[Global HR Forum 2011] Global HRD Competitiveness Report 2011
-
Upload
global-hr-forum -
Category
Education
-
view
164 -
download
4
description
Transcript of [Global HR Forum 2011] Global HRD Competitiveness Report 2011
Global HRD Competitiveness Global HRD Competitiveness Report 2011
Hunseok OhDirector of Korea Human Resource Research CenterSeoul National [email protected]
Contributors
Seoul National University Korea Human Resource Research Center
Hunseok Oh Myungweon ChoiKukkeun Kim Hyuehyun Ryu
Korea Human Resource Research Center
Kukkeun Kim Hyuehyun RyuYeseul Choi Dongin Seo
Korea Economic Daily
2
Background
� Pre-existing indices to evaluate NHRD competitiveness� IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook� WEF Global Competitiveness Report� IPS National Competitiveness Research
Korea Human Resource Research Center
� IPS National Competitiveness Research� Talent global competitiveness (China)� Global Talent Index (EIU, UK)� Creativity Index (Hong Kong)� UNDP Human Development Index� OECD Education at a Glance
3
Background (cont’d)
� Limitations of these indices include: � An economy-centered or industry-centered
perspective� Absence of a theoretical model of NHRD� Heavy reliance on corporation executives’ opinions
and/or subjective ratings
Korea Human Resource Research Center
and/or subjective ratings
4
Background (cont’d)
� Need for an alternative index to measure NHRD competitiveness � to assess national competitiveness from an HRD
perspective� to measure NHRD competitiveness based on a
sound theoretical model
Korea Human Resource Research Center
sound theoretical model� to reflect the full spectrum of HRD competitiveness,
rather than opinions of a specific population
5
Defining NHRD
Competitive-ness
Building the conceptual
model
Determining the
components of the model
Validating the model and its components
(AHP)
Procedure to develop and validate the Global HRD Competitiveness Index
Korea Human Resource Research Center
ness of the model (AHP)
Comparing competitiveness
across the countries
Computing the countries’ HRD competitiveness
scores
Collecting data of OECD member countries
6
Conceptual Model of NHRD System
� NHRD is “a system that a country has in order to secure, develop, and utilize its human resources”
Securing Securing Human Human ResourcesResources
Utilizing
Korea Human Resource Research Center
DevelopingDevelopingHuman Human ResourcesResources
Utilizing Human Resources
National HRD System
National HRD System
7
Measurement Model of NHRD System
� NHRD competitiveness is “the cumulative sum of a country’s achievement in each of the factors as well as the interaction among them”
DevelopingDevelopingHuman Human ResourcesResources
Securing Securing Human Human ResourcesResources
Utilizing Human Resources
8
Factors & Sub -Factors of NHRD System
Environment
SupplyConditions
DemandConditions
SupportingSystems
9
QualityQuantity
SupplyConditions
Indicators of Supply Conditions
Korea Human Resource Research Center
• PISA score• number of World Top 500
Universities• quality of management
schools• perceived health status
• total fertility rates• life expectancy at birth • working-age population• percentage of population
with at least upper secondary education
• percentage of population with tertiary education
• percentage of population 25-64 years old in adult learning
10
DemandConditions
Indicators of Demand Conditions
QualityQuantity
Korea Human Resource Research Center
• number of creative professionals as a percentage of total population
• number of technicians and associate professionals as a percentage of total population
• brain gain• gender gap in median
earnings of full-time employees
• employment rate• unemployment rate• percentage of the population
aged 25-64 with tertiary education in employment
• percentage of the population aged 25-64 with tertiary education in unemployment
• rate of female labor force participation
11
Technology
• fixed/mobile broadband internet Social capital
Globalization
Industry
• exports and imports of creative goods as
Environment
Indicators of Environment
Korea Human Resource Research Center
subscribers per 100 population
• international internet bandwidth bit/s per internet user
• number of estimated internet users per 100 population
• number of mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 population
• ICT price
Social capital
• interpersonal trust• confidence in social
institutions• tolerance• voter turnout
• TOEFL score • foreign students as
a percentage of all tertiary enrollment
• number of international meetings per GDP
• international passengers relative to total population
• political globalization
percentage of total trades in goods
• receipts of royalties and licenses fees as percentage of total services exports
• hi-technology exports as percentage of total manufacturing exports
• university-industry collaboration in R&D
12
SupportingSystems
Indicators of Supporting Systems
Korea Human Resource Research Center
Investment
• public expenditure on education
• private expenditure on education
• government expenditure on R&D
• business expenditure on R&D
Institutions
• intellectual property protection• duration of compulsory
education• public expenditure on active
labor market policies• FRE paid maternity leave
13
Selecting Indicators (1)
� Criteria for selecting indicators � international comparability� accuracy and reliability
(37 out of 45 indicators are measured by hard data) � relevance� timeliness and punctuality
Korea Human Resource Research Center
� timeliness and punctuality� coherence � accessibility and clarity
14
Selecting Indicators (2)
� Resources include: � ILO Statistics � ITU World telecommunication/ICT Indicators database � OECD Factbook� OCED Education at a Glance � OECD Society at a Glance
Korea Human Resource Research Center
� OECD Society at a Glance � OECD Health at a Glance � OECD Earnings, Family, PISA databases� UNCTAD Creative Economy Report � WEF Global Competitiveness Report � World Bank World Development Indicators� World Bank World Governance Indicators � Word Bank Science & Technology Indicators� UNESCO database
15
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
� What is AHP? � A structured technique which relies on the judgment and
experience of decision makers to prioritize information for better decisions
� A method frequently used to determine the weight to be given to each of the criteria to be considered in making a choice
Korea Human Resource Research Center
� Procedures� Participants included 17 faculty members and researchers in the
fields of economics, technology management, public administration & policy, corporate strategies, educational policy, lifelong education, women’s studies, etc.
