the Silk Road Economic Belt on the basis of the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a move to comprehensively enhance economic cooperation and integration between China and Central Asian economies. Currently, the global economic situation remains in the doldrums, with trade protectionism and regional economic collectivization emerging in various forms. How to prevent the regional economic collectivization from fueling trade protectionism has become an important direction to promote balanced global economic growth.

Since the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001, its member economies had made great progress in terms of economic and trade ties, as well as social and cultural exchanges.

Energy cooperation is the highlight of the SCO. Central Asia’s Caspian region is the world’s major source of oil and gas resources, and the exploration of which is Central Asia’s biggest economic pillar. At present, China has become the biggest buyer of Central Asia’s energy. In recent years, large energy cooperation projects like China-Kazakhstan oil pipeline and China-Central Asia natural gas pipeline, were completed and put into operation, pumping fresh blood for regional economic development. Long-term and stable energy cooperation between China and Central Asia is of irreplaceable and important strategic value to the two sides’ energy strategies.

Speeding up interconnection is a consensus of countries to jointly build the Silk Road Economic Belt. The SCO explicitly stated in its mid-term development strategy to promote economic cooperation in finance, energy, communications and agr iculture sectors. Currently, the SCO member economies are actively promoting the interconnection of the Central Asian economies’ network of railways, highways, aviation, telecommunications, power, energy pipelines. China is also developing cooperation with Central Asian economies regarding flows of capital, logistics, human resources and information. All these moves will activate new economic growth engines.

With the constant improvement of infrastructure in the region, networks connecting the region’s energy, transportation, and telecommunication have taken shape. The SCO is working on financial cooperation mechanisms, including establishing a development bank to provide financing platform for cooperation projects, which will provide a vast space and lasting power for trade and economic cooperation among economies along the Silk Road Economic Belt.

It is a world trend to facilitate logistics, trade and investment to lower trade and investment costs within a region, which is also key to developing regional economic cooperation. The legal basis and organizing mechanism for regional economic cooperation continues to improve. The SCO has established regular trade ministers’ meeting mechanism, which is responsible for organizing and coordinating regional economic cooperation. The mechanism set up divisions of senior official commission and expert working groups to cover critical cooperation fields such as customs, quality inspection, e-commerce, investment promotion, transit potential development, energy, information and telecommunications. It further promotes intra-regional trade and investment and improves the cooperation in related fields. In the coming years, the trilogy of building up the Silk Road Economic Belt is to facilitate trade and investment, deepen economic and technical cooperation, and establish a free trade zone. Establishing a free trade area has become the long-term goal for countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt, including SCO member economies.


13

2.3 Accelerate the Construction of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road to Rebuild the Former Glory in Economic and Trade CooperationIn October 2013, China proposed to deepen economic and trade cooperation with economies in Southeast Asia and the Middle East and to build the 21st century Maritime Silk Road. The 21st century Maritime Silk Road was stressed as an important national development strategy. It and the overland Silk Road Economic Belt constitute the two pillar strategies for China to connect with the Asian continent in the west and maritime channel in the southeast. Historically, the Maritime Silk Road is an extension of the overland Silk Road. The formation of this transport channel was largely because the fact that China’s southeastern coastal regions were mountainous with few plains and it was difficult to trade in Central Asia, and Europe. The inconvenience of the overland transportation, coupled with summer and winter monsoon in China’s southeast coast, made it a better choice to travel to Europe by sea.

In recent years, China’s economic and trade relations with the Southeast Asia, the Middle East countries develop rapidly. The China-ASEAN FTA has been established for a decade, and it is to be updated to a higher level. Talks on the China-GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) FTA have also made great progress. The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road will gain new vitality in the era of globalization.

Building the Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century is a significant strategy for China to adapt to the new situation of globalization and expand common interests with different economies. It is an important measure to build the new system of an open economy, benefiting relevant countries and regions in terms of mutually sharing opportunities, development, and realizing common prosperity.

2.4 China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic CorridorIn May 2013, China proposed to build the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which won active

response from Pakistan. The two countries will reinforce strategic and long-term planning, and open up new cooperation areas such as connectivity and maritime sectors. China and Pakistan should work together to map out the long-term development of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and steadily push forward the construction of it, so as to further promote connec t iv i t y and development of the t wo countries. The planning of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is not merely the construction and run-through of major traffic arteries. More importantly, alongside the corridor, China and Pakistan will cooperate more in major projects, infrastructure, energy, agriculture and irrigation, information and telecommunication, and other sectors, and set up more industrial parks and free trade areas. The China-Pakistan Corridor is a win-win strategy for the two sides, the construction of which will boost bilateral trade in goods and personnel exchanges, and drive up Pakistan’s re-export. On the other hand, it can effectively expand China’s energy import routes, as it enables China to bypass the Strait of Malacca and the disputed South China Sea and to directly transport the oil from the Middle East to the hinterland in Southwest China, which will also make China less independent on the China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline that is under construction. Judging from the perspective of national strategies, once completed, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will connect countries in South Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, and the Gulf region through close cooperation in the economic and energy sectors, and make their economies resonate with each other. It will also highlight Pakistan’s strategic role as a bridge and link connecting Eurasia and Africa.

China and India initiated the BCIM Economic Corridor in May 2013. The Corridor will further connect the two big markets of China and India. As stated in the Joint Statement of China and India, the two sides agreed to consult the other parties on the construction of the BCIM Economic Corridor, with a view to establishing a Joint Study Group on strengthening connectivity in the BCIM region. The BCIM Corridor will radiate to South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia, and will drive the joint economic development of the three regions. Southwest China, eastern India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh are relatively underdeveloped. Previous cooperation


14

at the provincial level had limited effects to drive up collaboration. The BCIM Economic Corridor is cooperation at the national strategic level, and the transfer effect of four countries involved makes it possible to promote the joint development of the three most important regions in Asia. The four member economies of the BCIM Economic Corridor are now at the crucial stage to develop economy, eliminate poverty and improve people’s livelihood,

and they are faced with the task to accelerate the economic transformation and upgrading. With the acceleration of regional economic integration, it becomes increasingly important for the four countries to make use of their geographic advantages, further strengthen political mutual trust, deepen trade and investment, promote connectivity, and strengthen cultural exchanges.


15

3.1 Target Economies to Be Evaluated in 2013Geographically, there are 51 economies in Asia, including China’s Taiwan, China’s Hong Kong and China’s Macao. Because some economies are too small or difficult to obtain historical data, such as China’s Macao, Afghanistan, Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea (DPRK ), Brunei , Myanmar, Maldives, Lebanon, Palestine, Laos, Iraq, Bhutan, Yemen, Cyprus, Syria, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, those economies are excluded from the evaluation system. Therefore, we continue to use the evaluation targets of 2012 that contain 37 economies in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia and New Zealand included (See Table 3.1).

Evaluation Report on Competitiveness of Asian Economies

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Target Economies to Be Evaluated in 2013 Report (Alphabetical Order)

No. English Name Chinese Name No. English Name Chinese Name

1 Armenia 亚美尼亚 20 Malaysia 马来西亚

2 Australia 澳大利亚 21 Mongolia 蒙古

3 Azerbaijan 阿塞拜疆 22 Nepal 尼泊尔

4 Bahrain 巴林 23 New Zealand 新西兰

5 Bangladesh 孟加拉国 24 Oman 阿曼

6 Cambodia 柬埔寨 25 Pakistan 巴基斯坦

7 China, People’s Republic of 中国 26 The Philippines 菲律宾

8 Georgia 格鲁吉亚 27 Qatar 卡塔尔

9 China’s Hong Kong 中国香港 28 Saudi Arabia 沙特阿拉伯

10 India 印度 29 Singapore 新加坡

11 Indonesia 印度尼西亚 30 Sri Lanka 斯里兰卡

12 Iran 伊朗 31 China’s Taiwan 中国台湾

13 Israel 以色列 32 Tajikistan 塔吉克斯坦

14 Japan 日本 33 Thailand 泰国

15 Jordan 约旦 34 Timor-Leste 东帝汶

16 Kazakhstan 哈萨克斯坦 35 Turkey 土耳其

17 Korea, Republic of 韩国 36 United Arab Emirates 阿联酋

18 Kuwait 科威特 37 Vietnam 越南

19 Kyrgyzstan 吉尔吉斯斯坦


16

3.2 Final and Sub-Item Ranking in 2013

3.2.1 Final Competitiveness Ranking

According to the ranking results of the Asian Economies Competitiveness 2013, the “East Asian Tigers” dominate the top four, namely Singapore, Korea, China’s Hong Kong and China’s Taiwan, followed by the traditional advanced economies of New Zealand, Austral ia and Japan, which maintain their position in the first-tier group for three consecutive years (See Table 3.2, Figure 3.1). In the first-tier group, Israel, China and Bahrain rank 8th to 10th respectively. United Arab Emirates (UAE) falls into the tier-two group compared with 2012. Malaysia, as a representative of the emerging economies in Southeast Asia, as well

as Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia, representing the resource-exporting countries in West Asia, occupies the tier-two group for three consecutive years (ranking 11th to 20th). Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Jordan, Armenia, Sri Lanka, rank in the top of third-tier group, ranking 21st to 25th. Among which, Jordan and Iran rank 23rd and 27th respectively, due to the unrest in Syria and the block of Iran’s oil exports. The majority of developing economies in Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia, such as the Philippines, Mongolia, Indonesia and Kyrgyzstan, still position in the bottom of the third-tier group (ranking 26th to 30th). Bangladesh, Tajikistan, India, Timor-Leste, Nepal, Pakistan, and Cambodia, stay in the tier-four group for three consecutive years (ranking 31st to 37th), though India once ranked 30th in 2012.

Table 3.2 Rankings of Competitiveness Evaluation Index for Asian Economies 2013

Economy 2013 2012 2011

Economy 2013 2012 2011

Ranking Change Ranking Change Ranking Ranking Change Ranking Change Ranking

Singapore 1 +1 2 -1 1 Turkey 20 -2 18 -1 17

Korea, Republic of 2 +2 4 +1 5 Azerbaijan 21 +1 22 +3 25

China’s Hong Kong 3 -2 1 +2 3 Vietnam 22 +1 23 +1 24

China’s Taiwan 4 -1 3 -1 2 Jordan 23 -2 21 -1 20

New Zealand 5 +3 8 -1 7 Armenia 24 +1 25 -3 22

Australia 6 -1 5 +3 8 Sri Lanka 25 +4 29 -3 26

Japan 7 +2 9 -5 4 Kyrgyzstan 26 +5 31 -2 29

Israel 8 +3 11 -5 6 Iran 27 +1 28 -9 19

China, People’s

Republic of9 +1 10 0 10 The Philippines 28 -2 26 +1 27

Bahrain 10 -3 7 +2 9 Mongolia 29 -2 27 +1 28

Malaysia 11 +5 16 -5 11 Indonesia 30 -6 24 +6 30

Kazakhstan 12 +3 15 -2 13 Bangladesh 31 +2 33 +1 34

Kuwait 13 0 13 +8 21 Tajikistan 32 +3 35 -4 31

Qatar 14 -2 12 0 12 India 33 -3 30 +2 32

United Arab

Emirates15 -9 6 +8 14 Timor-Leste 34 +2 36 -3 33

Saudi Arabia 16 -2 14 +1 15 Nepal 35 -3 32 +4 36

Oman 17 0 17 +6 23 Pakistan 36 -2 34 +1 35

Georgia 18 +2 20 -4 16 Cambodia 37 0 37 0 37

Thailand 19 0 19 -1 18


17

3.2.2 Commercial and Administrative Efficiency

From Figure 3.2, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, China’s Hong Kong, and Georgia still keep their edge in commercial and administrative efficiency among the 37 Asian economies, ranking 1st-5th, with less change in seats. Malaysia, Kyrgyzstan, Korea and Mongolia follow closely and maintain their positions in 2012, ranking 6th to 9th respectively. Israel makes significant progress, rising from 17th to 10th. There are mainly two reasons lied behind: First, Israel simplifies approval procedure and further reduces

the cost to set up an enterprise which improves its commercial and administrative efficiency; Second, resource-export economies, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kazakhstan, make little improvement in commercial and administrative efficiency, reducing their competitiveness. The Chinese government has made great efforts to simplify administrative procedures and reduce the costs of establishing an enterprise since 2012. Although the improvement is not very obvious at present, its position has advanced in this ranking, up from 31st to 30th. India has no progress in ranking, remaining 35th.

Figure 3.1 Rankings of Comprehensive Competitiveness of Asian Economies 2013


18

3.2.3 Infrastructure

From Figure 3.3, China’s Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan capture the top three positions and maintain their traditional advantages in infrastructure. In particular, as international financial and trade hubs, China’s Hong Kong and Singapore keep good operation in transportation infrastructure, as well as information superhighway like electric power, telecommunications, and the Internet. As a traditional developed country, Japan attaches great importance to the safety of its public services, and

almost achieved the ultimate in terms of drinking water safety and wastewater treatment, as well as penetration of household computers and internet. Other economies with high income per capita like Bahrain, Kuwait, Korea, China’s Taiwan, Australia, the United Arab Emirates follow behind, which perform good in infrastructure maintenance and operations and have very high penetration of Internet. For example, Kuwait has adequate power supply, and high penetration of household computers and Internet, as well as drinking water safety, which

Figure 3.2 Rankings of Commercial and Administrative Efficiency Indicator for Asian Economies 2013


19

improve its ranking. Its long-term accumulation and constant investment keep their competitiveness in the first-tier group. Many developing economies, including China, are still in the second- or third-tier groups. Compared with that of previous years, China’s infrastructure competitiveness declines

from 14th to 17th, which is mainly affected by China’s flagging infrastructure investment, especially in terms of road and broadband. India has little improvement in infrastructure, declining from 30th to 31st. It falls into the tier-four group, and is even surpassed by Mongolia.

Figure 3.3 Rankings of Infrastructure Indicator for Asian Economies 2013

3.2.4 Overall Economic Strength

Economic growth of Asian economies, especially the emerging economies, continues to decline from 2012, and economic operational risks are also emerging day by day. However, Asia is still the most robust region in world economy. Compared with that of previous years, the overall economic

strength of the developed economies is stabilizing, with resource-exporting economies declining, and emerging and developing economies performing poor. Although China’s economic growth slows, it is still one of the important engines to the world economy, with signs in improvement of the macro environment. As shown in Figure 3.4, China is in the


20

leading position of the 37 economies in the 2013 with its overall economic strength ranking, moving up 2 notches. UAE, the oil-exporting country in West Asia, maintains the 2nd position with its stable economic performance. China’s Hong Kong and Korea keep their competitive advantages, ranking 3rd and 7th, respectively, while China’s Taiwan and Singapore fall to 8th and 10th in this ranking. Japan falls to 23rd despite a positive growth of nearly 2%, as its government debt risk mounts up instead of easing, government budget remains imbalanced, and is yet to step out of the deflation dilemma. China’s economic slowdown impacted Australia’s trade to China in 2012, which worsens its economic health and weakens its economic competitiveness.

Its ranking slides to 15th. ASEAN emerging economies maintain a high growth rate, with the inflation and unemployment rate coming to a historical low, as well as a low risk in overall economic strength. Among them, Malaysia, Thailand come to the second-tier group, and the Philippines and Vietnam appear in the top positions in the tier-three group, though their economic prospects are still gloomy. India ranks the 27th among 37 economies in this aspect, falling 7 notches from last year, and drops into the third-tier group. This is due to its worsening economic health, as it economy slows to 3.2%, while inflation rate runs above 9%. Armenia, Iran and other economies fall completely into the tier-four group, and the prospect of their economic development deserves our attention.

Figure 3.4 Rankings of Overall Economic Strength Indicator for Asian Economies 2013


21

3.2.5 Social Development Level

For the first-tier economies, there is less change in seats in terms of social development, compared with previous years. Japan, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and China’s Hong Kong secure the 1st-6th positions, respectively (See Figure 3.5) followed by Korea, China’s Taiwan, Azerbaijan and Georgia, ranking 7th to 10th. Among which, China’s Taiwan moves up 2 places in the ranking due to greater improvement in health care, primary and secondary education, and reduction of traffic accidents. China advanced by 1 notch, ranking 12th, thanks to its improvement in medical environment and life

expectancy, and the decline both in infectious disease rate and neonatal mortality rate. The social development in India and Pakistan still lags behind, with India ranking 35th, and Pakistan the last among the 37 economies. Most of the emerging economies and resource-exporting economies in Southeast Asia, West Asia and Central Asia stay in the tier-two (11th-20th) and the tier-three (21st-30th) groups. Though having a strong overall economic strength, UAE is not in the leading position in this aspect but stays in the fourth-tier group due to the inadequate medical services, high road accident rate, and low female labor force participation.

Figure 3.5 Rankings of Social Development Level Indicator for Asian Economies 2013


22

3.2.6 Human Capital and Innovation Capability

As shown in Figure 3.6, there are great changes in the top 10 seats. Korea leads in higher education enrollment and international patents granted per capita, surpassing China’s Taiwan, Israel, and New Zealand to take the 1st place. Singapore jumped

from 5th to 3rd, with a big progress in enrollment in higher education, international patents granted per capita and creative industry exports. Israel falls to 9th due to a sharp decline of international patent granted per capita. China and Malaysia come into the first-tier group, ranking 7th and 8th respectively.

Figure 3.6 Rankings of Human Capital and Innovation Capability Indicator for Asian Economies 2013

China moves 5 positions, with great progress made in enrollment in higher education, public education expenditure, international patent granted per capital and creative industry exports, though there is a decrease in exports of high-tech

products, which is related to the weakness of the overall exports in 2012. Malaysia ups investment in education, driving up its position by 3 notches. While Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia rank 17th and 20th, falling to the second echelon. There are also


23

big changes in the second-tier group. Thailand, Mongolia and Kazakhstan are still in the upper streams in this group, while Jordan and the United Arab Emirates fall to 21st and 32nd respectively. The UAE’s public education expenditure declines sharply, weighing less in its GDP, and makes it difficult to pick up in terms of technological innovation. Its shrinking international patents granted per capita weakens its competitiveness in technical innovation. Compared with that of the previous two years, India has a little improvement in terms of innovation input and output, ranking 25th from last year’s 26th, thanks to its progress in creative industry exports and public education expenditure.

