2010年英國競爭力指數(shù)【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　UK Competitiveness Index 2010</p><p>　　Material Source: Centre for International Competitiveness</p>

2、<p>　　Author: Robert Huggins and Piers Thompson</p><p>　　Chapter 1 – Introduction</p><p>　　This report represents the 2010 edition of the UK Competitiveness Index (UKCI), which was first

3、introduced and published in 2000. It represents a benchmarking of the competitiveness of the UK’s regions and localities. The UK Competitiveness Index has been designed as an integrated measure of competitiveness focusin

4、g on both the development and sustainability of businesses and the economic welfare of individuals. In this respect, we consider competitiveness to consist of the capability of an econ</p><p>　　This makes cl

5、ear that competitiveness is not a zero-sum game, and does not rely on the shifting of a finite amount of resources from one place to another. Competitiveness involves the upgrading and economic development of all places

6、together, rather than the improvement of one place at the expense of another. However, competitiveness does involve balancing the different types of advantages that one place may hold over another, i.e. the range of diff

7、ering strengths that the socio-economic environ</p><p>　　Since the UK Competitiveness Index was first introduced, the number of indicators and variables constituting the Regional and Local UK Competitiveness

8、 Indices has expanded. However, the fundamental methodology underlying them has remained the same. In this report, we publish indices for 2010 (incorporating the most up-to-date data available), as well as those presente

9、d in the 2008 report (where comparable) as a means of comparison and examining the UK’s changing competitiveness landscape. In thi</p><p>　　Due to space constraints it has proved impossible to list in full a

10、ll the regional and local indicators prepared within the report. Therefore, a spreadsheet of the complete datasets is available in conjunction with this report for those interested in obtaining more detailed benchmarking

11、 or carrying out further analysis of their own.</p><p>　　The structure of the report is as follows. Chapter 2 reviews the methodology underlying the UK Competitiveness Index, with Chapters 3, 4 and 5 present

12、ing an overview of the main results from the Regional, City and Local Indices respectively. Chapter 6 examines the relationship between population density and the UK Competitiveness Index in more detail. Chapter 7 explor

13、es the relationship between competitiveness and a range of factors relating to sustainability and wellbeing. Chapter 8 considers o</p><p>　　Chapter 2 – Methodology</p><p>　　Methodological Design

14、 of the UK Competitiveness Index</p><p><b>　　CONTEXT</b></p><p>　　The aim of the UK Competitiveness Index is to assess the relative economic competitiveness of regions and localities

15、 in the UK by constructing a single index that reflects, as fully as possible, the measurable criteria constituting place competitiveness. We consider that the competitiveness of localities/regions and the competitivenes

16、s of firms are interdependent concepts. Measuring such competitiveness, however, is no easy matter and, as indicators of national competitiveness have shown, cannot</p><p>　　Similarly, place competitiveness

17、cannot be measured by ranking any one variable in isolation, since it is the result of a complex interaction between input, output, and outcome factors. Clearly, not all of these factors are readily measurable, given tha

18、t as well as consisting of economic variables, they also include political, social and cultural parameters. However, since our focus is on relative competitive performance within the UK, the assumption can be made that t

19、hese factors will have an i</p><p><b>　　DESIGN</b></p><p>　　The key concern with the design process of the UK Competitiveness Index is to develop a series of indices incorporating da

20、ta that are available and comparable at the local and regional level, and that go some way towards reflecting the link between macro-economic performance and innovative business behaviour, Consideration also has to be gi

21、ven to the overall ‘value’ of indicators, and their relative effectiveness as performance measures. In particular, the interrelationships between the ‘measure</p><p>　　Given the methodological parameters, a

22、number of different modes of creating the index, and the variables to be included, have been considered. After testing, the 3-Factor model for measuring competitiveness as shown in Figures 2.01 (Regional UK Competitivene

23、ss Index) and Figure 2.02 (Local UK Competitiveness Index) is adopted. The 3-Factor model consists of a linear framework for analyzing competitiveness based on: (1) input; (2) output; and (3) outcome factors.</p>

