《复旦发展研究院：全球国家发展动力指数（2024）（英文版）（44页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《复旦发展研究院：全球国家发展动力指数（2024）（英文版）（44页）.pdf（44页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX(2024)E-mail：Website：https:/FUDAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTEApril,2025GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENTDRIVERS INDEX（2024）Director,Editor-in-Chief,and Executive EditorZhangyi,Huang Hao,Lyu YaResearch,Statistics,and DigitalYe Ming,Gao Ming,Chen Xinyan,Li BingxuanCommunications

2、 and OperationsWang Fan,Liu Hong,Li Qin,Jiang Tianjiao,Liu Li,Yao Xu,Tang Weiqi,Song Liangjun,Yang Qiuyi,Xin Yanyan,Lei Lihong,Zhang Yanren,Shi Shuo,Shen Chanjing,Qian Siyun,Shao Xiayi,Yu Yang,Huang Chen,Liu Siyuan,Jiang Ze,Zhang Yuan,Wang Yitong,Wu Tao,Ding Changxin,Deng Mengjia,Fei Yuewen,Qiu Xuli

3、ang,Feiluona Tuerhong,Chen Zipei,Gong Xi,Li Wenbo,Lu Yiwen,Luo Tianyi,Mao Wenxuan,Shi Xinyi,Yang Yujie,Yang Huihui,Zhang Jiaqi,Zhang Ao,Zhou Chang,Zhu Tianqin,Huang Cong“State Development Drivers Index”Project TeamCONTENTSCatalog of Figures.iCatalog of Tables.iiAbstract.iiiI.Construction of State De

4、velopment Drivers Evaluation Indicator System.11.Design and Logic of the Indicator System.12.Selection of Evaluation Indicators and Data Sources.23.Weight Determination and Measurement Methods.74.Selection of States and Justification.10II.Comprehensive Evaluation of State Development Drivers of 44 S

5、tates.131.From 1990 to 2023,the state development drivers of the 44 states showed overall growth,but a significant divergence emerged in 2020.132.From 2019 to 2023,the comprehensive indices of many states exhibited a“W-shaped curve”.143.In 2023,innovative forces drove a general increase in the state

6、 development drivers index across states.18III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development Drivers.211.Productive forces:China and the United States lead in rankings and show significant growth.212.Developmental forces:The developmental forces remain relatively stable in general,with mos

7、t states showing modest improvements.253.Innovative forces:The emergence of the“Matthew Effect”among states.304.Continuity capacity:Diverging development trajectories among 44 states after 2020.365.Sociocultural vitality:Nordic and Oceania developed states lead the rankings.41IV.Evaluation of State

8、Development Drivers in Key States and Regions.461.China:Vigorously develop new quality productive forces,with innovative forces continuously driving the growth of state development drivers.462.The United States:The comprehensive state development drivers index has not yet returned to pre-pandemic le

9、vels.483.Russia:Demonstrate a certain degree of resilience in its state development amid the pandemic and ongoing conflicts.504.Group of Seven:Recover their state development drivers despite facing setbacks.525.BRICS+states:Recover rapidly and continue to grow after the COVID-19 pandemic.556.Southea

10、st Asian states:Show overall steady improvement,though internal differences persist,with innovative forces seeing significant growth in 2023.587.Latin American states:Have generally returned to pre-pandemic levels but continue to struggle with long-term challenges in innovative forces growth.618.Sta

11、tes in conflict:Potential for innovative forces growth remains.65V.Conclusion.67Annex:.691.Data Imputation and Interpolation Methods.692.Weight Determination and Measurement Methods.703.Clustering Selection and Rating Method.73Catalog of FiguresFig.1 Schematic Diagram of State Development Drivers an

12、d Their Components.1Fig.2 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index of 44 States from 1990 to 2023.13Fig.3 Changes in Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Average Scores of 44 States from 2019 to 2023.14Fig.4 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index of 44 States in 2023.19Fig.5

13、 Rankings for Productive Forces among 44 States in 2023.22Fig.6 Rankings for Developmental Forces among 44 States in 2023.26Fig.7 Rankings for Innovative Forces among 44 States in 2023.31Fig.8 Rankings for Continuity Capacity among 44 States in 2023.37Fig.9 Rankings for Sociocultural Vitality among

14、44 States in 2023.42Fig.10 Radar Chart of Chinas State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.46Fig.11 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Rankings of China from 1990 to 2023.47Fig.12 Radar Chart of the United States State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.48Fig.13 Comprehensive State

15、 Development Drivers Index and Rankings of the United States from 1990 to 2023.49Fig.14 Radar Chart of Russias State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.50Fig.15 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Rankings of Russia from 1990 to 2023.51Fig.16 Radar Chart of G7 States State Developmen

16、t Drivers in 2022 and 2023.52Fig.17 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Rankings of G7 States from 1990 to 2023.54Fig.18 Radar Chart of BRICS+States State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.56Fig.19 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Rankings of BRICS+States from 1990

17、to 2023.57Fig.20 Radar Chart of Southeast Asian States State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.59Catalog of TablesTab.1 State Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator System.4Tab.2 Correlation Coefficient Matrix.9Tab.3 Selection of States and Criteria.11Tab.4 Comprehensive State Development Drive

18、rs Index and Rankings of 44 States from 2019 to 2023.15Tab.5 Evaluation Grades of State Development Drivers for 44 States from 2019 to 2023.16Tab.6 Rankings for Productive Forces among 44 States from 2019 to 2023.23Tab.7 Rankings for Developmental Forces among 44 States from 2019 to 2023.28Tab.8 Ran

19、kings for Innovative Forces among 44 States from 2019 to 2023.33Tab.9 Rankings for Continuity Capacity among 44 States from 2019 to 2023.38Tab.10 Rankings for Sociocultural Vitality among 44 States from 2019 to 2023.43Tab.11 Missing Data Ratio.70Fig.21 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index a

20、nd Rankings of Southeast Asian States from 1990 to 2023.60Fig.22 Radar Chart of Latin American States State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.62Fig.23 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Rankings of Latin American States from 1990 to 2023.64Fig.24 Radar Chart of Ukraines State Devel

21、opment Drivers in 2021,2022,and 2023.65Fig.25 Radar Chart of Israels State Development Drivers in 2022 and 2023.66iiiDuring the current period of unparalleled global transformations,the development trajectories of states are influenced by various factors,and they face the challenge of state transfor

22、mation,making it urgent to explore their respective state development drivers in the new era.In 2021,Fudan Development Institute pioneered the concept and theory of“state development drivers”,aiming to build an independent Chinese knowledge system.It has formed distinctive research teams and generat

23、ed outcomes encompassing theories,indices,area studies,and vertical fields such as politics,science and technology,economy,and culture.In 2022,the“State Development Drivers Index”Research Team(hereinafter referred to as the“Research Team”)was established.Focusing on data from 28 countries worldwide,

24、it constructed the first edition of the Global State Development Drivers Index 19902021.In 2024,based on new global development trends and feedback from the first edition of the index,the Research Team further refined the selection of indicators and expanded the state coverage to 44,producing this r

25、eport,titled Global State Development Drivers Index(2024).As for data sources,all data used in this report are from authoritative sources,primarily from international organizations such as the World Bank,UNESCO,and the World Intellectual Property Organization.In addition,data from consulting firms s

26、uch as Gallup and academic institutions such as the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center,Columbia University in the City of New York were also utilized.In terms of research methodology,this report employs Principal Component Analysis(PCA)to determine the weight of each indicator and examines t

27、he development trends from 1990 to 2023 in 44 states that are both representative and significant.The main findings of this report are as follows:First,from 1990 to 2023,the overall state development drivers of the 44 states showed an upward trend;however,a significant divergence occurred in 2020.Ex

28、cept for China and Vietnam,no other state was able to maintain continuous growth in state development drivers in 2020 and beyond;instead,they experienced varying degrees of fluctuation;Second,in 2023,all states except Mexico saw an increase in their comprehensive state development drivers index;Thir

29、d,among the five major sub-drivers,innovative forces have played an increasingly significant role in driving state development drivers in many states,but signs of the“Matthew Effect”have emerged in the development of innovative forces across states.This report consists of five chapters.Chapter I pro

30、vides an overall introduction and Abstractexplanation of the State Development Drivers Index System.The index system includes five primary indicatorscontinuity capacity,sociocultural vitality,productive forces,productive forces,developmental forces,and innovative forces,as well as 37 secondary indic

31、ators.Compared with the previous edition of the index report,this version removes highly time-specific indicators such as“COVID-19 vaccination rate”and adds indicators such as“new energy vehicle production”.In terms of the time frame,the 2024 edition covers data up to 2023,incorporating changes over

32、 the past two years and allowing for a more continuous and comprehensive examination of how state development drivers have recovered globally in the post-pandemic era.In terms of geographic scope,the 2024 edition expands its coverage from 28 to 44 states,including city-state economies such as Monaco

