Competitiveness: Does ranking countries make real sense?

There is no question that Greece needs a real economy. But what is a real economy in 2012 Europe and world like? How many of the national economies are real, after all?

Is Germany a real economy? The UK? NL? USA? Canada? Singapore? Finland? Time for real talk on real economics.

Is world trade real? Is the EU Single Market real? Real people and real companies need real economies. Where are they?

Let me propose the theory that: The Euro crisis and other events turned the world economy from competition between companies to competition between counties.

But countries are not SAs/companies to be ranked in world tables and rated like horses in a race, are they?. Were/are they meant to be?

Many competitiveness concepts were invented when only few countries played the trade game. Now they are 150+.

So when for example its international lenders want Greece to be competitive, that is compared to whom? Spain? Bulgaria? TK? China? Nigeria? Singapore? Argentina? All 150+? The rest of the Euro or the EU27? The rest of the EEA? The rest of the WTO?


What I mean is: Can any team compete in a league of 150+ teams? Can countries compete in the trade games of the 150+ WTO League?


How deep is the pit, ie how can one have a competitiveness strategy when in a league of 150+ especially when that someone is not flexible as a corporation but a whole country? Are we in effect treating tankers as if they were fishing boats?

Maybe Greece is the best case re how antiquated much of the current thinking on competitiveness is.

 Let me phrase it in a provocative way: Maybe just because financiers focus (too much?) on sovereign bonds, that  is not a reason to focus on national rather than corporate competitiveness?

So what I am saying is: of course every country needs to provide a suitable environment for econ activity, but ranking countries is maybe faulty and misleading the analysis and our thinking.