Repositioning a country for global manufacturing competitiveness: a case of South Africa

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to develop an artifact to measure the level of manufacturing competitiveness of a country in the global context and provide a suitable interpretation mechanism for the measured values, and to provide prescriptive solution where necessary so that the country can develop an actionable plan of program to move from the current level of global competitiveness to another such that they could provide more economic opportunities for their citizenry. Design/methodology/approach A manufacturing competitive index (MCI) was developed which includes relevant variables to capture a country’s manufacturing activity level in an economy with a balanced perspective. Reliable international sources were used. Ward algorithm was used to identify clear clusters of performance upon which competitive gaps were measured and improvement projects were identified and prioritized to obtain the best value for cluster transitional plan. Findings This study shows that the case country is not doing as well as it wants to believe, even when the relevant technology import measures were included in the expanded metric, but also, the next level of competitiveness is achievable within the national budget if proper prioritization is done. Originality/value The paper presents a cocktail of indexes that is more exhaustive of MCI, including both research capacity and technology import variables. It also uses clustering mechanism to provide a proper context to interpret the MCI scores in the context of peer nations. It presents a gap determination methodology and shows how priority projects could be logically selected to close measured gaps based on anticipated value from budget expenses

Entrepreneurial environment attractiveness: a cross-country longitudinal cluster analysis

“…South Korea also ranked poorly in terms of services and entry-barrier variables, which explains its position in the least favorable cluster and in line with other research (Gupta et al , 2014). Indeed, South Korea appearing in the least attractive cluster is counter intuitive and contrary to other findings (Wilson et al , 2014; Gates and Adetunji, 2020). However, we are not analyzing a country’s overall development over the years, nor its investments in manufacturing, infrastructure and education (as do the cited works); rather, we are evaluating the entrepreneurial environment and how friendly the country is to small and medium enterprises, according to entrepreneur’s perception.…”

“…Indeed, the literature has tended to overlook cross-country comparisons of businesses or conditions to spur entrepreneurial business (Coombs et al , 2009), focusing on firm-level topics to the detriment of country-level topics (Smit, 2010). A recent, albeit still rare, exception is the work of Gates and Adetunji (2020), a cross-country comparison analysis focused on manufacturing competitiveness, which provides guidance for a nation, specifically South Africa, to diminish the gap relative to countries comprising the “leadership” cluster and improve its position in the global competitiveness ranking. However, the subject is of great interest to scholars (Ketels, 2006), policymakers and entrepreneurs, as indicated by the amount of data found in the organization for economic co-operation and development and World Bank databases and the numerous rankings on ease of doing business, competitiveness and so on.…”

“…Indeed, the literature has tended to overlook cross-country comparisons of businesses or conditions to spur entrepreneurial business (Coombs et al, 2009), focusing on firm-level topics to the detriment of country-level topics (Smit, 2010). A recent, albeit still rare, exception is the work of Gates and Adetunji (2020), a cross-country comparison analysis focused on manufacturing competitiveness, CR 32,4…”

Aligning the risk hedging strategy with supplier collaboration and manufacturing competitiveness: a resource-based and contingency approach

“…Previous studies have linked the increased manufacturing competitiveness with the creation of jobs, investment and innovations (Burlina and Di Maria, 2020). Other researchers have indicated the role of manufacturing competitiveness in improving the living standards of people (Haraguchi et al , 2017) and building trade relations among nations (Gates and Adetunji, 2020). In addition, the multiplier effect has been presumed to be stronger within manufacturing than other sectors of the economy (Herman, 2016).…”

“…The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm (Haraguchi et al, 2017) and building trade relations among nations (Gates and Adetunji, 2020). In addition, the multiplier effect has been presumed to be stronger within manufacturing than other sectors of the economy (Herman, 2016).…”