《欧洲工商管理学院(INSEAD):2022年全球人才竞争力指数报告(英文版)(336页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《欧洲工商管理学院(INSEAD):2022年全球人才竞争力指数报告(英文版)(336页).pdf(336页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、The Global Talent Competitiveness Index2022 The Tectonics of Talent:Is the World Drifting Towards Increased Talent Inequalities?Bruno Lanvin and Felipe Monteiro,EditorsBruno LanvinFelipe MonteiroEditorsThe Global Talent Competitiveness Index2022 The Tectonics of Talent:Is the World Drifting Towards
2、Increased Talent Inequalities?INSEAD(2022):The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2022:The Tectonics of Talent:Is the World Drifting Towards Increased Talent Inequalities?Fontainebleau,France.Disclaimer:No representation or warranty,either express or implied,is provided in relation to the informati
3、on contained herein and with regard to its fitness,sufficiency,or applicability for any particular purpose.The information contained in this re-port is provided for personal non-commercial use and informa-tion purposes only and may be reviewed and revised based on new information and data.INSEAD,Por
4、tulans Institute,and the Human Capital Leadership Institute disclaim all liability relating to the content and use of the report and the information con-tained therein,and the report should not be used as a basis for any decision that may affect the business and financial interests of the reader or
5、any other party.The indexs methodology and the rankings do not necessarily present the views of INSEAD,Por-tulans Institute,or the Human Capital Leadership Institute.The same applies to the substantive chapters in this report,which are the responsibility of the authors.2022 by INSEAD,Portulans Insti
6、tute,and the Human Capital Leadership InstituteThe information contained herein is proprietary in nature and no part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted,in any form or by any means,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,or otherwise without the prior per-mis
7、sion of INSEAD,Portulans Institute,and the Human Capital Leadership Institute.ISBN:978-2-8399-3757-3Designed by Kenneth Benson,edited by Hope Steele,and pub-lished by INSEAD,Fontainebleau,France.CONTENTSTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 iiiContentsPreface.vCo-Founder and Director,Portulan
8、s Institute;INSEAD Distinguished FellowAcademic Director of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index;Senior Affiliate Professor of Strategy,INSEADHuman Capital Leadership Institute|Foreword.viiDoris Sohmen-Pao,Chief Executive Officer,Human Capital Leadership InstituteINSEAD&Portulans Institute GTCI T
9、eam.ixCHAPTERSChapter 1:Is Talent Competitiveness Becoming More Unequal?.3Bruno Lanvin,Portulans Institute and INSEAD;Felipe Monteiro,INSEAD;and Michael Bratt,Portulans InstituteStatistical Annex to Chapter 1.29Chapter 2:JRC Statistical Audit of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2022.47Michael
10、a Saisana,Giulio Caperna,Ana Rita Neves,and Carlos Moura,European Commission Joint Research CentreChapter 3:Does Talent Competition Make Cities More Unequal?.61Bruno Lanvin,Portulans Institute and INSEAD;and Michael Bratt,Portulans InstituteCities and Regions Annexes to Chapter 3.75COUNTRY PROFILESH
11、ow to Read the Country Profiles.85Index of Countries.87Country Profiles.89DATA TABLESHow to Read the Data Tables.225Index of Data Tables.227Data Tables.229APPENDICESAppendix I:Technical Notes.309Appendix II:Sources and Definitions.311Appendix III:About the Contributors and Partners.321PREFACETHE GLO
12、BAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 vThis is the ninth edition of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI).It is being released in a period of high uncertainty,and against the background of many changes that could deeply affect the global talent scene.The theme of this years report,however,is
13、 one that we could have selected for any of the previous nine years:inequali-ties remain high in todays world,particularly on the global talent scene.However,COVID taught us many important lessons in this regard.One of them is that in times of crises,the weakest are the ones who suffer most.Another
14、is that,under extreme conditions,what looked impossible sometimes becomes feasible,and our view of the future changes in the process.Our views on talent inequalities are hence different from the one we might have had a few years ago.It is both more dra-matic and more thought-provoking.As we approach
15、 celebrating the 10th anniversary of the GTCI,we are happy to welcome a new sponsorone who is also a historic sponsor:Singapores Human Capital Leadership Institute(HCLI)was indeed one of the early sponsors of the GTCI(201317),and we are happy to see this fruitful association renewed in 2022.From a p
16、ractical and logistical point of view,we are continu-ing with our strategy of minimising the environmental impact of GTCI production and dissemination,hence the report is again produced almost exclusively in electronic format.It also remains accessible for free through dedicated websites hosted by I
17、NSEAD and Portulans Institute.From a methodological point of view,the GTCI framework has not changed significantly from previous years,although some indicators have been added or modified,partly as a result of the discontinuation of a few data sources and new types of data being available.While cont
18、inuity in this respect is important to benefit from solid time series(which has become a core basis of the GTCIs analyses),we always strive to keep the index cur-rent,so it benefits from the best available data sources.With its global coverage and wide range of variables,the GTCI continues to broade
19、n its readership and to be used as a reference of choice by governments,business,and talent experts around the world.Its city component is also rapidly gathering a large audience.This years edition includes 133 countries in the GTCI,while coverage in the city index has increased to 175 cities(up fro
20、m 155 cities last year).Once again,the purpose of the GTCI is to be a tool for action.It continues to be our hope that the data,inputs,and con-siderations contained in the following pages can be of value to the decision-makers of private and public organisations involved in talent and job creation.A
21、s in previous years,we wish to direct special thanks to the European Commission Joint Research Centre(JRC),which has continued its highly professional and constructive evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the GTCI model.Finally,we acknowledge with gratitude the continued support of our pres
22、-tigious Advisory Board.The GTCI continues to be a work in progress,fed by the reactions,suggestions,and criticisms received from its increas-ing circle of readers and users.We hence look forward to hearing more from you about the report and how we can make it even better in the future.Bruno LanvinC
23、o-Founder and Director,Portulans Institute;INSEAD Distinguished Fellow Felipe MonteiroAcademic Director of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index;Senior Affiliate Professor of Strategy,INSEADPrefacePREFACETHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 viiThe COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally shifte
24、d the ways in which people live,work,and interact.Notably,the global race for talent has intensified.Although the effects of the pandemic are easing,significant geopolitical and economic uncertainties are causing certain countries to adopt more inward-looking policies to safeguard their workforce,wh
25、ile others have launched more open initiatives to compete for global talent.Talent shortages have also resulted in companies having difficulty hiring and matching the right people to jobs.A survey by PwC in March 2022 with 52,000 respondents from 44 coun-tries found that one in five employees were p
26、lanning to resign within this year,with 71%of them citing pay as the main reason for leaving.Yet,compensation and benefits alone are not sufficient for retaining employees.Purpose of work and job fulfilment were other reasons that employees were considering a job change.Developing talent and establi
27、shing the right conditions for employees to thrive in their rolesthese have become key goals for many companies post-pandemic.Furthermore,as lockdowns are slowly lifted and the con-cern about COVID-19 eases all around the globe,companies are beginning to raise questions about how the nature of work
28、may shift post-pandemic.At the Human Capital Leadership Institute,we have been focusing on delivering high-quality programmes and evidence-based research on human capital and talent management.The aims are twofold:(1)equipping individuals with skills,compe-tences,values,and attitudes that better pre
29、pare them to navi-gate through uncertainties and lead their companies to meet the various demands of the future;(2)empowering human resource(HR)leaders with best practices and strategies for recruiting,managing,and retaining their talent.Our recent study on cross-border remote working suggests that
30、its growing adoption by companies all over the world has created many new considerations in the areas of human capital development and global talent hiring.As the function responsible for the organisations tal-ent infrastructure,HR leaders need to align and calibrate their employee management strate
31、gies.As the GTCI report suggests,there are measures that we could put in place to improve talent retention and the sustainability of our workforce.In light of this,each economy must ensure its commitment to retaining its local and foreign skilled workforce.This has triggered fundamental shifts in pu
32、blic policies among economies,including develop-ing comprehensive strategies in immigration,employment,and education so as to attract global talent while investing in reskill-ing and upskilling their local workforce.An important aspect of the GTCI is that it allows for the monitoring of a trend over
33、 time.Countries that consistently perform well can provide more assurance to decision-makers and global talent themselves,especially as the global context rapidly changes.In this years GTCI 2022 report,Switzerland and Singapore have maintained their lead,and many European economies,especially Nordic
34、 countries,rank well.Chile is in the top quartile for the second year running and China continues to climb the rankings,demonstrating the growth of talent markets in Latin America and Asia.For Singapore,developing local talent and attracting global talent have been key drivers of our economy.Notably
35、,the city-state is a global leader in Global Knowledge Skills,where it ranks at the top in both sub-pillars:High-Level Skills and Talent Impact.Aligned with this goal of developing and attracting talent,Singapores key investments centred on human capital develop-ment have helped ensure the smooth ca
36、libration of our talent pool and helped tide us over the pandemic and volatility of the markets.In particular,we are reaping benefits from our contin-ued investment in education and lifelong learning,coming in 1st globally in Formal Education and 2nd in Lifelong Learning.While this mandate is not ne
37、w,it has been brought into sharper focus in the past year.Prior to the pandemic,plans towards transforming the economy and the upskilling/reskilling of the workforce were already underway.Accelerated by the cur-rent waves of events,these shifts will continue to be shaped and sharpened,which warrants
38、 our continued attention on establish-ing and concretising Singapores position as a global talenthub.In the emerging post-COVID economy,international ine-qualities have started to widen.If these developments are not swiftly attended to,they could result in bigger gaps in economic well-being,equality
39、,diversity,and inclusion efforts.It is our intention that the GTCI help decision-makers across governments,business,and civil society to understand the chal-lenges and opportunities that the talent landscape presents.The index provides crucial insights to help leaders develop better-informed policy,
40、business decisions,and talent strategies that can help economies and businesses stay competitive in the global marketplace.In our view,this will mean careful calibration of policies targeted at nurturing the ecosystem as a structure focused on human capital development and value creation.Our partner
41、ship with Portulans Institute and INSEAD con-tinues to grow strong as we come together in our collective commitment towards our understanding of the global talent landscape.We are proud to be part of the team dedicated to the sustained efforts and untiring rigor in producing this latest edition of t
42、he index.Doris Sohmen-PaoChief Executive OfficerHuman Capital Leadership Institute(HCLI)Human Capital Leadership Institute|ForewordFOREWORDTHE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 ixINSEAD&Portulans Institute GTCI TeamBruno LanvinCo-Founder of Portulans Institute,andINSEAD Distinguished FellowFe
43、lipe MonteiroAcademic Director of the Global Talent CompetitivenessIndex;Senior Affiliate Professor of Strategy,INSEADMichael BrattLead Researcher,Portulans InstituteAnna HenrySenior Project Manager,Portulans InstituteINSEAD&PortulansInstitute GTCI TeamEditing TeamKenneth BensonGraphic Designer,Pega
44、sus TypeHope SteeleEditor,Steele Editorial ServicesINSEAD&PORTULANS INSTITUTE GTCI TEAMChaptersguise of resilience)would harm smaller and dependent econo-mies more than larger ones.Clearly,those predictions have proved right.Moreover,they have been accentuated by the combination of several elements,
45、all pointing at increasing inequalities in the labour and talent scene.COVID has not gone away;the virus mutations suggest that it may be with us for a long time,although in probably less lethal and more manageable forms.Over the last few months,scourges that might have been seen as long extinguishe
46、d have made a spectacular comeback.International tensions and infla-tion have also experienced a dramatic resurgence.This year again,GTCI data show that the international talent scene remains a dynamic one,within which some remarkable successes call for attention.Despite shocks and uncertainties,cou
47、ntries such as Switzerland and Singapore have maintained Last year,the Global Talent Competitiveness Index report(GTCI 2021)warned that post-COVID recovery could deepen inequali-ties for talents and jobs.It particularly emphasised the possibil-ity of a K-shaped recoverythat is,one in which productio
48、n resumes at an accelerated pace but has very different impacts on the labour force of different sectors.It predicted that workers employable in sectors fuelled by the recovery such as technol-ogy,retail,or software services would find more employment opportunities(and better remuneration)than those
49、 locked in other(often distressed)activities such as travel or entertainment.GTCI 2021 also stressed that post-COVID recovery pack-ages might create a greater divergence between growth rates in advanced,rich countries and those prevailing in low-income countries both because of uneven budgetary flex
50、ibility and because new protectionist tendencies(sometimes under the CHAPTER 1Is Talent Competitiveness Becoming More Unequal?Bruno Lanvin,Felipe Monteiro,and Michael BrattI believe that virtually all the problems in the world come from inequality of one kind or another.Amartya SenThe main force pus
51、hing toward reduction in inequality has always been the diffusion of knowledge and the diffusion of education.Thomas PikettyGender equality is more than a goal in itself.It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty,promoting sustainable development and building good governance.