3.3 Analysis of the Evaluation Results of Asian Economies Competitiveness 2013

3.3.1 Emerging Industrialized Economies: The “Four Asian Tigers”

In the ranking of the competitiveness of Asian economies in 2013, four emerging industrialized economies, namely China’s Hong Kong, Singapore, China’s Taiwan and Korea, traditionally known as the “Four Asian Tigers”, are still in top four among the 37 Asian economies. But the ranking order was slightly changed: Singapore surpassed China’s Hong Kong and came to the top position; Korea jumped to the 2nd, with improvements in innovation of science and technology as well as infrastructure; China’s Hong Kong and China’s Taiwan followed Korea, who ranked the 3rd and 4th, and still maintain leading position among the 37 economies in terms of commercial and administrative efficiency, infrastructure, social development and human capital and innovation capacity.

Singapore remains its high competitiveness. Though falling to the second place in 2012, it returns to the top position this year. In the Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014 released by the World Economic Forum, Singapore also ranks the second in the world’s 148 economies. Singapore has the most efficient commercial and administrative services in Asia for three consecutive years. The cost is low to establish a company in terms of length of time and costs. As an important international hub, Singapore has always maintained the first-class infrastructure, be it transportation infrastructure or

telecommunications infrastructure. It keeps pace with China’s Hong Kong in terms of competitiveness in this aspect for three consecutive years. Hit by the world economic slowdown in 2012, Singapore’s economic growth rate fell to 1.3%, down from the 5.2% in the previous year. But it performs well in terms of risk control on its economic operation. Singapore’s unemployment rate remains as low as 2%, and its inflation falls from the previous to 4.6%. The country’s national savings rate stayed at 45.6%, a positive figure, but Singapore’s government faced higher debt risks than the previous year, as its government debt accounted for 111% of its GDP. Its total tax burden also increased, prompting Singapore’s overall economic strength declined to the 8th in the ranking. Singapore’s social development remains the same as the previous year and still ranks 5th in this aspect, but there is no improvement in terms of hospital services. Singapore’s investment in education turns better, as the proportion of public education expenditure in the GDP rises 0.3 percentage point compared with that in the previous year. It remains robust in innovation, as its international patents produced per capita and creative industry exports grow significantly from the previous year, with its ranking in this aspect jumping two notches to the 3rd place, following Korea and China’s Taiwan (See Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7 Radar Map of Singapore’s Competitiveness

Korea rises to the 2nd place in the comprehensive ranking of 2013, up from the 4th position in the previous year. Korea still has the edge in innovation, public education expenditure and quality higher education and training system. It leads Asia in terms of international patents produced per capita, replacing China’s Taiwan at the top position. Korea


24

improves its traffic facilities, as the number of airline seats and road density rose significantly, and its communications infrastructure also makes great progress. It maintains its competitiveness in inf rast ructure capaci ty, with i ts rank ing climbed to the 6th in this aspect. Korea keeps its competitiveness in social development, ranking the 7th in this aspect. Korea’s economic growth rate fell to 2.0% in 2012, down from the 3.7% in 2011, thanks to the flagging Asian economy. Though its economy slows, Korea’s inflation and unemployment situation lightens up. Its inflation fell from 4% to 2%, within the mild inf lat ion range. I ts unemployment rate dropped to 3.2%. Korea’s government debt accounted for 33.7% of its GDP, almost the same with the year 2011. Korea’s economic growth slows significantly, but the overall risk is low. Affected by the economic slowdown, Korea falls to the 7th in the overall economic strength ranking, down from the 6th in 2012 (See Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.8 Radar Map of the Republic of Korea’s Competitiveness

As one of the world’s financial, trade and shipping centers, China’s Hong Kong takes the 3rd place in comprehensive ranking, down from the previous two years. China’s Hong Kong still has the edge in infrastructure, and remains its top position in the ranking of the 37 economies. The government maintains its commercial and administrative efficiency, in accordance with the principle of “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong”. It ranks the 4th in the 37 economies in this aspect. As for the social development level, China’s Hong Kong keeps its edge in disease control, healthcare service and social security, still ranking the 6th in this aspect. As its creative industry and high-tech exports decline, China’s Hong Kong drops to the 10th from the 8th

in the innovation capability ranking. Its economic growth fell to 1.5% in 2012, down from the 5% in 2011, lowering its contribution to the world economy. The overall ranking of China’s Hong Kong drops to the 3rd from the 5th in the previous year. However, China’s Hong Kong faces low risks, as its inflation rate fell to 4.1% in 2012 from the 5.3% in 2011. The unemployment rate was low at 3.3%, and the government debt to GDP ratio fell to 32.4%, down from that in 2011. Thanks to these positive figures, China’s Hong Kong still retains the 3rd place in the overall ranking (See Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9 Radar Map of the Competitiveness of China’s Hong Kong

As a pioneer in high-tech manufacturing, China’s Taiwan falls to the 4th in its comprehensive ranking, down from the 5th in the previous year. The slide is due largely to the fact that Korea surpasses China’s Taiwan in innovation. It ranks the 2nd in human capital and innovation capability. China’s Taiwan still leads in innovation, but its public education expenditure weighs less in its GDP and international patents granted per capita decreases, which results in a weakening competitiveness in innovation. China’s Taiwan saw its economic growth fall to 1.3% in 2012, down from the 4.1% in 2011. Its overall economic strength declines to the 10th place, down from the 8th in the previous year. Similar to Singapore and China’s Hong Kong, the economic operational environment improves to some extent despite the continuous economic slowdown. Its inflation rate rose to 1.9%, still a low inflation rate. Its unemployment rate remains low, a little down compared with the previous year, and government debt to GDP ratio is 40.9%, almost the same with the previous year. Due to the economic slowdown, China’s Taiwan scales back


25

in infrastructure investment, resulting in a modest improvement in infrastructure, which weakens its competitiveness in this aspect. Its ranking drops to the 7th, down from the 5th in the previous year. On the contrary, its ranking in social development advances to the 8th, up from the 10th, thanks to its progress in disease control and traffic accident management. Though there is little improvement in commercial and administrative efficiency, the business environment keeps improving in China’s Taiwan over the past three years. Its rankings climbed all the way to the 13th in 2013 from the 14th in 2012 and the 19th in 2011 (See Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10 Radar Map of the Competitiveness of China’s Taiwan

3.3.2 Traditional Developed Economies

Japan climbs to the 7th from the 9th in 2012 in the comprehensive competitiveness ranking, but still far behind the 4th in the year before last year. The achievement can be attributed to Japan’s improving economic growth rate, which maintained a 2% growth in 2012, up from the negative growth in 2011. Japanese government‘s series of economic stimulus measures have made some progress. For example, the price level stayed around zero in 2012, signaling that the country stepped out of the mire of deflation. Worsening from the situation in 2011, Japan’s government debt remains high, with the government debt accounting for 237.9% of its GDP, and its government budget is also imbalanced. Therefore, Japan faces high economic operational risks. Its overall economic strength falls to the 23rd, down from the 16th in the previous year. Though Japanese government may fail in its economic policies, Japan’s mature social management experience has ensured its competitiveness in social development level, and it has been in the first place

for years among the 37 Asian economies. Due to constant capital input, Japan has the world-class infrastructure and ranks the 3rd in this aspect for years. It also has the edge in human capital and innovation capability. The Japanese government has increased public education expenditure, and its enterprises are active in innovation, enabling its total granted international patents to outnumber other Asian economies. Plus, Japan’s creative industry exports improved over last year. Therefore, Japan’s competitiveness in innovation rises to the 5th, up from the 7th in the previous year. As the Japanese government makes no improvement in commercial and administrative efficiency, to establish an enterprise is costly, time-consuming and complicated in approval procedure. Japan is stuck at the 16th in this aspect (See Figure 3.11).

Figure 3.11 Radar Map of Japan’s Competitiveness

Israel’s comprehensive competitiveness ranks the 8th, up from the 11th in previous year. The achievement is not the result of an outstanding innovation sector, as Israel has been surpassed by others in terms of human capital input and innovation capacity, and its innovation ranking falls to the 9th, down from the 2nd. Its rise in the ranking can be attributed to the following two facts: First, the Israeli government’s commercial and administrative efficiency improves greatly, as it shortens the time needed to set up an enterprise, and pushes Israel up to the 10th in the ranking from 17th; Second, Israel remains the 2nd in social development level, right behind Japan. In addition, due to the unrest in Syria, there is no obvious improvement in Israel’s infrastructure, but it maintains the competitiveness, ranking the 12th. Like most Asian economies, Israel’s economic growth has not performed well


26

and continued to decline. Its growth rate was only 3.4% in 2012, down 1.2 percentage points from 2011. In regard to its economic health, Israel’s inflation pressure is under better control, and the inflation rate dropped to 1.7% in 2012, within the government’s targeted inflation interval of 1%-3%. Israel’s unemployment rate remains high, and came to 6.9% in 2012. As continued decline in economic growth could lead to a deteriorated economy, Israel’s overall economic strength ranks the 20th in this ranking, standing at the end of the tier-two group (See Figure 3.12).

Figure 3.12 Radar Map of Israel’s Competitiveness

New Zealand and Australia keep their strong comprehensive competitiveness, ranking the 5th and the 6th respectively in 2013. Compared with last year, New Zealand’s ranking went up 3 notches, while Australia fell by one. But both of their competitiveness advanced compared with the year before last year. Their competitiveness lies in the high commercial and administrative efficiency, social development level and continuous human capital and innovation capability. New Zealand and Australia have the edge in commercial and administrative efficiency, ranking the 2nd and the 3rd respectively. As for social development level, New Zealand and Australia take the 3rd and the 4th places. In terms of human capital and innovation capability, New Zealand and Australia pay attention to their higher education, and keep their advantages in international patents granted per capita and technology exports, ranking the 4th and the 6th in human capital input and innovation output. Comparatively speaking, Australia and New Zealand’s competitive weakness lies in infrastructure and overall economic strength. Australia’s infrastructure

remains at a high level, but lacks substantial improvement recently, making its fall to the 8th. New Zealand enhances the infrastructure of the information highway, lifting its ranking to the 11th from the 10th in infrastructure. Australia and New Zealand fail to perform well in overall economic strength. Compared with that in 2011, Australia’s economic growth bounced 1.3 percentage points to 3.7%, and that of New Zealand went up 1.3 percentage points to 2.7%. Despite that, Australia falls to the 15th from the 8th in overall economic strength, due to its higher unemployment rate, increasing government debts and total tax burden, coupled with flagging resource exports, which lead to high economic operational risks. Though New Zealand’s government debt also increased, its inflation rate remained at low level of 1.1%, and its economic operational risks were controllable. Therefore, New Zealand’s overall economic strength ranks the 17th (See Figure 3.13).

Figure 3.13 Radar Map of Australia’s Competitiveness

Figure 3.14 Radar Map of New Zealand’s Competitiveness


27

3.3.3 Asian BRIC Countries

In Asian economies, both China and India are BRIC members and their prospects and competitiveness are always compared with. Based on our evaluation, China has performed well in overall economic strength in recent years, while India faces higher economic operational risks despite its robust economic growth. Though both are big economies, China and India vary significantly in infrastructure, social development level and commercial and administrative efficiency. Thanks to its high economic growth, China has greatly improved in infrastructure, social development level and human capital and innovation capacity, while India’s performance in infrastructure and social development still lag behind. China rises to the 9th in comprehensive ranking, while India falls to the 33rd from the 30th. In 2012, China’s GDP accounted for 14.92% of the world’s total, up 9.6 percentage points from 2011, while India’s contribution to world GDP fell 0.02 percentage point to 5.63% from 2011 to 2012.

At a time when the overall Asian economy slowed down, China’s economic growth maintained at 7.7% in 2012. It was 1.6 percentage points lower than 2011, but higher than other Asian economies. Despite the slowdown, China faces low economic operational risks, with its inflation rate coming to 2.7% in 2012, well below the 3.5% target set by the government. Its total government debt remained at a low level, accounting for 22.8% of its GDP in 2012, down 3 percentage points from 2011. Official statistics show that, as of the end of June 2013, China’s national government debt amounted to 30.27 trillion yuan in total, accounting for 53.5% of its GDP, but below the debt-to-GDP ratio limit of 60%. China’s local government debt totaled 17.89 trillion yuan, in line with previous judgments and expectations. Thus, China appears bright in the prospect of economic growth, and partial risks are gradually absorbed externally. In addition, China’s improving comprehensive competitiveness benefits from its constant achievement in innovation capacity and social development. China expanded public education expenditure, which took 4% of its GDP in 2012. Enrollment of higher education rise to 30%, leading to the leap in international patents granted per capita and creative industry exports. China stands the 7th from the 12th in human capital and innovation capability ranking. In terms of social development, the Chinese government takes a

series of measures to tackle problems in disease control, environmental pollution, and housing and healthcare, and has made progress in these areas to some extent. Its ranking rises to the 12th in this aspect. Despite its improvement in transportation infrastructure, China makes little progress in telecommunications infrastructure, with broadband China strategy failing to take effect. Coupled with the lack of pollution treatment facilities, China falls to the 17th from the 14th in infrastructure ranking. Besides, China also lags behind in commercial and administrative efficiency, ranking the 30th, at the end of the tier-three group. As China’s new leadership has initiated the policy to streamline administrative approvals and delegated power to lower levels, its effectiveness will bolster up China’s competitiveness in this aspect (See Figure 3.15).

Figure 3.15 Radar Map of China’s Competitiveness

India falls in its comprehensive ranking due to deteriorating economy. In 2012, India’s economic growth rate dropped 3.1 percentage points to 3.2% from 2011. As for economic operational risks, India faces high inflation risks, with its inflation rate rising to 9.3%, up 0.7 percentage point from 2011. Thus, India’s overall economic strength plunges to the 27th, down from the 17th in the previous year. In addition, subject to the constraints of its economic development, India’s infrastructure has long been in disrepair, resulting in frequent accidents. With little investment, there is no improvement in road, aviation, power and other infrastructure, and India’s infrastructure ranking falls further to the 31st. Moreover, there is no actual progress in India’s social development and commercial and administrative efficiency. India ranks 35th both in social development level and commercial and administrative efficiency. However, it advances


28

in innovation capacity, ranking the 25th, as India adds up public education expenditure and boosts creative industry exports (See Figure 3.16).

Figure 3.16 Radar Map of India’s Competitiveness

3.3.4 ASEAN Emerging Economies

ASEAN economies feel the pain of the Asian economic slowdown. Apart from Singapore, the competitiveness rankings of other ASEAN economies are diversified. Malaysia performs better with its ranking rising from the 16th to the 11th, thanks to its edge in commercial and administrative efficiency, human capital and innovation capability and overall economic strength, which ranks the 6th, the 8th, and the 12th, respectively. In spite of Malaysia’s improvement, the performance of other members of “Little Four Asian Tigers”, namely Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, is not so promising, with their comprehensive ranking coming to the 19th, the 28th, and the 30th. Compared that with last year, Thailand’s position remains the same, that of Indonesia and the Philippines dropping by 6 and 2 places. Judging from economic performance, the overall economic strength of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines stays at the upper and middle level, ranking the 14th, the 16th, and the 21st, respectively. Indonesia’s positions in innovation, commercial and administrative efficiency, and social development level fall to the 26th, the 32nd, and the 26th, respectively. The Philippines’ innovation competitiveness went up to the 15th, but it fell in infrastructure, social development and commercial and administrative efficiency. In addition, Vietnam’s comprehensive ranking rises to the 22nd, while Cambodia is still in the tier-four group, ranking the last in the 37 economies. Other economies in South East Asia, excluding the ASEAN member states, like

Bangladesh, Nepal, Tomor-Leste are also in the tier-four group in terms of comprehensive ranking (See Figure 3.17-3.20).

Figure 3.17 Radar Map of Malaysia’s Competitiveness

Figure 3.18 Radar Map of Thailand’s Competitiveness

Figure 3.19 Radar Map of the Philippines’ Competitiveness


29

Figure 3.20 Radar Map of Indonesia’s Competitiveness

3.3.5 Resource-Export Economies in West and Central Asia

Unlike their outstanding per formance in the previous year, resource-export economies in West Asia and Central Asia appear mediocre in comprehensive ranking in 2013. Affected by the declining international oil prices, these countries’ economic growth slows. West Asian economies, completely relying on oil and gas exports, are encountered with fiscal plight, therefore, they scale back their investment in infrastructure and social development. The United Arab Emirates’ comprehensive ranking falls sharply to the 15th from the 6th. Other West Asian economies like Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are in the 10th, 13th and 14th positions. Central Asian economy of Kazakhstan ranks the 12th. The position of Saudi Arabia ranks the 16th, Oman the 17th, Jordan the 23rd, and Iran the 27th respectively. Take the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as the example. Its overall economic strength ranks the 2nd place, immediately after China. Apart from the fact that its economic growth in 2012 fell 0.8 percentage point to 4.4%, the UAE’s economy

maintains a good run. The inflation rate and the unemployment rate remains at a low position, and the total tax burden of government debt remains at a low level, so it remains economically competitive leadership position. As an economy with a high income per capita, the UAE also has its edge in infrastructure, ranking the 9th. The UAE rises two positions in commercial and administrative efficiency to the 25th, still in the tier-three group. Its competitive weakness lies in social development level and human capital and innovation capability, both ranking 32nd. Its position in human capital input and innovation output falls by 15 notches. The dramatic decline in innovation capability can be attributed to the following two factors: The UAE’s public education expenditure weighs less in its GDP, while international patents granted per capita shrink sharply. In other words, its achievements in higher education enrollment and high-tech exports are insufficient to offset the sharp decline of the above two indicators, dragging down its innovation ranking as well as comprehensive ranking (See Figure 3.21).