33、.It also increases the sample size of Global South states and Belt and Road Initiative states,further optimizing the assessment system,broadening the scope of the study,and providing a more comprehensive reference for understanding state development drivers.Chapter II analyzes the trends in the comp

34、rehensive state development drivers index of the 44 states over time,with a particular focus on the annual development trajectory in 2023 and the overall changes from 2019 to 2023:Section 1 outlines the macro background,noting that from 1990 to 2023,the state development drivers of the 44 states sho

35、wed overall growth,but a significant divergence emerged in 2020;Section 2 presents the trends of the 44 states from 2019 to 2023,highlighting that many states surveyed exhibited a“W-shaped”development curve after the COVID-19 pandemiccharacterized by a pattern of“decline-rise-decline-rise”over the f

36、ive-year period;Section 3 discusses the new developments of the 44 states in 2023,specifically that innovative forces generally drove an increase in the state development drivers index across states,and except for Mexico,the other 43 states experienced growth in their comprehensive index.Chapter III

37、 analyzes the annual development trends in 2023 and the changes from 2019 to 2023 for the five major sub-driver indices:Section I focuses on continuity capacity.The top five states in continuity capacity in 2023 were the United States,Saudi Arabia,the United Kingdom,Singapore,and China.Since 2020,th

38、e development trajectories of continuity capacity among the 44 states have shown significant variation;Section 2 focuses on sociocultural vitality.The top five states in sociocultural vitality in iiiiv2023 were Denmark,Norway,Sweden,New Zealand,and Australia.Both the relative rankings and absolute s

39、cores of the 44 states remained generally stable over the five-year period from 2019 to 2023;Section 3 focuses on productive forces.The top five states in productive forces in 2023 were China,the United States,Germany,Norway,and Monaco.China and the United States held a substantial lead in terms of

40、absolute scores,relative rankings,and annual growth in productive forces;Section 4 focuses on developmental forces.The top five states in developmental forces in 2023 were Denmark,Monaco,Norway,Sweden,and Germany.The rankings of the 44 states remained relatively stable from 2019 to 2023,with most st

41、ates showing modest improvements in their developmental forces scores;Section 5 focuses on innovative forces.The top five states in innovative forces in 2023 were the United States,China,South Korea,Sweden,and the United Kingdom.In 2023,the average innovative forces sub-index across the 44 states sa

42、w a significant increasethe largest among the five sub-driver indices.At the same time,from 2019 to 2023,early signs of a“Matthew Effect”emerged in innovative forces development,where the strong continued to grow stronger while the weak remained weak.Chapter IV analyzes state development drivers fro

43、m a regional perspective by selecting key states and regions for in-depth examination:Section 1 finds that China has vigorously developed new quality productive forces,with innovative forces continuously driving the growth of state development drivers;Section 2 observes that the United States compre

44、hensive state development drivers index has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels;Section 3 argues that Russia has demonstrated a certain degree of resilience in its state development drivers amid the pandemic and ongoing conflicts;Section 4 finds that the G7 states gradually recovers their state

45、development drivers despite facing setbacks;Section 5 analyzes how BRICS+states have recovered rapidly and continued to grow after the COVID-19 pandemic;Section 6 observes that Southeast Asian states have shown overall steady improvement,though internal differences persist,with innovative forces see

46、ing significant growth in 2023;Section 7 notes that Latin American states have generally returned to pre-pandemic levels but continue to struggle with long-term challenges in innovative forces growth;Section 8 finds that states experiencing conflict(Ukraine and Israel)may still see improvements in i

47、nnovative forces.Chapter V provides a summary of this report.Based on the research findings outlined above,looking ahead to the changes in state development drivers index of states over the coming period,the Research Team forecasts that the comprehensive state development drivers index of states wil

48、l continue to grow over the coming years,although the growth rate is expected to be lower than the average rate during the 19902023 period.At the same time,the Research Team estimates that the innovative forces sub-index will become increasingly differentiated,and given the growing importance of inn

49、ovative forces as a driving force behind state development drivers in the next phase,each states state development drivers index is expected to display greater divergence in the future.In addition,the Research Team has developed the“Global State Development Drivers Index Map”website,which allows res

50、earchers to explore data by year,state,and indicator.Please refer to:https:/ forcesInnovative forcesContinuity capacityProductive forcesSociocultural vitalityFig.1 Schematic Diagram of State Development Drivers and Their ComponentsI.Construction of State Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator Syst

51、em1Speech at the Meeting with Foreign Guests Attending the China International Friendship Conference and the Events Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Founding of the Chinese Peoples Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries,October 12,2024,CPC News,https:/ access:October 19,2024.1.Design a

52、nd Logic of the Indicator SystemThe world today stands once again at a historic crossroads,confronted with the eras question of“what kind of world to build and how to build it”.1During an era marked by unparalleled global transformations,states worldwide face varied changes in their developmental ca

53、pabilities and potentials under various influences.Currently,they actively seek innovative strategies for state progress.Facing the complex international and domestic situations,the transformative opportunities presented by“new quality productive forces”,and the new expectations of the people,Chinas

54、 achievements in state development with its distinctive application of Marxism,offer new insights and alternatives for other states.Given this backdrop,employing Marxist social dynamics theory,to craft a comprehensive state development drivers evaluation system is both essential and viable.Based on

55、the understanding above,state development drivers are defined as formed via the dynamic interplay between productive forces and relations of production,and they serve as a driving force to ensure the survival of a state,promote its progress,and strengthen its power.They aim to reflect both the curre

56、nt state of development and future trends,and include both economic construction of states and the comprehensive development of individuals.State development drivers consist of two main categories:the drivers of sustainability and the driving forces.The drivers of sustainability are based on core re

57、sources such as population,natural conditions,social consciousness and culture.They are the basic forces to maintain the survival of a state.Drivers of sustainability include the continuity capacity and the sociocultural vitality.The driving forces are defined as the forces to drive state developmen

58、t,enhance state capacity and promote a state to develop towards a higher level.The driving forces are constituted by elements like production,strategy and plan,governance,education,and innovation.The driving forces include productive forces,developmental forces,and innovative forces.The key to wheth

59、er the foundational advantages brought by the drivers of sustainability can be leveraged lies in whether driving forces can unleash the force that propels a state forward.Specifically,(1)The continuity capacity refers to a states long-term ability for sustainable development,which includes its state

60、 defense capability,natural resources,and human resources.Only with the protection of state defense capability and the subjective and objective support of human and natural resources can a state achieve more sustainable and stable development.(2)The sociocultural vitality refers to a states energy i

61、n terms of spiritual and cultural aspects,which is mainly reflected in its level of state unity and recognition.When the people of a state have a strong sense of belonging and identification with their state,and have confidence in the governments capability,economic development,and social progress,t

62、he state is more likely to exhibit a thriving trend of development.(3)The productive forces refer to the ability to increase a states material wealth through production.They reflect both the sum of a states material production and the efficiency of material production activities within a certain per

63、iod of time.Economic development is a crucial aspect of state development,and the fundamental factor driving economic growth is production.(4)The developmental forces refer to a states ability to achieve comprehensive,coordinated,and sustainable development,with a fundamental focus on the well-being

64、 of its people.(5)The innovative forces refer to the overall ability of a state to innovate,which include the ability to generate new ideas,design new systems,and break through new technologies to drive state development.The innovative forces are crucial driving forces for a states“leapfrog”developm

65、ent,for enhancing a state competitiveness,and for leading the development of the human society.In summary,based on the Marxist social dynamics theory,this indicator system differs from previous static,linear,and partial assessments of state development drivers in three key aspects.First,state develo

66、pment drivers are dialectical,reflecting the coupling of drivers of sustainability and driving forces as well as the dialectical relationships between material and spiritual elements,production,development,and innovation.Second,state development drivers are comprehensive.On one hand,human agency is

67、embedded in every aspect of the indicator system;on the other hand,the assessment of drivers of sustainability respects the diversity of each states basic conditions.Finally,state development drivers are historical.The concept of“new quality productive forces”highlights that the technological founda

68、tions and tools supporting production development differs across historical stages of human society,resulting in distinct social relations of production and social system structures.2The construction of this indicator system closely reflects the evolution of driving forces across different historica

69、l phases,capturing the structure and elements of various driver foundations.2.Selection of Evaluation Indicators and Data SourcesBased on the construction logic of the above indicator system,while ensuring the hierarchy of indicators and the availability of data,this report constructs the state deve

70、lopment drivers evaluation indicator system comprised of 5 elements,namely:the continuity capacity,the sociocultural vitality,the productive forces,the developmental forces and the innovative forces.These are broken down into 37 specific indicators,detailed as follows:(1)The continuity capacity.It i

71、s depicted using 12 indicators,including military expenditure in terms of state defense capabilities;land area,environmental performance index,and the ratio of natural resource rents in terms of natural resources;total population,birth rate,death rate,aging degree,scores in Programme for Internation