52、Kofi AnnanBruno Lanvin is Co-Founder and Director of Portulans Institute and an INSEAD Distinguished Fellow.Felipe Monteiro is Senior Affiliate Professor of Strategy at INSEAD.Michael Bratt is Lead Researcher at Portulans Institute.IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT CO
53、MPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 3The current volcanic eruptions,earthquakes,and tsunamis com-prise the part we can witness in present times.One can consider that the recent COVID crisisand the resulting crises of other typesare the equivalent of such geophysical phenomena,and a much broader and deeper game
54、 of tectonics is reshaping the global talent landscape(see Box 1).It is one of the objectives of GTCI to use the most recently available data,as well as some of the weak signals that surround them,to identify how such move-ments are oriented and how powerful they are likely to be.If we project on a
55、world map the main differences detected in terms of talent performance,we can identify some of the fault lines of current talent tectonics.Figure 1 shows that most of Africa,as well as significant parts of both Latin America and Central Asia,concentrate countries that are on the wrong side of the ta
56、lent divide.GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITION LARGELY REMAINS AN UNFAIR GAMESince its very first edition in 2013,the GTCI has highlighted the strong correlation that binds income per capita on one hand and talent performance on the other.This year is no exception,as evidenced in the bubble chart of Figure 1
57、2 on page 20:rich countries constitute most of the talent champions,and most tal-ent laggards happen to be poor economies.It has also been a constant core message of the GTCI that this correlation is not cast in stone:well-balanced and economically sound strategies can allow all types of economies t
58、o improve their abilities to grow,attract,and retain talent.However,crises like the ones that the world is currently fac-ing are a sharp reminder that this remains an uphill battleand one in which consistency and continuity are key ingredients of success.This means that talent advantages tend to be
59、cumula-tive,and that talent mishaps or missteps can quickly become part of a self-aggravating spiral.their lead,and many European economies(especially Nordic ones)continue to occupy a significant proportion of GTCIs top 10 ranks.Two notable features of this years rankings are that the region of Lati
60、n America and the Caribbean is,for the second year running,represented in the top quartile of the GTCI(by Chile),and that China continues to climb the rankings and is now the most talent-competitive upper-middle-income country in the world.Australia,Canada,New Zealand,Israel,Japan,and the United Ara
61、b Emirates all figure among the top 25 of global tal-ent competitiveness.Their successes cannot be denied,and they deserve both acknowledgement and consideration as they have the potential to inspire others.However,the performances of tal-ent champions(see Figure 14)cannot hide the worrying signs th
62、at start to permeate the global talent scene.Because of understandable data lags,GTCI 2022 cannot provide the precise metrics needed to quantify the deepening of talent inequalities within and among different parts of the world.Some slight indications(weak signals),however,about possible dangerous t
63、endencies on the employment and talent fronts are beginning to perceptibly emerge.The last two years have seen an increase in the global number of poor people.The World Bank estimates that the twin evils of COVID and the war in Ukraine mean that at least an additional 70 million people are now livin
64、g in extreme pov-erty than would otherwise have been the case.1 What is more,globalinequality has risen.This is a devastating setback,occur-ring after almost three decades of continuing success in poverty reduction.Growing income inequalities naturally entail all sorts of inequalities in multiple ot
65、her areas,due both to lack of invest-ment and opportunities and also to a reordering of priorities that inevitably occurs when feeding ones family becomes a more immediateconcernthan allowing children to get an education,for example.The war in Ukraine has also created additional tensions in food and
66、 energy markets,for both of which many poor and emerging economies have to rely on external supplies.Available data show that inequalities of all kinds that increased sharply dur-ing the COVID peak years(20202022)have been reinforced as a result.A 2022 report by UNDP underlined that soaring food and
67、 energy prices could push up to 71 million people into poverty,with clear hotspots in the Caspian Basin,the Balkans,and Sub-Saharan Africa(particularly in the Sahel).2All these elements,by elevating the global level of inequali-ties,have important consequences on the global talent scene,where growin
68、g inequalities are often linked to irreversible phe-nomena and could stand in the way of realising some of the Sus-tainable Development Goal(SDG)key targets.Many talent-related phenomena become apparent only in the longer run.Changes in educational systems,for instance,might take years to implement,
69、and their impact on society may take a generation to become measurable.The same is true for many labour laws or employment regulations,not to mention social perceptions vis-vis certain professions.In this respect,the global talent scene is quite comparable to the geographical and seismic configurati
70、on on our planet:the current configuration of continents is the result of eons of drifting and reconfigurations.BOX 1:GLOBAL TECTONICS ILLUSTRATEDTectonics:(noun)A branch of geology concerned with the structure of the crust of a planet(such as the earth)or moon and especially with the formation of f
71、olds and faults in it (Merriam-Webster online dictionary,2022).Source:iStock.CHAPTER 14 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 1Global tectonics of talent performance Top quartile Second quartile Third quartile Bottom quartileSource:Authors computations.Note:Countries without data are wh
72、ite.COVID ignited new education,talent,and employment dividesRecent data from the International Labour Organization(ILO)show that,after a quick recovery in 2021,the worlds total number of working hours slumped again in 2022(see Figure 2).Further analysis of the same data show that(1)at the end of 20
73、21,three in five workers lived in countries where labour incomes had not returned to the level seen in the fourth quarter of 2019;(2)the gender gap in hours worked also grew during the pandemic;(3)women in informal employment have been most affected;and(4)talent/employment effects of COVID tend to b
74、e stronger and last longer in poorer economies.Such aggregate data,however,take on a rather dramatic meaning when considered against the variety of situations per income groups.As noted by ILO analysts,the labour markets of high-income economies have not yet fully bounced back from COVID,although la
75、test trends are upward-sloping and the high-income group is on the path towards recovery(see Figure 3).One may add that recent phenomena such as quiet quit-ting and the growing appetite of younger generations for part-time jobs and gigs have made the talent scene more fluid in such economies.The tre
76、nds are more negative for other income groups,however,with low-income,lower-middle-income,and upper-middle-income economies suffering setbacks in their recovery at the start of 2022.The ILO data show that,by the end of 2021,employment levels had recovered in most high-income countries while defi-cit
77、s remained significant in most middle-income economies.Although low-income and lower-middle-income countries were clearly the most durably affected,they offer a picture of high contrasts:the situation in lower-middle-income countries seems to be even worse than it is in the poorest countries,but tha
78、t may be a statistical distortion due to the relative size of their informal sector.The impact of COVID on childrens education in poor coun-tries has been devastating,leading to the the worst shock to Figure 2Change in working hours relative to 2019 Q4543WomenMen2022 Q12021 Q42021 Q32021 Q22021 Q1Pe
79、rcentage changeSource:ILOSTAT,https:/ilostat.ilo.org/topics/working-time/Note:Adjusted for population aged 1564.IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 5Figure 3Change in hours worked by country income group,2019 Q42022 Q1,percentQ1 2021Q2 2021Q3
80、2021Q4 2021Q1 2022Q2 2022765432102.11.53.63.56.02.73.65.7Percentage changeLow incomeLower-middle incomeUpper-middle incomeHigh incomeSource:Authors,based on ILO data,https:/www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-dcomm/-publ/documents/briefingnote/wcms_845642.pdfNote:Estimates up to 2022 Q1 are
81、 based on data from the ILO nowcasting model;estimates based on the projection model are depicted as a dashed line.Table 1The three gender equality variables in the GTCI 2022,top 20RANKCOUNTRYGENDER-RELATED TALENT SCORE1Iceland98.222Finland97.083Denmark95.164Norway93.145Sweden92.366New Zealand90.747
82、Albania88.998Ireland88.799Australia87.3510Luxembourg86.8211Belgium86.5412Slovenia86.4813Estonia85.4514Germany84.3615United States84.3116United Kingdom84.0717Netherlands83.5418France83.4819Portugal82.8820Austria82.62Note:The scores are normalised scores out of a maximum of 100(best).education and lea
83、rning in a century,according to the World Bank.3 More precisely,the percentage of children in low-and middle-income countries unable to read and understand a simple text by the age of 10 has risen from 53%to 70%.4The signs are clear:the great divergence between richer and poorer economies continues
84、to be a feature of global tal-ent competition,and current signs indicate that it is more likely to grow than to diminish in the coming years.Moreover,it is interesting to note that talent inequalities are also increasing within income groups.In the diagrams presented in Figure 15 on page 25,the boxe
85、s relevant to each income group are get-ting longer in the case of high-income countries,upper-middle-income countries,and lower-middle-income countries.The striking example of talents gender dividesGTCI 2021 had also underlined that Data seem to indicate that,worldwide,jobs held by women have gener
86、ally been 19%more threatened by COVID adjustments(including layoffs)than jobs held by men.In many cases,this trend may be difficult to reverse.5The data used for this years report show that,in spite of encouraging signals,gender divides remain prominent on the talent scene and COVID has annihilated
87、part of the recent pro-gress made on that front.Clearly,efforts to reduce talent-related gender divides have shown significant success in a number of countries.This is the case in Nordic economies(Iceland,Finland,Denmark,Norway,and Sweden in particular),but also in New Zealand and Albania,for exampl
88、e(see Table 1).Such positive signs,however,seem to remain primarily a characteristic of richer societies:the performance of gender equality variables related to talent increases with income per capita(see Table 2).The mere fact that all gender-related variables used in the GTCI correlate positively
89、with GTCI score can hence be at tributed(at least in part)to the fact that income per capita remains astrong explanatory factor for both talent performance and gender-focused strategies and environments.We hence need to look a bit deeper in considering available data in that context.The GTCI 2022 us
90、es three indicators on gender inequality:CHAPTER 16 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Table 2Gender-related talent score by income groupINCOME GROUPGENDER-RELATED TALENT SCORE High income75.97Upper-middle income67.25Lower-middle income52.69Low income48.37Note:First,the mean of the three ge
91、nder-related talent indicators included in the GTCI was calculated;second,this aggregate measure was used to calculate the mean by income group.Figure 4GTCI vs the empowerment of womenBelgiumBrazilCanadaSwitzerlandChinaDenmarkSpainFranceGreeceIndiaIrelandIranIcelandKuwaitLuxembourgLatviaOmanPortugal
92、QatarSingaporeSwedenUnited StatesR2=0.26692040608004050607080GTCI 2022 overall scoreEconomic empowerment of womenSource:Authors computations.Note:Economic empowerment of women is measured by the World Banks Women,Business and the Law index.2.2.4 Economic empowerment of women(new indicator
93、 this year;from the World Banks Women,Business and the Law index)2.2.5 Gender parity in high-skilled jobs(new indicator last year;from ILOs ILOSTAT)2.2.6 Leadership opportunities for women(indicator has been there since GTCI 2017;from the World Economic Forum WEFs Executive Opinion Survey EOS)Plotti