Figure 3.21 Radar Map of the United Arab Emirates’ Competitiveness


30


31

Part TwoAnnual Report 2014—

Competitiveness ofListed Asian Enterprises


32

Part TwoAnnual Report 2014—Competitiveness of Listed Asian Enterprises

33

As the US economy starts to stabilize and turns better, the world economy gives off clear signs of recovery. But this recovery is mostly stimulated by monetary policies, which are like to make the world economy gradually come back to life through “in vitro transfusion” or “cardiac stimulant”. It is obvious that the world economy has actually been suffering from the “drug addiction”, and the current economic recovery is still fragile and unstable. However, there is a great possibility that the world economy will continue to maintain a good momentum. Against this background, the Asian economies keep adjusting their economic policies while struggling with “loose monetary policies”, which forms a unique environment for the development of Asian enterprises.

4.1 Deteriorated International Financial Market Worsened the Financing Environment for Asian EnterprisesThe developed economies’ massive monetary injection policies triggered a worldwide flood of liquidity.

Firstly, the US monetary injection ranked the first in the world. The US launched its first round of quantitative easing from November 25, 2008 to the end of June 2010, during which, the US Federal Reserve bought USD1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities, USD300 billion of

Treasuries bonds and USD175 billion of agency bonds, totaling USD1.725 trillion. On November 3, 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying USD600 billion of long-term Treasury securities for eight times by the end of June, 2011. Then, the Fed introduced Operation Twist, buying USD400 billion six-year to 30-year long-term Treasury bonds, while selling off the same amount of 3-year or shorter-term Treasury bonds during September 2011 to June 2012. From September 2012, the Fed kept buying USD40 billion of mortgage-backed securities every month, continued the Operation Twist, and announced to keep the ultra-low interest rate policy till mid-2015. On December 13, 2012, the Fed announced to purchase USD45 billion more Treasury bonds every month, adding its monthly purchase of Treasury bonds to USD85 billion. On December 19, 2012, the Fed announced to cut monthly Treasury bond purchase by USD10 billion, signaling the gradual exit of the quantitative easing. In general, the US has launched three and a half rounds of QEs since March 2009, with the half round nicknamed Operation Twist. The Fed not only purchased trillions of long-term Treasury bonds, but also linked interest rate policy to jobless rate and inflation, setting threshold for future interest rate fluctuations. As long as the jobless rate remains above 6.5%, and inflation expectations keep above 2.5% in the next one to two years, the Fed will maintain the ultra-low interest rate, which is close

Internal and External Environments Affecting the Competitiveness of Asian Enterprises

Chapter 4


34

to zero. Although the Fed has announced to cut down the purchase of Treasury bonds, it only scales back the monthly injection, with the accumulated injection adding up each month, as it still buys USD75 billion of Treasury bonds every month. In other words, the Capital Purchase Program was not on the preset course. Once the US economy turns sluggish, the Fed may expand Treasury purchase at any time.

Secondly, the eurozone and UK’s liquidity injection moves keep pace with those of the US. After the US launched the third round of QE, both the eurozone and the UK followed up by launching their own quantitative easing monetary policies. Starting from 2012, Europe continued to implement loose monetary policy, including those jointly launched by the five major banks and the US Federal Reserve. The European Central Bank injected 1 trillion euros into the banking system in 2012. In recent years, the annual growth of eurozone’s monetary base exceeded 50% on average, which led to a high debt rate in the eurozone economies. Against this background, other eurozone economies st i l l had to offer aiding funds to Greece by purchasing bonds at a low interest rate, and pushing forward the outright monetary transactions (OMT) to transfer to European Stability Mechanism (ESM) from the current European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), so as to avoid the break-up of the eurozone. The Bank of England has launched four rounds of quantitative easing monetary policies, mounting to 375 billion pounds. It is likely to continue to expand the scale and release a flood of liquidity into the market in 2014.

Thirdly, Japan accelerated the pace of monetary injection through the “Abenomics”, which was implemented after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe came into power. The “Abenomics” actually consists of three parts. The first is the monetary policy with liquidity injection as the core. After he took the helm, Abe pressed the central bank to speed up the implementation of loose monetary policy. In this round, Japan took out 20 trillion yen to stimulate the economy. The second is a flexible monetary policy, in other words, fiscal deficit. The third is to stimulate private investment. The most important cards of Abenomics are the loose monetary and fiscal policies. Japan totally

injected more than 9 trillion yen in the market for five times in February, April, September and October of 2012, and 2013. If the “Abenomics” fails to realize its targeted effect and there is no debt crisis around, Japan will further loose its monetary policy. As currencies of developed economies are world curries or major currencies in certain regions, their massive monetary injection will lead to worldwide liquidity flood.

Developed economies’ monetary policies of liquidity injection affected emerging economies, especially the Asian markets, via the international market, which makes the latter the hardest-hit area of the negative spillover effects, due to the nature of the developed economies’ currencies as world currencies. Easing monetary policies in developed economies triggered fluctuations of commodity prices, which went up in general, leading to the slowdown of emerging economies. As shown in Figure 4.1, the global commodity price index experienced a new round of surge from the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008 to early 2011, when the global financial crisis was under control. After stabilizing for a period of time, the global commodity prices showed signs of rising again, after developed economies accelerated liquidity injection in 2013. These had brought about the price hikes of imported raw materials, as well as high CPI in emerging economies, including Asian economies since 2010, and further forced these economies to tighten monetary policies to control inflation, which directly resulted in the trend of slowdown in these economies (See Figure 4.2). During the time of implementing ultra loose monetary policies, the developed economies not only fell into the “liquidity trap”, failing to stimulate demand and economic growth, but also sent the world commodity prices into violent fluctuations, enabling the global speculative capital to control the pricing of commodities. During 2012 to 2013, these economies’ growth kept flagging, with their economic policies focusing on stabilization. Thus, their growth had a strong positive correlation with developed economies’ quantitative easing policies. The more liquidity the developed economies injected, the more growth pressure on these economies.


35

Figure 4.1 IMF Global Commodity Price IndexSource: Wind Info.

Figure 4.2 GDP Growth Trends of Emerging EconomiesSource: Wind Info.


36

In general, the investment and financing environment for Asian enterprises worsened. Under the impact of imported inflation, central banks of these economies had to undertake the tasks of spurring economic growth and controlling inflation, letting their monetary policies into a dilemma. If they tighten credit to control inflation, the financial environment would deteriorate in general, making it hard for enterprises to raise funds, and there would even be a “money shortage”, which had happed in China. If they ease credit control to maintain economic growth, there would be high inflations and risks of social unrest. Besides, the declining social purchase power would worsen the environment of sales, investment and development for enterpr ises. More over, the fal l ing sales associated with rising factor prices, only delayed the coming of “money shortage”, which actually further deteriorated the financing environment for enterprises. It is like to quench a thirst with poison. As the widespread phrase had it, “Our currency, but your problem.” Generally speaking, Asian enterprises’ investment and financing environment worsened due to the developed economy’s massive monetary

injection into to the financial markets.The worsened Asian financial environment

can also be verified by the trend of the capital market’s size. As shown in Figure 4.3, the stock markets of emerging economies showed an overall downward trend after 2010. From the beginning of 2010 to November 25 of 2013, stock markets in Russia, Brazil and China, three of the BRIC countries, fell by 1%, 24% and 33%, respectively. India proved to be the only exception, as its stock picked up 18% over the same period. Indian miracle could be largely attributed to its stock market’s long history, highly internationalized mechanism, and closer connection with the international markets. It was the international capital that changed its market performance. It could also be attributed to the fact that India’s central bank did not set inflation control as its top priority, but release more liquidity instead. The stock markets of BRICS countries performed poor as that, let alone the situation of second-tier emerging economies in Asia. The withering capital markets indicated the deteriorating of the direct financing environment for Asian enterprises.

Figure 4.3 Stock Market Trends of BRIC CountriesSource: Wind Info.


37

4.2 Sluggish Global Consumption Environment Aggravates Asian Enterprises’ Headache of OvercapacityAt a time when developed economies were still suffering from flagging consumption, although Asian consumer environment turned better in the second half of 2013, it did not perform well in general. As shown in Figure 4.4, the BRICS countries' Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) shrugged basically between 45 and 55 from 2008, with the overall trend going down. In the first half of 2013, PMI of the BRICS countries experienced a slump before entering the ascending channel, most of which were above the critical value of 50, and it went up as a whole in the fourth quarter. After June in 2013, the PMI of the BRICS countries began to bounce back. In October 2013, the manufacturing PMI of China, Brazil, South Africa and Russia rose to 51.4, 50.2, 55.3,

51.8, respectively, up from the 51.1, 49.9, 51.8, and 49.4 in the previous month. India’s manufacturing PMI that month was below the critical value of 50. On December 1, 2013, China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing (CFLP) released the Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) for November, which was 51.4, achieving a sustained growth for three consecutive months. Despite that, the overall PMI of the BRICS countries did not perform well for the whole year. As most Asian economies are second-tier emerging economies, their PMI performance was relatively worse. Japan and Korea had sufficient money supply and sound financial environment. But productive consumption of enterprises in the two countries shows downward trend, which suppresses its productive potential. Meanwhi le, the consumer environment for enterprises in the two countries does not perform well either. In general, the overall consumption environment was poor for Asian enterprises.

Figure 4.4 BRICS Countries’ Manufacturing PMI Development TendencySource: Wind Info.

Asian enterprises as a whole had been nagged by overcapacity due to the sluggish global consumption

environment. First, Asian economies are at the lower end of the international industrial chain, most of


38

which follow the export-oriented developing model. The withering international market hindered the outward transfer of their domestic production, which failed to act responsively, and turned its advantages into overcapacity. Second, as developed economies had made it their long-term strategy countering the financial crisis to double exports and return to the real economy and remanufacturing, their rising exports to Asia had encroached on Asian economies’ domestic markets, depressed the markets for Asian enterprises’ products, and further exacerbated the overcapacity of Asian enterprises.

In short, the accumulative effects of the multiple factors in Asia and the world, led to a generally poor consumption environment in Asia. Overcapacity had become a common i l l f o r A s i a n e n t e r p r i s e s , h i n d e r i n g t h e improvement of Asian enterprises’ international competitiveness.

4.3 Trade Environment Worsens and Restrains Asian Enterprises’ International CompetitivenessSince the g lobal f inancia l c r i s i s , the t rade environment for Asian enterpr ises has kept worsening. As developed economies artificially lowered the exchange rates of their currencies, the emerging economies saw their currencies inevi tably appreciated, though they could respond with devaluation. This situation benefited the goods and service exports of developed e c o n o m i e s a n d i m p o r t s o f t h e e m e r g i n g economies, but hurt the exports of emerging economies, thus aggregated the overcapacity pressure for emerging economies, deteriorated Asian enterprises’ international and domestic trade environment, and restrained their international competitiveness. Therefore, a worsening trend of Asian enterprises’ trade environment will be obvious.

The export growth of emerging economies fe l l sharply in 2013, due to the developed economies’ currency devaluation and plans to double exports. Impacted by the global financial

cr isis, export growth of the BRICS countr ies experienced a round of sharp drop. As shown in Figure 4.5, the drop came to the period’s lowest in September 2012, after which, export growth of BRIC countries began to fluctuated but for an upward trend, and it began to rise starting from 2013, with marked growth rate variance. In September 2013, exports of Brazil, South Africa, Russia and India rose 4.99%, 17.33%, 3.32% and 11.15% year-on-year, respectively. Only China fell 0.25% year-on-year. However, in general, BRICS countries’ export growth did not recover to the level before the global financial crisis, but far below it.

In accordance with the flagging international trade growth, the international trade surplus of Asian economies continued with the declining trend. As shown in Figure 4.6, BRIC countries’ international trade surplus was hit hard by the global financial crisis in 2008, particularly for India and China. Two countries, who had deep-processing products as their primary exports, had seen their trade surplus declined rapidly after a period of increase. With energy as its primary export, Russia’s trade surplus fell sharply and then gradually stabilized. Trade surplus of Brazil, whose primary export products were minerals and agricultural products, was not seriously affected by the financial crisis, and the impact of which was close to none. Trade surplus of Russia, China and Brazil crawled upward starting from January 2012, while the through of India’s trade surplus occurred relatively late in time. Notably, the international trade surplus of BRIC economies had not recovered to the level before the financial crisis.

International trade environment for Asian enterprises deteriorated in general. BRICS countries stood out in emerging economies, superior to most Asian economies in terms of pressure bearing, export growth and international trade surplus. Therefore, from a general perspective, the international trade environment of of Asian enterprises deteriorated, bearing enormous pressure from the international market.


39

Figure 4.5 BRICS Countries’ Year-on-Year Export Growth TendencySource: Wind Info.

Figure 4.6 BRIC Countries’ Trade Surplus Development TendencySource: Wind Info.


40

4.4 Business Environment for Asian Enterprises Shows Signs of Improvement in 2014Comparing with the situation before and during the global f inancial cr isis, Asian enterprises’ business environment has not improved, showing a tendency of deterioration. However, as shown in Figure 4.1-4.6, business environment for the BRICS countries—leaders of the emerging economies—began to show signs of improvement in 2013, in terms of the finance, consumption, international trade environment. Though the development of most Asian economies were not as sound as that of the BRICS countries, the economic improvement of the latter, especially that of Asian leading economy, China, predicts a better business environment for Asian enterprises.

Firstly, though the US Federal Reserve signaled to exit the QE, and scaled back liquidity injection into the market, but that would not trigger a regional financial turmoil like the one in 1997, or a sudden change of the business environment for Asian enterprises. Asian economies are capable to deal with possible financial risks.

a) Asian economies have the experience to respond to a similar financial crisis, and have established the mechanisms for international cooperation. The Asian financial crisis of the 20th century provided Asian economies a wealth of experience to deal with a similar financial crisis of cross-border capital flows. With developed economies tapering off the quantitative easing, Asian economies in general are ready with countermeasures. Asian economies are equipped with sufficient defensive mentality and plans to deal with possible risks at present.

b) Asian economies have established a relatively complete international assistance mechanism to counter with financial crisis. After the Asian financial crisis, regional economies in Asia established a huge anti-risk fund pool under the Chiang Mai Initiative, which provided a solid capital base in response to the financial crisis. Meanwhile, a relatively complete joint-defense mechanism acts as a powerful “firewall” to prevent a similar crisis.

c) Relatively ample foreign reserves also make emerging economies strong and capable to deal with financial crisis. Many Asian economies have

accumulated relatively large foreign exchange assets through their export-oriented development strategy, which equip Asian economies with the capability to deal with financial crisis involving cross-border flows.

d) The developed economies’ mild exit of quantitative easing provided ample space for Asian economies to respond to possible financial crisis by relying on their own might. Each of the world economies has an interest of the hard-won global economic recovery that should be safeguarded by all. The developed economies’ gradual exit of quantitative easing also took the global economic recovery into account. For example, the US Federal Reserve cut its monthly purchase of Treasury bonds by USD10 billion firstly, and further tapering-off moves would depend on the situation of economic recovery. It scheduled to completely quit QE in mid-2015. As long as the jobless rate remains above 6.5%, and inflation expectations keep above 2.5% in the next one to two years, the Fed will maintain the ultra-low interest rate, which is close to zero, which determines that the exit of quantitative easing will wind up in a relatively long period of time. Therefore, Asian economies are faced with slow international capital reflows, rather than short-term and large-scale capital flows.

e) Improved monitoring of cross-border capital flows also provides a good support to Asian economies to deal with financial crisis involving cross-border capital flows. Through monitoring, Asian economies are able to percept the risks and act in advance.

Al l o f these mean that the developed economies’ exit of quantitative easing may trigger financial crisis involving cross-border capital flows to Asian economies. However, Asian economies have the capability to deal with such risks with existing conditions, and a sudden change of Asian enterprises’ business environment can be avoided.

Secondly, the Asian economies are able to solve the problem of international market expansion and replacement through connectivity, which points out the direction of international investment and trade, and provides space for sustainable development. From the perspective of market exploration, Asian economies are able to substitute the market share taken by developed economies by strengthening cooperation, tapping the markets of


41

emerging economies and their own as well, so as to explore enough markets for products made by Asian enterprises.

Standing the international financial crisis, Asian economies have begun to explore each other ’s markets through cooperation. Driven by the dual pressure of shrinking developed markets and domestic overcapacity, emerging economies began to explore the emerging markets during the global financial crisis, and established mechanisms of currency swap and free trade areas, which was conducive to mutual cooperation. These mechanisms helped emerging economies to minimize the negative effects of developed economies’ quantitative easing, ensured a smoother functioning of international trade and international finance, and promoted cooperation between economies.

At present, China proposes to establish the “Silk Road Economic Belt” and “Maritime Silk Road”, launches the policy to build up the free trade zone, which speeds up economic integration with Asian economies via land and sea, and accelerates the consolidation of Asian economies and associated economies through infrastructure connectivity. It also promotes the integration of Asia’s virtual economies, which will bring about the complete integration in Asia. These new moves are not only able to provide a vast investment market for enterprises, including Asian enterprises, but also will help to lower the operating costs and improve the operating environment for them. The emergence of these cooperation mechanisms and the market space created indicate a rapid expansion of the international market space for Asian enterprises.