24、<p>　　In order to achieve a valid balance between each of the indicators, in terms of their overall significance to the composite index, each of the three measures - Measure 1: Inputs; Measure 2: Output; and Measure

25、 3: Outcomes - are given an equal weighting, since it is hypothesised that each will be interrelated and economically bound by the other.1</p><p>　　For each measure an index was calculated with a UK average

26、base of 100, and the distribution range for each measure calculated (in the case of unemployment rates these values are inverted). As expected, it is found that some of the ranges have both a skewed and a long distributi

27、on range, the result being that these variables have an overly strong Influence on the composite index. Therefore, each datum is transformed into its logarithmic form to produce distributions that are closer to the ‘norm

28、a</p><p>　　Input factors</p><p>　　Input factors</p><p>　　R&D Expenditure</p><p>　　Economic Activity Rates</p><p>　　Business Start-up Rates per 1,000 in

29、habitants</p><p>　　Number of Business per 1,000 inhabitants</p><p>　　GCSE Results - 5 or more grades A* to C</p><p>　　Proportion of Working Age Population with NVQ Level 4 or Higher

30、</p><p>　　Proportion of Knowledge-Based Business</p><p><b>　　↓</b></p><p>　　Output factors</p><p>　　Gross Value Added per Head at Current Basic Prices</p

31、><p>　　Exports per Head of Population</p><p>　　Imports per Head of Population</p><p>　　Proportion of Exporting Companies</p><p>　　Productivity - Output per Hour Worked<

32、/p><p>　　Employment Rates</p><p><b>　　↓</b></p><p>　　Outcome factors</p><p>　　Gross Weekly Pay</p><p>　　Unemployment Rates</p><p>　　F

33、igure 2.01: The 3 Factor Model Underlying the UK Regional Competitiveness Index</p><p>　　It is the case that the untransformed values are no more real or ‘natural’ than the transformed ones. However, in ord

34、er to reflect as far as possible the scale of difference in area competitiveness, the composite scores were finally ‘a(chǎn)nti-logged’ through exponential transformation. This is achieved by calculating the exponential differ

35、ence between the mean logged and un-logged index of the fifty localities nearest the overall UK mean of 100. This resulted in a mean exponential difference slightl</p><p>　　Therefore, bearing in mind the aim

36、 of producing a frequently repeatable index, the exponential cube transformation approach is adopted. Given the above criteria and methodology, a composite Competitiveness Index was calculated for regions and localities

37、of the UK.</p><p>　　Input factors</p><p>　　Economic Activity Rates</p><p>　　Business Start-up Rates per 1,000 Inhabitants</p><p>　　Number of Business per 1,000 Inhabita

38、nts</p><p>　　Proportion of Working Age Population with NVQ Level 4 or Higher</p><p>　　Proportion of Knowledge-Based Business</p><p><b>　　↓</b></p><p>　　Outp

39、ut factors</p><p>　　Gross Value Added per Head at Current Basic Prices</p><p>　　Productivity - Output per Hour Worked</p><p>　　Employment Rates</p><p><b>　　↓</

40、b></p><p>　　Outcome factors</p><p>　　Gross Weekly Pay</p><p>　　Unemployment Rates7</p><p>　　Figure 2.02: The 3 Factor Model Underlying the UK Local Competitiveness

41、Index</p><p>　　CALCULATING LOCAL GROSS VALUED ADDED (GVA) ESTIMATES</p><p>　　Local district and authority area level GVA estimates are produced by assuming that the productivity within the corre

42、sponding NUTS 3 areas (within which they are situated and for which there is published GVA data) is the same as that for the smaller local areas. The estimates were calculated by multiplying NUTS 3 productivity (expresse

43、d as output per worker) by the number of workers within an area. This produces a total output figure from which output per head is calculated by dividing total out</p><p>　　Output per head = (NUTS 3 producti

44、vity*District Employment) /District Population.</p><p>　　BENCHMARKED PLACES</p><p>　　The benchmarking consists of two datasets: UK regions; and UK localities (including cities, boroughs and dist