94、ng each of those variables against countries aggre-gate GTCI scores reveals a few interesting realities that are often in stark contrast to what can be seen in richer economies in gen-eral,as discussed in the following sections.Economic empowerment of womenFigure 4 shows how the GTCI correlates with
95、 indicator 2.2.4,Economic empowerment of women.This variable refers to the Women,Business and the Law index developed by the World Bank.It is thus a composite indicator,which provides a measure of the degree of gender equality with respect to womens legal rights in economic participation,where a sco
96、re of 0 implies that women do not have legal economic rights equal to those of men and a score of 100 signifies that women and men have equal economic opportunities.As can be seen in the figure,greater economic empowerment of women is strongly associated with higher talent competitiveness.In fact,ha
97、lf of the 12 countries that achieve the highest possible score are in the top 15 of the GTCI 2022;all of these countries have been identified as talent cham-pions based on their current strong performances and recent upward trends.There is a particular opportunity for countries in Western Asia(notab
98、ly,Iran,Kuwait,Oman,and Qatar)to raise their talent competitiveness by strengthening the legal rights of women to participate and engage in economic activities.Gender parity in high-skilled jobsFigure 5 illustrates the relationship between talent competitive-ness and gender equality in high-skilled
99、jobs,such as managerial IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 7Figure 5GTCI vs gender parity in high-skilled jobsUnited Arab EmiratesBeninBahrainBrazilChileDR CongoEgyptGambiaGreeceIndiaNorth MacedoniaMaliPakistanQatarEswatiniChadZimbabweR2=0.27
100、530.20.40.60.81.01.207080GTCI 2022 overall scoreGender parity in high-skilled jobsSource:Authors computations.and professional positions.Perfect gender equality results where the ratio of women to men in high-skilled jobs is equal to 1(which is also the highest possible score).Again,there
101、 is a strong,positive correlation,with greater gender parity being associated with a higher GTCI score.It is nonetheless interesting to note that the countries that are closest to perfect equality(for example,Brazil,Eswatini,and North Macedonia)do not achieve high ranks in the GTCI.That said,the gen
102、der parity in countries such as Belgium,Germany,and Norwaywhich are among the top performers in the GTCIis almost as high.Among the coun-tries with the lowest gender parity in high-skilled jobs,it is tell-ing that they include three of the lowest-ranked countries in the GTCI(Chad,the Democratic Repu
103、blic of Congo,and Mali).It also shows the scope there is for strong performers in the GTCI such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to increase their talent competitiveness further by breaking the glass ceiling.Leadership opportunities for womenFigure 6 shows how more leadership opportunities for
104、women is associated with greater talent competitiveness.In addition to expected strong performers in northern Europe,including Denmark,Finland,and Iceland,noteworthy is the extent to which companies in all three Baltic states(Estonia,Latvia,and Lithuania)often provide women with leadership opportuni
105、ties equal to those for men.Albania stands out in the many leadership oppor-tunities provided for women,but its relative strength in gender equality in the talent arena is yet to be fully translated into higher talent competitiveness.Countries that would gain from increas-ing leadership opportunitie
106、s for women include Lesotho,India,and Iran,but also such talent champions as Italy and Japan.This quick overview of the gender dimensions of GTCI shows that,despite encouraging signs,efforts are still needed to make the talent scene less unfair in the future.TALENT DISPARITIES COULD GET WORSE:WHAT C
107、AN BE DONE ABOUT IT?In order to identify practical and efficient ways to reduce talent inequalities,it is important to consider four critical aspects of thiscomplex issue,namely:(1)how do talent inequalities relate toincome inequalities?(2)How could the current context,with its combination of crises
108、,make it worse?(3)What can be done concretely about talent inequalities at this point in time?And(4),in case of insufficient or belated action,how could talent inequalities become a roadblock for the timely implementation of SDGs?Income inequalities vs talent inequalitiesAs mentioned above,it has be
109、en a constant feature of the GTCI to show,year after year,how talent performance and income per capita remain strongly and positively correlated.In other words,the GTCI has consistently demonstrated that rich countries are more talent competitive than less rich countries.CHAPTER 18 THE GLOBAL TALENT
110、 COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 6GTCI vs leadership opportunities for womenAlbaniaUAEBahrainBoliviaBrazilSwitzerlandChinaDenmarkEgyptEstoniaFinlandCroatiaIndiaIranIcelandItalyJapanLesothoLithuaniaLatviaMoldovaMexicoNetherlandsNorwayNew ZealandPhilippinesRwandaSingaporeEl SalvadorSwedenUnited State
111、sR2=0.377423456707080GTCI 2022 overall scoreLeadership opportunities for womenSource:Authors computations.But what can be said about a possible correlation between income inequalities and talent performance?Are more equal societies more talent competitive?Using 2022 data,a simple plotting
112、 exercise provides a few interesting results(see Figure 7).First,it is clear from the figure that internal inequalities and talent performance correlate negatively:by and large,countries that rank higher in the GTCI(at the right of the scatter plot in the figure)tend to be those with the lower Gini
113、coefficients(hence the less unequal ones).As highlighted earlier,one cannot exclude the possibility that both variables could be strongly dependent on income(since rich countries are both more talent competi-tive and tend to be more equal,thanks especially to widespread progressive taxation).Second,
114、this approach reveals interesting cases.For exam-ple,some countries located at the top of this figure(i.e.,coun-tries with relatively high levels of income inequalities)are not among the worst performers of the GTCI 2022.These countries are found towards the middle of the rankingsor,at any rate,abov
115、e the bottom quartile.This group includes several countries in Latin America(Brazil,73rd in the GTCI 2022;Colombia,63rd;Costa Rica,42nd;and Panama,64th)but also some in Southern Africa(Botswana,70th;Eswatini,100th;Namibia,90th;and South Africa,77th).Among GTCI champions,the inequality story is also
116、ambiv-alent:the United States is clearly more unequal than any Nor-dic country,for example.And,although to a lesser degree,the United Kingdom and Switzerland are above the inequality/tal-ent performance regression line,while Denmark and Finland are below it.The analysis of long-term GTCI trends(disc
117、ussed later in this chapter)provides additional insights(for regions and income groups in particular)on the dynamics of the complex relation-ship between inequalities and talents.Can current crises create a perfect storm for talents?Previous sections of this chapter have underlined the severe impact
118、 that the pandemic has had on education,gender gaps,employment,and the dynamics of labour markets worldwide.Some of the shocks created by the COVID crisis may be irrevers-ible.One striking example is that of children(especially girls)who were prevented from attending school for one or two years.Many
119、 of them may never return to a classroom.It seems evident that COVID has had a particularly strong impact on girls education because,as in other health crises,girls,particularly adolescent girlsare the most affected as they are more likely to experience pressure to perform household chores,and to be
120、 marriedoff.6As emphasised earlier,the COVID crisis is far from being entirely behind us.Talent mobility remains heavily constrained in regions that had to go back to lockdown measures;it is also strictly limited in war-torn areas.Other crises have emerged over the recent months,and these may compou
121、nd the pandemics IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 9effects on talent growth and mobility as well as the provision of meaningful job opportunities for available talents.The return of inflation and of international tensions generally are amon
122、g them.As flagged by the ILO,inflationary pressuresespecially in food and energy prices,disruptions to global supply chains,heightened financial stress,and monetary policy tighteningare yet fully to impact labour markets around the world.In con-trast to the immediate and direct effects on hours work
123、ed as a result of COVID lockdown measures,declines in economic activ-ity due to financial and other shocks generally translate fully into such losses only after a time lag.Therefore,there is a growing risk of a further drop in hours worked over 2022.The ILOs latest pro-jection for the second quarter
124、 of 2022 shows that the number of hours worked is expected to be 4.2%below the pre-pandemic levelthe equivalent of 123 million full-time jobs.Such a combination of risks is particularly detrimental to poorer and emerging economies,which have been less able to leverage the fiscal measures and deploy
125、the vaccination cam-paigns that allowed other economies to mitigate or offset the effects of COVID.Already fragilised,their economies now have to face the compounded effect of financial,food,and energy shocks.Action is hence urgently required to prevent a cata-strophic shift in global talent tectoni
126、cs.Preventing,mitigating,correcting dividesClearly,mounting talent inequalities could jeopardise local and collective efforts to mitigate current negative trends,including those that emerged or re-emerged recently from geopolitical tensions,the collapse of multilateral disciplines and coopera-tion,a
127、nd inflation.Such inequalities would also stand in the way of local and collective efforts to prepare for new economic and social opportunities.It is interesting to look at GTCI data with such a perspective.If we consider such data at the pillar level,we can easily see that inequalities across incom
128、e level groups have increased primarily in two pillars of the GTCI model:Enable and Grow(see Figures 8 and 9,respectively).This simple observation points to two areas in which action is most urgently required to prevent an aggravation of current imbalances:education/skilling reforms and institutiona
129、l reforms.Education reforms should include in particular an acceleration(sometimes a resumption)of the fight against illiteracy as well as new efforts to provide better jobs and employment oppor-tunities to younger generations(e.g.,through upskilling efforts and apprenticeship programs).Institutiona
130、l reforms should focus on providing a positive environment for innovators and business creators(in particular,small,medium,and micro enterprises,or SMMEs).Can talent inequalities be a roadblock for the SDGs?Even before the war in Ukraine started and inflation became a key concern for the world econo
131、my,the Secretary-General of the United Nations had warned that the world was unlikely to Figure 7GTCI scores vs Gini indexUAEArgentinaAustraliaBrazilBotswanaSwitzerlandChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaCzechiaDenmarkFinlandLuxembourgIndiaUnited KingdomNamibiaNetherlandsNorwayPanamaSlovakiaSloveniaSwedenEs
132、watiniUnited StatesSouth AfricaZambiaR2=0.2607007080GTCI 2022 overall scoreGiniSource:Authors computations.CHAPTER 110 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 8Enable scores in 20152018 and 20192022 by income group020406080100 High income Upper-middle income Lower-mi
133、ddle income Low incomeMinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentile 20152018 20192022Note:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles.Figure 9Grow scores in 20152018 and 20192022 by income group020406080100 High income Upper-middle income Lo
134、wer-middle income Low incomeMinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentile 20152018 20192022Note:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles.reach its 2030 objectives regarding the SDGs,when he declared in July 2021 that between 720 and 811 m
135、illion people in the world faced hunger in 2020some 161 million more than for 2019,and stressed that these new,tragic data indicated that the world was tremendously off track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs)by 2030.7Against such a background,the perspective of growing talent inequa
136、lities becomes a significant potential roadblock to changing the course of key trends.Talent inequalities are likely to have negative effects on our collective ability to resume and accelerate efforts to reach SDGs and some of their key targets.Out of the list of 17 SDGs(see Box 2),and in light of t