72、al Student Assessment(PISA),proportion of population with higher education,number of students studying abroad,and number of international students enrolled locally in 2Yu Fengxia:Accelerating the Formation of New Productive Forces:What It Is,Why It Matters,and What Actions to Take,February 6,2024,Na

73、tional Development and Reform Commission of China,https:/ access:October 19,2024.21I.Construction of State Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator SystemGLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)terms of human resources.Among them,indicators related to higher education and international students

74、 reflect the quality of human resources,and indicators related to population reflect the quantity of human resources.(2)The sociocultural vitality.It is depicted using 5 indicators,including global consumer confidence index,government effectiveness index,capacity utilization rate,suicide rate,and wo

75、rld happiness index.Among them,the government effectiveness index is extracted from the government efficiency section of the World Banks Worldwide Governance Indicators.The global consumer confidence index consists of consumer satisfaction index and consumer expectation index,reflecting the trends a

76、nd changes in consumer purchasing desires and power,thereby demonstrating the overall confidence of the people in a state or region towards state development.(3)The productive forces.They are depicted using 6 indicators,including gross domestic product(GDP),GDP per capita,electricity generation,labo

77、r productivity,labor force participation rate,and new energy vehicle production.Among them,the labor force participation rate reflects the level of labor force activity in an economy,while labor productivity focuses on the efficient output of labor,measuring to what extent the same amount of labor c

78、an drive development.New energy vehicles,combining traditional manufacturing,emerging technological innovations,and energy transition goals,represent a significant example of new productive forces.(4)The developmental forces.They are depicted using indicators that represent economic development:GDP

79、growth rate,Gini coefficient,difference between wage growth rate and inflation rate,unemployment rate,and ratio of social expenditure;and that represent social development:urbanization rate,human development index,government transparency index,government credit index,and law and order index,altogeth

80、er 10 indicators.Among them,the difference between wage growth rate and inflation rate reflects the ability of wage growth to withstand the inflation.The government transparency index,government credit index,and law and order index reflect the institutional guarantee of state development.Together,th

81、e measurements of economic and social development represent the pursuit of“comprehensive development”.(5)The innovative forces.They are depicted using 4 indicators,including ratio of research and development expenditure,number of colleges and universities in the top 200 of QS World University Rankin

82、gs,global innovation index,and number of patents.For more details on indicator selection,computation methods,and data sources,please refer to Tab.1.Tab.1 State Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator SystemSub-indexIndicatorDefinition and DescriptionSourceThe continuity capacityIndicator reflecting

83、 safety resourcesMilitary expenditureAnnual military expenditure calculated in current USDStockholm International Peace Research InstituteIndicator reflecting natural resourcesLand areaTotal land area,excluding inland water bodies and claims over continental shelves and exclusive economic zonesWorld

84、 BankEnvironmental performance indexThe overall progress made by states in terms of environmental sustainability,taking into account the current status and pressures of the environment,human vulnerability to environmental changes,a states capacity to respond,and its contribution to global environmen

85、tal issuesSocioeconomic Data and Applications Center,Columbia University in the City of New YorkRatio of natural resource rentsRatio of total natural resource rents to GDPWorld BankIndicator reflecting human resourcesTotal populationTotal populationWorld BankBirth rateAverage number of births per 1,

86、000 peopleWorld BankDeath rateAverage number of deaths per 1,000 peopleWorld BankAging degreeRatio of the population aged 65 and above to the total populationWorld BankScores in Programme for International Student AssessmentTests conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmen

87、t(OECD)to assess the educational attainment of 15-year-old students worldwideOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentProportion of population with higher educationHigher education enrollment rate per 10,000 peopleUnited Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural OrganizationNumber of

88、students studying abroadNumber of students studying abroad categorized by original nationalityUnited Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural OrganizationNumber of international students enrolled locallyNumber of international students enrolled locally categorized by original nationalityUnited Na

89、tions Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization43I.Construction of State Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator SystemGLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)The sociocultural vitalityIndicator reflecting political activityGovernment effectiveness indexReflection of a states population

90、s perception of the quality of public services,the quality of policy formulation and implementation,and the credibility of government policy commitmentsWorld BankIndicator reflecting economic activityGlobal consumer confidence indexComposition of three subsets:Employment index(job security,unemploym

91、ent experience,employment situation),expectations index(personal finance,community economy,job prospects),and investment index(consumer purchasing and investment confidence,personal financial situation and prospects)IpsosCapacity utilization rateRatio of total industrial output to production equipme

92、ntWorld BankIndicator reflecting social activitySuicide rateNumber of suicides per 100,000 peopleWorld BankWorld happiness indexComposition of six indicators:GDP per capita,healthy life expectancy,social support,perceptions of corruption,universality of generosity,and freedom to make life choicesWor

93、ld Happiness ReportThe productive forcesIndicator reflecting total productionGross domestic product(GDP)Core indicator of state economic accountingWorld BankElectricity generationA states total annual electricity outputBP p.l.c.New energy vehicle productionTotal annual output of new energy vehicles

94、in a stateInternational Energy AgencyIndicator reflecting production efficiencyGDP per capitaCore indicator of state economic accountingWorld BankLabor productivityReal GDP per hour worked,with 2010 as the base yearOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentLabor force participation rateP

95、ercentage of the labor force aged 15 and above in the total populationWorld BankThe developmental forcesIndicator reflecting economic developmentGDP growth rateCore indicator of state economic accountingWorld BankGini coefficientA commonly used indicator to measure income inequality among residents

96、of a stateWorld BankDifference between wage growth rate and inflation rateWage growth rate measures the month-on-month increase in wages,while the consumer price index measures the month-on-month increase in prices,which is calculated as the inflation rate.Difference between the two reflects the bas

97、ic resistance of wage growth to inflation.World BankUnemployment ratePercentage of the labor force of working age who are unemployed and actively seeking employmentWorld Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentIndicator reflecting social developmentRatio of social expenditureP

98、ercentage of a states GDP spent on cash welfare,direct provision of goods and services,and socially-oriented tax reductionsWorld BankHuman development indexA comprehensive index that includes three basic variables:life expectancy,education level,and living standardOrganisation for Economic Co-operat

99、ion and DevelopmentGovernment transparency indexAssessment of the perceived level of corruption in the public sector based on 13 different surveysThe United Nations Development ProgrammeGovernment credit indexProportion of survey respondents who express confidence in the state governmentTransparency

100、 InternationalLaw and order indexmeasurement of individual citizens sense of personal security and their personal experiences with crime through surveysOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentUrbanization rateProportion of urban population in total populationGallup65I.Construction of S

101、tate Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator SystemGLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)The innovative forcesIndicator reflecting investment in innovationRatio of research and development expenditurePercentage of a states GDP spent on research and development activitiesUnited Nations Educat

102、ional,Scientific and Cultural OrganizationNumber of colleges and universities in the top 200 of QS World University RankingsAcademic publications play a significant role in evaluating colleges and universities,as they contribute to talents and innovation in a stateQS World University RankingsIndicat

103、or reflecting innovation outcomesGlobal innovation indexA comprehensive index that includes 80 indicators such as the declaration rate of intellectual property,mobile app development,scientific and technical publications,and education expenditureWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationNumber of pate

104、ntsNumber of patents applied for and granted,providing insights into the level of innovative productsWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationNote:Compiled by the Research Team.3.Weight Determination and Measurement MethodsThis report analyzes the development drivers index of 44 states spanning from

105、1990 to 2023.Four different methods were utilized for calculation:Average method,principal component analysis(PCA)method,entropy weight method,and technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution(TOPSIS)method.Among these,the PCA method was ultimately chosen to determine the weights

106、 of the various indicators.To maintain the structure of the aforementioned indicator system and ensure the hierarchy and consistency of the indicators,this report initially used these methods to determine the weights of the secondary indicators.Upon computing the values of the primary indicators,the

107、 same methods were employed again to deduce the weights of the primary indicators.The primary software tools utilized in this report are Stata and Excel.(1)Weight calculation methodsThe following briefly introduces the four weight calculation methods mentioned above.For specific formulas and details

108、,please refer to Annex 2.1)Average method:Each indicator is assigned an equal weight,such as assigning a weight of 1/9 to each of the 9 indicators of developmental forces.After calculating five primary indicators,the average value(i.e.,weight of 20%for each)is taken as the developmental forces index

109、.This method provides a basic reference for our index comparison.2)Principal component analysis(PCA)method:It transforms a set of potentially correlated variables into a set of linearly uncorrelated variables through orthogonal transformations.It then selects a few comprehensive variables(principal

110、components)that reflect the most original information as much as possible.It should be noted that this report selects only the first principal component for ease of interpretation.3)Entropy weight method:After normalizing each indicator,the weights of the indicators are determined using information

111、entropy.This method determines the weights based on the variability of the indicator values,avoiding bias introduced by human factors.It is more accurate and objective,and can better explain the results obtained.4)Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution(TOPSIS)method:Building