Thirdly, Asian economies’ efforts to expand domestic demand open the era of Asian market’s expansion. After the breakout of the global financial crisis, Asian economies have generally adopted

countermeasures to boost domestic demand, due to the shrinking developed markets and overcapacity problems at home. Therefore, Asian economies’ domestic markets began to expand. As shown in Figure 4.7, after the global financial crisis in 2008, the per capita purchasing power of the BRICS countries and the US surged rapidly. China’s per capita purchasing power was only higher than that of India in the BRICS countries, according to a 2012 World Bank ranking based on per capita purchasing power parity, but its growth rate was as high as 9.81%, which is higher than the other BRICS countries and the US. Russia’s per capita income used to be 2.55 times higher than China, and that of US used to be 5.41 times higher than China. Therefore, China had become one of the fastest economies in terms of boosting its domestic demand thanks to its simulating policies. The rapid expansion of the emerging markets provided an increasingly broad market space for emerging economies to offset losses caused by the withering developed markets.

For these reasons, Asian economies are able to keep their heads above the water when they are encountered with the r isks, laying down the foundation for enterprises’ sustainable development . The coming of the era of an integrated Eurasia, and the expanding domestic markets of emerging economies, will offset the depressed market space caused by the delay of a massive new technology revolution, and offer new developing space for enterprises around the world through establishing new mechanisms to revive the existing markets and to cut transaction costs. It can be predicted that, the window period of the world development is approaching in 2014. Investing for the connectivity of Asia’s infrastructure wi l l fur ther opt imize the region’s bus iness environment for Asian enterprises, and usher in a new era for them to stride in development.


42

Figure 4.7 BRICS Countries’ and the US’ Per Capita Purchasing Power Development Tendency

Source: Wind Info.


43

5.1 Selected Listed Asian EnterprisesOur evaluation objects are the l isted Asian enterprises. Considering the close ties between Asian enterprises and enterprises from Australia and New Zealand, we also included listed Oceania enterprises to reflect the overall Asian economic state. We first selected 39 stock exchanges from Asia and two stock exchanges from Oceania (See

Table 5.1). From that, a total of 21,161 enterprises from all industries (excluding banking and insurance industries) were selected. As a final step, we singled out the enterprises with no or incomplete data and focused on the remaining 13,780 enterprises. From the 454 banking enterprises, we deleted enterprises with no or incomplete data and chose 359 target enterprises as final candidates for analysis. Similarly, 201 insurance enterprises are finalized for analysis among 268 initially selected enterprises.

Report on Competitiveness of Listed Asian Enterprises

Chapter 5

Table 5.1 41 Main Stock Exchanges in Asia and Oceania

Chinese Name of Asian Exchanges English Name of Asian Exchanges Economy

深圳证券交易所 Shenzhen Stock Exchange China, People’s Republic of

上海证券交易所 Shanghai Stock Exchange China, People’s Republic of

香港交易及结算所有限公司 Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd. China’s Hong Kong

雅加达证券交易所 Jakarta Stock Exchange Indonesia

孟买证券交易所 Bombay Stock Exchange India

印度国家证券交易所 National Stock Exchange of India India

大阪证券交易所 Osaka Securities Exchange Co. Ltd. Japan

JASDAQ证券交易所 JASDAQ Securities Exchange Japan

札幌证券交易所 Sapporo Stock Exchange Japan

东京证券交易所 Tokyo Stock Exchange Japan

名古屋证券交易所 Nagoya Stock Exchange Japan

韩国证券交易所 Korea Stock Exchange Korea, Republic of

韩国科斯达克市场 Korea Security Dealers Association Quotations Korea, Republic of


44

continued

Chinese Name of Asian Exchanges English Name of Asian Exchanges Economy

科伦坡证券交易所 Colombo Stock Exchange Sri Lanka

吉隆坡证券交易所 Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange Malaysia

菲律宾证券交易所 Philippine Stock Exchange The Philippines

新加坡证券交易所 Singapore Stock Exchange Singapore

泰国证券交易所 Stock Exchange of Thailand Thailand

台湾证券交易所 Taiwan Stock Exchange China’s Taiwan

台湾证券柜台买卖中心 Taiwan GreTai Security Market China’s Taiwan

越南证券交易所 Vietnam Stock Exchange Vietnam

安曼证券交易所 Amman Stock Exchange Jordan

科威特证券交易所 Kuwait Stock Exchange Kuwait

特拉维夫证券交易所 The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange Israel

亚美尼亚交易所 Nasdaq OMX Armenia Armenia

阿布扎比交易所 Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange United Arab Emirates

迪拜金融市场 Dubai Financial Market United Arab Emirates

纳斯达克迪拜 Nasdaq Dubai United Arab Emirates

伊拉克证券交易所 Iraq Stock Exchange Iraq

贝鲁特证券交易所 Beirut Stock Exchange Lebanon

卡塔尔证券交易所 Qatar Stock Exchange Qatar

巴勒斯坦证券交易所 Palestine Stock Exchange Palestine

马斯喀特证券交易所 Muscat Stock Exchange Oman

麦纳麦证券交易所 Manama Stock Exchange Bahrain

大马士革证券交易所 Damascus Securities Exchange Syria

沙特证券交易所 Saudi Arabia Stock Exchange Saudi Arabia

达卡证券交易所 Dhaka Stock Exchange Bangladesh

哈萨克斯坦证券交易所 Kazakhstan Stock Exchange Kazakhstan

吉尔吉斯斯坦证券交易所 Kyrgyzstan Stock Exchange Kyrgyzstan

澳大利亚证券交易所 Australian Stock Exchange Australia

新西兰证券交易所 New Zealand Stock Exchange Ltd. New Zealand


45

Based on the target enterprises’ data from 2012, we concluded the ranking of the listed Asian enterprises in 2013 using our evaluation mold and then we finish this annual report.

5.2 Evaluation Results and Related Analysis of Listed Asian EnterprisesIn general, there is no substantial change in terms of the overall competitiveness ranking. The top 10

enterprises in 2012 still hold the top 10 places in the ranking this year (See Table 5.2). Rankings of PETROCHINA CO. LTD. and BHP BILLITON LTD. remain unchanged, as they still rank the first and seventh in the ladder, respectively. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. made a significant achievement and advanced 4 notches in ranking, followed by NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. and HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD., both of which go up by 1 place. The rankings of selected top 300 listed Asian enterprises are provided in Chapter 6 of this report.

Table 5.2 Asia Listed Top 10 Enterprises of Enterprise’s Overall Competitiveness

Company Name 2013 Annual Ranking 2012 Annual Ranking Change in Ranking

PETROCHINA CO. LTD. 1 1 0

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. 2 6 +4

TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. 3 2 -1

CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORP.

4 3 -1

NIPPON TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CORP.

5 4 -1

CHINA MOBILE LTD. 6 5 -1

BHP BILLITON LTD. 7 7 0

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. 8 9 +1

HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. 9 10 +1

MITSUBISHI CORP. 10 8 -2

Judging from the top 10 enterprises’ sub-item capacities, they continued previous characteristics in the last few years: A relatively high basic capacity and profitability, and a relatively weak development capacity and anti-risk capacity. The four sub-item capacities are the basic capacity, profitability, anti-risk capacity, and development capacity (See Figure 5.1). The top 10 enterprises’ overall competitiveness is determined by their basic capacity, with that of the top six and the last four in this group varying significantly, but their profitability, anti-

risk capacity and development capacity are very close. Judging from a specific enterprise’s radar map (Take PETROCHINA CO. LTD. as an example), each of their radar maps is cone-shaped (See Figure 5.2). It reflects a common characteristic of large Asian enterprises: they have a heavy burden in general, and many assets cannot be converted into profit resources; they are weak in terms of anti-risk capacity, due largely to their high asset-liability ratio, poor liquidity, and a long asset turnover period.


46

Figure 5.1 Spider Map of the Competitiveness of Asia’s Top 10 Listed Enterprises

Figure 5.2 Radar Map of the Competitiveness of PETROCHINA CO. LTD.

5.3 Results and Analysis of Sub-Item Evaluation of Listed Asian Enterprises’ CompetitivenessTo fully understand the details of Listed Asian enterprises’ competitiveness and better serve enterprises’ development, we evaluated Asian enterprises’ competitiveness by different ranking

factors: four capacity indicators, regional distribution and industry of those enterprises and concluded each sub-item evaluation list. We then concluded each sub-item evaluation list.

5.3.1 Ranking on Listed Enterprises’ Four Capacity Indicators

I n order to fur ther re f lec t the enterpr i ses’ competitiveness on the four indicators, we ranked


47

the listed enterprises according to their basic capacity, development capacity, profitability and anti-risk capacity. Please refer to Chapter 6 of this report for detailed rankings of the top 50 in each ranking.

5.3.2 Ranking on Listed Enterprises’ Location in Asia’s Sub-Regions

To help enterprises more clearly understand their competitive differences in respective regions in Asia and make improvement in a proper manner, we ranked the enterprises from the following 6 sub-regions, which are China, China’s Hong Kong, and China’s Taiwan, China-Japan-Korea, ASEAN, Central and West Asia, South and Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand.

The first region includes China, China’s Hong Kong, and China’s Taiwan. China-Japan-Korea contains China, Japan and Korea. The ASEAN consists of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Central and West Asia includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Cyprus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Egypt’s Asian territory. South and Southeast Asia includes Nepal, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and Timor-Leste. The last region includes Australia and New Zealand.

Based on the aggregated data of six sub-regional enterprises and competitiveness model, we ranked the enterprises in six sub-regions of Asia. The

detailed ranking of top 50 is available in Chapter 6.

5.3.3 Ranking on Enterprises’ Industries

To help Asian enterprises get a better knowledge of their comparative differences in respective industries and make them enhance their competitiveness in a proper manner, we ranked the top 10 enterprises in Asia by 22 industries, based on the industrial classification system provided by Inxite Information Industry Co. Ltd. These industries include public utility, transportation, telecommunication services, technology hardware and equipment, software and services, semiconductor and semiconductor equipment, retailing, real estate, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and life science, media, materials, household and personal products, health care equipment and services, food, beverage and tobacco, staples retailing, energy, diversified financials, consumer services, consumer durables, apparel and clothing, commercial and professional services, capital goods, automobiles and components industries. The detailed rankings of listed enterprises in each specific industry are available in Chapter 6.

5.4 Evaluation of Asian Listed Banking and Insurance EnterprisesStarting from 2012, we had two additional rankings on the competitiveness of listed Asian banking enterprises and listed Asian insurance enterprises. The detailed rankings of the top 10 in the two sectors are available in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4, respectively.

Table 5.3 Ranking of Asian Listed Banks’ Overall Competitiveness

Company Name Economy Ranking

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 1

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP. China, People’s Republic of 2

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 3

BANK OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 4

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC. Japan 5

TAIWAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. China’s Taiwan 6

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANK PLC Sri Lanka 7

SUMIMOTO MITSUI TRUST HOLDINGS INC. Japan 8

SUMIMOTO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC. Japan 9

AL SALAM BANK (BSC) Bahrain 10


48

Table 5.4 Ranking of Asian Listed Insurance Enterprises’ Overall Competitiveness


CHINA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 1

SUNCORP GROUP LTD. Australia 2

PEOPLE’S INSURANCE COMPANY (GROUP) OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 3

DAI-ICHI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Japan 4

AIA GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

CATHAY FINANCIAL HOLDING CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 6

DREAM INCUBATOR INC. Japan 7

PICC PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 8

ADVANCE CREATE CO. LTD. Japan 9

PRIME ISLAMI LIFE INSURANCE LTD. Bangladesh 10

Judging from the above two rankings, Chinese enterprises accounted for a large proportion in both the banking and insurance industries. Chinese enterprises domain the top three Asian listed banks, namely, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD., CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP., and AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA LTD. The top three insurance enterprises are CHINA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNCORP GROUP LTD., and PEOPLE’S INSURANCE COMPANY (GROUP) OF CHINA LTD.

We can see that listed enterprises in both the banking and insurance industries vary significantly from general listed enterprises in terms of the four sub-item indicators (See Figure 5.3-5.4). Development capacity and profitability weighs

more in their competitiveness instead of the basic capacity. Among the top 10 listed banks, basic capacity plays a decisive role in determining the overall competitiveness of the first five banks, while the cases of the latter five in the group are diverse, with some outperforming in profitability and others standing out in development capacity. On average, basic capacity accounts for the most, followed by profitability, anti-risk capacity and development capacity. As for the top 10 l isted insurance companies, basic capacity is no longer the decisive factor for the competitiveness, and there are huge differences among all the four capacities. However, basic capacity weighs more on average, and there is no obvious difference in terms of the contribution of the rest three factors.

Figure 5.3 Spider Map of the Competitiveness of Asia’s Top 10 Listed Banks


49

Figure 5.4 Spider Map of the Competitiveness of Asia’s Top 10 Listed Insurance Enterprises


50


51

6.1 2013 Rankings by Comprehensive Capacity: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness (300)

Table 6.1 2013 Rankings by Comprehensive Capacity: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness

Company Name Economy Industry Ranking

PETROCHINA CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 1

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. Korea, Republic ofSemiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment

2

TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. Japan Automobiles & Components 3


China, People’s Republic of Energy 4


Japan Telecommunication Services 5

CHINA MOBILE LTD. China’s Hong Kong Telecommunication Services 6

BHP BILLITON LTD. Australia Materials 7

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. Japan Automobiles & Components 8

HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. Japan Automobiles & Components 9

MITSUBISHI CORP. Japan Capital Goods 10

HITACHI LTD. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 11

HYUNDAI MOTOR CO. Korea, Republic of Automobiles & Components 12

JX HOLDINGS, INC. Japan Energy 13

HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO. LTD.

China’s Taiwan Technology Hardware & Equipment 14

NTT DOCOMO INC. Japan Telecommunication Services 15

MITSUI & CO. LTD. Japan Capital Goods 16

SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. Saudi Arabia Materials 17

Competitiveness of Listed Asian Enterprises—2013 Rankings

Chapter 6


52

continued


CNOOC LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 18

SK HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Capital Goods 19

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORP. LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Capital Goods 20

CHINA SHENHUA ENERGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 21

HUTCHISON WHAMPOA LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 22

SONY CORP. JapanConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

23

KOREA ELECTRIC POWER CORP. Korea, Republic of Public Utilities 24

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. India Energy 25

PTT PCL Thailand Energy 26

SAIC MOTOR CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Automobiles & Components 27

CHINA TELECOM CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Telecommunication Services 28

POSCO Korea, Republic of Materials 29

CHINA RAILWAY GROUP LTD. China, People’s Republic of Capital Goods 30

CHINA TRENDS HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Technology Hardware & Equipment 31

ITOCHU CORP. Japan Capital Goods 32

CHENGDE NANJIA CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic ofConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

33

TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Japan Public Utilities 34

ISRAEL CANADA TR LTD. Israel Real Estate 35

SERVE KIRTASİYE SANAYİ VE TİCARET A.Ş

Turkey Commercial & Professional Services 36

SUMITOMO CORP. Japan Capital Goods 37

CHINA RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD.


TOSHIBA CORP. Japan Capital Goods 39

JARDINE MATHESON HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 40

KAISUN ENERGY GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong Energy 41

FJ PRINCE HOLDINGS CORP. The Philippines Real Estate 42

CHINA UNICOM (HONG KONG) LTD. China’s Hong Kong Telecommunication Services 43

TECNOS JAPAN INC. Japan Software & Services 44

CHINA UNITED NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Telecommunication Services 45

POLISAN HOLDING AS Turkey Materials 46

JARDINE STRATEGIC HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 47

WESFARMERS LTD. Australia Food & Staples Retailing 48

INDIAN OIL CORP. India Energy 49


53

continued


AVRASYA GAYRIMENKUL YAT. ORT. AS Turkey Diversified Financials 50

ZHIDAO INT’L (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong Materials 51

JASPER INVESTMENT LTD. Singapore Energy 52

EAST JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan Transportation 53

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. India Energy 54

SOFTBANK CORP. Japan Telecommunication Services 55

NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORP.

Japan Materials 56

RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LTD.

New Zealand Consumer Services 57

KDDI CORP. Japan Telecommunication Services 58

XIAMEN HEXING PACKAGING PRINTING CO. LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Materials 59

HYCOMM WIRELES LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 60

CHINA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong Software & Services 61

MARUBENI CORP. Japan Capital Goods 62

CANON INC. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 63

CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.


NOBLE GROUP LTD China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 65

SEVEN & I HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan Food & Staples Retailing 66

AEON CO. LTD. Japan Food & Staples Retailing 67

CHEUNG KONG (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 68

TOYOTA TSUSHO CORP. Japan Capital Goods 69

WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 70

CI HOLDINGS BHD Malaysia Food Beverage & Tobacco 71

SK INNOVATION CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Energy 72

EISO ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan Technology Hardware & Equipment 73

LOUIS XIII HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 74

WHEELOCK & CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 75

LEE HEDGES PLC Sri Lanka Real Estate 76

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

China’s TaiwanSemiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment

77

TAT INDUSTRIES LTD. Israel Capital Goods 78

FIRST NATURAL FOODS HOLDINGS LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Food Beverage & Tobacco 79

KIA MOTORS CORP. Korea, Republic of Automobiles & Components 80


54

continued


WOOLWORTHS LTD. Australia Food & Staples Retailing 81

HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Capital Goods 82

DENSO CORP. Japan Automobiles & Components 83

VUNG ANG PETROLEUM JOINT STOCK CO.