� Participants were asked to provide pairwise comparisons for every set of factors, sub-factors, and indicators
� Relative weights were calculated based on T. Saaty’s guideline
16
Analytical Hierarchy Process (cont’d)
Supply
conditions
26.32
Demand
conditions
29.90
Environment
21.28
Supporting
systems
22.50
� Weights given to the factors and sub-factors
Korea Human Resource Research Center
Quan
8.92
Qual
17.39
Quan
12.02
Qual
17.89
Techno
-logy
4.98
Social
capital
5.58
Globali
-zation
4.14
Industr
-y
6.57
Institut
-ions
12.27
Invest
-ment
10.23
Note: Numbers in the boxes indicate the weights given to the factors and sub-factors (unit: %)
17
Analytical Hierarchy Process (cont’d)
� Weight of each of the 45 indicators ranged from 9.14% to 0.25%
� Indicators with high weights� number of creative professionals as a percentage of total
population (9.14%)
Korea Human Resource Research Center
population (9.14%)� number of World Top 500 Universities (8.95%)� public expenditure on education (4.20%)� intellectual property protection (4.20%) � number of 25-64 year-olds with tertiary education in
employment as a percentage of the population aged 25 to 64 (3.79%)
� brain gain (3.61%) (weights in the parentheses)
18
Computing the Competitiveness Scores
Korea Human Resource Research Center19
Ranking Country Score Ranking Country Score
1 Switzerland 4.873 18 Ireland 3.944
2 Sweden 4.787 19 Israel 3.891
3 United States 4.786 20 Slovenia 3.713
4 Netherlands 4.696 21 Estonia 3.635
5 Finland 4.539 22 Japan 3.631
6 Denmark 4.531 23 Korea 3.472
7 Norway 4.462 24 Spain 3.375
Ranking: OECD Member Countries
8 Canada 4.395 25 Czech Republic 3.280
9 Iceland 4.355 26 Poland 3.069
10 United Kingdom 4.333 27 Portugal 2.998
11 Australia 4.306 28 Italy 2.971
12 New Zealand 4.209 29 Hungary 2.963
13 Germany 4.203 30 Slovak Republic 2.890
14 France 4.013 31 Greece 2.874
15 Belgium 3.997 32 Chile 2.843
16 Luxemburg 3.986 33 Mexico 2.510
17 Austria 3.959 34 Turkey 1.953
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Canada
United States
Ranking: OECD Member Countries (cont’d)
� Supply Conditions: Top 10 OECD Countries
Korea Human Resource Research Center1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Netherlands
Sweden
Germany
Finland
Australia
New Zealand
21
Australia
Norway
Sweden
Netherlands
Switzerland
Ranking: OECD Member Countries (cont’d)
� Demand Conditions: Top 10 OECD Countries
Korea Human Resource Research Center1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Denmark
Slovenia
Canada
Finland
Iceland
Australia
22
Ranking: OECD Member Countries (cont’d)
United States
Netherlands
Sweden
Switzerland
Denmark
� Environment: Top 10 OECD Countries
Korea Human Resource Research Center1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Norway
Austria
Luxemburg
Finland
United Kingdom
United States
23
Israel
Denmark
Iceland
Sweden
Finland
Ranking: OECD Member Countries (cont’d)
� Supporting Systems: Top 10 OECD Countries
Korea Human Resource Research Center1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Norway
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
France
Israel
24
Country Groups by HRD Competitiveness
2
3
4
5
6
7
supply(quan)
supply(qual)
demand(quan)investment
institutions
0
1
demand(qual)
technology
social capital
globalization
industry
strong countries intermediary countries weak countries 25
Country Groups by GDP per capita
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
supply(quan)
supply(qual)
demand(quan)investment
institutions
0
1
demand(qual)
technology
social capital
globalization
industry
large economies medium economies small economies 26
Comparison between Country Groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
supply(quan)
supply(qual)
demand(quan)investment
policiesinstitutions
27
0
1
demand(qual)
technology
social capital
globalization
industry
Top 5 countries Bottom 5 countries
Comparison between Country Groups (cont’d)
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
Top 5 countries Bottom 5 countries
28
Comparison between Country Groups (cont’d)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
supply(quan)
supply(qual)
demand(quan)investment