45、ricts, but excluding localities of Northern Ireland). The 12 UK regions and their populations are shown in Table 2.01.In total, 379 local areas are benchmarked.2 The Appendix lists these localities along with their popul

46、ations and regional designation.</p><p>　　Table 2.01: UK Regions and their Populations</p><p>　　Region Population 2008</p><p>　　East Midlands

47、 4,433,000</p><p>　　East of England 5,728,700</p><p>　　London 7,619,800</p><p>　　North East England 2,575,500</p>

48、;<p>　　North West England 6,875,700</p><p>　　Northern Ireland 1,775,000</p><p>　　Scotland 5,168,500</p><p>　　South East

49、 England 8,380,100</p><p>　　South West England 5,209,200</p><p>　　Wales 2,993,400</p><p>　　West Midlands 5,

50、411,100</p><p>　　Yorkshire and The Humber 5,213,200</p><p>　　UK 61,383,200</p><p>　　Chapter 3 - Regional UK Competitiveness Index 2010 Rankings&

51、lt;/p><p>　　Table 3.01 presents the Regional UK Competitiveness Index for 2010. For the first time since the inception of the UK Competitiveness Index the most competitive region of the UK is not London. Since

52、the 2008 edition of the UK Competitiveness Index, South East England has overhauled London, which has dropped to second position. The East of England remains in third position. As in previous years, these three regions a

53、re the only regions to perform above the UK average.</p><p>　　The largest improvement in ranking was for the North West, which rose to fourth position. This means that the North West has moved from eighth po

54、sition in 2006 to being the most competitive outside of the ‘big three’ regions in 2010. </p><p>　　As well as London, other regions that have fallen down the rankings since 2008 are the East Midlands, South

55、West, Yorkshire and the Humber, and Wales. The North East has improved its performance relative to the UK average, and is now no longer the least competitive region; a position now occupied by Wales.</p><p>

56、　　Table 3.01: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 2010 (UK = 100)</p><p>　　Given that 2010 is an election year in the UK, it is interesting to examine the change in the competiveness of regions since 1997 when

57、 Labour came to power and the present situation in 2010. Table 3.02 presents both the 2010 and 1997 Regional UK Competitiveness Indices, and the change in rank. The largest movers during this period were the North West c

58、limbing, as noted above, from eighth to fourth in the listing, but this is matched by a move in the opposite direction by Scotland, which has slid</p><p>　　There have been considerable changes in the levels

59、of relative competitiveness as measured by the Regional UK Competitiveness index itself. The period has seen a closing of the relative competitiveness gap between regions, so that by 2010 London and the South East are no

60、 longer as far above the UK average as they were in 1997. The bottom four regions have all seen their positions improve compared to the UK average over the period, and while this change has been relatively small for Wale

61、s and Yor</p><p>　　Table 3.02 - Regional UK Competitiveness Index 1997 and 2010 (UK = 100)</p><p>　　Considering each of the three individual factors that make up the Regional UK Competitiveness

62、 Index provides more detail about the changes that have occurred since the 2008 UKCI. The Index of Input Factors presented in Table 3.03 is an index of the following factors: (1) R&D expenditure; (2) Economic Activit

63、y Rates; (3) Business Start-up Rates per 1,000 Inhabitants; (4) Number of Businesses per 1,000 Inhabitants; (5) GCSE Results – 5 or more grades A* to C; (6) Proportion of the Working Age Popu</p><p>　　East o

64、f England tops the rankings in terms of the region with the highest level of input factors. The East of England has seen a substantial rise in the Index of Input Factors between 2008and2010,which is likely to in part ref

65、lect the continuing development of knowledge-based enterprises around Cambridge. This means that the South East is now ranked second although there was little change in its score between 2008 and 2010. London remains in

66、third, but with a significant fall in its index score.</p><p>　　Table 3.03: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 2010 – Index of Input Factors</p><p>　　Over the last 13 years the regions which hav

67、e most improved their ranking in the Index of Input Factors are the North West and East of England. The North West has climbed four places over the period, and although still lagging the UK average, can be viewed as the