112、upon the entropy weight method,this method determines the optimal and worst values for each indicator.It then calculates the weighted Euclidean distance between each solution and the ideal and worst values,serving as the criteria for evaluating the superiority or inferiority of each solution.This me

113、thod combines the entropy weight method with the TOPSIS method,reducing subjective interference in indicator weighting and resulting in a more objective and rational measurement.(2)Determination of weighting methodThe state development drivers index,computed using the four previously mentioned metho

114、ds,underwent a correlation analysis with three comprehensive authoritative indices that are similar to the indicator but emphasize different aspects.After analyzing the correlation,the PCA method,which showcased the best overall performance,was selected for weighting and measurement.These three indi

115、ces are the Legatum Prosperity Index,the Global Competitiveness Index,and the Fragile States Index,which are detailed as follows.1)The Legatum Prosperity Index is an annual ranking of states and regions worldwide based on multiple factors by the Legatum Institute.This index evaluates wealth,economic

116、 growth,personal welfare,and standard of living,focusing on comprehensive and sustainable development of social and economic factors in each state.The indicators used in the index are divided into 12 pillars,which can be grouped into 3 objectives:a)inclusive societies:safety and security,personal fr

117、eedom,governance,and social capital;b)open economies:investment environment,enterprise conditions,infrastructure and market access,economic quality;c)empowered people:living conditions,health,education,and natural environment.32)The Global Competitiveness Index,designed by Professor Sala I Martn for

118、 the World Economic Forum and first used in 2004,aims to measure a states ability to achieve sustained economic growth in the medium to long term.The index consists of 12 competitiveness pillars,providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness status of states at different stages of developm

119、ent worldwide.These 12 pillars are further grouped into three categories:a)basic requirements:institutions,infrastructure,macroeconomic environment,health and primary education;b)efficiency enhancers:higher education and training,goods market efficiency,labor market efficiency,financial market devel

120、opment,technological readiness,market size;c)innovation and sophistication factors:business sophistication,innovation.These three categories,to some extent,are comparable to“the productive forces”,“the developmental forces”and“the innovative forces”in the state development drivers index,showing a st

121、rong degree of comparability.43)The Fragile States Index aims to assess the vulnerability of states to conflict or collapse and ranks all sovereign states with sufficient data and UN membership.The index was launched by the Peace Foundation and the magazine Foreign Policy from 2005 to 2018,and has b

122、een launched by The New Humanitarian magazine since 2019.The index consists of 12 indicators,which are further grouped into 4 categories:a)cohesion:security apparatus,factionalized elites,group grievance;b)economy:economic decline and poverty,uneven economic development,human flight and brain drain;

123、c)politics:state legitimacy,public 3Legatum Institute,“The Legatum Prosperity Index”,https:/ access:November 21,2022.4World Economic Forum,“Global Competitiveness Report Special Edition 2020:How Countries are Performing on the Road to Recovery”,https:/www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitivene

124、ss-report-2020,last access:November 21,2022.87I.Construction of State Development Drivers Evaluation Indicator SystemGLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)Tab.2 Correlation Coefficient MatrixIndexAverage methodPrincipal component analysis methodEntropy weight methodTOPSISLegatum Prosperity In

125、dexGlobal Competitiveness IndexFragile States IndexUnweighted average method1.000Principal component analysis method0.9901.000Entropy weight method0.9720.9801.000TOPSIS0.9140.9280.9781.000Legatum Prosperity Index0.8100.8260.7510.6471.000Global Competitiveness Index0.9130.9180.8850.8200.8871.000Fragi

126、le States Index-0.527-0.548-0.488-0.389-0.740-0.5671.000Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.services,human rights and rule of law;d)society:demographic pressures,refugees and internally displaced persons,external intervention.By emphasizing the relevant vulnerabilities that lead to the r

127、isk of conflict in a state,this index enables policymakers and the general public to have political risk assessments and early warnings of conflicts.5Considering the descriptions above,a positive correlation with the Legatum Prosperity Index and the Global Competitiveness Index,and a negative correl

128、ation with the Fragile States Index,indicate a superior overall performance of the indicators.As shown in Tab.2(Correlation Coefficient Matrix),the correlation between the state development drivers index calculated by principal component analysis(PCA)method and the Legatum Prosperity Index is 0.826,

129、which is higher than the correlations obtained by unweighted average method(0.810),entropy weight method(0.751),and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution(0.647).Moreover,the index calculated by principal component analysis method has the highest correlations with the Global

130、Competitiveness Index(0.918)and the Fragile States Index(-0.548)among the four methods mentioned in the report.It has the best overall performance and can best depict a states development drivers.Therefore,this report chooses principal component analysis(PCA)method as the final method for weighting

131、and measurement.4.Selection of States and JustificationBased on considerations of economic development level and political strategic significance,as well as 5The Fund for Peace,“Fragile States Index”,https:/fragilestatesindex.org/,last access:November 21,2022.the availability and integrity of releva

132、nt data,44 states that are both representative and important are identified in this report.Their state development drivers indeces are calculated from 1990 to 2023,and their development potentials are estimated.Economic considerations abovementioned can be divided into three main criteria,which are

133、described as follows:(1)Global economic influence:If a states economy and development have a significant influence on the global economy and development,it may be included in the scope of this report.Regardless of whether it is a developed state or a developing state,as long as its economic size is

134、substantial or it occupies a“critical network node”,it has the potential to exert a significant influence on the global economy and development.In this regard,the composition of the Group of Twenty(G20)provides the main reference for this report.The G20 includes both developed states and developing

135、states,accounting for 2/3 of the global population,60%of the global land area,90%of the global GDP,and 80%of the global trade volume.Moreover,in terms of functionality,the G20 has played an important role in addressing financial crises,promoting global economic recovery,and advancing international f

136、inancial and monetary system reforms.6Therefore,this report concretizes this criterion as whether to be a member of the G20.(2)Regional development leadership:Even if a states economy is relatively small or still in the developing stage,if it can sufficiently unleash its economic potential and play

137、a leading role in regional economic development,it may be included in the scope of this report.Inevitably,states that can have a significant influence on the global economy are mainly large economies and developed state.Therefore,it is necessary to select important regional economies for evaluation

138、among non-G20 states.For example,take Thailand as a representative to evaluate Southeast Asian states development drivers;take Chile and Peru as representatives to evaluate Latin American states development drivers;take Kazakhstan as a representative to evaluate Central Asian states development driv

139、ers;and take Poland and Ukraine as representatives to evaluate Central and Eastern European states development drivers.(3)Individual development characteristics:In addition,if a states economic and development model is unique or characteristic and is typical among other similar states,it may be incl

140、uded in the scope of this report.For example,the Middle East state Israel is known for its knowledge-based economy,Denmark and Sweden are known for their welfare policies,and Singapore and Monaco are representatives of urban economies.Similarly,the strategic criteria are split into three:(1)Global s

141、trategic significance:If a state has significant geopolitical influence on a global level or its stability directly affects changes in the global situation,it may be included in the scope of this report.For example,Trkiye,located at the crossroads of Eurasia,and Ukraine and Israel,which have long be

142、en under the shadow of war,may be included in the scope of this report.(2)Regional security strategic significance:Taking China as a reference,if a state is located in the vicinity of China and has important political and strategic significance for Chinas regional security and stability,it may be in

143、cluded in the scope of this report.For example,Kazakhstan and Russia,as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,are of significant strategic significance to the security and :List of G20 Member States,March 7,2016,http:/ access:November 11,2022.109I.Construction of State Development Drivers

144、 Evaluation Indicator SystemGLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)stability in northwestern China;Indonesia and Thailand,as important members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN),have the potential to play a significant role in the South China Sea security issue.(3)“Belt and R

145、oad Initiative”:If a state is located along the Belt and Road Initiative(BRI)proposed by China,or has signed relevant documents such as Memoranda of Understanding on BRI cooperation with China,it may be included in the scope of this report.For example,Trkiye in Western Asia,Kazakhstan in Central Asi

146、a,Ukraine,Poland,and Hungary in Central and Eastern Europe,Egypt and Ethiopia in Africa,and Chile and Costa Rica in South America.Finally,after considering these criteria and data availability and integrity,the report has shortlisted 44 states,which are listed in Tab.3.Tab.3 Selection of States and

147、CriteriaStatesEconomic development levelPolitical strategic significanceGlobal economyRegional potentialIndividual characteristicsGlobal situationPeripheral securityBelt and Road InitiativeChinaUSAUKFranceGermanyJapanItalyCanadaSouth KoreaIndiaRussiaIndonesiaMexicoSouth AfricaSaudi ArabiaTrkiyeAustr

148、aliaArgentinaBrazilEgyptEthiopiaColombiaChilePeruNew ZealandIsraelHungaryDenmarkNorwaySwedenSingaporeMonacoUkraineThailandNigeriaKazakhstanVietnamPakistanMalaysiaPolandThe PhilippinesBangladeshCosta RicaIraqNote:Compiled by the Research Team.1211I.Construction of State Development Drivers Evaluation