Vietnam Energy 84

JAPAN TOBACCO INC. Japan Food Beverage & Tobacco 85

CENTRAL JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan Transportation 86

WILMAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. Singapore Food Beverage & Tobacco 87

GALAXY RESOURCES LTD. Australia Materials 88

BOROVA YAPI ENDUSTRISI AS Turkey Capital Goods 89

CHOICE INFRA VENTURES LTD. India Capital Goods 90

MITSUB ELECTRIC CORP. Japan Capital Goods 91

WEIYE HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of Real Estate 92

CHINA RAILSMEDIA CORP. LTD. China’s Hong Kong Media 93

DDH CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan Media 94

HACI OMER SABANCI HOLDINGS AS Turkey Diversified Financials 95

NIRVANA DEVELOPMENT TBK PT Indonesia Real Estate 96

BRIDGESTONE CORP. Japan Automobiles & Components 97

FUJITSU LTD. Japan Software & Services 98

TELSTRA CORP. LTD. Australia Telecommunication Services 99

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

IsraelPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

100

LONGMASTER INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Software & Services 101

ONESOURCE TECHMEDIA LTD. India Media 102

TIME WATCH INVESTMENT LTD. China’s Hong KongConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

103

IDEMITSU KOSAN CO. LTD. Japan Energy 104

ADINATH BIO-LABS LTD. India Materials 105

AMANI TRADING AND EXPORTS LTD. India Capital Goods 106

STARHUB LTD. Singapore Telecommunication Services 107

SWIRE PACIFIC LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 108

BORUSAN YATIRIM VE PAZARLAMA AS Turkey Diversified Financials 109

INPEX CORP. Japan Energy 110

HYUNDAI MOBIS CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Automobiles & Components 111

KOC HOLDINGS AS Turkey Capital Goods 112

TATA MOTORS LTD. India Automobiles & Components 113


55

continued


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. JapanPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

114

MACKWOODS ENERGY PLC Sri Lanka Capital Goods 115

MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. Japan Capital Goods 116

BAOSHAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Materials 117

MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL HOLDINGS CORP.

Japan Materials 118

CHINA VANKE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Real Estate 119

ARTEL SOLUTIONS GROUP HOLDINGS LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Technology Hardware & Equipment 120

T. SPIRITUAL WORLD LTD. India Retailing 121

SINGAPORE TELECOM LTD. Singapore Telecommunication Services 122

SULABH ENGINEERS & SERVICES LTD. India Diversified Financials 123

SONG LIAO AUTOMOTIVE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Automobiles & Components 124

SAUDI ELECTRICITY CO. Saudi Arabia Public Utilities 125

FUJIFILM HOLDING CORP. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 126

BIRI BARASHI LAND WORKS, DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE & ROADS LTD.

Israel Real Estate 127

KOREA GAS CORP. Korea, Republic of Public Utilities 128

PASARI SPINNING MILLS LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

129

MITSUBISHI ESTAT Japan Real Estate 130

KIRIN HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan Food Beverage & Tobacco 131

KOMATSU LTD. Japan Capital Goods 132

ADVANCE LIFESTYLES LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

133

CATCHA MEDIA BHD Malaysia Software & Services 134

KT CORP. Korea, Republic of Telecommunication Services 135

LOTTE SHOPPING CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Retailing 136

MITSUI FUDOSAN CO. LTD. Japan Real Estate 137

HUANENG POWER INTERNATIONAL INC.

China, People’s Republic of Public Utilities 138

SAUDI TELECOM CO. Saudi Arabia Telecommunication Services 139

RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LTD. India Automobiles & Components 140

CHINA COMMUNICATION TELECOM SERVICES CO. LTD.

China’s Taiwan Software & Services 141

NTPC LTD. India Public Utilities 142

SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. Japan Automobiles & Components 143

IMAGICA ROBOT HOLDINGS INC. Japan Software & Services 144


56

continued


HENDERSON LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 145

TATA STEEL LTD. India Materials 146

CHINA NEW ENERGY POWER GROUP LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Diversified Financials 147

CHINA COAL ENERGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 148

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. India Energy 149

AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD. India Capital Goods 150

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM LTD. Australia Energy 151

PACIFIC EDGE LTD. New ZealandPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

152

TOYOTA INDUSTRIES CORP. Japan Automobiles & Components 153

LUEN THAI HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong KongConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

154

AISIN SEIKI CO. LTD. Japan Automobiles & Components 155

NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 156

SMARTLINK NETWORK SYSTEMS LTD. India Technology Hardware & Equipment 157

INGENIC SEMICONDUCTOR CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic ofSemiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment

158

PT ASTRA INTERNATIONAL TBK Indonesia Automobiles & Components 159

PETROLIMEX HATAY TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICE JSC

Vietnam Energy 160

SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES LTD.

Japan Capital Goods 161

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. India Telecommunication Services 162

SKY ONE HOLDINGS LTD. Singapore Transportation 163

NITTOKU ENGINEERING CO. LTD. Japan Capital Goods 164

AL SHAMEKHA REAL ESTATE AND FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS CO.

Jordan Real Estate 165

DATANG INTERNATIONAL POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.


ORIGIN ENERGY LTD. Australia Energy 167

HONGKONG LAND CO. LTD. HOLDINGS LTD.


JINDAL PHOTO LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

169

PTG ENERGY PCL Thailand Retailing 170

AEON METALS LTD. Australia Materials 171

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. India Energy 172

COAL INDIA LTD. India Energy 173


57

continued


WEST JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan Transportation 174

CHINA OVERSEAS LAND & INVESTMENT LTD.


POLY REAL ESTATE GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Real Estate 176

TONENGENERAL SEKIYU K.K. Japan Energy 177

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 178

GEOSTR CORP. Japan Materials 179

SUMITOMO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Japan Real Estate 180

JARDINE CYCLE & CARRIAGE LTD. Singapore Retailing 181

TOKYO GAS CO. LTD. Japan Public Utilities 182

QUANTA COMPUTER INC. China’s Taiwan Technology Hardware & Equipment 183

NEC CORP. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 184

DONGFENG MOTOR GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Automobiles & Components 185

KYOCERA CORP. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 186

TENAGA NASIONAL BHD Malaysia Public Utilities 187

CHUGOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Japan Public Utilities 188

SAMSUNG C&T CORP. Korea, Republic of Capital Goods 189

CITIC PACIFIC LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 190

CLP HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Public Utilities 191

ALCYONE RESOURCES LTD. Australia Materials 192

LG CHEM LTD. Korea, Republic of Materials 193

ORIENTAL PETROLEUM AND MINERALS CORP.

The Philippines Energy 194

SHIN-ETSU CHEM CO. LTD. Japan Materials 195

SUMITOMO CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Japan Materials 196

FORMOSA PETROCHEMICAL CORP. China’s Taiwan Energy 197

SHIJIAZHUANG BAOSHI ELECTRONIC GLASS CO. LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Technology Hardware & Equipment 198

SK TELECOM CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Telecommunication Services 199

KEPPEL CORP. LTD. Singapore Capital Goods 200

INGENUITY CONSOLIDATED BHD Malaysia Software & Services 201

PAXYS INC. The Philippines Commercial & Professional Services 202

AIR CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of Transportation 203

EVERGRANDE REAL ESTATE GROUP LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Real Estate 204

SAN MIGUEL CORP. The Philippines Capital Goods 205


58

continued


MTR CORP. LTD. China’s Hong Kong Transportation 206

BC IRON LTD. Australia Materials 207

GD POWER DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Public Utilities 208

PEGATRON CORP. China’s Taiwan Technology Hardware & Equipment 209

DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO. LTD. Japan Real Estate 210

MY NET FONE LTD. Australia Telecommunication Services 211

PTT GLOBAL CHEMICAL PCL Thailand Materials 212

KEPPEL PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS INC. The Philippines Real Estate 213

OTSUKA HOLDINGS CO. LTD. JapanPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

214

KEPPEL PHILIPPINES PROPERTIES INC. The Philippines Real Estate 215

S-OIL CORP. Korea, Republic of Energy 216

ELEKTROIZOLITI Georgia Materials 217

ASAHI GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. Japan Food Beverage & Tobacco 218

PANTALOONS FASHION & RETAIL LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

219

TURKISH PETROLEUM REFINERIES CO. Turkey Energy 220

FLC GROUP JSC Vietnam Real Estate 221

PTT EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION PCL

Thailand Energy 222

GEMINI SEA FOOD LTD. Bangladesh Food Beverage & Tobacco 223

MASHAER HOLDINGS CO. Kuwait Real Estate 224

TONG HUA COMMUNICATIONS PCLUNICATIONS PCL

Thailand Media 225

JIANGXI COPPER CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Materials 226

ORIENTAL UNICORN AGRICULTURAL GROUP LTD.

China’s Hong KongPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

227

EMIRATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP.

United Arab Emirates Telecommunication Services 228

TOHOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Japan Public Utilities 229

MONO TECHNOLOGY PCL Thailand Software & Services 230

GENTING BHD Malaysia Consumer Services 231

YAMADA DENKI CO. LTD. Japan Retailing 232

TORAY INDUSTRIES INC. Japan Materials 233

CAPITALAND LTD. Singapore Real Estate 234

MARVELOUS AQL INC. Japan Software & Services 235

SINOHYDRO GROUP LTD. China, People’s Republic of Capital Goods 236

ANA HOLDINGS INC. Japan Transportation 237


59

continued


CHINA YANGTZE POWER CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Public Utilities 238

MEDIPAL HOLDINGS CORP. Japan Health Care Equipment & Services 239

HANG LUNG PROPERTIES LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 240

ASAHI GLASS CO. LTD. Japan Capital Goods 241

INDUSTRIES QATAR QSC Qatar Capital Goods 242

NIPPON PRIMEX INC. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 243

UMANG DAIRIES LTD. India Food Beverage & Tobacco 244

HINDALCO INDSTRIES LTD. India Materials 245

EDYNAMICS SOLUTIONS LTD. India Retailing 246

E-MART CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Food & Staples Retailing 247

LENOVO GROUP LTD. China, People’s Republic of Technology Hardware & Equipment 248

NEWCREST MINING LTD. Australia Materials 249

FORTESCUE METALS GROUP LTD. Australia Materials 250

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. India Software & Services 251

HANG LUNG GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 252

OSAKA GAS CO. LTD. Japan Public Utilities 253

HYUNDAI STEEL CO. Korea, Republic of Materials 254

SIME DARBY BHD Malaysia Capital Goods 255

SNP GENETICS INC. Korea, Republic ofPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

256

SHOWA SHELL SEKIYU K. K. Japan Energy 257

CHINA RESOURCES LAND LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 258

SUNGEI BAGAN RUBBER COMPANY (MALAYA) BHD

Malaysia Food Beverage & Tobacco 259

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. India Capital Goods 260

DELEK GROUP LTD. Israel Energy 261

TOKYU CORP. Japan Transportation 262

DAQIN RAILWAY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Transportation 263

OOREDOO QSC Qatar Telecommunication Services 264

FANUC CORP. Japan Capital Goods 265

CSPC PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP LTD. China’s Hong KongPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

266

INTRA ENERGY CORP. LTD. Australia Energy 267

SRK INDUSTRIES LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

268

ABC MULTIACTIVE LTD. China’s Hong Kong Software & Services 269

ASAHI KASEI CORP. Japan Materials 270


60

continued


BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO MALAYSIA INDUSTRIES BHD


SEKISUI HOUSE LTD. JapanConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

272

ISUZU MOTORS LTD. Japan Automobiles & Components 273

GREE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES INC. OF ZHUHAI

China, People’s Republic ofConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

274

DAIHATSU MOTOR CO. LTD. Japan Automobiles & Components 275

UNIONMET (SINGAPORE) LTD. Singapore Materials 276

CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Transportation 277

CJ CORP. Korea, Republic of Capital Goods 278

TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of Software & Services 279

HENDERSON INVESTMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 280

MK RESTAURANTS GROUP PCL Thailand Consumer Services 281

PERIA KARAMALAI TEA & PRODUCE CO. LTD.

India Food Beverage & Tobacco 282

ISETAN MITSUKOSHI HOLDINGS LTD. Japan Retailing 283

ALLIED OVERSEAS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Health Care Equipment & Services 284

DENTSU INC. Japan Media 285

KMC (KUEI MENG) INTERNATIONAL INC.


CHAROEN POKPHAND FOODS PCL Thailand Food Beverage & Tobacco 287

JIBANNET CO. LTD. Japan Commercial & Professional Services 288

CHINA CITY RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CO. LTD.


TOPPAN PRINTING CO. LTD. Japan Commercial & Professional Services 290

SINO GEOPHYSICAL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 291

SHIPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD. India Materials 292

OURPALM CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Software & Services 293

NIPPON EXPRESS CO. LTD. Japan Transportation 294

ASTELLAS PHARMA INC. JapanPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

295

ASIAN CITRUS HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Food Beverage & Tobacco 296

CHINA RESOURCES POWER HOLDINGS CO. LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Public Utilities 297

TRIPLC BHD Malaysia Real Estate 298

HANKYU HANSHIN HOLDINGS INC. Japan Transportation 299

HEBEI IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Materials 300


61

6.2 2013 Rankings by Categories: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness (4×50)

Table 6.2 Basic Capacity Ranking




2

TOYOTA MOTOR Japan Automobiles & Components 3





















20

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.










62

continued






CHINA RAILWAY CONSTRUC TION CORP. LTD.









INDIAN OIL CORP India Energy 40



Japan Materials 42










Table 6.3 Development Capacity Ranking


CHENGDE NANJIANG CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic ofConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

1








63

continued






EISO ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 11







17


PAN ASIA MINING LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 19




IMAGICA ROBOT HOLDINGS INC. Japan Software & Services 23


NITTOKU ENGINEERING CO. LTD. Japan Capital Goods 25

JINDAL PHOTO LTD IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

26


KBL MINING LTD. Australia Materials 28

GREAT WORLD COMPANY HOLDINGS LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Materials 29


EDYNAMICS SOLUTIONS LTD. India Retailing 31

NIPPON PRIMEX INC. Japan Technology Hardware & Equipment 32



SRK INDUSTRIES LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

35

SHIJIAZHUANG BAOSHI ELECTRONIC GLASS CO. LTD.

China, People’s Republic of Technology Hardware & Equipment 36




64

continued


XISHUI STRONG YEAR CO. LTD. INNER MONGOLIA


GEOSTR CORP. Japan Materials 39

JINCHUAN GROUP INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES CO. LTD.

China’s Hong Kong Household & Personal Products 40

KANGAROO RESOURCES LTD. Australia Materials 41

PHARMANET GROUP LTD. AustraliaPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

42

BIO LIGHT ISRAELI LIFE SCIENCES INVESTMENTS LTD.


43



CHINA KEJIAN CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Technology Hardware & Equipment 45


UNIONMET (SINGAPORE) LTD. Singapore Materials 47

THE MEDIA SHOPPE BHD Malaysia Software & Services 48


ALEXIUM INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD.

Australia Materials 50

Table 6.4 Profitability Ranking








5



ORIENTAL UNICORN AGRICULTURAL GROUP LTD.

China’s Hong KongPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

8



SICHUAN GOLDEN SUMMIT (GROUP) CO. LTD.


CEYLON TOBACCO CO. PLC Sri Lanka Food Beverage & Tobacco 12


65


PERIA KARAMALAI TEA & PRODUCE CO. LTD.

India Food Beverage & Tobacco 13

UMANG DAIRIES LTD. India Food Beverage & Tobacco 14

TRAIDING HOUSE Georgia Commercial & Professional Services 15



ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES CHINA INC. China’s Taiwan Technology Hardware & Equipment 17

COCHIN MINERALS & RUTILE LTD. India Materials 18

PLA CO. LTD. Korea, Republic ofSemiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment

19

JB CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

IndiaPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

20


21

ABR HOLDINGS LTD. Singapore Food Beverage & Tobacco 22

E-CHANNELLING LTD. Sri Lanka Health Care Equipment & Services 23

MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

24




JINCHENG PAPER CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Materials 27



SMN POWER HOLDING CO. Oman Public Utilities 29


HIRONIC CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Household & Personal Products 31

KAZAKHTELECOM JSC Kazakhstan Telecommunication Services 32


UNILEVER INDONESIA TBK Indonesia Household & Personal Products 34

PT WICAKSANA OVERSEAS INTERNATIONAL TBK

Indonesia Retailing 35

HA GIANG MINERAL MECHANICS JSC Vietnam Materials 36

FORGAME HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of Software & Services 37

UNILEVER PAKISTAN FOODS LTD. Pakistan Food Beverage & Tobacco 38

KILITCH DRUGS (INDIA) LTD. IndiaPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

39

KOZA ALTIN ISLETMELERI ASMELERI AS

Turkey Materials 40

continued


66


PT HM SAMPOERNA TBK Indonesia Food Beverage & Tobacco 41

CARSALES.COM LTD. Australia Software & Services 42

BEC WORLD PCL Thailand Media 43

ASMO CORP. Japan Food & Staples Retailing 44

SILVERLAKE AXIS LTD. Malaysia Software & Services 45

GREE INC. Japan Software & Services 46

KANORIA CHEMICAL & INDUSTRIES LTD.

India Materials 47

SRIRACHA CONSTRUCTION PCL Thailand Capital Goods 48

CARCHS HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan Retailing 49

CHEVRON LUBRICANTS CO. LTD. Sri Lanka Energy 50

Table 6.5 Anti-Risk Capacity Ranking




CELL AQUACULTURE LTD. Australia Capital Goods 3




FIRST MOBILE GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Technology Hardware & Equipment 7

REDHILL BIOPHARMA LTD. IsraelPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

8









Vietnam Energy 14


15




continued


67


KARCE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO. LTD.





22






25

SING PAO MEDIA ENTERPRISES LTD. China’s Hong Kong Media 26







Vietnam Energy 30


31

ABC MULTIACTIVE LTD. China’s Hong Kong Software & Services 32






HENDERSON INVESTMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 36

SNP GENETICS INC. Korea, Republic ofPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

37




40

GREENSTONE LTD. Israel Commercial & Professional Services 41

ALLIED OVERSEAS LTD. China’s Hong Kong Health Care Equipment & Services 42

AL FIRDOUS HOLDING PJSC United Arab Emirates Consumer Services 43

SINO GEOPHYSICAL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 44

continued


68


SUNITEE CHEMICALS LTD. India Capital Goods 45

SHANGHAI ANOKY TEXTILE CHEM CO. LTD.


