This report is part of a larger RAND Corporation study on the societal foundations of national competitiveness. The authors surveyed Chinese and Russian thinking about the qualities of nations that tend to produce competitive advantage and found that both China and Russia hold starkly different views from most U.S. and Western officials and analysts about the societal sources of competitive advantage.
Nations rise and fall, succeed or fail in rivalries, and enjoy stability or descend into chaos because of a complex web of factors that affect competitive advantage. One critical component is the package of essential social characteristics of a nation. The ultimate story of the Cold War is that the United States was simply a more competitive society than the Soviet Union: more energetic, more vibrant, more innovative, more productive, more legitimate. Through analysis of comparative studies of historical eras and trends, historical case studies, and the findings of issue-specific empirical research, the report explores how seven characteristics of a society determine its competitive standing and distinguish dynamic and competitively successful nations. If the history surveyed in this report provides an accurate guide to the future, the fate of the United States in today's rivalries will not be determined solely, or even in significant degree, by the numbers of its weapons or amounts of defense spending or how many proxy wars it wins but by the basic characteristics of its society. The author applies the seven leading characteristics that affect national standing to the United States to create a snapshot of where the country stands. That application provides some reason for optimism. The United States continues to reflect many of these characteristics, and the overall synergistic engine, more than any other large country in the world. However, multiple trends are working to weaken traditional U.S. advantages. Several, such as the corruption of the national information space, pose acute risks to the long-term dynamism and competitiveness of the nation, raising the worrying prospect that the United States has begun to display classic patterns of a major power on the far side of its dynamic and vital curve.
The author presents an empirical study on Vietnam's national competitiveness by using mixed methods research (qualitative and quantitative) with a combination of hard and soft data. The result shows that production resources (human, infrastructure, capital and natural resources) have played the most important role in improving competitiveness, productivity and living standard in Vietnam in the last two decades. The author also analyzed and evaluated the competitiveness of the Vietnamese economy, and pointed out the remaining weaknesses of competitiveness compared to the selected regional countries such as shortage of production resources supply, a dominance of inefficient state-owned enterprises and its slow reform, and weak public institutions as well as inefficient government governance. These weaknesses have led Vietnam's competitiveness, productivity and economic growth to remain low, especially compared to China. Finally, the author attempts to provide some recommendations enhancing the competitiveness, productivity, and citizens' living standard in Vietnam in the long term.
Leading political innovation activist Katherine Gehl and world-renowned business strategist Michael Porter bring fresh perspective, deep scholarship, and a real and actionable solution, Final Five Voting, to the grand challenge of our broken political and democratic system. Final Five Voting has already been adopted in Alaska and is being advanced in states across the country. The truth is, the American political system is working exactly how it is designed to work, and it isn't designed or optimized today to work for us—for ordinary citizens. Most people believe that our political system is a public institution with high-minded principles and impartial rules derived from the Constitution. In reality, it has become a private industry dominated by a textbook duopoly—the Democrats and the Republicans—and plagued and perverted by unhealthy competition between the players. Tragically, it has therefore become incapable of delivering solutions to America's key economic and social challenges. In fact, there's virtually no connection between our political leaders solving problems and getting reelected. In The Politics Industry, business leader and path-breaking political innovator Katherine Gehl and world-renowned business strategist Michael Porter take a radical new approach. They ingeniously apply the tools of business analysis—and Porter's distinctive Five Forces framework—to show how the political system functions just as every other competitive industry does, and how the duopoly has led to the devastating outcomes we see today. Using this competition lens, Gehl and Porter identify the most powerful lever for change—a strategy comprised of a clear set of choices in two key areas: how our elections work and how we make our laws. Their bracing assessment and practical recommendations cut through the endless debate about various proposed fixes, such as term limits and campaign finance reform. The result: true political innovation. The Politics Industry is an original and completely nonpartisan guide that will open your eyes to the true dynamics and profound challenges of the American political system and provide real solutions for reshaping the system for the benefit of all. THE INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL INNOVATION The authors will donate all royalties from the sale of this book to the Institute for Political Innovation.
Harvard professor, Michael Porter has been one of the most influential figures in strategic management research over the last three decades. He infused a rigorous theoretical framework of industrial organization economics with the then still embryonic field of strategic management and elevated it to its current status as an academic discipline. Porter's outstanding career is also characterized by its cross-disciplinary nature. Following his most important work on strategic management, he then made a leap to the policy side and dealt with a completely different set of analytical units. More recently he has made a foray into inner city development, environmental regulations, and health care services. Throughout these explorations Porter has maintained his integrative approach, seeking a road that links management case studies and the general model building of mainstream economics. With expert contributors from a range of disciplines including strategic management, economic development, economic geography, and planning, this book assesses the contribution Michael Porter has made to these respective disciplines. It clarifies the sources of tension and controversy relating to all the major strands of Porter's work, and provides academics, students, and practitioners with a critical guide for the application of Porter's models. The book highlights that while many of the criticisms of Porter's ideas are valid, they are almost an inevitable outcome for a scholar who has sought to build bridges across wide disciplinary valleys. His work has provided others with a set of frameworks to explore in more depth the nature of competition, competitive advantage, and clusters from a range of vantage points.
Competition, competitiveness, innovation and growth are inherently linked. This book covers the main ideas underlying competitiveness and its applications, drawing lessons for developing economies and relevant policy recommendations.
Ronald Burt describes the social structural theory of competition that has developed through the last two decades. The contrast between perfect competition and monopoly is replaced with a network model of competition. The basic element in this account is the structural hole: a gap between two individuals with complementary resources or information. When the two are connected through a third individual as entrepreneur, the gap is filled, creating important advantages for the entrepreneur. Competitive advantage is a matter of access to structural holes in relation to market transactions.