149、 Indicator SystemGLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)II.Comprehensive Evaluation of State Development Drivers of 44 States1.From 1990 to 2023,the state development drivers of the 44 states showed overall growth,but a significant divergence emerged in 2020Fig.2 Comprehensive State Developmen

150、t Drivers Index of 44 States from 1990 to 2023Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.Based on the abovementioned indicator system and measurement methods,the comprehensive state development drivers index for 44 states from 1990 to 2023 can be calculated.As shown in Fig.2,the development dri

151、vers of these 44 states have generally exhibited an upward trend over the past 30 years.The greater the difference between a states highest and lowest points in the figure,the larger the growth in its state development drivers over this period.China,rising from 23rd place in 1990 to 2nd place in 202

152、3,demonstrated the most significant increase in its comprehensive index,far surpassing all other states surveyed,which reflects the“two major miracles”of Chinese modernization:the rarely seen miracle of rapid economic development and the miracle of long-term social stability.Moreover,as shown in Fig

153、.2,states with relatively high absolute values in the comprehensive index also tended to exhibit larger increases from 1990 to 2023 than those with lower values.This suggests that global disparities in state development may further widen.The year 2020 marks a critical point of divergence.The outbrea

154、k of COVID-19 had a significant negative impact on the sustained growth of state development drivers across the states surveyed.Except for China and Vietnam,the other 42 states failed to maintain continuous growth in their comprehensive indices after 2019,instead experiencing varying degrees of fluc

155、tuation.The relative rankings of the 44 states surveyed also underwent structural changes over time.These dynamics will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters of this report.This further underscores the current complex global landscape,YearDevelopmental forces indexcharacterized as unparallel

156、ed global transformations,where the development trajectories of states are influenced by various factors,and they face the challenge of state transformation,making it urgent to innovatively explore their respective state development drivers in the new era.2.From 2019 to 2023,the comprehensive indice

157、s of many states exhibited a“W-shaped curve”Between 2019 and 2023,the comprehensive state development drivers index curves of the 44 states surveyed showed a“W-shaped curve”,reflecting a development trajectory marked by fluctuations.Fig.3 illustrates the changes in both the individual comprehensive

158、index scores of the 44 states and the average score across all 44 during this period.The blue line in the figure represents the“W-shaped curve”of the average comprehensive index score:steady growth in 2019,a decline in 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,a post-pandemic recovery in 2021,

159、a slight dip again in 2022,and another rebound in 2023.Tab.4 further presents the specific comprehensive index scores and relative rankings of the 44 states.Fig.3 Changes in Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Average Scores of 44 States from 2019 to 2023 Note:Measured and compiled by

160、the Research Team.GermanyMexicoJapanIraqAverage ScoreYearComprehensive state development drivers indexArgentinaRussiaMalaysiaSwedenIsraelEthiopiaThe PhilippinesBangladeshThailandIndiaEgyptFranceUSASaudi ArabiaItalyAustraliaColombiaPeruTrkiyeIndonesiaPakistanCosta RicaMonacoUkraineUKBrazilKazakhstanS

161、outh AfricaSingaporeVietnamPolandSouth KoreaNigeriaNew ZealandChileDenmarkCanadaNorwayHungaryChina1413GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)II.Comprehensive Evaluation of State Development Drivers of 44 StatesTab.4 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Index and Rankings of 44 States from 2

162、019 to 2023States20192020202120222023IndexRankingIndexRankingIndexRankingIndexRankingIndexRankingUSA0.757 10.742 10.748 10.746 10.753 1China0.627 70.631 50.674 20.694 20.719 2Denmark0.649 20.647 20.652 30.650 30.664 3Norway0.637 40.635 40.643 50.639 40.645 4Sweden0.640 30.641 30.647 40.636 50.641 5G

163、ermany0.632 50.626 60.636 60.632 60.639 6UK0.628 60.611 80.629 80.625 70.631 7Singapore0.624 80.619 70.629 70.624 80.630 8Japan0.602 100.599 100.605 100.604 90.609 9Canada0.609 90.600 90.609 90.601 100.606 10France0.597 110.586 110.599 110.593 110.601 11South Korea0.581 140.582 120.590 120.589 120.5

164、95 12Australia0.586 130.577 140.583 130.582 130.584 13New Zealand0.589 120.579 130.581 140.578 140.581 14Italy0.542 160.531 160.542 160.547 150.553 15Monaco0.525 170.523 170.539 170.530 160.538 16Israel0.554 150.540 150.552 150.526 170.530 17Saudi Arabia0.503 180.493 180.509 180.512 180.523 18Malays

165、ia0.485 210.469 210.474 210.486 200.505 19Poland0.501 190.487 190.492 190.490 190.498 20Hungary0.493 200.478 200.489 200.482 210.485 21Trkiye0.460 240.448 260.456 240.459 220.474 22Kazakhstan0.449 260.451 240.453 250.453 240.462 23Costa Rica0.460 230.462 220.462 220.449 260.462 24Russia0.473 220.457

166、 230.460 230.455 230.457 25Chile0.444 280.441 270.451 260.449 250.454 26Brazil0.444 270.434 280.442 280.446 270.453 27Argentina0.458 250.449 250.444 270.442 280.452 28India0.418 350.398 370.421 340.436 290.442 29Vietnam0.415 360.418 320.422 320.427 310.434 30Mexico0.437 300.420 310.433 290.435 300.4

167、32 31Thailand0.424 330.422 290.425 310.421 330.428 32The Philippines0.430 310.417 330.422 330.423 320.428 33Indonesia0.419 340.412 350.416 360.417 340.425 34Colombia0.425 320.416 340.420 350.416 350.425 35Egypt0.413 370.404 360.410 370.403 360.418 36South Africa0.399 390.386 390.404 380.401 370.411

168、37Peru0.402 380.387 380.394 390.392 380.398 38Ukraine0.437 290.421 300.429 300.374 390.375 39Nigeria0.382 400.338 430.361 420.360 410.371 40Bangladesh0.377 410.340 420.363 400.355 420.363 41Pakistan0.369 420.344 400.363 410.360 400.362 42Ethiopia0.350 430.341 410.346 430.347 430.351 43Iraq0.332 440.

169、323 440.337 440.327 440.333 44Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.Tab.5 further presents the annual evaluation grades of the comprehensive state development drivers index for the 44 states from 2019 to 2023.To determine these grades,this report first applied the“elbow method”to analyze t

170、he data,dividing the comprehensive index scores of the 44 states into three primary categories:A,B,and C.To refine the classification further,the same method was used again to subdivide each category into three sub-levels:A+,A,and A-.After determining the division into 9 total levels,this report emp

171、loyed the“natural breaks classification”method to cluster the data and assign the final evaluation grades for each state in each year.This grading system represents a mathematical interpretation of each states comprehensive index score.For details,please refer to Annex 3.Tab.5 Evaluation Grades of S

172、tate Development Drivers for 44 States from 2019 to 20232023GradeValue RangeRankingStatesA+0.7201USAA0.6742ChinaA-0.61138Denmark,Norway,Sweden,Germany,UK,SingaporeB+0.559914Japan,Canada,France,South Korea,Australia,New ZealandB0.4731522Italy,Monaco,Israel,Saudi Arabia,Malaysia,Poland,Hungary,TrkiyeB

173、-0.4362329Kazakhstan,Costa Rica,Russia,Chile,Brazil,Argentina,IndiaC+0.4193036Vietnam,Mexico,Thailand,the Philippines,Indonesia,Colombia,EgyptC0.3533742South Africa,Peru,Ukraine,Nigeria,Bangladesh,Pakistan1615GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)II.Comprehensive Evaluation of State Developme

174、nt Drivers of 44 StatesC-0.3314344Ethiopia,Iraq2022GradeValue RangeRankingStatesA+0.7181USAA0.6792ChinaA-0.60438Denmark,Norway,Sweden,Germany,UK,SingaporeB+0.550914Japan,Canada,France,South Korea,Australia,New ZealandB0.4811522Italy,Monaco,Israel,Saudi Arabia,Malaysia,Poland,HungaryB-0.4382329Trkiye

175、,Russia,Kazakhstan,Chile,Costa Rica,Brazil,ArgentinaC+0.4043035India,Mexico,Vietnam,the Philippines,Thailand,Indonesia,ColombiaC0.3463643Egypt,South Africa,Peru,Ukraine,Pakistan,Nigeria,Bangladesh,EthiopiaC-0.32644Iraq2021GradeValue RangeRankingStatesA+0.7101USAA0.6622ChinaA-0.61238Denmark,Sweden,No

176、rway,Germany,Singapore,UKB+0.558914Japan,Canada,France,South Korea,Australia,New ZealandB0.4621521Israel,Italy,Monaco,Saudi Arabia,Poland,Hungary,MalaysiaB-0.4342228Costa Rica,Russia,Trkiye,Kazakhstan,Chile,Argentina,BrazilC+0.4022937Mexico,Ukraine,Thailand,Vietnam,the Philippines,India,Colombia,Ind