137、he GTCI-specific concerns identified earlier in this chapter,four key areas require special attention.These correspond to SDGs 4(quality education),5(gender equality),8(decent work and economic growth),and 10(reduced inequalities).IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COM
138、PETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 11BOX 2:SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALSThe Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs),also knownasthe Global Goals,were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty,protect the planet,and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity.T
139、he 17 SDGs are integratedthey recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others,and that devel-opment must balance social,economic and environmental sustainability.Source:UNDP(2022b).Gender and income inequalities have been addressed in detail earlier in this chapter;they will also be
140、 considered further in subsequent sections.It is of course important to keep in mind that these dimensions are heavily interdependent.For example,it is often emphasised that gender divides start with early educa-tion.An equal number of boys and girls enrolled in school has been achieved only in 66%o
141、f countries for primary education,50%for lower secondary education,and a mere 25%for upper secondary education.8 In a world where conflicts abound,it is striking that in conflict-affected countries,twice as many girls are out of school than the global averages.9Let us take a closer look at education
142、(goal 4)and decent work(goal 8),which both are of central importance in the archi-tecture and purpose of GTCI.In the SDGs,Goal 4(Quality education)includes 10 tar-gets that are measured by 11 indicators.The 7 outcome-oriented targets are:free primary and secondary education;equal access to quality p
143、re-primary education;affordable technical,vocational and higher education;increased number of people with relevant skills for financial success;elimination of all discrimination in education;universal literacy and numeracy;and education for sustainable development and global citizenship.The 3means o
144、f achieving targets are:build and upgrade inclusive and safe schools,expand higher education scholarships for developing countries,and increase the supply of qualified teachers in devel-oping countries.It is easy to see how the large majority of such targets could be negatively affected by the mere
145、pursuance of current talent inequality trends.A recent report by the investment banking company UBS summarised in a rather striking way some of the barriers that currently prevent 258 million children from attend-ing school(see Figure 10).10Only 28%of the poorest children in low-income countries are
146、 completing their primary education,preventing them from obtaining decent jobs and contributing to their communities well-being.In that same list of SDGs,Goal 8(Decent work and eco-nomic growth)is articulated around 12 targets in total to be achieved by 2030.The first 10 are outcome targets:sustaina
147、ble economic growth;diversify,innovate and upgrade for economic productivity;promote policies to support job creation and growing enterprises;improve resource efficiency in consump-tion and production;full employment and decent work with equal pay;promote youth employment,education and training;CHAP
148、TER 112 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 10Barriers to access to educationOut-of-school children are disproportionately locatedin low,lower-middle income,and conflict-affected countriesChildren from the poorest 20%of households dominate the out-of-school populations and are far les
149、s likely than higher-income children to ever enrollChildren with disabilities are 2.5 times more likely than their non-disabled peers to have never been in schoolSource:Authors,based on UBS(2022).end modern slavery,trafficking,and child labour;protect labour rights and promote safe working environme
150、nts;promote ben-eficial and sustainable tourism;and universal access to banking,insurance and financial services.In addition,there are also 2 tar-gets for means of achieving,which are increase aid for trade sup-port and develop a global youth employment strategy.GTCI data make it crystal clear that
151、reducing talent inequali-ties will be a necessary condition for achieving targets such as full employment,decent work,and equal pay,and for combat-ting child labour,for example.The same data also stress the importance of deploying the economic reforms that will allow young generations to contribute
152、through higher levels of entre-preneurship,innovation,and productivity.KEY MESSAGES OF THE GTCI 2022 Message 1:Despite continuing imbalances,the global talent competitiveness scene remains dynamic and carries encouraging signs.Smaller economies con-tinue to display top-notch talent performance.This
153、year,for example,Denmark outpaces the United States and enters the top 3 of the index.Middle-income countries continue to show remarkable individual and regional per-formances:China continues to climb the rankings(mov-ing up from 37 to 36 this year,after progressing from 42 in GTCI 2020)and is now t
154、he most talent-competitive upper-middle-income country in the world.Latin America and the Caribbean also offers an interesting picture,as,for the second year running,the region is represented in the top quartile of the GTCI by Chile.Message 2:Recent and current crises could have a negative and somet
155、imes irreversible impact on the talent situation of poorer economies.COVID is not over;the virus mutations suggest that it may be with us for a long time in one way or another.Over the last few months,old scourges that many thought long extin-guished have made a spectacular comeback,including intern
156、ational tensions and inflation.Resulting limitations to the circulation of goods,services,and people may be deepened by the continuing crisis in multilateralism,which will have a significant impact on labour markets,not only internationally but also locally.Poorer economies would then be disproporti
157、onally affected and global tal-ent inequalities would grow.Message 3:Even in higher-income economies,labour markets may become more fragmented and hence generate new types of inequalities.The prospect explored in the GTCI 2021 of a K-shaped recovery has taken on new potency in 2022 because of additi
158、onal inter-national tensions,disrupted supply chains,and a return of nationalistic and protectionist policies.New working habits and attitudes towards employment(such as quiet quitting and younger generations increased attrac-tion towards gigs and part-time jobs)are also shattering long-established
159、implicit rules and calling for new ways to grow,attract,and retain talents at the enterprise level.Message 4:Gender divides call for renewed efforts.Over the last few decades,significant progress has been registered in several key areas of gender-related talent ine-qualities.Such improvements have b
160、een largely confined to richer economies.Even in those more privileged envi-ronments,the situation remains imbalanced.Data related to womens empowerment,gender parity in high-skilled jobs,and the presence of women in leadership roles show that success remains limited.It also remains fragile when fac
161、ed with massive shocks such as those resulting from COVID,inflation,or international tensions.In many parts of the world,such crises have worsened the overall condi-tion of women.Message 5:A more unequal global talent landscape would significantly diminish our collective ability to meet some key tar
162、gets of the SDGs.Local and collec-tive efforts are urgently required to reduce those talent inequalities that are the most likely to prevent the world IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 13from reaching specific SDGs and their targets.This is
163、par-ticularly the case for goals 4(Quality education),5(Gen-der equality),8(Decent work and economic growth),and 10(Reduced inequalities).Education reforms(including efforts to fight illiteracy;campaigns to support returning to school after COVID disruptions;reskilling and upskilling initiatives to
164、allow younger generations to obtain decent work and seize development opportunities;and appren-ticeship programs)should be accompanied by visible efforts to provide a supportive economic environment for innovation,in particular for start-ups and SMMEs.Message 6:Cities can play a central role in redu
165、cing inequalities by adopting the right talent policies.At the city level,talent(including access to education and meaningful working opportunities)is a clear divider between rich and poor.International evidence also underlines that those cities that have granted priority to growing,attracting,and r
166、etaining talents have done better in providing their citizens with better lives.As the world enters times of higher economic,social,and politi-cal uncertainty,talent hubs will be better equipped to weather the storm.Cities that appear well positioned to be future-ready include medium-sized cities(be
167、tween 200,000 and 2 million population),as well as those that will prove agile enough to align and mobilise their resources along key lines such as digital transformation,offering attractive work environments to younger genera-tions,and contributing to reaching SDGs.THE GTCI CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKAs u
168、nderlined in the previous editions of the GTCI,countries are competing globally to grow better talent;attract the talent they need;and retain those workers who contribute to competitive-ness,innovation,and growth.Countries seek to put economic and social policies in place that will facilitate this.I
169、n such a con-text,governments,businesses,and various other stakeholders need quantitative instruments that can inform their decisions(as investors,employers,employees,or jobseekers)and can help them design and implement better policies in areas such as edu-cation,employment,and immigration,to name a
170、 few.This is the purpose of the GTCI.Who Is Expected to Use the GTCI and Why?Decisions regarding the development,attraction,and empower-ment of talent are remarkably complex and multi-layered.They involve a multi-disciplinary endeavour to tackle talent dilemmas that have been raised in the fields of
171、 economics,education,human resource management and organisational behaviour,entrepreneurship,innovation,and strategy.At the policy level,this complexity is compounded by emotional dimensions and the international consequences of choices to be made in terms of immigration,social equity,and fiscal inc
172、entives,among other issues.Faced with such intricate issues,decision-makersboth public and privateneed quantitative tools that will enable them to benchmark the efforts made and results obtained in dif-ferent socioeconomic environments in terms of talent manage-ment and talent competitiveness.The GT
173、CI has been designed to help address this challenge by providing a composite view of talent competitiveness applicable to a large number of countries(133 this year).Although several composite indices concerning skills,talent,and human capital have been developed in recent years,both private and publ
174、ic players in the field see the need for a neutral,global,and respected index that would enable them to assess the effectiveness of talent-related policies and practices,identify priorities for action in relevant areas,and inform interna-tional and local debate in this arena.The Structure of the GTC
175、I ModelIn the context of the GTCI,talent competitiveness refers to the set of policies and practices that enable a country to develop,attract,and empower the human capital that contributes to pro-ductivity and prosperity.The GTCI is an Input-Output model(see Figure 11)in the sense that it combines a
176、n assessment of what countries do to produce and acquire talents(Input)and the kind of skills that are available to them as a result(Output).Feedback received on previous editions,additional research,and the avail-ability of new data have allowed refinements to the model,though its basic structure i
177、s robust and unchanged.The Input pillars of the GTCI are inspired by the Attract-Grow-Retain framework used by corporations to steer talent management.Multinational corporations frame talent manage-ment in these terms,defining talent management as an organi-sations efforts to attract,select,develop,
178、and retain talented employees to meet their strategic needs.11 The GTCI focuses on efforts by countries and thus the model is fed by macroeconomic and country-level variables.Attracting talent,in the context of national competitiveness,is viewed from two perspectives:(1)as a draw towards external(i.
