and the A Comparison Based on The Herzliya Indices Approach Presented by Dr. Zalman Shiffer The Herzliya Indices Team Herzliya Conference 2008 1
Team Members Herzliya Indices Team Team Leader Prof. Rafi Melnick - IDC Herzliya Ms. Leah Achdut Van Leer Jerusalem Institute; The Ruppin Academic Center Dr. Michel Strawczynski Bank of Mr. Tommy Steiner IDC Herzliya Dr. Zalman Shiffer Economic Advisor With thanks to Michal Ophir and Refaela Cohen (National Insurance Institute of ), Polina Dovman (Bank of ), and Gilad Skutelsky (IDC Herzliya) for their assistance with research. 2
Purpose of the Presentation The purpose of the present enquiry is to carry a systematic quantitative comparison between the economic, social and governmental/political performance of and that of the current and potential future members of the. This will serve as background for evaluating the compatibility of i achievements with the standards of the members of a leading advanced and democratic international organization. 3
Methodology Comparing s economic, social and governmental/ political achievements to those of: - The Members - Relevant Sub-Groups of the - New Candidates to the - The Current Accession Talks group - Potential Future Candidates - The Enhanced Engagement" Group Using the Herzliya Indices wherever possible and partial components of these indices in other cases. 4
Groups of Comparison 26 Members: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. sub-groups Scandinavia :Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden Western Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Southern Europe: Greece, Spain, Portugal. Central Eastern Europe: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland. Candidates: Current Accession group: Chile, Estonia, Russia, Slovakia and Enhanced Engagement group: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa 5
Economic Herzliya Index 2006 120.0 110.1.0 80.0 60.0 59.2 63.2 64.0 66.8 56.0 46.5 40.0 20.0 0.0 Scandinavia Western Europe 6 Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe USA
Evolution of the Economic Dimension 1990-2007 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe 7
GDP Per Capita (% of Level) 2006 140 120 121.5 114.2 80 89.1 81.9 Level 60 61.3 48.4 40 23.7 20 0 Scandinavia Western Europe Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe Current Accession (Exl ISR) Enhanced Engagement 8
GDP Per Capita (% of Level) 2006 120 89.1 Level 80 60 55.7 56.6 40 42.6 38.8 29 24.9 38.7 20 12.2 13.6 0 Chile Estonia Russia Slovakia Brazil China India Indonesia South Africa 9
Social Herzliya Index 2006 120.0 110.0.0 95.2 99.2 104.5.3 94.7 97.7.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 Scandinavia Western Europe 10 Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe USA
Evolution of the Social Dimension 1990-2006 98 96 94 92 90 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe 11
HDI Life Expectancy (% of Level) 2005 120 110 103.1 101.2 101.5.8 92.6 Level 90 88 80 75.9 70 60 50 Scandinavia Western Europe Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe Current Accession (Exl ISR) Enhanced Engagement 12
HDI Life Expectancy (% of Level) 2005 120 110 90 103.1 99.5 86.2 91.9 87.2 88.6 Level 83.4 80 70 74.6 72.2 60 50 48.1 40 Chile Estonia Russia Slovakia Brazil China India Indonesia South Africa 13
Gini Coefficient* 2006 0.4 0.377 0.353 0.3 0.301 0.286 0.289 0.245 0.2 0.1 0 Scandinavia Western Europe Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe Current Accession (Exl ISR) Enhanced Engagement * No Data for Currant Accession and "Enhanced Engagment" Groups, New Zealand and Turkey 14
Governmental/Political Herzliya Index 2006 120.0.0 80.0 71.6 88.3 94.8 93.0 83.7 80.0 98.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Scandinavia Western Europe 15 Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe USA
Evolution of the Governmental/Political Dimension 1996-2006 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe 16
Political Stability and the Absence of Violence (% of Level) 2006 120 112.7 102.6 94.1 94.5 Level 90.5 80 60 61.5 40 40.8 20 0 Scandinavia Western Europe Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe Current Accession (Exl ISR) Enhanced Engagement 17
Political Stability and the Absence of Violence (% of Level) 2006 120.0.0 103.3 101.0 103.3 Level 80.0 74.4 75.0 65.7 60.0 54.3 51.3 40.0 40.8 41.1 20.0 0.0 Chile Estonia Russia Slovakia Brazil China India Indonesia South Africa 18
Rule of Law (% of Level) 2006 120.0.0 80.0 82.6 115.5 107.6 88.0 79.5 Level 75.0 60.0 58.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Scandinavia Western Europe Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe Current Accession (Exl ISR) Enhanced Engagement 19
Rule of Law (% of Level) 2006 120 80 82.6 94.6 88.3 75.8 69.1 Level 70.9 60 52.2 54.4 40 41.1 43.4 20 0 Chile Estonia Russia Slovakia Brazil China India Indonesia South Africa 20
Government Effectiveness (% of Level) 2006 120 117.6 80 91.7 106.2 85.8 82.4 82.1 Level 64.8 60 40 20 0 Scandinavia Western Europe Southern Europe Central Eastern Europe Current Accession (Exl ISR) Enhanced Engagement 21
Overall Evaluation In terms of past standards, has a reasonable economic record, marginal achievements in the social dimension, and is lagging behind in the political dimension. In spite of these weaknesses, is ready for membership and is in the position of both benefiting from membership and contributing to the achievements of this organization. could have qualified for membership for some time; the timing of its invitation to join the organization may have been related to political considerations. 22
Overall Evaluation - continued More detailed assessment indicates that s mixed socio-political record reflects a combination of satisfactory and even good results in some fields with poorer achievements in other fields, notably the field of income distribution, and political stability and violence. should be aware of its insufficient record in these important fields, and use its future membership as leverage for improving its overall performance. 23