177、onesia,EgyptC0.3513842South Africa,Bangladesh,Peru,Pakistan,NigeriaC-0.3324344Ethiopia,Iraq2020GradeValue RangeRankingStatesA+0.7031USAA0.62426Denmark,Sweden,Norway,China,GermanyA-0.561714Singapore,UK,Canada,Japan,France,South Korea,New Zealand,AustraliaB+0.4941517Israel,Italy,MonacoB0.4551823Saudi

178、Arabia,Poland,Hungary,Malaysia,Costa Rica,RussiaB-0.4232428Kazakhstan,Argentina,Trkiye,Chile,BrazilC+0.4052935Thailand,Ukraine,Mexico,Vietnam,the Philippines,Colombia,IndonesiaC0.3513638India,Peru,South AfricaC-0.3173944Pakistan,Egypt,Ethiopia,Bangladesh,Nigeria,Iraq2019GradeValue RangeRankingStates

179、A+0.7161USAA0.61928Denmark,Sweden,Norway,Germany,UK,China,SingaporeA-0.559914Canada,Japan,France,New Zealand,Australia,South KoreaB+0.5051517Israel,Italy,MonacoB0.4621822Saudi Arabia,Poland,Hungary,Malaysia,RussiaB-0.4312330Costa Rica,Trkiye,Argentina,Kazakhstan,Brazil,Chile,Ukraine,MexicoC+0.403313

180、7The Philippines,Colombia,Thailand,Indonesia,India,Vietnam,EgyptC0.3443843Peru,South Africa,Nigeria,Bangladesh,Pakistan,EthiopiaC-0.32844IraqNote:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.In terms of state rankings,from 2019 to 2023,the United States consistently maintained an A+level in its state

181、development drivers index,significantly ahead of all other states.Chinas comprehensive state development drivers index increased steadily.Although still trailing the United States by a notable margin,its lead over the third-ranked and subsequent states has continued to widen.Denmark,Norway,Sweden,Ge

182、rmany,the United Kingdom,and Singapore have consistently ranked among the top,generally falling within the A or A categories in this evaluation.Iraq,by contrast,has remained at the C level throughout the period.Other states showed significant fluctuations within their respective scope of evaluation

183、grades,but overall remained stable.In terms of numerical changes,the growth rate of the comprehensive state development drivers index significantly slowed during the 20192023 period,a trend that stands out against the broader backdrop of growth from 1990 to 2023.Among the 44 states surveyed,42(exclu

184、ding China and Vietnam)failed to sustain continuous growth over the five-year period,instead experiencing varying degrees of fluctuation.Notably,16 state exhibited an overall decline from 2019 to 2023,with their comprehensive index scores in 2023 still falling below pre-pandemic levels in 2019.In co

185、ntrast,China,India,Saudi Arabia,and Malaysia all achieved increases of more than 0.02 in their comprehensive index scores over this period.China led the group with a gain exceeding 0.09,highlighting the dynamism of Asian states and the diversity of global development trajectories.3.In 2023,innovativ

186、e forces drove a general increase in the state development drivers index across statesAfter experiencing two distinct troughs in 2020 and 2022,43 of the 44 states surveyed recorded an increase in their comprehensive state development drivers index in 2023.The average growth rate across the 44 states

187、 in 2023 was 0.015,slightly lower than the 0.020 seen in 2021 during the initial recovery from the pandemic.As shown in Fig.4,Mexico was the only state that experienced a slight decline in its comprehensive state development drivers index in 2023.This decline is primarily related to a decrease 1817G

188、LOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)II.Comprehensive Evaluation of State Development Drivers of 44 Statesin its drivers of sustainability(continuity capacity and sociocultural vitality).Specifically,Mexicos continuity capacity fell due to a drop in its environmental performance index in 2023

189、.Additionally,in terms of sociocultural vitality,the state scored relatively low in economic and social activity,as reflected in its below-average performance on the global consumer confidence index,capacity utilization rate,and world happiness index.Fig.4 Comprehensive State Development Drivers Ind

190、ex of 44 States in 2023Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.At the sub-index level,the average score of all five major sub-indices grew in 2023,with innovative USAChinaDenmarkNorwaySwedenGermanyUKSingaporeJapanCanadaFranceSouth KoreaAustraliaNew ZealandItalyMonacoIsraelSaudi ArabiaMalaysi

191、aPolandHungaryTrkiyeKazakhstanCosta RicaRussiaChileBrazilArgentinaIndiaVietnamMexicoThailandThe PhilippinesIndonesiaColombiaEgyptSouth AfricaPeruUkraineNigeriaBangladeshPakistanEthiopiaIraqStatesIndexGreatest IncreaseChina +0.0246Malaysia +0.0190Egypt +0.0150Greatest DecreaseMexico -0.003Color Legen

192、dIncreaseDecreaseNo Changeforces showing the largest overall growth rate.Specifically,the 44 states surveyed showed general improvements in the two key innovative forces indicators:research and development investment and the number of patents,highlighting the growing role of innovation as a driver o

193、f development.This upward trend in 2023 contrasts with the situation in 2022,when all sub-indices,except productive forces,experienced varying degrees of decline.2019GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)II.Comprehensive Evaluation of State Development Drivers of 44 StatesIII.Evaluation of th

194、e Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversThis chapter provides an interpretation and evaluation of the five primary sub-indicesproductive forces,developmental forces,innovative forces,continuity capacity,and sociocultural vitalitythat make up the state development drivers index.1.Productive fo

195、rces:China and the United States lead in rankings and show significant growthSub-indexIndicatorThe productive forcesTotal productionGross domestic product(GDP)Electricity generationNew energy vehicle productionProduction efficiencyGDP per capitaLabor productivityLabor force participation rateThe pro

196、ductive forces refer to the ability to increase a states material wealth through production.They reflect both the sum of a states material production and the efficiency of material production activities within a certain period of time.The productive forces are depicted using 6 indicators,including g

197、ross domestic product(GDP),electricity generation,new energy vehicle production,GDP per capita,labor productivity,and labor force participation rate.Fig.5 presents the rankings of productive forces among the 44 states in 2023,along with annual changes in their scores.The top five states in productiv

198、e forces in 2023 were China,the United States,Germany,Norway,and Monaco.In contrast,Bangladesh,Pakistan,and Nigeria performed relatively poorly in productive forces development and ranked near the bottom.Developmental forcesInnovative forcesContinuity capacityProductive forcesSociocultural vitalityC

199、ompared with 2022,the average productive forces score across the 44 states slightly increased in 2023.Among them,30 states experienced an improvement in their sociocultural vitality score,while 14 states saw a decline.The state with the largest increase was China,whose productive forces score rose b

200、y 0.047 in a single year,significantly ahead of other states.This growth is attributed to improvements in labor productivity,electricity generation,and new energy vehicle production.It is worth noting that despite a slight decline in Chinas GDP in USD compared to 2022 due to the depreciation of RMB

201、against USD,this did not affect the overall upward trend in its productive forces.The state with the largest decline was Norway,with a drop of 0.009,primarily due to decreases in its GDP and GDP per capita indicators.It is worth noting that China and the United States hold a clear leading advantage

202、in relative ranking,absolute scores,and annual growth in productive forces.In terms of relative ranking,China and the United States ranked first and second,respectively,in productive forces in 2023.In terms of absolute scores,the productive forces scores of China and the United States in 2023 were m

203、ore than double that of Germany,which ranked third.In terms of annual growth,Chinas productive forces score increased Fig.5 Rankings for Productive Forces among 44 States in 2023Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.Fig.5 Rankings for Productive Forces among 44 States in 2023 ChinaUSAGerma

204、nyNorwayMonacoUKFranceSingaporeDenmarkJapanCanadaAustraliaSwedenSouth KoreaItalyIsraelSaudi ArabiaRussiaNew ZealandIndiaTrkiyePolandBrazilMexicoHungaryKazakhstanArgentinaChileMalaysiaIndonesiaCosta RicaSouth AfricaThailandVietnamColombiaPeruEgyptIraqThe PhilippinesEthiopiaUkraineBangladeshPakistanNi

205、geriaStatesGreatest IncreaseChina +0.0467USA +0.0275Germany +0.0123Greatest DecreaseNorway -0.0086Iraq -0.003Ukraine -0.0022Color LegendIncreaseDecreaseNo Changeby 0.047 in 2023,while the United States saw an increase of 0.027.Apart from Germany,which had a growth of 0.012,the productive forces scor

206、e changes for the remaining 41 states surveyed in 2023 were all within 0.010.In terms of common characteristics,both China and the United States have significantly higher GDP and electrical generation than other states,and they rank among the top two across the states surveyed in these individual in