HANOI FUEL AND PETROL JSC Vietnam Energy 47

KP CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Materials 48


Thailand Media 49

PETROLIMEX HANOI TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICE JSC

Vietnam Energy 50

6.3 2013 Rankings by Regions: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness (6×50)

Table 6.6 China, China’s Taiwan and China’s Hong Kong: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness


















13






continued


69












NOBLE GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong Capital Goods 25

CHEUNG KONG (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 26

WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 27

EISO ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan Technology Hardware & Equipment 28


WHEELOCK & CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 30

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

China’s TaiwanSemiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment

31









37

SWIRE PACIFIC LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 38

BAOSHAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Materials 39

CHINA VANKE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Real Estate 40




HUANENG POWER INTERNATIONAL INC.




continued


70


HENDERSON LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.




CHINA COAL ENERGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of Energy 47


48

NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong Real Estate 49


50

Table 6.7 China-Japan-Korea: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness




2

TOYOTA MOTOR Japan Automobiles & Components 3



















18



continued


71







25












Japan Materials 34









AEON CO. LTD. Japan Food & Staples Retailing 41

TOYOTA TSUSHO CORP. Japan Capital Goods 42

SK INNOVATION CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Energy 43

KIA MOTORS CORP. Korea, Republic of Automobiles & Components 44

HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of Capital Goods 45

DENSO CORP. Japan Automobiles & Components 46

JAPAN TOBACCO INC. Japan Food Beverage & Tobacco 47

CENTRAL JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan Transportation 48

MITSUB ELECTRIC CORP. Japan Capital Goods 49


continued


72

Table 6.8 ASEAN: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness







Vietnam Energy 5








Vietnam Energy 12















PTT EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION PCL

Thailand Energy 26


Thailand Media 27


GENTING BHD Malaysia Consumer Services 29

CAPITALAND LTD. Singapore Real Estate 30


73


SIME DARBY BHD Malaysia Capital Goods 31






CHAROEN POKPHAND FOODS PCL Thailand Food Beverage & Tobacco 35


POLARIS LTD. Singapore Telecommunication Services 37

THAI BEVERAGE PCL Thailand Food Beverage & Tobacco 38

PT HM SAMPOERNA TBK Indonesia Food Beverage & Tobacco 39

SIAM CEMENT PCL Thailand Materials 40

PETROLIMEX HANOI TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICE JSC

Vietnam Energy 41

PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA TBK Indonesia Telecommunication Services 42

PT TANAH LAUT TBK Indonesia Transportation 43

ADVANCED INFO SERVICE PLC Thailand Telecommunication Services 44

HANOI FUEL AND PETROL JSC Vietnam Energy 45

UNILEVER INDONESIA TBK Indonesia Household & Personal Products 46

CHINA AVIATION OIL (SINGAPORE) CORP. LTD.

Singapore Energy 47

YTL LAND & DEVELOPMENT BHD Malaysia Real Estate 48

GARDA TUJUH BUANA TBK PT Indonesia Energy 49

SUSCO PCL Thailand Energy 50

Table 6.9 South and Southeast Asia: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness





INDIAN OIL CORP. India Energy 4





continued


74



Vietnam Energy 9








TATA MOTORS LTD. India Automobiles & Components 17






22


23



NTPC LTD. India Public Utilities 26

TATA STEEL LTD. India Materials 27

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. India Energy 28





Vietnam Energy 32

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. India Telecommunication Services 33


JINDAL PHOTO LTD. IndiaConsumer Durables, Apparel & Clothing

35


HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. India Energy 37

COAL INDIA LTD. India Energy 38



continued


75












49


Table 6.10 Central and West Asia: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness










HACI OMER SABANCI HOLDINGS AS Turkey Diversified Financials 8

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.


9


KOC HOLDINGS AS Turkey Capital Goods 11

SAUDI ELECTRICITY CO. Saudi Arabia Public Utilities 12



SAUDI TELECOM CO. Saudi Arabia Telecommunication Services 14



ELEKTROIZOLITI Georgia Materials 16

TURKISH PETROLEUM REFINERIES CO. Turkey Energy 17


continued


76


INDUSTRIES QATAR QSC Qatar Capital Goods 19

DELEK GROUP LTD. Israel Energy 20

OOREDOO QSC Qatar Telecommunication Services 21

IS YATIRIM MENKUL DEGERLER AS Turkey Diversified Financials 22

TRAIDING HOUSE Georgia Commercial & Professional Services 23

TURKISH AIRLINES INC. Turkey Transportation 24

TURK TELEKOMUNIKASYON AS Turkey Telecommunication Services 25

GREENSTONE LTD. Israel Commercial & Professional Services 26

ETIHAD EMIRATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP.

Saudi Arabia Telecommunication Services 27

SMN POWER HOLDING CO. Oman Public Utilities 28

RABIGH REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL CO.

Saudi Arabia Energy 29

NATIONAL GAS CO. SAOG Oman Energy 30

KOZA ALTIN ISLETMELERI AS Turkey Materials 31

DOGUS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT CO.

Turkey Real Estate 32

ISRAEL CHEMICALS LTD. Israel Materials 33

TURKCELL ILETISIM HIZMETLERI AS Turkey Telecommunication Services 34

SAUDI ARABIAN MINING CO. Saudi Arabia Materials 35

BIO LIGHT ISRAELI LIFE SCIENCES INVESTMENTS LTD.


36

SAUDI ARABIAN FE Saudi Arabia Materials 37

BIM BIRLESIK MAGAZALAR AS Turkey Food & Staples Retailing 38

SAUDI NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER

Saudi Arabia Capital Goods 39

NADLANS LTD. Israel Real Estate 40

FINANS FIN KIRALA CO. Turkey Diversified Financials 41

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. Kuwait Telecommunication Services 42

SAUDI KAYAN PETROCHEMICAL CO. Saudi Arabia Materials 43

ECZACIBASI YATIRIM HOLDING ORTAKLIGI AS

Turkey Capital Goods 44

CITY CEMENT CO. Saudi Arabia Materials 45

UBAR HOTELS & RESORTS SAOG Oman Consumer Services 46

THE SAVOLA GROUP Saudi Arabia Food Beverage & Tobacco 47

continued


77


ANADOLU EFES BIRACILIK VE MALT SAN AS

Turkey Food, Beverage & Tobacco 48

KOZA ANADOLU METAL MADENCILIK ISLETMELERI AS

Turkey Materials 49

ENKA CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRY CO. INC.

Turkey Capital Goods 50

Table 6.11 Australia and New Zealand: Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness






WOOLWORTHS LTD. Australia Food & Staples Retailing 4


TELSTRA CORP. Australia Telecommunication Services 6

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM LTD. Australia Energy 7


8

ORIGIN ENERGY LTD. Australia Energy 9





NEWCREST MINING LTD. Australia Materials 14

FORTESCUE METALS GROUP LTD. Australia Materials 15


FONTERRA SHAREHOLDERS’ FUND New Zealand Diversified Financials 17

SEALINK TRAVEL GROUP LTD. Australia Consumer Services 18

CIVMEC LTD. Australia Capital Goods 19

SILVER CHEF LTD. Australia Capital Goods 20

KBL MINING LTD. Australia Materials 21

REGIS RESOURCES LTD. Australia Materials 22

COLLINS FOODS LTD. Australia Consumer Services 23

AMCOR LTD. Australia Materials 24

continued


78


RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD.

Australia Commercial & Professional Services 25

SANTOS LTD. Australia Energy 26

AGL ENERGY LTD. Australia Public Utilities 27

CAREERS MULTILIST LTD. Australia Commercial & Professional Services 28

KANGAROO RESOURCES LTD. Australia Materials 29

LEND LEASE CORP. LTD. Australia Real Estate 30

CROWN RESORTS LTD. Australia Consumer Services 31

MAGONTEC LTD. Australia Materials 32

ECOSAVE HOLDINGS LTD. Australia Commercial & Professional Services 33

TABCORP HOLDINGS LTD. Australia Consumer Services 34

BRAMBLES LTD. Australia Commercial & Professional Services 35

CSL LTD. AustraliaPharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences

36

HUGHES DRILLING LTD. Australia Capital Goods 37

METCASH LTD. Australia Food & Staples Retailing 38

TELECOM CORP. OF NEW ZEALAND LTD.

New Zealand Telecommunication Services 39

AURORA OIL & GAS LTD. Australia Energy 40

AURIZON HOLDINGS LTD. Australia Transportation 41

ENERGY ACTION LTD. Australia Commercial & Professional Services 42

ASCIANO LTD. Australia Transportation 43

AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY LTD.

Australia Consumer Services 44

PHARMACYBRANDS LTD. New Zealand Food & Staples Retailing 45

SP AUSTRALIA NETWORKS (DISTRIBUTION) LTD.

Australia Public Utilities 46

ORICA LTD. Australia Materials 47

CAPITOL HEALTH LTD. Australia Health Care Equipment & Services 48

IINET LTD. Australia Telecommunication Services 49

VIENTO GROUP LTD. Australia Capital Goods 50

continued


79

6.4 2013 Rankings by Industries: Listed Asian Enterprises’ (Non-Financial) Competitiveness (22×20)

Table 6.12 Public Utilities: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


KOREA ELECTRIC POWER CORP. Korea, Republic of 1

TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Japan 2

SAUDI ELECTRICITY CO. Saudi Arabia 3

KOREA GAS CORP. Korea, Republic of 4

HUANENG POWER INTERNATIONAL INC. China, People’s Republic of 5

NTPC LTD. India 6

DATANG INTERNATIONAL POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 7

TOKYO GAS CO. LTD. Japan 8

TENAGA NASIONAL BHD Malaysia 9

CHUGOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Japan 10

CLP HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 11

GD POWER DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 12

TOHOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Japan 13

CHINA YANGTZE POWER CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 14

OSAKA GAS CO. LTD. Japan 15

CHINA RESOURCES POWER HOLDINGS CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 16

ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. Japan 17

ABU DHABI NATIONAL ENERGY CO. United Arab Emirates 18

HUADIAN POWER INTERNATIONAL CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 19

GAIL (INDIA) LTD. India 20

Table 6.13 Transportation: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


EAST JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan 1

CENTRAL JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan 2

SKY ONE HOLDINGS LTD. Singapore 3

WEST JAPAN RAILWAY CO. Japan 4

AIR CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 5

MTR CORP. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 6

ANA HOLDINGS INC. Japan 7

TOKYU CORP. Japan 8

DAQIN RAILWAY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 9


80


CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 10

NIPPON EXPRESS CO. LTD. Japan 11

HANKYU HANSHIN HOLDINGS INC. Japan 12

TURKISH AIRLINES INC. Turkey 13

KINTETSU CORP. Japan 14

PT TANAH LAUT TBK Indonesia 15

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 16

CHINA COSCO HOLDINGS CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 17

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. Singapore 18

CHINA RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 19

TOBU RAILWAY CO. LTD. Japan 20

Table 6.14 Telecommunication Services: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


NIPPON TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CORP. Japan 1

CHINA MOBILE LTD. China’s Hong Kong 2

NTT DOCOMO INC. Japan 3

CHINA TELECOM CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 4

CHINA UNICOM (HONG KONG) LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

CHINA UNITED NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 6

SOFTBANK CORP. Japan 7

KDDI CORP. Japan 8

TELSTRA CORP. Australia 9

STARHUB LTD. Singapore 10

SINGAPORE TELECOM LTD. Singapore 11

KT CORP. Korea, Republic of 12

SAUDI TELECOM CO. Saudi Arabia 13

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. India 14

SK TELECOM CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 15

MY NET FONE LTD. Australia 16

EMIRATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. United Arab Emirates 17

OOREDOO QSC Qatar 18

CHUNGHWA TELECOM CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 19

POLARIS LTD. Singapore 20

continued


81

Table 6.15 Technology Hardware and Equipment: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


HITACHI LTD. Japan 1

HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 2

CHINA TRENDS HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 3

CANON INC. Japan 4

EISO ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 5

ARTEL SOLUTIONS GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 6

FUJIFILM HOLDING CORP. Japan 7

SMARTLINK NETWORK SYSTEMS LTD. India 8

QUANTA COMPUTER INC. China’s Taiwan 9

NEC CORP. Japan 10

KYOCERA CORP. Japan 11

SHIJIAZHUANG BAOSHI ELECTRONIC GLASS CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 12

PEGATRON CORP. China’s Taiwan 13

NIPPON PRIMEX INC. Japan 14

LENOVO GROUP LTD. China, People’s Republic of 15

KMC (KUEI MENG) INTERNATIONAL INC. China’s Taiwan 16

HANGZHOU EVERFINE PHOTO-E-INFO CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 17

ASSOC INDS CHINA China’s Taiwan 18

COMPAL ELECTRONICS INC. China’s Taiwan 19

WISTRON CORP. China’s Taiwan 20

Table 6.16 Software and Services: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


TECNOS JAPAN INC. Japan 1

CHINA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong 2

FUJITSU LTD. Japan 3

LONGMASTER INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 4

CATCHA MEDIA BHD Malaysia 5

CHINA COMMUNICATION TELECOM SERVICES China’s Taiwan 6

IMAGICA ROBOT HOLDINGS INC. Japan 7

INGENUITY CONSOLIDATED BHD Malaysia 8

MONO TECHNOLOGY PCL Thailand 9


82


MARVELOUS AQL INC. Japan 10

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. India 11

ABC MULTIACTIVE LTD. China’s Hong Kong 12

TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 13

CHINA CITY RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CO. LTD.

China, People’s Republic of 14

OURPALM CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 15

COMPUTECH HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 16

NTT DATA CORP. Japan 17

GREE INC. Japan 18

INFOSYS LTD. India 19

EVERYDAY NETWORK CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 20

Table 6.17 Semiconductors and Semiconductor Equipment: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 1

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 2

INGENIC SEMICONDUCTOR CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 3

PLA CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 4

SK HYNIX INC. Korea, Republic of 5

TOKYO ELECTRON LTD. Japan 6

DIGITAL MEDIA PROFESSIONALS INC. Japan 7

URJA GLOBAL LTD. India 8

ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR ENGINEERING INC. China’s Taiwan 9

HERMES MICROVISION INC. China’s Taiwan 10

PARADE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. China’s Taiwan 11

MEDIATEK INC. China’s Taiwan 12

ZHUHAI ORBITA CONTROL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 13

UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORP. China’s Taiwan 14

CAPELLA MICROSYSTEMS INC. China’s Taiwan 15

EUGENE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 16

ZHEJIANG JINGSHENG MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CO. LTD.


ONANO INDUSTRIAL CORP. China’s Taiwan 18

EZCHIP SEMICONDUCTOR LTD. Israel 19

VIATRON TECHNOLOGIES INC. Korea, Republic of 20

continued


83

Table 6.18 Retailing: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


T. SPIRITUAL WORLD LTD. India 1

LOTTE SHOPPING CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 2

PTG ENERGY PCL Thailand 3

JARDINE CYCLE & CARRIAGE LTD. Singapore 4

YAMADA DENKI CO. LTD. Japan 5

EDYNAMICS SOLUTIONS LTD. India 6

ISETAN MITSUKOSHI HOLDINGS LTD. Japan 7

PT WICAKSANA OVERSEAS INTERNATIONAL TBK Indonesia 8

SUNING COMMERCE GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 9

CHOW TAI FOOK JEWELLERY GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 10

FAST RETAILING CO. LTD. Japan 11

J FRONT RETAILING CO. LTD. Japan 12

ELECTRONIC CITY INDONESIA TBK Indonesia 13

PT MITRA PINASTHIKA MUSTIKA TBK Indonesia 14

BEAUTY COMMUNITY PCL Thailand 15

CARCHS HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan 16

IZUMI CO. LTD. Japan 17

FUJI CO. LTD. Japan 18

K’S HOLDINGS CORP. Japan 19

PARCO CO. LTD. Japan 20

Table 6.19 Real Estate: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


ISRAEL CANADA TR LTD. Israel 1

FJ PRINCE HOLDINGS CORP. The Philippines 2

HYCOMM WIRELES LTD. China’s Hong Kong 3

CHEUNG KONG (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong 4

WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

WHEELOCK & CO. China’s Hong Kong 6

LEE HEDGES PLC Sri Lanka 7

WEIYE HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 8

NIRVANA DEVELOPMENT TBK PT Indonesia 9

SWIRE PACIFIC LTD. China’s Hong Kong 10


84


CHINA VANKE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 11


Israel 12

MITSUBISHI ESTATE CO. LTD. Japan 13

MITSUI FUDOSAN CO. LTD. Japan 14

HENDERSON LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 15

NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 16

AL SHAMEKHA REAL ESTATE AND FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS CO. Jordan 17

HONGKONG LAND CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 18

CHINA OVERSEAS LAND & INVESTMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong 19

POLY REAL ESTATE GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 20

Table 6.20 Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology and Life Sciences: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Israel 1

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. Japan 2

PACIFIC EDGE LTD. New Zealand 3

OTSUKA HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan 4

ORIENTAL UNICORN AGRICULTURAL GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

SNP GENETICS INC. Korea, Republic of 6

CSPC PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 7

ASTELLAS PHARMA INC. Japan 8

SHENZHEN HEPALINK PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 9

HANGZHOU TIGERMED CONSULTING CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 10

HAINAN SHUANGCHENG PHARMACEUTICALS CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 11

DAIICHI SANKYO CO. LTD. Japan 12

JIANGXI BOYA BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 13

NANOCARRIER CO. LTD. Japan 14

BIO LIGHT ISRAELI LIFE SCIENCES INVESTMENTS LTD. Israel 15

EISAI CO. LTD. Japan 16

JB CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. India 17

CSL LTD. Australia 18

CHANGZHOU QIANHONG BIO-PHARMA CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 19

MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA CORP. Japan 20

continued


85

Table 6.21 Media: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


CHINA RAILSMEDIA CORP. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 1

DDH CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 2

ONESOURCE TECHMEDIA LTD. India 3

TONG HUA COMMUNICATIONS PCLUNICATIONS PCL Thailand 4

DENTSU INC. Japan 5

WONDERFUL SKY FINANCIAL GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 6

PICTUREHOUSE MEDIA LTD. India 7

FUJI MEDIA HOLDINGS INC. Japan 8

HUNAN TV & BROADCAST INTERMEDIARY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 9

EBOOK INITIATIVE JAPAN CO. LTD. Japan 10

TOKYO BROADCASTING SYSTEM HOLDINGS INC. Japan 11

ASTRO MALAYSIA HOLDINGS Malaysia 12

ELANG MAHKOTA TEKNOLOGI TBK Indonesia 13

BEC WORLD PCL Thailand 14

SEVEN WEST MEDIA LTD. Australia 15

ASIA JOINT PANORAMA PUBLIC CO. LTD. Thailand 16

BEIJING HUALU BAINA FILM & TV INC. China, People’s Republic of 17

HAKUHODO DY HOLDINGS INC. Japan 18

INOX LEISURE LTD. India 19

TOHO CO. LTD. Japan 20

Table 6.22 Materials: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


BHP BILLITON LTD. Australia 1

SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. Saudi Arabia 2

POSCO Korea, Republic of 3

POLISAN HOLDING AS Turkey 4

ZHIDAO INT’L (HOLDINGS) LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORP. Japan 6

XIAMEN HEXING PACKAGING PRINTING CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 7

GALAXY RESOURCES LTD. Australia 8

ADINATH BIO-LABS LTD. India 9

BAOSHAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 10


86


MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL HOLDINGS CORP. Japan 11

TATA STEEL LTD. India 12

AEON METALS LTD. Australia 13

GEOSTR CORP. Japan 14

ALCYONE RESOURCES LTD. Australia 15

LG CHEM LTD. Korea, Republic of 16

SHIN-ETSU CHEM CO. LTD. Japan 17

SUMITOMO CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Japan 18

BC IRON LTD. Australia 19

PTT GLOBAL CHEMICAL PCL Thailand 20

Table 6.23 Household and Personal Products: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


KAO CORP. Japan 1

UNILEVER INDONESIA TBK Indonesia 2

JINCHUAN GROUP INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 3

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. India 4

PARIKH HERBALS LTD. India 5

SHISEIDO CO. LTD. Japan 6

LG HOUSEHOLD & HEALTH CARE LTD. Korea, Republic of 7

UNICHARM CORP. Japan 8

KOHINOOR CHEMICAL CO. (BD) LTD. Bangladesh 9

HENGAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 10

CHINA KING-HIGHWAY HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 11

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD. India 12

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (PAKISTAN) LTD. Pakistan 13

AMOREPACIFIC CORP. Korea, Republic of 14

DABUR INDIA LTD. India 15

PRINCE FROG INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 16

AMOREPACIFIC GROUP Korea, Republic of 17

SWADESHI INDUSTRIES & LEASING LTD. Sri Lanka 18

MARICO LTD. India 19

BLACKMORES LTD. Australia 20

continued


87

Table 6.24 Health Care Equipment and Services: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


MEDIPAL HOLDINGS CORP. Japan 1

ALLIED OVERSEAS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 2

SINOPHARM GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 3

ALFRESA HOLDINGS CORP. Japan 4

SHANGHAI KINET MEDICAL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 5

BIOSENSORS INTERNATIONAL LTD. Singapore 6

SUZUKEN CO. LTD. Japan 7

SINOCARE INC. China, People’s Republic of 8

E-CHANNELLING LTD. Sri Lanka 9

CAPITOL HEALTH LTD. Australia 10

SHANGHAI PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 11

TERUMO CORP. Japan 12

IHH HEALTHCARE BHD Malaysia 13

GREENCROSS LTD. Australia 14

BEIJING BOHUI INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 15

SONIC HEALTHCARE LTD. Australia 16

NINGBO DAVID MEDICAL DEVICE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 17

TOHO HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan 18

RAMSAY HEALTH CARE LTD. Australia 19

PC PHARMA PLC Sri Lanka 20

Table 6.25 Food, Beverage and Tobacco: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


CI HOLDINGS BHD Malaysia 1

FIRST NATURAL FOODS HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 2

JAPAN TOBACCO INC. Japan 3

WILMAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. Singapore 4

KIRIN HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan 5

ASAHI GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. Japan 6

GEMINI SEA FOOD LTD. Bangladesh 7

UMANG DAIRIES LTD. India 8

SUNGEI BAGAN RUBBER COMPANY (MALAYA) BHD Malaysia 9


88


BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO MALAYSIA INDUSTRIES BHD Malaysia 10

PERIA KARAMALAI TEA & PRODUCE CO. LTD. India 11

CHAROEN POKPHAND FOODS PCL Thailand 12

ASIAN CITRUS HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 13

THAI BEVERAGE PCL Thailand 14

PT HM SAMPOERNA TBK Indonesia 15

KWEICHOW MOUTAI CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 16

AJINOMOTO CO. INC. Japan 17

UNI-PRESIDENT ENTERPRISES CORP. China’s Taiwan 18

CEYLON TOBACCO CO. PLC Sri Lanka 19

SUNTORY FOOD BEVERAGE & FOOD LTD. Japan 20

Table 6.26 Food and Staples Retailing: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


WESFARMERS LTD. Australia 1

SEVEN & I HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan 2

AEON CO. LTD. Japan 3

WOOLWORTHS LTD. Australia 4

E-MART CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 5

OLAM INTERNATION LTD. Singapore 6

HALOWS CO. LTD. Japan 7

DAIICHI CO. LTD. Japan 8

UNY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. Japan 9

ASMO CORP. Japan 10

YAOKO CO. LTD. Japan 11

DAIRY FARM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 12

ARCS CO. LTD. Japan 13

BIM BIRLESIK MAGAZALAR AS Turkey 14

METCASH LTD. Australia 15

MARUKYU CO. LTD. Japan 16

MARUYOSHI CENTER INC. Japan 17

MARUETSU INC. Japan 18

BELC CO. LTD. Japan 19

PHARMACYBRANDS LTD. New Zealand 20

continued


89

Table 6.27 Energy: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


PETROCHINA CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 1

CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORP. China, People’s Republic of 2

JX HOLDINGS, INC. Japan 3

CNOOC LTD. China, People’s Republic of 4

CHINA SHENHUA ENERGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 5

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. India 6

PTT PCL Thailand 7

KAISUN ENERGY GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 8

INDIAN OIL CORP. India 9

JASPER INVESTMENT LTD. Singapore 10

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. India 11

SK INNOVATION CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 12

VUNG ANG PETROLEUM JOINT STOCK CO. Vietnam 13

IDEMITSU KOSAN CO. LTD. Japan 14

INPEX CORP. Japan 15

CHINA COAL ENERGY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 16

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. India 17

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM LTD. Australia 18

ORIGIN ENERGY LTD. Australia 19

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. India 20

Table 6.28 Diversified Financials: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


AVRASYA GAYRIMEN YAT. ORT. Turkey 1

HACI OMER SABANCI HOLDINGS AS Turkey 2

BORUSAN YATIRIM VE PAZARLAMA AS Turkey 3

SULABH ENGINEERS & SERVICES LTD. India 4

CHINA NEW ENERGY POWER GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

IS YATIRIM MENKUL DEGERLER AS Turkey 6

FONTERRA SHAREHOLDERS’ FUND New Zealand 7

FIRST PACIFIC CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 8

FINANS FIN KIRALA CO. Turkey 9

PACIFIC CENTURY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Singapore 10


90


PYXIS GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 11

EURO FINMART LTD. India 12

AYALA CORP. The Philippines 13

CONSOLIDATED FINVEST & HOLDINGS LTD. India 14

NCL RESEARCH & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. India 15

SBI HOLDINGS INC. Japan 16

KINGDOM HOLDING CO. Saudi Arabia 17

GT CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC. The Philippines 18

GREATERCHINA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LTD. China’s Hong Kong 19

AVIC CAPITAL CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 20

Table 6.29 Consumer Services: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LTD. New Zealand 1

GENTING BHD Malaysia 2

MK RESTAURANTS GROUP PCL Thailand 3

PALIBURG HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 4

AL FIRDOUS HOLDING PJSC United Arab Emirates 5

HONG KONG EDUCATION (INT’L) INVESTMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong 6

CENTURY CITY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 7

SEALINK TRAVEL GROUP LTD. Australia 8

SANDS CHINA LTD. China’s Hong Kong 9

COLLINS FOODS LTD. Australia 10

HOT POT PCL Thailand 11

BERJAYA SPORTS TOTO BHD Malaysia 12

CROWN RESORTS LTD. Australia 13

SARA VIETNAM JSC Vietnam 14

TABCORP HOLDINGS LTD. Australia 15

ZENSHO HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Japan 16

AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY LTD. Australia 17

GENTING SINGAPOR PLC Singapore 18

SHENZHEN OVERSEAS CHINESE TOWN CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 19

SJM HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 20

continued


91

Table 6.30 Consumer Durables, Apparel and Clothing: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


SONY CORP. Japan 1

CHENGDE NANJIANG CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 2

TIME WATCH INVESTMENT LTD. China’s Hong Kong 3

PASARI SPINNING MILLS LTD. India 4

LUEN THAI HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

JINDAL PHOTO LTD. India 6

PANTALOONS FASHION & RETAIL LTD. India 7

S R K INDUSTRIES LTD. India 8

SEKISUI HOUSE LTD. Japan 9

GREE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES INC. OF ZHUHAI China, People’s Republic of 10

MEISHENG CULTURAL & CREATIVE CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 11

LI & FUNG LTD. China’s Hong Kong 12

VANDANA KNITWEAR LTD. India 13

LARRY JEWELRY INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 14

COSON CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 15

MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. India 16

NIKON CORP. Japan 17

CHINA TAIFENG BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 18

SEKISUI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Japan 19

POU CHEN CORP. China’s Taiwan 20

Table 6.31 Commercial and Professional Services: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


SERVE KIRTASİYE SANAYİ VE TİCARET A.Ş Turkey 1

PAXYS INC. The Philippines 2

JIBANNET CO. LTD. Japan 3

TOPPAN PRINTING CO. LTD. Japan 4

TRAIDING HOUSE Georgia 5

GREENSTONE LTD. Israel 6

HUA LIEN INTERNATIONAL (HOLDING) CO. LTD. China’s Hong Kong 7

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD. Australia 8

CAREERS MULTILIST LTD. Australia 9


92


SECOM CO. LTD. Japan 10

ECOSAVE HOLDINGS LTD. Australia 11

BRAMBLES LTD. Australia 12

NEO GROUP LTD. Singapore 13

PUBANG LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 14

BLUMONT GROUP LTD. Singapore 15

ENERGY ACTION LTD. Australia 16

CHANDLER MACLEOD GROUP LTD. Australia 17

INTERNATIONAL ELITE LTD. China’s Hong Kong 18

NIPPON MANUFACTURING SERVICE CO. LTD. Japan 19

JARIR MARKETING CO. Saudi Arabia 20

Table 6.32 Capital Goods: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


MITSUBISHI CORP. Japan 1

MITSUI & CO. LTD. Japan 2

SK HOLDINGS CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 3



HUTCHISON WHAMPOA LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

CHINA RAILWAY GROUP LTD. China, People’s Republic of 6

ITOCHU CORP. Japan 7

SUMITOMO CORP. Japan 8

CHINA RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 9

TOSHIBA CORP. Japan 10

JARDINE MATHESON HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 11

JARDINE STRATEGIC HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 12

MARUBENI CORP. Japan 13

CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 14

NOBLE GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 15

TOYOTA TSUSHO CORP. Japan 16

LOUIS XIII HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 17

TAT INDUSTRIES LTD. Israel 18

HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 19

BOROVA YAPI ENDUSTRISI AS Turkey 20

continued


93

Table 6.33 Automobiles and Components: Listed Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. Japan 1

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. Japan 2

HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. Japan 3

HYUNDAI MOTOR CO. Korea, Republic of 4

SAIC MOTOR CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 5

KIA MOTORS CORP. Korea, Republic of 6

DENSO CORP. Japan 7

BRIDGESTONE CORP. Japan 8

HYUNDAI MOBIS CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 9

TATA MOTORS LTD. India 10

SONG LIAO AUTOMOTIVE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 11

RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LTD. India 12

SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. Japan 13

TOYOTA INDUSTRIES CORP. Japan 14

AISIN SEIKI CO. LTD. Japan 15

PT ASTRA INTERNATIONAL TBK Indonesia 16

DONGFENG MOTOR GROUP CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 17

ISUZU MOTORS LTD. Japan 18

DAIHATSU MOTOR CO. LTD. Japan 19

FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. Japan 20

6.5 2013 Competitiveness Rankings of Asian Listed Banking and Insurance Enterprises (2×20)

Table 6.34 Listed Asian Banks’ Competitiveness Ranking

Company Name Country/Region Ranking

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 1

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP. China, People’s Republic of 2

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 3

BANK OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 4

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC. Japan 5

TAIWAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. China’s Taiwan 6

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANK PLC Sri Lanka 7


94


SUMIMOTO MITSUI TRUST HOLDINGS INC. Japan 8

SUMIMOTO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC. Japan 9

AL SALAM BANK (BSC) Bahrain 10

KASPI BANK JSC Kazakhstan 11

NATIONAL BANK OF RAS AL KHAIMAH PSC United Arab Emirates 12

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS LTD. China, People’s Republic of 13

MIZUHO FINANCIAL GROUP INC. Japan 14

CHINA MERCHANT BANK CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 15

TSESNABANK JSC Kazakhstan 16

INDUSTRIAL BANK CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 17

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING CORP. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 18

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA Australia 19

PT BANK RAKYAT INDONESIA (PERSERO) TBK Indonesia 20

Table 6.35 Listed Asian Insurance Enterprises’ Competitiveness Ranking


CHINA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 1

SUNCORP GROUP LTD. Australia 2

PEOPLE’S INSURANCE COMPANY (GROUP) OF CHINA LTD. China, People’s Republic of 3

DAI-ICHI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Japan 4

AIA GROUP LTD. China’s Hong Kong 5

CATHAY FINANCIAL HOLDING CO. LTD. China’s Taiwan 6

DREAM INCUBATOR INC. Japan 7

PICC PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 8

ADVANCE CREATE CO. LTD. Japan 9

PRIME ISLAMI LIFE INSURANCE LTD. Bangladesh 10

NIB HOLDINGS LTD. Australia 11

POPULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Bangladesh 12

CHINA PACIFIC INSURANCE (GROUP) CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 13

CONVOY FINANCIAL SERVICES HOLDINGS LTD. China’s Hong Kong 14

AMP LTD. Australia 15

OMAN NATIONAL INVESTMENT CORP. HOLDING SAOG Oman 16

QBE INSURANCE Australia 17

NEW CHINA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. China, People’s Republic of 18

SAMSUNG LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Korea, Republic of 19

HARTA GENERAL INSURANCE Indonesia 20

continued


95

Appendix 1.1 Purpose and Target of EvaluationSince the start of the world financial crisis, the Asian economies have remained the major engine of the world economy. In the course of the world economy ’s deep correct ion, whether Asian economies will maintain their competitiveness and enhance their commercial and administrative efficiency, infrastructure, overall economic strength social development level, human capital and innovation capability has drawn attention not only from Asia itself, but the whole world as well. In this regard, we began to evaluate the Asian economies competitiveness from 2011, with an effort to feel the pulse of the dynamic competitiveness changes in various economies. Our 2010 evaluation system covered 35 Asian economies (including China’s Taiwan and China’s Hong Kong). Considering the close economic ties between Asia and Oceania, we take Australia and New Zealand into account in the evaluation system, adding the evaluation targets to 37 economies. We adopted the same index system in the 2012 and 2013 competitiveness rankings, tracking and analyzing the competitiveness changes in the 37 major Asian economies, so as to diagnose their competitive conditions, predict the future development of Asian as well as the world economy, and analyze their achievements in economic and social aspects.

Appendix 1.2 Introduction to Competitiveness Indices of Asian Economies

Appendix 1.2.1 Composition of the Index

The competitiveness index of Asian economies includes five dimensions which are commercial and administrative efficiency, infrastructure, overall economic strength, social development and human capital and innovation capability. The competitiveness index of Asian economies mainly assesses the future competitiveness of 37 main economies in the Asia-Pacific region and describes their competitiveness in the region with a view to helping governments, enterprises and organizations to identify disparity with benchmark economies and point out the direction to improving economic, social and governmental areas. Specifically, the competitiveness indices of Asian economies mainly focus on the following three aspects: making a comprehensive judgment on competitiveness rankings in Asia, judging the structural disparity among the economies in terms of economic, social and governmental, and tracing efforts and dynamic changes of an economy in social progress and economic development.

Appendix 1.2.2 Function

The function of competitiveness indices of Asian economies is to find out gaps among major economies, so as to foster the overall economic, social and governmental progress of Asian economies. The data used by the evaluation model include macroeconomic data of different economies

Introduction to Competitiveness Indices of Asian Economies

Appendix 1


96

from the IMF and the World Bank, the research findings from the World Economic Forum and market databases. The evaluation model analyzes and concludes each competitiveness index of Asian economies from five aspects, which are commercial and administrative efficiency, infrastructure, overall economic strength, social development and human capital and innovation capability, and then adopts a weighted-average method to obtain the evaluation indices, from which the overall rankings of major Asian economies are judged, and valuable information in this regard is supplied.