68、best of the rest in 2010. Another region improving its position substantially compared to the UK average is the North East, although this has only seen the region move up one position from the bottom of the table in 2010

69、, as was shown b</p><p>　　Table 3.04: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 1997 to 2010 - Index of Input Factors</p><p>　　A sub-composite index of the following output factors of the UK Competitiv

70、eness Index is shown by Table 3.05: (1) Gross Value Added per head at current prices; (2) Exports per Head of Population; (3) Imports per Head of Population; (4) Proportion of Exporting Companies; (5) Productivity- Outpu

71、t per Hour Worked; and (6) Employment Rates. These measures represent the ability of the region to utilise the input factors at its disposal effectively, and therefore can be viewed as a measure of the prod</p>&l

72、t;p>　　The East of England also progressed in the Index of Output Factors and is one of only three regions above the UK average. London remains at the top of the table in terms of output factors, although only recordin

73、g a slightly higher index value than the South East. Regions displaying considerable falls relative to the UK average include: the East and West Midlands; Yorkshire and the Humber; and Scotland. This means that although

74、not improving relative to the UK average, both the South West and Nor</p><p>　　Table 3.05: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 2010 - Index of Output Factors</p><p>　　Comparing the situation at th

75、e beginning of Labour’s period in power with that currently, Table 3.06 indicates that at the start of the period London and the South East were alone in being clearly ahead of the UK average, with three further regions,

76、 the East of England, East Midlands and West Midlands performing approximately at the UK average. However, by the end of the period the top regions have become a triad with the East of England closing its relative positi

77、on to London and the South East</p><p>　　Table 3.06: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 1997 to 2010 - Index of Output Factors</p><p>　　For regions to be competitive it can be argued that it is

78、a necessary, but not a sufficient condition that productivity rises; as this can be achieved through labour shedding, which is likely to lead to a short lived unsustainable competitive advantage. For sustainable increase

79、s in competitiveness it is also necessary that a population enjoys increasing standards of living. Table 3.07 presents the sub-composite index of outcome factors, which is formed from measures of gross weekly pay and une

80、mp</p><p>　　The top three regions, London, the South East and the East of England, remain the same as in 2008, although London is no longer as far above the UK average. This may reflect the particularly stro

81、ng influence of the recession on standards of living in the capital. The largest improver is Northern Ireland, where the strong economic performance of the region over the last two years have helped it climb from tenth t

82、o fourth, with an index score roughly equal to the UK average. Scotland and the West </p><p>　　Table 3.07: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 2010 - Index of Outcome Factors</p><p>　　Table 3.08

83、presents the Index of Outcome Factors for 1997 and 2010. Three regions standout as having experienced considerable changes to their rankings during the period, in particular Northern Ireland has improved its position gre

84、atly thanks to the end of the ‘troubles’ and rapid growth in the regional economy has led to increases in standard of living measures. Over the period, the North West and West Midlands have seen their rankings fall. Lond

85、on has also experienced a large drop in its Index</p><p>　　Table 3.08: Regional UK Competitiveness Index 1997 to 2010 - Index of Outcome Factors</p><p>　　The fall of London from the top of the U

86、K Competitiveness Index may be surprising to some. The sub-composite measures indicate that this fall originates from the Input and Outcome Factors. It might be argued that the recession will have greater effects on the

87、outcome factors in London compared with other regions given the specialisation of the regional economy in financial services; however, it may also recover more quickly. The fall in the Index of Input factors on the other

88、 hand appears to be </p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　2010年英國競爭力指數(shù)</p><p>　　資料來源:國際中心競爭力</p><p>　　作者：羅伯特哈金斯和橋墩湯普森</p><p><b>　　第一章- 簡介</b>

89、;</p><p>　　這份報告描述了2010版的英國競爭力指數(shù)（UKCI），該指數(shù)于2000年首次提出并出版。它代表了英國區(qū)域和地方的競爭力的基準(zhǔn)。該指數(shù)已被設(shè)計成一個綜合競爭力尺度來研究企業(yè)發(fā)展和可持續(xù)性以及個人的經(jīng)濟福利。在這方面，我們認(rèn)為競爭力的能力包括對一個經(jīng)濟體的吸引并保持企業(yè)穩(wěn)定或股票上升的市場活動，同時保持穩(wěn)定或提升那些參與其中的人們的生活水平。</p><p>　　這表明