207、dicators.At the same time,China surpasses the United States in new energy vehicle production and electricity generation,reflecting its advantage in total production;however,when it comes to indicators related to production efficiency such as GDP per capita and labor productivity,China lags behind th

208、e United States.To assess the productive forces development trends from 2019 to 2023,Tab.6 presents the productive forces index scores and rankings of the 44 states surveyed during that period.The overall ranking corresponds to the comprehensive state development drivers index ranking.2221GLOBAL STA

209、TE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversTab.6 Rankings for Productive Forces among 44 States from 2019 to 2023States20192020202120222023The productive forcesRankingOverall RankingThe productive forcesRankingOverall RankingThe productive f

210、orcesRankingOverall RankingThe productive forcesRankingOverall RankingThe productive forcesRankingOverall RankingChina0.519 270.534 250.640 120.717 120.764 12USA0.611 110.606 110.632 210.670 210.698 21Germany0.291 450.296 360.309 360.312 460.324 36Norway0.292 340.291 440.304 450.315 340.306 44Monaco

211、0.273 8170.265 8170.291 5170.294 5160.296 516UK0.284 560.276 580.289 680.285 670.289 67France0.278 6110.276 6110.280 7110.273 8110.278 711Singapore0.259 1080.258 1170.272 970.277 780.277 88Denmark0.261 920.261 920.269 1030.268 1030.270 93Japan0.274 7100.272 7100.275 8100.265 1190.269 109Canada0.259

212、1190.259 1090.264 1190.268 9100.266 1110Australia0.249 13130.249 13140.256 13130.260 13130.261 1213Sweden0.254 1230.256 1230.264 1240.261 1250.259 135South Korea0.242 15140.242 15120.249 14120.252 14120.255 1412Italy0.243 14160.242 14160.246 15160.244 15150.246 1515Israel0.221 17150.225 16150.231 16

213、150.234 16170.234 1617Saudi Arabia0.225 16180.221 17180.222 17180.231 17180.229 1718Russia0.210 18220.208 19230.215 19230.219 18230.217 1825New Zealand0.210 19120.210 18130.216 18140.215 19140.216 1914India0.191 21350.187 21370.195 21340.202 21290.210 2029Trkiye0.199 20240.196 20260.201 20240.204 20

214、220.208 2122Poland0.184 22190.185 22190.188 22190.189 22190.190 2220Brazil0.181 23270.176 23280.178 24280.182 23270.186 2327Mexico0.171 25300.167 27310.173 25290.176 25300.182 2431Hungary0.175 24200.175 24200.179 23200.179 24210.180 2521Kazakhstan0.168 27260.168 26240.169 28250.172 26240.175 2623Arg

215、entina0.169 26250.170 25250.169 27270.172 27280.171 2728Chile0.167 28280.167 28270.171 26260.169 28250.170 2826Malaysia0.166 29210.164 29210.165 29210.168 29200.169 2919Indonesia0.157 30340.155 31350.158 30360.160 30340.163 3034Costa Rica0.155 32230.158 30220.157 31220.156 31260.157 3124South Africa

216、0.155 31390.153 32390.156 32380.156 32370.155 3237Thailand0.153 33330.152 33290.152 33310.152 33330.153 3332Vietnam0.147 36360.146 34320.147 34320.148 34310.149 3430Colombia0.146 37320.146 35340.147 35350.146 35350.147 3535Peru0.148 35380.144 37380.146 36390.146 37380.147 3638Egypt0.138 38370.143 38

217、360.144 38370.144 38360.143 3736Iraq0.149 34440.144 36440.144 37440.146 36440.143 3844The Philippines0.136 40310.135 40330.135 40330.137 39320.139 3933Ethiopia0.134 41430.135 41410.135 41430.136 40430.137 4043Ukraine0.138 39290.137 39300.139 39300.134 41390.132 4139Bangladesh0.126 44410.126 43420.12

218、8 42400.128 42420.129 4241Pakistan0.126 43420.126 44400.127 44410.128 43400.128 4342Nigeria0.128 42400.128 42430.127 43420.128 44410.127 4440Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.2423GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development Dr

219、iversAccording to the data in Tab.6,in general,in terms of relative ranking,the productive forces rankings of the 44 states remained relatively stable from 2019 to 2023.China and the United States maintained a clear leading position,while states in Africa,Southeast Asia,South Asia,and South America

220、ranked lower in productive forces.In terms of absolute values,China achieved extremely rapid productive forces growth over the five-year period,with an increase of 47.3%.The United States and Norway also recorded notable growth rates,respectively 14.4%and 11.8%.Overall,most states maintained relativ

221、ely stable productive forces scores from 2019 to 2023.Specifically,Chinas significant surge in productive forces occurred in 2021,during which its productive forces score rose from 0.534 in 2020 to 0.640 in 2021,a year-on-year growth rate of 20.1%.In that year,China surpassed the United States to be

222、come the state with the highest productive forces index among the 44 states surveyed.During this period,China achieved significant improvements in its GDP,labor productivity,and new energy vehicle production.In terms of the relationship between productive forces rankings and comprehensive state deve

223、lopment drivers index rankings,Monaco,Russia,India,and Mexico have their productive forces index significantly higher than their comprehensive state development drivers index.Monacos high productive force index is directly related to its high GDP per capita.For Russia,India,and Mexico,their relative

224、ly high productive forces rankings are driven by strong performance in GDP and electricity generation,both of which exceed the average levels among the 44 states.In contrast,Denmark,Sweden,New Zealand,and Costa Rica have their productive forces index significantly lower than their comprehensive stat

225、e development drivers index.As for 2023,the electricity generation of Costa Rica,Denmark,and New Zealand respectively ranked second lowest,fourth lowest,and seventh lowest among the 44 states surveyed.Additionally,both as Nordic states,Sweden and Denmarks labor productivity and GDP per capita are no

226、tably lower than those of Norway,which pulled down their productive forces index scores.2.Developmental forces:The developmental forces remain relatively stable in general,with most states showing modest improvementsSub-indexIndicatorThe developmental forcesEconomic developmentGDP growth rateGini co

227、efficientDifference between wage growth rate and inflation rateUnemployment rateSocial developmentRatio of social expenditureHuman development indexGovernment transparency indexGovernment credit indexLaw and order indexUrbanization rateDevelopmental forcesInnovative forcesContinuity capacityProducti

228、ve forcesSociocultural vitalityThe developmental forces refer to a states ability to achieve comprehensive and coordinated development,with a fundamental focus on the well-being of its people.The developmental forces are depicted using indicators that represent economic development:GDP growth rate,G

229、ini coefficient,difference between wage growth rate and inflation rate,employment rate;and that represent social development:ratio of social expenditure,human development index,transparency index,government credit index,law and order index,and urbanization rate,altogether 10 indicators.Together,the

230、measurements of economic and social development represent the pursuit of“comprehensive development”.Fig.6 presents the rankings of developmental forces among the 44 states in 2023,along with annual changes in their scores.The top five states in developmental forces in 2023 were Denmark,Monaco,Norway

231、,Sweden,and Germany.In contrast,Iraq,Pakistan,and Ethiopia performed relatively poorly in developmental forces development and ranked near the bottom.Fig.6 Rankings for Developmental Forces among 44 States in 2023Greatest IncreaseNigeria +0.0258Pakistan +0.0195Egypt +0.0189Greatest DecreaseMonaco -0

232、.007Brazil-0.006Vietnam -0.005Color LegendIncreaseNo ChangeIndexStatesDenmarkMonacoNorwaySwedenGermanyFranceJapanNew ZealandSingaporeAustraliaCanadaUKIsraelItalyUSASouth KoreaPolandSaudi ArabiaHungaryArgentinaChileCosta RicaChinaMalaysiaKazakhstanTrkiyeRussiaThailandColombiaEgyptUkraineBrazilThe Phi

233、lippinesPeruIndonesiaMexicoVietnamSouth AfricaNigeriaIndiaBangladeshIraqPakistanEthiopiaStatesFig.6 Rankings for Developmental Forces among 44 States in 20232625GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversCompared with 2022,the aver

234、age developmental forces score across the 44 states slightly increased in 2023.Among them,35 states experienced an improvement in their developmental forces score,while 9 states saw a decline.The state with the largest increase was Nigeria,whose developmental forces score rose by 0.026 in a single y

235、ear.This growth was driven by improvements in four indicators:the difference between wage growth rate and inflation rate,the United Nations human development index,the transparency index,and the law and order index.The state with the largest decline was Sweden,with a drop of 0.007,primarily due to i

236、ts GDP growth rate dropping from 2.66%to-0.20%.To assess the developmental forces development trends from 2019 to 2023,Tab.7 presents the developmental forces index scores and rankings of the 44 states surveyed during that period.The overall ranking corresponds to the comprehensive state development

237、 drivers index ranking.Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.Greatest IncreaseNigeria +0.0258Pakistan +0.0195Egypt +0.0189Greatest DecreaseMonaco -0.007Brazil-0.006Vietnam -0.005Color LegendIncreaseNo ChangeIndexDenmarkMonacoNorwaySwedenGermanyFranceJapanNew ZealandSingaporeAustraliaCanada