179、e.,foreign)valuable resourcesboth productive businesses(through foreign direct investment and the like)and creative people(through high-skilled migration)and(2)as an internal attraction that is focused on removing bar-riers to entering the talent pool for groups such as those from underprivileged ba
180、ckgrounds,women,and non-native people.Growing talent has traditionally meant education,but its defini-tion should be broadened to include apprenticeships,training,and continuous education as well as experience and access to growth opportunities(although we may acknowledge that most skill development
181、 occurs through experience,much remains to be done to conceptualise and measure its role).Retaining talent is necessary because the more talented the person,the wider the global opportunities he or she can find elsewhere.Two key components of retention are sustainability(both personal and national)a
182、nd quality of life.In addition,the regulatory,market,business,and labour landscapes within a country facilitate or impede talent attraction and growth;the GTCI classifies these elements as parts of the Enable pillar.Together,Enable,Attract,Grow,and Retain constitute the four Input pillars of the GTC
183、I model.Regarding Output,the GTCI differentiates between two levels of talent,which can be broadly thought of as mid-level CHAPTER 114 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 11The GTCI 2022 modelGlobal Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI)InputOutputAttractEnableGrowRetainGKSkillsVTSkillsRe
184、gulatory LandscapeMarket LandscapeBusiness and Labour LandscapeExternal OpennessInternal OpennessFormal EducationLifelong LearningAccess to Growth OpportunitiesHigh-Level SkillsTalent ImpactSustainabilityLifestyleMid-Level SkillsEmployabilityNote:GK Skills=Global Knowledge Skills;VT Skills=Vocationa
185、l and Technical Skills.and high-level skills.Mid-level skills,labelled Vocational and Tech-nical Skills(or VT Skills),describes skills that have a technical or professional base acquired through vocational or professional training and experience.The impact of VT Skills is measured by the degree of e
186、mployability to which they lead.Employability is measured by indicators of skills gaps and labour market mis-matches and by the adequacy of education systems.High-level skills,labelled Global Knowledge Skills(or GK Skills),deal with knowledge workers in professional,managerial,or leadership roles th
187、at require creativity and problem solving.Their economic impact is evaluated by indicators of innovation,entrepreneur-ship,and the development of high-value industries.Together,VTSkills and GK Skills constitute the two Output pillars of the GTCI model.The GTCI attempts to offer an approach to talent
188、 com-petitiveness issues that is comprehensive,action-oriented,analytical,and practical.As described earlier,the GTCI is a com-posite index,relying on a simple but robust Input-Output model,composed of six pillars(four on the Input side and two on the Output side),as illustrated in Figure 11.As such
189、,the GTCI gener-ates three main indices that are the most visible focus for analy-sis,namely:1.The Talent Competitiveness Input sub-index,which is composed of four pillars describing the policies,resources,and efforts that a particular country can harness to foster its talent competitiveness.Enable(
190、Pillar 1)reflects the extent to which the regulatory and business environmentincluding issues about competition,management practices,and the functioning of labour marketscreate a favourable climate for talent to develop and thrive.The other three pillars describe the three levers of talent competiti
191、veness,which focus respectively on what countries are doing to Attract(Pillar 2),Grow(Pillar 3),and Retain(Pillar 4)talent.The Input sub-index is the simple arithmetic average of the scores registered on these four pillars.2.The Talent Competitiveness Output sub-index,which aims to describe and meas
192、ure the quality of talent in a country that results from the above policies,resources,and efforts.It is composed of two pillars describing the current situation of a particular country in terms of Vocational and Technical Skills(Pillar 5)and Global Knowledge Skills(Pillar 6).The Output sub-index is
193、the simple arithmetic average of the scores obtained on these two pillars.3.The Global Talent Competitiveness Index(GTCI),which is computed as the simple arithmetic average of the scores registered on each of the six pillars described above.The GTCI model has been refined in this 2022 edition with r
194、espect to last year.Four notable changes have been made.First,five indicators from the Executive Opinion Survey(EOS)carried out by the World Economic Forum(WEF)have been replaced because they have been discontinued.These changes are as follows:IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOB
195、AL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 15 1.3.5 Technology utilisation has been replaced by Enter-prise software.1.3.6 Investment in emerging technologies has been replaced by Cloud computing.2.1.1 FDI and technology transfer has been replaced by FDI regulatory restrictiveness.2.1.2 Prevalence of fore
196、ign ownership has been replaced by Financial globalisation.6.1.6 Availability of scientists and engineers has been replaced by Digital skills.Second,the Doing Business report of the World Bank was discontinued in 2021 because of data irregularities.12 Indica-tor 1.2.2 Ease of doing business has ther
197、efore been replaced by Domestic credit to the private sector,which similarly relates to the market environment and also has wide country cover-age.Third,indicator 5.2.4 Highly educated unemployment has been added to the GTCI in the Employability sub-pillar(in the VT Skills pillar)because it compleme
198、nts the existing survey-based variables from the WEF and the skills mismatch variable from the International Labour Organization(ILO).Fourth,three additional indicators have been replaced,namely:Indicator 2.2.4 Women in tertiary education has been replaced by an indicator that provides a measure of
199、the extent to which the regulatory environment is conducive for women to fulfil their economic potential.The new indicator is Economic empowerment of women.Indicator 3.2.1 Business and economics subject ranking has been replaced by an indicator that is more directly concerned with masters degrees in
200、 business and,hence,lifelong learning.The new variable is based on our own computation derived from the scores and rankings on MBA and business masters programmes by QS Quac-quarelli Symonds.The new indicator is Business masters education.Indicator 6.2.3 New product entrepreneurial activity.The coll
201、ection of this variable has been paused and it has therefore been replaced by another indicator that pro-vides a measure of talent impact:Software development.All in all,this years model includes 69 variables,which is one more than the 68 indicators used in the GTCI 2021.Country coverage in the GTCI
202、 has decreased slightlyfrom 134 to 133 countriesrepresenting almost 98%of the worlds GDP and more than 93%of its population.The audit carried out by the Joint Research Centre(JRC)of the European Commission(see Chapter 2)has confirmed that the model remains solid and robust notwithstanding the change
203、s discussed above.Further details of the variable definitions and the method of calculation can be found in the Sources and Definitions and Technical Notes appendices.Improvements will continue to be made to the GTCI model in the future,based on further discussions with academ-ics and business and g
204、overnment leaders,as well as feedback from users of the GTCI.GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022:MAIN FINDINGSThe top positions in the ranking of the GTCI scores continue to be dominated by developed,high-income countries(see Table 3 on pages 1719),and there is a high correlation between GDP pe
205、r capita and GTCI scores(see Figure 12 on pages 2021).The Statistical Annex to this chapter presents more detailed information on country performance for the different sub-pillars and variables.European countries continue to dominate the GTCI rankings;17 of them are in the top 25.Switzerland maintai
206、ns its position at the top again this year,followed by Singapore and Denmark,while the United States(4th)drops out of the top 3 for the first time since 2017,when it came in 4th out of 118 countries.The other non-European countries that make it into the top 25 are Australia,Canada,New Zealand,Israel
207、,Japan,and the United Arab Emirates.Two notable features in this years rankings are that the region of Latin America and the Caribbean is,for the sec-ond year running,represented in the top quartile of the GTCI(by Chile)and that China continues to climb the rankings and is now the most talent-compet
208、itive upper-middle-income country.An assessment of the top 15 countries in this ranking can be found in the Statistical Annex,along with an analysis and com-mentary on performances in the GTCI by income group and by region.LONGER-TERM TRENDS IN TALENT COMPETITIVENESSThis fourth time-series analysis
209、of the GTCI reaffirms the longer-term trends identified in the previous reports.Above all,it under-lines that the most talent-competitive countries are not only better at developing,attracting,and empowering human capi-tal,but these trends also seem to indicate that they are also pull-ing away from
210、less talent-competitive countries.In a word,talent inequalities are widening.The approach used to analyse how talent competitiveness has changed over time follows the general approach of previous editionsthat is,it compares performances in the GTCI over two periods.However,because there are now nine
211、 GTCI editions,the comparison is made with respect to two four-year periods(rather than two three-year periods as in the previous edition):20152018 against 20192022.13 Focusing on these two averages yields several advantages.For instance,it can make it easier to spot general trends that might be mis
212、sed in a year-by-year analysis.In addition,it allows for some smoothing of annual fluctuations in the data that,in turn,results in more reliable conclusions.Related to this is that the aggregation absorbs year-to-year changes because of improvements in the methodology of GTCI.14In terms of country c
213、overage,countries that have been included in two of the four years that make up a period have been included in the time-series analysis.For this edition,this means that a total of 113 countries are covered.These countries CHAPTER 116 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Table 3Global Talent C
214、ompetitiveness Index 2022 rankingsCOUNTRY SCOREOVERALL RANK INCOME GROUPREGIONAL GROUPREGIONAL GROUP RANKSwitzerland78.20 1High incomeEurope 1Singapore75.80 2High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 1Denmark75.44 3High incomeEurope 2United States of America73.93 4High incomeNorthern America
215、1Sweden73.93 5High incomeEurope 3Netherlands73.90 6High incomeEurope 4Norway73.88 7High incomeEurope 5Finland73.28 8High incomeEurope 6Australia71.93 9High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 2United Kingdom71.5910High incomeEurope 7Luxembourg71.5811High incomeEurope 8Iceland68.9612High inco
216、meEurope 9Ireland68.3613High incomeEurope10Germany68.1514High incomeEurope11Canada68.1115High incomeNorthern America 2Belgium67.6716High incomeEurope12Austria67.5617High incomeEurope13New Zealand66.8818High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 3France64.5819High incomeEurope14Estonia62.4720Hi
217、gh incomeEurope15Czech Republic60.9621High incomeEurope16Malta60.6422High incomeEurope17Israel59.8323High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 1Japan59.7724High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 4United Arab Emirates59.6725High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 2Portugal59.3326High