policiesinstitutions
29
0
1
demand(qual)
technology
social capital
globalization
industry
Top 5 countries Rank 6-15 countries
Comparison between Country Groups (cont’d)
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
Top 5 countries Rank 6-15 countries 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
supply(quan)
supply(qual)
demand(quan)investment
institutions
Country Profile: Korea 14
18
283
32
0
1
demand(qual)
technology
social capital
globalization
industry
Korea OECD average
32
8
33
31
10
Numbers indicate the rank of Korea in each sub-factor
(reference group: OECD member countries) 31
Country Profile: Korea (cont’d)
3
4
5
6
7
8 3
0
1
2
Korea OECD average
32
3233
3132
Numbers indicate the rank of Korea in each sub-factor (reference group: OECD member countries)
Relations with Other Competitiveness Indices
IMD (2010) WEF (2010) HDI (2010) GHRD (2011)
IMD (2010) 1 .914** .610** .816**
WEF (2010) 1 .645** .872**
HDI (2010) 1 .803**
GHRD (2011) 1
(Pearson's r)
33
Correlation with GDP per capita
Pearson’s r = .588 Pearson’s r = .675
34
Country Groups by HRD Competitiveness and GDP per capita
CanadaDenmarkFinlandNetherlandsNorwaySwedenSwitzerland
AustraliaIcelandUnited Kingdom
large economy medium economy small economy
strongly
competitive
SwitzerlandUnited States
AustriaIrelandLuxemburg
BelgiumFranceGermanyIsraelJapanNew Zealand
EstoniaKoreaSlovenia
GreeceItalySpain
ChileCzech RepublicHungaryMexicoPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicTurkey
intermediately
competitive
weakly
competitive
35
Changes in HRD Competitiveness between 2005 and 2011
Country 2011 ranking 2005 ranking Change Country 2011 ranking 2005 ranking Change
Switzerland 1 2 △△△△ 1 Ireland 18 17 ▽▽▽▽ 1
Sweden 2 3 △△△△ 1 Israel 19 13 ▽▽▽▽ 6
United States 3 1 ▽▽▽▽ 2 Slovenia 20 20 -
Netherlands 4 4 - Estonia 21 24 △△△△ 3
Finland 5 5 - Japan 22 19 ▽▽▽▽ 3
Denmark 6 6 - Korea 23 21 ▽▽▽▽ 2
Norway 7 11 △△△△ 4 Spain 24 23 ▽▽▽▽ 1Norway 7 11 △△△△ 4 Spain 24 23 ▽▽▽▽ 1
Canada 8 8 - Czech Republic 25 25 -
Iceland 9 7 ▽▽▽▽ 2 Poland 26 32 △△△△ 6
United Kingdom 10 9 ▽▽▽▽ 1 Portugal 27 26 ▽▽▽▽ 1
Australia 11 12 △△△△ 1 Italy 28 28 -
New Zealand 12 16 △△△△ 4 Hungary 29 27 ▽▽▽▽ 2
Germany 13 10 ▽▽▽▽ 3 Slovak Republic 30 30 -
France 14 15 △△△△ 1 Greece 31 31 -
Belgium 15 14 ▽▽▽▽ 1 Chile 32 29 ▽▽▽▽ 3
Luxemburg 16 22 △△△△ 6 Mexico 33 33 -
Austria 17 18 △△△△ 1 Turkey 34 34 -
Changes in HRD Competitiveness between 2005 and 2011 (cont’d)
ADVANCERSwitzerland
SwedenNorway
Australia
ORDINARY
NetherlandsFinland
DenmarkCanada
LAGGER United StatesIceland
United Kingdom
Luxemburg New Zealand
large economy medium economy small economy
strongly
competitive
intermediately
competitive
ADVANCERLuxemburg
AustriaNew Zealand
FranceEstonia
ORDINARY Slovenia
LAGGER Ireland
GermanyBelgium
IsraelJapan
Korea
ADVANCER Poland
ORDINARYItaly
Greece
Czech RepublicSlovak Republic
MexicoTurkey
LAGGER SpainPortugalHungary
Chile
weakly
competitive
37
Conclusion & Implications
� The US, Canada, and a few countries in Northern Europe are the most competitive when it comes to NHRD system
� North American countries, especially the US, occupy an unrivaled position as far as Supply Conditions of NHRD system is concerned
Korea Human Resource Research Center
position as far as Supply Conditions of NHRD system is concerned � European countries occupy high positions in various aspects of
NHRD system (relatively well-balanced)
� Korea and Japan, which are assumed to have competitive advantages partly due to their national emphasis on education, occupy relatively low positions among OECD member countries (23rd and 22nd, respectively)
38
� Countries which are strongly competitive in terms of NHRD system have relatively high GDP per capita. Countries which are weak in NHRD system have relatively low GDP per capita.
� Most of the countries with high GDP per capita are
Conclusion & Implications (cont’d)
Korea Human Resource Research Center
� Most of the countries with high GDP per capita are either advancers or ordinaries. On the other hand, most countries with low GDP per capita are either ordinaries or laggers.
39
Korea Human Resource Research Center40