90、競爭力不是一個零和游戲，并且不依賴于從一個地方的數(shù)量有限的資源轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個地方。競爭力涉及堆積作用和地區(qū)的經(jīng)濟的共同發(fā)展，而不是一個地方的發(fā)展以犧牲另一個地方為代價。然而，競爭力也的確涉及不同種類優(yōu)勢的平衡，使另一個地方能容納這個地方，即對于不同范圍的競爭力量，某個特定地方的社會經(jīng)濟環(huán)境相對于其他地方能提供不同的競爭優(yōu)勢。</p><p>　　自從英國的競爭力指數(shù)首次推出，指標(biāo)和變量構(gòu)成的區(qū)域和地方英國的競爭力指

91、數(shù)的數(shù)量不斷擴大。然而，它們的潛在方法基本保持不變。在這份報告中，我們公布的2010年指標(biāo)（包含最新數(shù)據(jù)），以及2008年的報告（有可比較之處）中提出的作為比較的方法，審查英國的競爭力不斷變化的情況。在這個選舉年，結(jié)果亦會與1997年版本的英國競爭力指數(shù)比較。</p><p>　　由于空間約束條件，它已證實這是不可能完全列出所有的區(qū)域和地方的指標(biāo)內(nèi)調(diào)制報告。因此，一個完整的數(shù)據(jù)集電子表格可向與此相感興趣的人報告并

92、獲得更詳細(xì)的基準(zhǔn)或根據(jù)自己的專長實行進(jìn)一步研究的報告。本報告的結(jié)構(gòu)如下。</p><p>　　第2章回顧了關(guān)于英國的競爭力指數(shù)的潛在方法論，第3章，第4章和第5章分別展示了一個區(qū)域、城市和當(dāng)?shù)刂笖?shù)主要成果的概述。第6章考察了人口密度和英國的競爭力指數(shù)更詳細(xì)的關(guān)系。第7章探討了競爭力和可持續(xù)發(fā)展有關(guān)的一系列因素和福利的關(guān)系。第8章考慮了一個競爭力潛在的來源—人力資本被創(chuàng)新工人持有，要保持競爭力保留這些工人是非常重要

93、的。第9章提出了一些最后的結(jié)果,作為2010年英國競爭力指數(shù)的結(jié)束語。</p><p>　　第二章 - 方法論</p><p>　　英國競爭力指數(shù)的方法論設(shè)計</p><p><b>　　背景</b></p><p>　　研究英國競爭力指數(shù)的目的是通過評估構(gòu)建一個英國各地區(qū)和地方的相對經(jīng)濟競爭力的單一指數(shù)，盡可能充分地

94、反映構(gòu)成上的地方競爭力衡量的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我們認(rèn)為，地方/地區(qū)和企業(yè)競爭力相互依賴。然而，衡量這種競爭力不是一件容易的事情，而且作為國家競爭力指標(biāo)所體現(xiàn)的不僅僅只是國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值（GDP）和生產(chǎn)力。</p><p>　　同樣，也不能以隔離任何一個變量來衡量競爭力的排名，因為它是一個由輸入，輸出和結(jié)果因素相互復(fù)雜作用的結(jié)果。顯然，鑒于經(jīng)濟變量的組成還包括政治，社會和文化參數(shù)，所以并不是所有的這些因素都很容易衡量。不過，由于我

95、們的重點是在英國的相對競爭力表現(xiàn)上，因此便可以假設(shè)這些因素都會對重要的經(jīng)濟措施起識別作用。舉例來說，傳統(tǒng)的制造業(yè)經(jīng)濟和知識型經(jīng)濟的文化差異應(yīng)該對它們的經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)有相對明顯的影響。此外，盡管下放治理在英國部分存在，但大部分地區(qū)都受目前英國政治制度的影響。</p><p><b>　　設(shè)計</b></p><p>　　英國競爭力指數(shù)設(shè)計過程中的關(guān)鍵問題是制定一系列可合并的數(shù)