Appendix 1.3 Introduction to Competitiveness Indicators of Asian EconomiesThe competitive indicators of Asian economies in 2013 follow the model in 2011 and 2012. Regarding indicator system design, we select the hard indicators that can best reflect the competitiveness of an economy. Indicators that can generate errors in questionnaire are not used. In addition, we introduce the background indicator set, in which the basic background indicator set includes GDP

per-capita of an economy and its contribution to the world economy. The basic background indicator set for weighting consists of GDP, population, GDP per capita, and GDP as a share of world GDP1. Among them, GDP reflects the economic gross of an economy; population is used for obtaining indicators; GDP per-capita mirrors average level of development of an economy vital for judging economic status; GDP as a share of world GDP singles an economy’s status in the world economy and its contribution. Precisely, the indicator set of the index system falls into five categories, each of the categories having different number of original indictors (See Attached Table 1.1). Among them, the indicator set of commercial and administrative efficiency has four original indicators; infrastructure indicator set has 11 indicators, overall economic strength, 14; social development, 10; human capital and innovation capability, 5; plus a basic background index set for weighting. The total number of original indicators amounts to 47.

1 Population, GDP, GDP per capita, GDP as a share of world GDP are still used as the key indicators of country analysis and stages of development analysis in Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014 released by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Attached Table 1.1 Structure of Competitiveness Indicators System of Asian Economies

Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators Original Indicators

Commercial and Administrative Efficiency (4)

Efficiency of Commercial Approval (3)

Amount of Approval Procedures for Establishing Enterprises

Establishing Time

Enterprises’ Application Cost

Public Service Efficiency (1)Number of Procedures by

Commercial Contract

Infrastructure (11)

Transportation Facilities (2)Seats on a Flight

Highway Density (km/100sq.km)

Communication Facilities (2)Fixed Phone Lines LOA

Mobile Phone Lines LOA

Internet Infrastructure (4)

PC Penetration Rate

Netizen Population

Internet Penetration Rate

Internet Bandwidth Speed

Electrical Utilities (1) Electrical Energy Per-Capita

Water Facilities (2)Sewage Services

Safe Drinking Water

Appendix 1Introduction to Competitiveness Indices of Asian Economies

97

Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators Original Indicators

Overall Economic Strength (14)

Economic Contribution Index (2)GDP/Global GDP

GDP Growth Rate

Economic Health Index (5)

Budget Equalization/GDP

Inflation

Total Tax Burden/GDP

Unemployment Rate

Government Debt/GDP

Foreign Economic Relations (3)

Tariff Rate

Import Volume/GDP

Export Volume/GDP

Industry Structure (2)Added Value of Service Industry/GDP

Industrial Added Value/GDP

Financial Environment (2)

Disparity of the Interest Rates of Savings Deposits and Loans

National Saving Rate

Social Development (10)

Health (4)

Incidence of Tuberculosis

Incidence of AIDS

Infancy Mortality Rate

Life Expectancy

Medical Treatment (2)Number of Surgeons/1,000

Hospital Beds/10,000

Education (3)

Enrollment Rate of Primary Education

Enrollment Rate of Secondary Education

Female Employment Rate

Safety (1) Traffic Accident Rate

Human Capital and Innovation Capability (5)

Human Capital (2)Enrollment Rate of Higher Education

Public Expenditure on Education

Innovation Capability (3)

Granted Patents/1,000,000

Creative Industries Export

High-tech Export

continued

Appendix 1.3.1 Commercial and Administrative Efficiency

The commercial and administrative efficiency indicator set consists of the number of approval procedures for establishing enterprises, establishing period, enterprise application cost and the number of procedures by commercial contract. The first three indicators reveal the procedures, time and cost

of establishing a new enterprise in an economy. If the administration for establishing a new enterprise in an economy is efficient and the procedure is smooth, the economy would be of vitality and the newly established enterprises can rapidly enter the market and grasp market opportunities. Likewise, if the legal environment is transparent and efficient, the commercial contract would be smoothly carried


98

out and corporate exchanges would be fast, which helps to improve corporate capital turnover and strengthen corporate profitability and risk-control capability.

Appendix 1.3.2 Infrastructure

The infrastructure indicator set includes available seats on flight, highway density, fixed phone lines LOA, mobile phone lines LOA, PC penetration rate, netizen population, Internet penetration rate, Internet bandwidth speed, per capita energy output, sewage service and safe drinking water. These 11 original indicators cover all aspects of infrastructure in an economy, including transport facilities, telecommunication and Internet facilities, power supply facilities and water supply facilities. Infrastructure can reflect efforts on economic development and improvement of people’s wellbeing.

Appendix 1.3.3 Overall Economic Strength

The overall economic strength indicator set includes GDP/global GDP, GDP growth rate, budget equalization/GDP, inflation and unemployment rate, total tax burden/GDP, government debt/GDP, tariff rate, import volume/GDP, export volume/GDP, added value of service industry/GDP, industrial added value/GDP, disparity of the interest rates of savings deposits and loans and national savings rate. These 14 indicators basically reflect the economic

development and health state of an economy, covering both stock and incremental aspects, contribution to the global economy and the health of an economy, as well as foreign economic relations, industry structure, financial environment.

Appendix 1.3.4 Social Development

Social development indicator set composes of incidence of tuberculosis, incidence of AIDS, infancy mortality rate, life expectancy, number of surgeons per 1,000 people, hospital beds per 10,000 people, enrollment rate of primary education, enrollment rate of secondary education, female employment rate and traffic accident rate. These 10 indicators can reflect the degree of human and social development of an economy, covering health, medical treatment, fundamental education, woman employment and road safety.

Appendix 1.3.5 Human Capital and Innovation Capability

Human capital and innovation indicator set includes enrollment rate of higher education, public expenditure on education, granted patents per 1,000,000 people, creative industries export and high-tech export. These indicators analyze human capital input and technology innovation output from the perspective of input and output. It can best reflect people’s education situation, intellectual and capital output.


99

Appendix 2.1 Principles of Establishing the Competitiveness Evaluation Indicators System of Listed Asian Enterprises

Appendix 2.1.1 Objectivity

Objectivity is the fundamental requirement for setting up an evaluation index system, which requires overcoming the influence of subjective factors, and reflecting the true and objective evaluation. The selected indicators should reflect the competitiveness of enterprises in an accurate and comprehensive way. Here we highlight the importance of objectivity, as we take no qualitative indicators into account in the evaluation index system. We study the listed enterprises in the entire Asian region, where there are more than 13,000 enterprises with comparable data. Therefore if we determine a particular indicator in a qualitative way, the workload would be extremely heavy, a n d p ro b a b l y n o o n e h a s t h e q u a l i t a t i v e understanding of all enterprises. Quite a number of factors affect the competitiveness of enterprises, which requires us to select indicators that will truly reflect all aspects and major features in an enterprise’s development, and in a systematic and comprehensive way. At the same t ime, these indicators are mutually independent and interrelated with each other, constituting an organic whole. Objectivity requires indicators to be comprehensive. To that end, we use multiple indicators to measure a specific ability of an

enterprise, and synthesize the results in order to avoid the abnormal impact of a given indicator.

Appendix 2.1.2 Operability

Operability means that indicators in index system should be avai lable, data processing of the indicators feasible and the use of index system comparable. The availabil ity of indicators is crucial. As there are thousands of enterprises in various industries and types, we should find out common indicators available in public database. To make data processing of indicators feasible, the standardization of data should be feasible and orderly. Standardization of data is the basic work in establishing an evaluation index. Some data are positive indicators while others are negative. The final evaluation should unify these indicators, and make them comparable and of the same direction. Comparability of indicators means that it is worth comparing certain indicators. An indicator may be very important for a specific enterprise, but it may fail to reflect the difference of all enterprises. Thus, an indicator that cannot reflect the similarities and differences of enterprises’ competitiveness will not be included in the index system. Comparability also requires the index not only to reflect the common features of the economic development in different areas, but also the particular features of a specific region, making it possible to compare horizontally among different areas. Meanwhile, operability requires that the index system should not be too complicated but simple and practical instead, and it should contain fewer indicators but reflect more substantive content. The design of index system

Introduction to Competitiveness Indices of Listed Asian Enterprises

Appendix 2


100

should make it easy to collect and quantize the indicators, so as to extend the scope of the index system.

Appendix 2.1.3 Scientificality

Scientificality requires the selected indicators scientifically reflect the final purpose of the evaluation. Therefore, the selected first-level and second-level indicators should scientifically reflect the competitiveness of enterprises. There are various definitions on competitiveness of enterprises based on different understanding of the concept, which brings about different index systems, therefore, the scientific definition of enterprises’ competitiveness is the foundation of scientific evaluation indicators. The indicators should reflect enterprises’ actual operating status, and should be in accordance with the concept of corporate management, as well as available and comparable. Scientificality requires the indicators to have clear definitions, reflect the competitiveness of enterprises, and have the potential to compare among different enterprises. It also requires the index system to be adaptive in a wide scope, so as to reflect the common features of the competitiveness of enterprises in different types, industries and economies. It also requires the indicators to be flexible and adaptive, making it possible to adjust in accordance with different industries and enterprises during the analysis, as well as to adjust in future evaluations.

Appendix 2.2 Introduction to the Competitiveness Indices of Listed Asian EnterprisesThe term “enterpr ise compet i t iveness” was f irst proposed by the Japanese government in 1947, which was widely studied. Later on, the US government also began to focus on competit iveness of enterpr ises. At present , the theory of competitiveness of enterprises is relatively mature, and there are many different definitions on that. For example, Porter (1998) stated that the competitiveness of enterprises referred to enterprises’ capacity to compete in the global market. Kotler (2001) said that it referred to enterprises’ capacity to produce products with high quality and low cost. In this research, we define the competitiveness of enterprises as follows: In an open and competitive market, enterprises

achieve stable, secure, effective and sustainable development through foster ing thei r core competencies, making use of market resources and creating values for consumers. Under this definition, the competitiveness index system of the listed Asian enterprises’ consists of 4 first-level indicators, which are the basic capacity indicator, development capacity indicator, profitability indicator and anti-risk capacity indicator; and 17 second-level indicators (See Attached Table 2.1).

Attached Table 2.1 Composition of Listed Asian Enterprises’ Competitiveness

Evaluation Indicators

Level 1 Level 2

Basic Capacity Indicator

Total Assets

Net Assets

Total Revenue

Total Profit

Development Capacity Indicator

Growth Rate of Total Assets

Growth Rate of Net Assets

Growth Rate of Total Revenue

Growth Rate of Total Profit

Ratio of Capital Expenditure to Total Assets

Profitability Indicator

Profit Ratio of Total Assets

Profit Ratio of Net Assets

Profit Ratio of Revenue

Anti-Risk Capacity Indicator

Asset-Liability Ratio

Liquidity Ratio

Quick Ratio

Current Asset Turnover

Asset Turnover

Appendix 2Introduction to Competitiveness Indices of Listed Asian Enterprises

101

Appendix 2.2.1 Basic Capacity Indicator

Basic Capacity Indicator is a weighted average indicator including four second-level indicators, which are total assets, net assets, total revenue and total profit. The package reflects the basic capacity of enterprises in relation to international competition. It’s a stock index implying the capability to resist market instability. The higher score of this indicator, the stronger the enterprise is.

Appendix 2.2.2 Development Capacity Indicator

Development Capacity Indicator is a weighted average indicator including five second-level indicators: growth rate of total assets, growth rate of net assets, growth rate of total revenue, growth rate of total profit, and ratio of capital expenditure to total assets. These reflect the listed Asian enterprises’ potential. The package is an incremental index and a projection of the future. The higher score an enterprise gains, the stronger development capability it has.

Appendix 2.2.3 Profitability Indicator

Profitability Indicator is a weighted average indicator including three second-level indicators: profit ratio of total assets, profit ratio of net assets and profit ratio of revenue. The package is a stock index to weigh the overall profitability of enterprises. The core of enterprises’ competitiveness is profitability. The higher score an enterprise gains, the stronger profitability it has.

Appendix 2.2.4 Anti-Risk Capacity Indicator

Anti-Risk Capacity Indicator is integrated by five second-level indicators in a weight way, including the asset-liability ratio, liquidity ratio, quick ratio, current asset turnover and asset turnover of the enterprise, which is an indicator that represents the survival capacity of an enterprise. The flows of international capital bring a huge risk to Asia. Therefore, we regard the anti-risk capability as one of the important indicators to study the competitiveness of the Asian enterprises. The higher score the indicator gains, the stronger the survival capability the enterprise is when it encounters a massive capital turnover. Nowadays, this indicator is of more significance at a time when the international capital starts to flow back to the US and other developed economies.

Appendix 2.3 Introduction to Competitiveness Evaluation Indices of Banking and Insurance Enterprises Listed in Asia

Attached Table 2.2 Composition of Competitiveness Evaluation Indicators of

Banking and Insurance Enterprises Listed in Asia12

Level 1 Level 2

Basic Capacity Indicator1

Total Assets

Net Assets

Total Revenue

Total Profit

Total Loan

Total Savings Deposit

Development Capacity Indicator

Growth Ratio of Total Assets

Growth Ratio of Net Assets

Growth Ratio of Total Revenue

Growth Ratio of Total Profit

Growth Ratio of Earnings Per Share

Profitability Indicator

Profit Ratio of Total Assets

Profit Ratio of Net Assets

Profit Ratio of Revenue

Earnings Per Share

Profit Ratio of Capital

Anti-Risk Capacity Indicator2

Asset-Liability Ratio

Percentage of Non-Interest Income

Ratio of Total Cash Liabilities

Asset Turnover

1 There is neither total loan nor total savings deposit indicator in the composition of the basic capacity indicator for insurance industry.

2 Due to data reasons, the risk-resistance of insurance industry only selects an asset turnover as the second-level indicator.


102

Appendix 2.3.1 Basic Capacity Indicator

Basic Capacity Indicator is integrated by six second-level indicators in a weight way, including total assets, net assets, total revenue, total profit, total loan and total savings deposit, and it reflects the basic capacity that banking and insurance enterprises have in participating international competition. It’s a stock indicator and stands for the market impact-resistance capacity determined by the scale of banking and insurance enterprises listed in Asia. The higher score the indicator gains, the stronger the current actual competitiveness of a banking or an insurance enterprise is.

Appendix 2.3.2 Development Capacity Indicator

Development Capacity Indicator is integrated by five second-level indicators in a weight way, including the growth ratios respectively for total assets, net assets, total revenue, total profit, and earnings per share for banking and insurance enterprises listed in Asia, and it reflects the development capacity that banking and insurance enterprises listed in Asia will face in the future. Besides, it is also an increment indicator for measuring these enterprises’ capacity of seizing the future based on the current situation. The higher score a banking or an insurance enterprise gains, the stronger development capability it has.

Appendix 2.3.3 Profitability Indicator

Profitability Indicator integrated by five second-level indicators in a weight way, including the profit ratio of tocal assets, profit ratio of net assets, profit ratio of revenue, earnings per share and profit ratio of capital of listed banking and insurance enterprises. Also, it’s an increment and a comprehensive survey for the overall profitability of banking and insurance enterprises within the survey period. The core of the competitiveness of banking and insurance enterprises is the profitability of an enterprise. The higher score a banking or an insurance enterprise gains, the stronger its profitability is within the survey period.

Appendix 2.3.4 Anti-Risk Capacity Indicator

Anti-Risk Capacity Indicator is made of asset-liability

ratio, percentage of non-interest income, ratio of total cash liabilities and asset turnover, measuring banking and insurance enterprises’ viability. The higher score the indicator gains, the stronger the survival capability of the enterprise is when it encounters a massive capital turnover.

Appendix 2.4 Calculation Method of Competitiveness Indices of Listed Asian EnterprisesWe adopt the internationally accepted composite Index evaluation method, which is expl icit , transparent and easy to operate. Since the indicators include not only the absolute amount indicators, such as labor productivity, but also the ratio indicators like industrial structure and employment structure, we should standardize the indicators to reflect their weight in the indices.

The Formula to standardize the indicators is as follow:

Standard value of an indicator (impact value) = (actual value-minimum value) / (maximum-minimum)×100%

The index is composed of indicators of the equal weight, with each level of indicators composed by sub-level indicators with the equal weight. Competitiveness index of listed Asian enterprises is calculated as follows:

Compet i t iveness index of l i s ted As ian e n t e r p r i s e s = ( b a s i c c a p a c i t y i n d i c a t o r + development capacity indicator + profitability indicator + anti-risk capacity indicator)/4

The first-level indicators are composed of equal weight secondary index. For example, the basic capability indicator is calculated as follows:

Basic capability indicator = (standard value of total assets + standard value of net asset + standard value of total revenue + standard value of gross profit) /4

Other first-level indicators are calculated in a similar way to that of the basic capability indicator, and we will not repeat here.


103

1. World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, September, 2013, http://reports.weforum.org/the-global-competitiveness-report-2013-2014/.

2.张猛，丁振辉.上海合作组织自由贸易区：构想及其意义.国际经贸探索，2013（2）.3.高辰星.加速推进中国—东盟区域经济一体化的战略思考.商场现代化，2013（8）.4.陈万灵，何传添.中国—东盟自由贸易区：基于东盟经济共同体蓝图的战略构想.东南亚纵横，

2013（1）.5.张海琦，袁波.深化中国—东盟自贸区合作的总体思路与措施.国际经济合作，2013（7）.6.“丝绸之路经济带”极具创造性和可行性——国际社会积极评价习近平在纳扎尔巴耶夫大学的演

讲，新华每日电讯，2013-9-8.7.国际货币基金组织.亚太地区经济展望：2013年10月最新预测，2013-10-11.8.李卫东.企业竞争力评价理论与方法研究.北京：中国市场出版社，2009.9.王核成.动态环境下的企业竞争力.北京：科学出版社，2010.

References

competitiveness of asian economies

Documents

year growth rate

annual growth rate

steady growth rate

robust growth

steady economic growth

slow growth

growth prospect

chinas economic growth