218、incomeEurope18Korea,Rep.59.1027High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 5Slovenia58.2728High incomeEurope19Spain58.0329High incomeEurope20Cyprus56.0830High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 3Latvia55.5131High incomeEurope21Lithuania54.5132High incomeEurope22Italy54.4533High incomeEurope
219、23Chile52.5634High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 1Slovakia51.3435High incomeEurope24China51.0436Upper-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 6Hungary51.0337High incomeEurope25Qatar50.9938High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 4Poland50.2839High incomeEurope26Greece49.3440Hig
220、h incomeEurope27Brunei Darussalam49.2641High incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 7Costa Rica48.9742Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 2Saudi Arabia48.7843High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 5Uruguay48.4744High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 3Malaysia48.2845Uppe
221、r-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 8(continued on next page)IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 17Table 3(continued)Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2022 rankingsCOUNTRY SCOREOVERALL RANK INCOME GROUPREGIONAL GROUPREGIONAL
222、 GROUP RANKCroatia47.1946High incomeEurope28Montenegro46.8347Upper-middle incomeEurope29Georgia46.4748Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 6Bahrain46.1549High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 7Bulgaria46.0450Upper-middle incomeEurope30Mauritius45.8751Upper-middle incomeSub-Sahar
223、an Africa 1Serbia44.9152Upper-middle incomeEurope31Trinidad and Tobago44.2753High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 4Romania44.2554High incomeEurope32Azerbaijan44.1855Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 8Armenia44.1256Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia 9Russian F
224、ederation44.0557Upper-middle incomeEurope33Belarus43.4658Upper-middle incomeEurope34Argentina43.4559Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 5Oman43.0060High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia10Kuwait42.2861High incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia11Kazakhstan42.2662Upper-middle inco
225、meCentral and Southern Asia 1Colombia41.5663Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 6Panama41.3064High incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 7Albania40.9565Upper-middle incomeEurope35Ukraine40.5666Lower-middle incomeEurope36Moldova,Rep.40.0067Upper-middle incomeEurope37North Macedonia39.9
226、568Upper-middle incomeEurope38Mexico39.9369Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 8Botswana39.8870Upper-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa 2Mongolia39.7971Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania 9Jordan39.6872Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia12Brazil39.437
227、3Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean 9Viet Nam39.3174Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania10Thailand39.2375Upper-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania11Jamaica38.8776Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean10South Africa38.7777Upper-middle inc
228、omeSub-Saharan Africa 3Peru38.5978Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean11Cabo Verde38.5779Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa 4Philippines38.0680Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania12Trkiye37.6781Upper-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia13Indonesia37.0082
229、Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania13Kyrgyzstan36.7483Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia 2Lebanon36.6284Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia14Paraguay36.5985Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean12Egypt35.8486Lower-middle incomeNorthern Afric
230、a and Western Asia15Ecuador35.7987Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean13Bosnia and Herzegovina35.7488Upper-middle incomeEurope39Dominican Republic35.6889Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean14Namibia35.4790Upper-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa 5(continued on next page)CHAP
231、TER 118 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Table 3(continued)Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2022 rankingsCOUNTRY SCOREOVERALL RANK INCOME GROUPREGIONAL GROUPREGIONAL GROUP RANKTunisia34.64 91Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia16Sri Lanka33.53 92Lower-middle incomeCentra
232、l and Southern Asia 3Bolivia,Plurinational St.33.40 93Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean15Gambia32.46 94Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa 6Ghana32.24 95Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa 7Morocco29.96 96Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia17Kenya29.80 97Lower-middle inco
233、meSub-Saharan Africa 8El Salvador29.58 98Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean16Lao PDR28.95 99Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania14Eswatini28.94100Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa 9India28.90101Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia 4Zambia28.60102Low in
234、comeSub-Saharan Africa10Cambodia28.43103Lower-middle incomeEastern,Southeastern Asia and Oceania15Algeria28.21104Lower-middle incomeNorthern Africa and Western Asia18Benin27.81105Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa11Rwanda27.67106Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa12Senegal27.32107Lower-middle incomeSub-
235、Saharan Africa13Guatemala26.97108Upper-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean17Nigeria26.73109Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa14Honduras26.59110Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean18Nepal26.50111Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia 5Iran,Islamic Rep.26.48112Lower-mid
236、dle incomeCentral and Southern Asia 6Pakistan26.30113Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southern Asia 7Nicaragua26.28114Lower-middle incomeLatin America and the Caribbean19Cte dIvoire26.20115Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa15Malawi25.73116Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa16Tanzania,United Rep.25.12117Lo
237、wer-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa17Zimbabwe24.50118Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa18Cameroon24.50119Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa19Lesotho23.88120Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa20Uganda23.46121Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa21Bangladesh22.85122Lower-middle incomeCentral and Southe
238、rn Asia 8Guinea22.44123Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa22Madagascar22.26124Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa23Mauritania21.43125Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa24Burundi20.13126Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa25Mozambique19.65127Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa26Burkina Faso19.57128Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa2
239、7Mali19.37129Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa28Angola19.17130Lower-middle incomeSub-Saharan Africa29Ethiopia18.55131Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa30Congo,Dem.Rep.17.07132Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa31Chad12.32133Low incomeSub-Saharan Africa32IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALEN
240、T COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 19Figure 12GTCI scores versus GDP per capita07080906.57.07.58.08.59.09.510.010.511.011.512.0GTCI scoreGDP per capita in PPP$(natural logarithm)High incomeUpper-middle incomeLower-middle incomeLow incomeAEATAUBEBHBNCACHCLCYCZDEDKEEESFIFRGBGRHRHUIEILISITJPKRKWLT
241、LULVMTNLNONZOMPAPLPTQAROSASESGSISKTTALAMARAZBABGBRBWBYCNCOCRDOECGEGTJMJOKZMDMEMKMUMXMYNAPEPYRSRUTHTRZAAOBDBJBOCICMCVDZEGGHHNIDINIRKEKGKHLALBLKLSMAMNMRNGNINPPHPKSNSVSZTNTZUAVNBFBICDETGMGNMGMLMWMZRWTDUGUYUSZMZWNote:GDP per capita in PPP$and population data(represented by the size of the bubbles)are dr
242、awn from the World Banks World Development Indicators database.The trend line is a polynomial of degree two(R2=0.86).CHAPTER 120 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 12(continued)GTCI scores versus GDP per capita:ISO-2 country codesCODECOUNTRYAEUnited Arab EmiratesALAlbaniaAMArmeniaAOA
243、ngolaARArgentinaATAustriaAUAustraliaAZAzerbaijanBABosnia and HerzegovinaBDBangladeshBEBelgiumBFBurkina FasoBGBulgariaBHBahrainBIBurundiBJBeninBNBrunei DarussalamBOBolivia,Plurinational St.BRBrazilBWBotswanaBYBelarusCACanadaCDCongo,Dem.Rep.CHSwitzerlandCICte dIvoireCLChileCMCameroonCODECOUNTRYCNChina
244、COColombiaCRCosta RicaCVCabo VerdeCYCyprusCZCzech RepublicDEGermanyDKDenmarkDODominican RepublicDZAlgeriaECEcuadorEEEstoniaEGEgyptESSpainETEthiopiaFIFinlandFRFranceGBUnited KingdomGEGeorgiaGHGhanaGMGambiaGNGuineaGRGreeceGTGuatemalaHNHondurasHRCroatiaHUHungaryCODECOUNTRYIDIndonesiaIEIrelandILIsraelIN
245、IndiaIRIran,Islamic Rep.ISIcelandITItalyJMJamaicaJOJordanJPJapanKEKenyaKGKyrgyzstanKHCambodiaKRKorea,Rep.KWKuwaitKZKazakhstanLALao PDRLBLebanonLKSri LankaLSLesothoLTLithuaniaLULuxembourgLVLatviaMAMoroccoMDMoldova,Rep.MEMontenegroMGMadagascarCODECOUNTRYMKNorth MacedoniaMLMaliMNMongoliaMRMauritaniaMTM
246、altaMUMauritiusMWMalawiMXMexicoMYMalaysiaMZMozambiqueNANamibiaNGNigeriaNINicaraguaNLNetherlandsNONorwayNPNepalNZNew ZealandOMOmanPAPanamaPEPeruPHPhilippinesPKPakistanPLPolandPTPortugalPYParaguayQAQatarRORomaniaCODECOUNTRYRSSerbiaRURussian FederationRWRwandaSASaudi ArabiaSESwedenSGSingaporeSISlovenia
247、SKSlovakiaSNSenegalSVEl SalvadorSZEswatiniTDChadTHThailandTNTunisiaTRTrkiyeTTTrinidad and TobagoTZTanzania,United Rep.UAUkraineUGUgandaUSUnited States of AmericaUYUruguayVNViet NamZASouth AfricaZMZambiaZWZimbabweIS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX
248、2022 21represent all four income groups:48 are classified as high-income countries,31 are upper-middle-income countries,27 are lower-middle-income countries,and 7 are low-income countries.The regional breakdown,meanwhile,is the following:7 are in Central and Southern Asia;13 in Eastern,Southeastern
249、Asia and Oceania;38 in Europe;18 in Latin America and the Caribbean;18 in North-ern Africa and Western Asia;2 in Northern America;and 17 in Sub-Saharan Africa.The calculation of the averages of the two four-year periods is based on the GTCI scores that the countries have achieved.More specifically,t
250、he calculation comprises two steps:(1)aver-aging overall GTCI scores for 20152018 and 20192022,respec-tively,and(2)computing country rankings based on the resulting averages.The advantage of this approach is that it is straightfor-ward and yields distinct rankings for each country.The drawback is th
251、at the scores are not necessarily fully comparable from one year to the next because of changes in data or methodologi-cal improvements.An alternative approach,whereby four-year average rankings are computed based on the ranks(rather than scores)of countries in different GTCI editions,is used to cor
252、robo-rate the findings.15Talent Champions Pulling Away from the RestFigure 13 depicts visually how the relative positions of countries in the GTCI have changed in the two periods 20152018 and 20192022.The left-hand and right-hand columns of the figure rank the countries according to their GTCI score
253、s in the earlier and later periods,respectively.Hence,an upward(downward)slope implies an improvement(deterioration)in the ranking over the two periods,which in turn suggests strengthening(weaken-ing)talent competitiveness.A cursory glance at the figure from top to bottom is suf-ficient to draw two
254、main conclusions.First,countries with higher income levelsdepicted in shades of bluetend to have higher rankings in both periods and,consequently,are consist-ently more talent competitive than countries with lower income levels.Second,the talent competitiveness of higher-ranked countries is more sta
