Is the Global Competitiveness Report the right measure of macroeconomic competitiveness

The purpose of this paper is to research the effect of abandoning the assumption of long-term time horizon in terms of reliability of the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) findings. In order to achieve this goal we will compare the GCR findings with the findings of a composite index of competitiveness, named 6 BIC (Basic Indicators of Competitiveness). We have developed this index on the theoretical basis provided by Krugman, Fagerbergs, Scott, Lodge, Aiginger and others. Economists are aware that any theoretical conception, including the GCR, relies on a number of assumptions and postulations. If some of those have been under scrutiny, then the whole construction and its findings would lose their credibility. One of the most significant assumptions rooted in the Global Competitiveness Report is its longevity. In the long-term, the change in productivity level through price competitiveness certainly brings out a change in outcome competitiveness level. However, the effects in short-to-middle term are not certain. Our findings show that there is a whole range of countries whose national competitiveness is either under-estimated by the GCR (for example Russia, Turkey, Estonia, Moldova) or overvalued (Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Spain) in short-to-middle term. The basic conclusion from the obtained results of the research is that the GCR does not provide sufficiently good view of the current competitiveness of the countries, and that this indicator needs to be extended also with other competitiveness indicators, such as those selected in our paper.