96、據(jù)以及地方和區(qū)域競爭力水平的可比性，這在某種程度上有助于反映宏觀的經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)和創(chuàng)新的經(jīng)營行為之間的聯(lián)系。還必須周全地考慮到整體價值的指標(biāo)和其隨著性能措施的相對成效，特別是，測量鏈的投入，產(chǎn)出和結(jié)果之間的相互聯(lián)系和該指數(shù)的潛在能力要盡可能經(jīng)常更新，這將有重大的意義。</p><p>　　有了方法參數(shù)，就應(yīng)該思考建立一個把變量包括在內(nèi)的不同模式的數(shù)量指數(shù)。經(jīng)過測試，衡量競爭力的三因子模型如圖2.01（英國區(qū)域的競爭力指

97、數(shù)）和圖2.02（英國本地的競爭力指數(shù)）被采用。三因子模型包括一個分析競爭力的線性框架，（1）投入；（2）輸出；（3）成果的因素。</p><p>　　為了實現(xiàn)各個指標(biāo)之間有效的平衡，在其整體意義上的綜合指數(shù)有三項措施，措施1：投入；措施2：輸出；措施3：成果。因為它科學(xué)地假設(shè)每一個措施都是相互關(guān)聯(lián)的，都是經(jīng)濟界獨立的個體，所以三者平等。</p><p>　　每一個指數(shù)的計算都是建立在英國

98、的平均計算標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為100的基礎(chǔ)上以及每項措施的計算分布范圍（在失業(yè)的情況下，這些值將倒置）。正如預(yù)期的那樣，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)一些范圍既有扭曲的又有長期的，其結(jié)果是這些變量都對綜合指數(shù)有很重要的影響。因此，每個數(shù)據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化為對數(shù)形式，其產(chǎn)生的分布更接近正常曲線，這樣避免了極端值，使得沒有任何一個變量歪曲了最后的綜合得分。</p><p><b>　　投入因素</b></p><p>

99、<b>　　研發(fā)支出。</b></p><p><b>　　經(jīng)濟活動的比率</b></p><p>　　商業(yè)啟動率在每農(nóng)民1000</p><p><b>　　經(jīng)商者每人1000</b></p><p>　　普通中等教育考試結(jié)果-5或以上等級A至C</p><

100、;p>　　勞動年齡人口比例國家職業(yè)資格4倍或更高</p><p><b>　　知識比例-基本業(yè)務(wù)</b></p><p><b>　　↓</b></p><p><b>　　輸出因素</b></p><p>　　人均增加值總額在現(xiàn)階段的基本價格</p>&l

101、t;p><b>　　人均出口</b></p><p><b>　　人均進(jìn)口</b></p><p><b>　　出口企業(yè)的比例</b></p><p><b>　　生產(chǎn)力-每小時產(chǎn)出</b></p><p><b>　　就業(yè)率</b&

102、gt;</p><p><b>　　↓</b></p><p><b>　　結(jié)果因素</b></p><p><b>　　每周總支付</b></p><p><b>　　失業(yè)率</b></p><p>　　圖 2.01 英國區(qū)域的競

103、爭力指數(shù)三因子模型</p><p>　　這是發(fā)生這種情況：未轉(zhuǎn)換的值沒有比轉(zhuǎn)換的更實際或‘自然’。然而，為了盡可能地反映不同規(guī)模地區(qū)的競爭力，通過指數(shù)變換最后得出綜合得分。這是通過計算指數(shù)平均值之間的差額記錄英國各地的五十個地區(qū)的指數(shù)，其均值為100。這導(dǎo)致平均指數(shù)與立方體轉(zhuǎn)換方法略有差異，所記錄的指數(shù)均值少。例如，104個記錄指數(shù)產(chǎn)生了約112.5個未記錄的指數(shù)（1043除以1003）和90個記錄指數(shù)產(chǎn)生了約7