255、ble and tends to fluctuate less than that of lower-ranked countries.For instance,comparing the top 30 and bottom 30 of the 20192022 period shows that only one coun-try in the former group moved more than five ranks over the two periods,which is in contrast to the 10 countries of the latter group tha
256、t moved by as much.As would be expected,Switzerland(the top country in every GTCI edition)and Singapore(right behind Switzerland in all editions but one)are the two most talent-competitive countries in both periods.The United States is also in the top 3 in both periods.Luxembourg,which dropped from
257、4th in the earlier period to 9th in the later,is the country with the largest movement in the top 10,although it should be mentioned that this was the result of other countries outperforming it and that Luxembourg actually improved its GTCI score over the two peri-ods.The only country to drop out of
258、 the top 10 over the long term is the United Kingdom,which slipped from 7th to 11th.At its expense,theNetherlands made it into the top 10,climbing from 11th to 6th.Figure 13GTCI rankings in 20152018 and 20192022Note:Colours refer to income groups,which range from dark blue(high income)to light blue(
259、upper-middle income),light brown(lower-middle income),and dark brown(low income).622324252627282930337383940447484950557585960667686970777787980887888990997989937108109
260、320152018Switzerland1Singapore2United States3Sweden5Denmark4Luxembourg9United Kingdom11Norway8Finland7Australia10Netherlands6Ireland15Canada14New Zealand16Germany13Belgium17Iceland12Austria18Estonia22Israel20UAE23Japan21Czech Republic25Portugal27France19Malta24South Korea26Qatar30Spain29S
261、lovenia28Malaysia32Lithuania34Chile35Latvia33Cyprus31Costa Rica38Slovakia37Saudi Arabia40Italy36China39Azerbaijan46Bahrain42Greece43Mauritius49Croatia52Bulgaria51Montenegro48Russia50Poland41Kuwait60Trkiye76Argentina55Oman47Trinidad and Tobago53Hungary44Romania59Jordan61Georgia58Kazakhstan54Serbia57C
262、olombia68Uruguay45Armenia56Mongolia73Botswana65Panama63South Africa69Philippines62Ukraine64Thailand67Mexico66North Macedonia75Brazil74Viet Nam81Paraguay90Peru78Moldova79Indonesia72Ecuador82Rwanda92Tunisia80Albania71Domican Republic83India84Egypt87Lebanon70Sri Lanka86Namibia77Kyrgyzstan85El Salvador1
263、00Iran96Kenya91Ghana89Bolivia93Pakistan101Morocco94Bosnia&Herzegovina88Honduras98Guatemala95Lesotho106Cambodia103Uganda105Tanzania104Algeria97Senegal99Madagascar109Nicaragua102Mali111Burkina Faso110Zimbabwe107Bangladesh108Mozambique113EthiopiaSwitzerlandSingaporeUnited StatesLuxembourgSwe
264、denDenmarkUnited KingdomNorwayFinlandAustraliaNetherlandsCanadaIrelandNew ZealandIcelandGermanyAustriaBelgiumUAEJapanEstoniaFranceCzech RepublicQatarIsraelMaltaSloveniaMalaysiaSouth KoreaPortugalLatviaChileSpainCyprusLithuaniaSlovakiaCosta RicaPolandItalySaudi ArabiaHungaryBahrainMauritiusMontenegro
265、CroatiaGreeceUruguayBulgariaChinaPanamaNorth MacedoniaKazakhstanTrinidad and TobagoOmanPhilippinesRussiaKuwaitJordanSerbiaRomaniaArgentinaSouth AfricaArmeniaAzerbaijanTrkiyeColombiaGeorgiaLebanonBotswanaMexicoUkraineThailandBrazilMongoliaMoldovaBosnia&HerzegovinaPeruTunisiaDominican RepublicNamibiaE
266、cuadorGuatemalaAlbaniaSri LankaRwandaViet NamKyrgyzstanKenyaIndiaIndonesiaEl SalvadorHondurasParaguayEgyptNicaraguaMoroccoIranSenegalBoliviaGhanaLesothoCambodiaUgandaAlgeriaPakistanBangladeshTanzaniaEthiopiaMaliBurkina FasoZimbabweMozambiqueMadagascarCHAPTER 122 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS IND
267、EX 2022The two countries that enjoyed the greatest improvement over time are Azerbaijan and Indonesia,both of which surged by 18 positions over the two periods.Both countries made particular strides with respect to Vocational and Technical Skills.In addition,Azerbaijan(which jumped from 64th to 46th
268、)saw noteworthy improvements in its ability to Attract talent,whereas Indonesia(climbing from 90th to 72nd)also importantly strengthened its enabling environment.Three other countries improved their rankings by 10 positions or more:Albania,China,and Ghana.All three have in common that their showing
269、on the pillar related to Vocational and Technical Skills improved significantly.Albania(83rd to 71st)also saw particular progress in its ability to Attract talent,whereas China(49th to 39th)also notably strengthened its capacity to Grow talent and Ghana(100th to 89th)made addi-tional gains in the pi
270、llars Attract and Retain.The country that has experienced the biggest drop across the two periods is North Macedonia,which plunged from 51st in the 20152018 period to 75th in the 20192022 period.Particu-larly disappointing have been the countrys weakening enabling environment and its ability to Grow
271、 talent.The ranks of both Guatemala and Panama fell by 13 positions over the two peri-ods.Guatemala(82nd to 95th)was primarily affected by poorer performances in the four Input-related pillars(Enable,Attract,Grow,and Retain),while the regression of Panama(50th to 63rd)was mainly due to a lower capac
272、ity to Grow talent and a weaker pool of Global Knowledge Skills.Figure 13 shows how ranks over the two four-year periods have changed,but it does not provide any information about how scores have evolved.Figure 14 does so by showing two aspects of each countrys scores:(1)the change(in percent)of its
273、 average GTCI scores from 20152018 to 20192022 and(2)what score it achieved in this years ranking.Plotting this information yields a growth-performance matrix that shows how countries fare against a combined benchmark of,on one hand,no change(i.e.,neither increase nor decrease)in scores over the two
274、 four-year periods and,on the other hand,the average 2022 score(45.6)for this set of countries.The resulting four quadrants are meant to indicate whether a country is primarily a talent cham-pion(with an improved score over the two periods and a high score in the GTCI 2022),a talent mover(an improve
275、d score over time,but a lower-than-average score this year),a talent limper(a worsened score over time,but a higher-than-average score this year),or a talent laggard(a worsened score over time and a lower-than-average score this year).Figure 14Change in scores for 20152018 vs 20192022 and GTCI 2022
276、score High income Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income57520GTCI 2022 scoreChange in percentAverage GTCI 2022 score:45.6CHDKHRHUKWPAQASGUSBFETMGMLMZRWUGBDDZEGGHIDINLSNIPKSVAZBGBACNCRGEGTMKMYBRChampionsMoversLaggardsLimpersNote:A complete ISO-2 country code key can
277、be found as part of Figure 12,page 21.IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMING MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 23It is visually clear from the figure that most talent champi-ons are high-income countries.That is,not only do these coun-tries have GTCI scores that are above average
278、something that is implied by the strong association between GTCI score and income levels(Figure 12)but most(40 out of 48)high-income countries have improved their scores over time.Indeed,some countries that have slipped in the rankingsfor example,Lux-embourg,the United Kingdom,and Canadahave neverth
279、eless increased their GTCI scores over time and are,hence,considered talent champions.Two high-income countries find themselves in the quadrant of talent laggards:Kuwait and Panama.Panamas weaker performance,as mentioned above,can primarily be attributed to poorer showings in the pillars Grow and Gl
280、obal Knowledge Skills,while Kuwait was affected by lower abilities to Enable,Grow,and Retain talent.Five upper-middle-income countries are regarded as talent champions:Bulgaria,China,Costa Rica,Georgia,and Malaysia.All five countries experienced improvements in the pillars related to Attract,Retain,
281、and Vocational and Technical Skills.Georgia and Malaysia also enjoyed rising Global Knowledge Skills over the two periods.Eleven countries in the upper-middle-income group are talent movers,where Azerbaijanbacked by its stronger ability to Attract talent and its higher level of Vocational and Techni
282、cal Skillsmade the most gains.Montenegro and Mauritius are the two upper-middle-income countries that find themselves in the talent limper quadrant,which in both cases can be partly attrib-uted to a weakening enabling environment and a lower ability to Grow talent.The remaining 13 upper-middle-incom
283、e coun-tries are talent laggards,where Bosnia and Herzegovina,Guate-mala,and North Macedonia experienced considerable declines in GTCI scores over the two periods.As discussed above,the performance drops of the latter two countries is partly due to weaker capacities to Enable and Grow talent.The sam
284、e can be said about Bosnia and Herzegovina,which has also seen scores reduce significantly in the pillar related to retaining talent.One-third of the lower-middle-income countries are posi-tioned in the talent mover quadrant,whereas the remaining two-thirds are talent laggards due to the combination
285、 of lower-than-average GTCI 2022 scores and scores that decreased over the two four-year periods.The talent mover par excellence is Indonesia,whichas seen aboveis one of two countries(the other is Azerbaijan)that has made the greatest gains in talent competitiveness over the long term.Another talent
286、 mover in the income group that stands out is Ghana,which has made par-ticular strides in attracting and retaining talent and in expanding Vocational and Technical Skills.Among the weakest performers in the lower-middle-income group are Bangladesh,El Salva-dor,Lesotho,and Nicaragua,all of which have
287、 seen their scores worsen across the board over the two four-year periods(the only exception is Lesothos ability to Retain talent).All seven low-income countries are found in the quadrant of talent laggards.In fact,all but two of them have seen GTCI scores decrease by more than 10%over the two perio
288、ds.The two more positive cases are Madagascar and Rwanda,both of which enjoyed improvements in their ability to Retain talent and in their pool of Global Knowledge Skills.Madagascar also increased its average score with respect to attracting talent.As for the other five low-income countries,there ar
289、e various reasons to explain their underwhelming performances,but they all have in common a deteriorating enabling environment and worsen-ing ability to Grow talent.Growing Talent Gaps among and within GroupsThe discussion thus far has centred on the evolution of talent competitiveness at the level
290、of the individual country;it is appar-ent that the gap between more talent-competitive countries and less talent-competitive countries is,if anything,widening.It has also pointed out that this trend is consistent with differences in income levels and that GTCI scores in higher-income coun-tries have
291、 increased,while the opposite has occurred in lower-income countries.That there appears to have been a divergence of talent competitiveness between higher-income countries and lower-income countries is evident from Figure 15,which summarises the performances of the four income groups in the two four
292、-year periods.The figure illustrates clearly that,whereas high-income countries have improved their GTCI scores over both periods in virtually all percentiles,the converse can be observed with respect to the other three income groups.Within the income groups,it is noteworthy that the boxes in Figure
293、 15 have become longer(the dispersion of GTCI scores has increased,as seen in the Y axis)for high-income countries,upper-middle-income coun-tries,and lower-middle-income countries,which indicates that the talent gap has increased within these groups.Bearing in mind that some GTCI indicators have cha
294、nged over the years(which might impact GTCI scores simply because of their different distributions),it is interesting to take a closer look at the evolution of scores at the pillar level for all four income groups.Such an analysis suggests that the two dimen-sions thatmore than any othershave caused
295、 the talent divide to widen further are Enable and Grow.Whereas the high-income countries have increased their average scores in both pillars,the other three income groups have seen their average scores in them both drop significantly.It is also telling that the average scores of the high-income gro
