Europe
The Nordic countries continue to hold prominent positions in the rankings among the top 10 most competitive economies this year, with Finland (1), Sweden (3), Denmark (4), Iceland (7) and Norway (9) all in privileged places. The Nordics are challenging the conventional wisdom that high taxes and large safety nets undermine competitiveness, suggesting that what is important is how well government revenues are spent, rather than the overall tax burden per se. Elsewhere in Europe the most notable developments are the improvement in the relative position of Ireland, which has moved up 4 places to 26 in the overall rankings; the improvement of Poland, which has moved up 9 places to 51st place in the rankings, the significant decline of Greece (ranked 46, compared to 37 last year), which now has joined Italy (ranked 47) as the two lowest-ranking countries among the EU-25, bar Poland.

Asia Pacific

• Leading within Asia are Taiwan and Singapore, ranked 5th and 6th respectively, some places ahead of the next Asian country covered by the GCI, Japan, ranked 12th. The distance between these top-ranked economies and Japan has increased since last year, reflecting Japan's relatively poor macroeconomic performance, particularly as regards management of the public finances. Compared with the other tigers, Hong Kong is ranked much lower at 28th place, having dropped 7 places since last year. Hong Kong saw a weakening in perceived judicial independence, the protection of property rights and in government favouritism in policy-making. Hong Kong's ranks on irregular payments (corruption) have also fallen well below its previously excellent performance.
  

Australia, in 10th place, has moved up 4 places since last year, with improvements across many of the institutional and technology indicators measured by the index.

The American continent
The United States, as last year, is ranked second: the country demonstrates overall technological supremacy, with a very powerful culture of innovation. However, technological prowess is partly offset by a weaker performance in other areas measured by the index — the US has a relatively low rank of 20 for the contracts and law indicator, with particular concerns on the part of the business community about the government's ability to maintain arm's-length relationships with the private sector. The country's greatest weakness concerns the health of its macroeconomic environment, where it ranks a low 47th overall.

As in previous years, Chile, ranked 23rd, leads the way in Latin America by a wide margin. Chile continues to benefit from a combination of remarkably competent macroeconomic management and public institutions, which have achieved EU levels of transparency and efficiency.

Mexico has fallen 7 places since last year to 55th, ceding its second spot in the regional ranking to Uruguay, while Brazil fell 8 places to 65th position. Venezuela, which had a ranking of 62 in 2001, continues its precipitous decline to the bottom of the rankings, falling another 4 places to 89th position overall this year. Widespread mismanagement has led to strong deterioration in all areas measured by the index and the macroeconomic environment has become highly unstable.

Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

• Within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the small Gulf States perform quite well in the overall GCI rankings. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar are ranked 18th and 19th, respectively.

Sub-Saharan African region

• While most of the countries of the sub-Saharan African region are less competitive, the region does have a number of relative success stories. This includes South Africa (42nd), Botswana (48th), Mauritius (52nd) and Ghana (59th), the latter's competitiveness performance being even more notable, having improved by 9 places since 2004. Tanzania has also seen a significant improvement over the past year, moving up 11 places in the overall rankings. On the other hand, Namibia, a relatively good performer overall, lost 11 places over the past year, as, predictably, did Madagascar and Zimbabwe, losing 11 and 10 places, respectively. Zimbabwe has the worst ranking (117) for the quality of its macroeconomic environment.