296、up have increased in all six pillars,while they have increased in four pillars in the case of the upper-middle-income group(Attract,Retain,Vocational and Technical Skills,and Global Knowledge Skills),three pillars in the case of the lower-middle-income group(Retain,Vocational and Technical Skills,an
297、d Global Knowledge Skills),and in just two pil-lars in the case of the low-income group(Retain and Vocational and Technical Skills).Figure 16 shows how talent competitiveness has evolved in different regions.In several ways it tells a similar story insofar as the regions with the greatest shares of
298、talent-competitive coun-triesEurope and Northern America,but also Eastern,South-eastern Asia and Oceaniahave improved their scores at most percentiles between 20152018 and 20192022.This is in contrast to regions such as Central and Southern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa,where GTCI scores have tended t
299、o decrease over the two periods.Also similar is the seeming trend of greater intra-regional divergence in talent competitiveness.All but one region(Central CHAPTER 124 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022Figure 15GTCI scores in 20152018 and 20192022 by income groupNote:Narrow bars indicate m
300、aximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles.Black bars indicate 20152018 values and blue bars indicate 20192022 values.020406080100 High income Upper-middle income Lower-middle income Low incomeMinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentile 20152018 20192022Figure
301、 16GTCI scores in 20152018 and 20192022 by regional groupNote:Narrow bars indicate maximum and minimum values;wide bars indicate 25th,50th,and 75th percentiles.Black bars indicate 20152018 values and blue bars indicate 20192022 values.The plots for Northern America are without wide bars because they
302、 only contain two countries:Canada and the United States.020406080100 Sub-SaharanAfrica NorthernAmerica Northern AfricaandWestern Asia Latin Americaand theCaribbean Europe Eastern,Southeastern Asiaand Oceania Central andSouthern Asia MinimumMaximum25th percentileMedian75th percentile 20152018 201920
303、22and Southern Asia)have seen differences in scores between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile widen in the long term.In the case of the region comprising Northern Africa and Western Asia,this implies that the former sub-region is lagging further behind the latter.The greater heterogeneity of t
304、alent competitiveness in regions than in income groups makes it less clear what dimen-sions might be primarily driving the divergence in talent among the regions,although average scores with respect to the ena-bling environment have risen in the top 3 highest scoring IS TALENT COMPETITIVENESS BECOMI
305、NG MORE UNEQUAL?THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022 25regions and dropped in the rest.It is also interesting to note that most regions have seen differences in scores widen in most pil-lars over the two four-year periods.It is still too soon to say what effect COVID might have on tal-ent co
306、mpetitiveness in the long run.However,as data from 2020 and 2021 have started to be disseminated and analysed,there is good reason to be concerned that talent inequalitieswhich may already have been growing prior to the pandemicare being further exacerbated.As this report makes clear,address-ing the
307、se talent inequalities is imperative for our collective future prosperity and well-being.ENDNOTES 1 World Bank(2022).2 UNDP(2022a).3 See World Bank et al.(2022).4 World Bank et al.(2022).5 See ILO(2021a),cited in Lanvin&Monteiro(2021,p.6).6 UBS(2022).7 UN(2021).8 World Bank et al.(2022).9 UBS(2022).
308、10 UBS(2022).11 See Cappelli&Keller(2014);Stahl et al.(2012).12 World Bank(2021b).13 The years 2015 and 2016 refer to the results reported in,respectively,The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2014 and The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 201516.The years of the subsequent editions correspond t
309、o their titles(e.g.,2017 for The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2017,2018 for The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2018,and so on).The reason for the apparent year discrepancy is as follows.The GTCI reports are always printed towards the end of the calendar year.The first two editions of the
310、 GTCI referred to this in their titles(The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2013 and The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2014).However,because the launch of the report used to be held in January,a change was made in the third edition,whereby the title would refer to the launch year.Thus,the t
311、hird edition became The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 201516 and subsequent editions have had the launch year included in the title.14 One caveat to the results discussed in this section is that the GTCI model has evolved over the years,with the possible implication that a score that changes f
312、rom one year to the next might primarily reflect a methodological adjustment rather than new data.This potential problem is addressed by averaging the scores across four years(as it implies some smoothing of modifications to the GTCI model)and by focusing the analysis on aggregate overall GTCI score
313、s(which entails a degree of cancelling-out effects).15 More concretely,the country with the best average rank for a four-year period would be ranked 1st,the country with the next-best rank would be ranked 2nd,and so on.REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGSAkhtar,A.(2020).Meet the K-shaped recession,where
314、professional workers are largely fine and everyone else is doing awful.Business Insider 30 September 2020,available at https:/ long-term impact of the COVID-19 unemployment shock on life expectancy and mortality rates,NBER Working Paper,No.28304,available at http:/www.nber.org/papers/w28304Cappelli,
315、P.,&Keller,J.R.(2014).Talent management:Conceptual approaches and practical challenges.Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1:305331.Dutta,S.,&Lanvin,B.(2023,forthcoming).Digital sapiens,Penguin.Edelberg,W.,&Sheiner,L.(2021).The macroeconomic implications of Bidens$1
316、.9 trillion fiscal package,Brookings,28 January 2021,available at https:/www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/28/the-macroeconomic-implications-of-bidens-1-9-trillion-fiscal-package/EC(European Commission).(2020).Recovery plan for Europe,available at https:/ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-pla
317、n-europe_enEC(European Commission).2021.Commission to invest 14.7 billion from Horizon Europe for a healthier,greener and more digital Europe.Press Release 16 June 2021,available at https:/ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2993Evans,P.,Rodriguez-Montemayor,E.,&Lanvin,B.(2021a).Tale
318、nt competitiveness,a framework for macro talent management.In The Routledge companion to talent management,Tarique,I.(ed.).New York:Routledge.Evans,P.Rodriguez-Montemayor,E.,&Lanvin,B.(2021b).The Global Talent Competitiveness Index:An empirical assessment and lessons for macro talent management.In T
319、he Routledge companion to talent management,Tarique,I.(ed.).New York:Routledge.German Ministry of Finance.(2020).A stimulus package for everyone in Germany,accessed 25 September 2021,available at https:/www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/EN/Issues/Public-Finances/stimulus-package-for-everyone/stimul
320、us-package-for-everyone.htmlILO(International Labour Organization).(2021a).ILO Monitor:COVID-19 and the world of work,7th edition.Updated estimates and analysis,21 January 2021,available at https:/www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_767028.pdfILO(Internatio
321、nal Labour Organization).(2021b).Teleworking arrangements during the COVID-19 crisis and beyond,available at https:/www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/multilateral-system/g20/reports/WCMS_791858/lang-en/index.htmILO(International Labour Organization).(2022).COVID-19 and labour statis
322、tics,available at https:/ilostat.ilo.org/topics/covid-19/#IMF(International Monetary Fund).(2021).Fault lines widen in the global recovery.Economic Outlook Update(July 2021).Washington,DC:IMF.KPMG.(2020).Brazil:Government and institution measures in response to COVID-19,available at https:/home.kpmg
323、/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/brazil-government-and-institution-measures-in-response-to-covid.htmlLanvin,B.&Evans,P.(eds.)(2017).The global talent competitiveness index 2017:Talent and technology.Fontainebleau:INSEAD.Lanvin,B.,&Evans,P.(eds.)(2018).The global talent competitiveness index 2018:Diversi
324、ty for competitiveness.Fontainebleau:INSEAD.Lanvin,B.,&Monteiro,F.(eds.)(2019).The global talent competitiveness index 2019:Entrepreneurial talent and global competitiveness.Fontainebleau:INSEAD.Lanvin,B.,&Monteiro,F.(eds.)(2020).The global talent competitiveness index 2020:Global talent in the age
325、of artificial intelligence.Fontainebleau:INSEAD.Lanvin,B.,&Monteiro,F.(eds.)(2021).The global talent competitiveness index 2021:Talent competitiveness in times of COVID.Fontainebleau:INSEAD.Lanvin,B.,&Sultan,O.(2022).The future is young.Lausanne:IMD.Lasserre,P.&Monteiro,F.(2022,forthcoming).Global s
326、trategic management,5th edition,UK:Bloomsbury Publishing.Merriam Webster.(n.d.).Tectonics.Merriam-Webster online dictionary,retrieved 2022,available at https:/www.merriam- for Economic Co-operation and Development).(2020a).Insolvency and debt overhang following the COVID-19 outbreak:Assessment of ri
327、sks and policy responses.OECD Economic Outlook-Issue Note 2,available at https:/www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/insolvency-and-debt-overhang-following-the-covid-19-outbreak-assessment-of-risks-and-policy-responses-7806f078/CHAPTER 126 THE GLOBAL TALENT COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2022OECD(Organi
328、sation for Economic Co-operation and Development).(2020b).Productivity gains from teleworking in the post COVID-19 era:How can public policies make it happen?OECD,updated 7 September 2020,available at https:/www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/productivity-gains-from-teleworking-in-the-post-co
329、vid-19-era-a5d52e99/Powell,Chair J.H.2021.Monetary policy in the time of COVID.Speech delivered at the Macroeconomic Policy in an Uneven Economy economic policy symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,Jackson Hole,Wyoming(via webcast),27 August 2021,available at https:/www.fed
330、eralreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20210827a.htmStahl,G.K.,Bjrkman,I.,Farndale,E.,Morris,S.,Paauwe,J.,Stiles,P.&Wright,P.M.(2012).Six principles of effective global talent management.Sloan Management Review,53,2542(January 2012).Statista.(2020).Remote work could double permanently,16 December 2
331、020,available at https:/ unveils US$500 billion fiscal stimulus,South China Morning Post,22 May 2020,available at https:/ for life:A guide for philanthropists and changemakers to bring quality education to all.UBS Philanthropy Services,available at https:/ Nations).(2021).Tremendously off track to m
332、eet 2030 SDGs:UN chief.UN News,12 July 2021,available at https:/news.un.org/en/story/2021/07/1095722UNDP(United Nations Development Programme).(2022a).Addressing the cost-of-living crisis in developing countries:Poverty and vulnerability projections and policy responses,UNDP,New York,available at ht
333、tps:/www.undp.org/publications/addressing-cost-living-crisis-developing-countries-poverty-and-vulnerability-projections-and-policy-responsesUNDP(United Nations Development Programme).(2022b).Home/Sustainable Development Goals/The SDGs in action,available at https:/www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goalsYounger,J.(2020).The coronavirus pandemic is driving huge growth in remote freelance work,For