238、UKIsraelItalyUSASouth KoreaPolandSaudi ArabiaHungaryArgentinaChileCosta RicaChinaMalaysiaKazakhstanTrkiyeRussiaThailandColombiaEgyptUkraineBrazilThe PhilippinesPeruIndonesiaMexicoVietnamSouth AfricaNigeriaIndiaBangladeshIraqPakistanEthiopiaDecreaseTab.7 Rankings for Developmental Forces among 44 Sta

239、tes from 2019 to 2023States20192020202120222023The deve-lopmental forcesRankingOverall RankingThe deve-lopmental forcesRankingOverall RankingThe deve-lopmental forcesRankingOverall RankingThe deve-lopmental forcesRankingOverall RankingThe deve-lopmental forcesRankingOverall RankingDenmark0.972 220.9

240、81 120.983 230.969 230.983 13Monaco0.976 1170.969 2170.984 1170.986 1160.979 216Norway0.951 340.966 340.972 350.933 440.947 34Sweden0.933 430.953 430.952 440.941 350.934 45Germany0.914 550.918 560.908 560.922 560.921 56France0.893 7110.889 8110.902 6110.903 6110.905 611Japan0.884 8100.889 7100.884 8

241、100.895 790.896 79New Zealand0.904 6120.898 6130.898 7140.880 8140.887 814Singapore0.872 980.875 970.879 970.870 1080.881 98Australia0.869 10130.865 11140.869 11130.872 9130.873 1013Canada0.866 1190.875 1090.870 1090.856 12100.870 1110UK0.854 1260.858 1280.863 1280.861 1170.861 127Israel0.818 14150.

242、827 13150.836 13150.854 13170.855 1317Italy0.803 15160.807 15160.823 14160.833 14150.836 1415USA0.823 1310.825 1410.811 1510.811 1510.816 151South Korea0.776 17140.792 16120.799 16120.804 16120.808 1612Poland0.793 16190.778 17190.773 17190.790 17190.785 1720Saudi Arabia0.753 19180.744 18180.761 1818

243、0.754 18180.769 1818Hungary0.756 18200.741 19200.750 19200.746 19210.749 19212827GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversArgentina0.726 20250.715 20250.725 21270.726 20280.741 2028Chile0.712 21280.707 21270.725 20260.725 21250.7

244、33 2126Costa Rica0.679 25230.694 23220.700 23220.712 23260.721 2224China0.706 2270.700 2250.710 2220.712 2220.712 232Malaysia0.688 23210.679 25210.665 27210.686 24200.701 2419Kazakhstan0.663 26260.661 27240.669 26250.675 25240.679 2523Trkiye0.686 24240.683 24260.670 25240.658 27220.675 2622Russia0.6

245、46 28220.651 29230.661 28230.659 26230.659 2725Thailand0.646 29330.631 30290.640 30310.651 29330.657 2832Colombia0.635 30320.653 28340.649 29350.652 28350.656 2935Egypt0.626 31370.619 32360.627 32370.622 31360.641 3036Ukraine0.658 27290.663 26300.677 24300.622 32390.639 3139Brazil0.607 35270.622 312

246、80.626 33280.639 30270.633 3227The Philippines0.615 34310.601 35330.609 35330.617 35320.621 3333Peru0.620 33380.605 33380.627 31390.622 33380.621 3438Indonesia0.621 32340.604 34350.622 34360.609 37340.620 3534Mexico0.596 36300.594 36310.608 36290.619 34300.620 3631Vietnam0.578 38360.573 38320.587 38

247、320.610 36310.605 3730South Africa0.581 37390.580 37390.593 37380.579 38370.583 3837Nigeria0.523 41400.505 43430.526 41420.526 41410.551 3940India0.533 39350.534 39370.544 39340.549 39290.550 4029Bangladesh0.533 40410.527 40420.529 40400.535 40420.546 4141Iraq0.509 43440.506 42440.524 42440.524 4244

248、0.527 4244Pakistan0.513 42420.516 41400.507 43410.498 43400.517 4342Ethiopia0.452 44430.455 44410.453 44430.462 44430.477 4443Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.According to the data in Tab.7,in general,in terms of relative ranking,the developmental forces ranking of the 44 states showe

249、d little change during the period from 2019 to 2023.Developed states in Europe,Asia,and Oceania generally ranked higher,reflecting their more comprehensive and coordinated state development levels.The United States and China were in the middle range of the rankings and did not stand out prominently.

250、In terms of absolute values,most states experienced only minor fluctuations over the five years,generally maintaining stable scores.Overall,the ranking of each states developmental forces index has remained stable from 2019 to 2023,with no significant shifts in relative positions.Brazil and Costa Ri

251、cas developmental forces index relative ranking has improved by three positions over the past five years,marking the largest relative increase among the states surveyed.Although there is still a gap compared to top-ranking states,Brazil and Costa Rica have shown significant progress in its own right

252、,with continuous improvement in their transparency index and law and order index scores.At the same time,the difference between wage growth rate and inflation rate has widened.In addition,the urbanization rates in the two states have continued to rise,indicating mutual progress in economic and socia

253、l development.In contrast,Ukraine experienced the largest drop in relative ranking,falling four positions over five years.Ukraines developmental forces were significantly affected by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.From 2019 to 2021,Ukraines developmental forces ranking rose from 27th to 24th,but plumme

254、ted to 32nd in 2022,before slightly recovering to 31st in 2023.This trend is mainly attributed to a sharp decline in both the difference between wage growth rate and inflate rate and GDP growth rate in 2022,followed by a modest recovery in 2023.In terms of the relationship between developmental forc

255、es rankings and comprehensive state development drivers index rankings,China and the United States have their developmental forces index significantly lower than their comprehensive state development drivers index.Specifically,in 2023,for example,the unemployment rates in both China and the United S

256、tates were above 44-state average;both states had high Gini coefficients,with China at 0.47(ranked 6th)and the United States at 0.50(ranked 2nd);the difference between the wage growth rate and the inflation rate is negative in both states,making it increasingly difficult for residents to cope with t

257、he pressure of rising prices;in addition,the scores of both states in terms of the human development index,government credit index,and government transparency index are in the middle of the 44 states,which is not commensurate with their overall outstanding levels of state development drivers.3.Innov

258、ative forces:The emergence of the“Matthew Effect”among statesThe innovative forces represent the overall innovation capability of a state,and are crucial driving forces for a states“leapfrog”development,for enhancing a states competitiveness,and for leading the development of the human society.The i

259、nnovative forces are depicted using 4 indicators,including ratio of research and development expenditure and number of universities in the top 200 of QS World University Rankings that represent the investment in innovation;and global innovation index and number of patents that represent innovation o

260、utcomes.3029GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversSub-indexIndicatorThe innovative forcesInvestment in innovationRatio of research and development expenditureNumber of colleges and universities in the top 200 of QS World Unive

261、rsity RankingsInnovation outcomesGlobal innovation indexNumber of patentsFig.7 Rankings for Innovative Forces among 44 States in 2023Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.Developmental forcesInnovative forcesContinuity capacityProductive forcesSociocultural vitalityGreatest IncreaseChina +

262、0.0397Canada +0.0276Israel +0.0275Greatest DecreaseEthiopia -0.0103Peru-0.007Chile -0.003Color LegendIncreaseDecreaseNo ChangeUSAChinaSouth KoreaSwedenUKJapanGermanyDenmarkSingaporeNorwayCanadaFranceNew ZealandItalyAustraliaHungaryIsarelMalaysiaPolandRussiaTrkiyeIndiaThailandSaudi ArabiaBrazilVietna

263、mSouth AfricaUkraineChileMexicoArgentinaMonacoThe PhilippinesIndonesiaCosta RicaKazakhstanColombiaPeruEgyptPakistanBangladeshNigeriaEthiopiaIraqStatesIndexFig.7 presents the rankings of innovative forces among the 44 states in 2023,along with annual changes in their scores.The top five states in inn

264、ovative forces in 2023 were the United States,China,South Korea,Sweden,and the United Kingdom.Nigeria,Ethiopia,and Iraq ranked at the bottom in terms of innovative forces.Compared to 2022,the average innovative forces score of the 44 states in 2023 rose significantly,reaching an increase of 0.032the

265、 largest average growth among the five sub-indices.Among the states surveyed,39 saw an increase in their innovative forces scores,while only 5 experienced a decline.The state with the largest increase was China,whose innovative forces score rose by 0.040 in a single year.This growth was driven by co

266、ntinued improvements in research and development investment,the number of universities in the top 200 of QS World University Rankings,and the number of patents.The state with the largest decline was Ethiopia,with a drop of 0.010,primarily due to a decrease in its global innovation index and number o

267、f patents.To assess the productive forces development trends from 2019 to 2023,Tab.8 presents the developmental forces index scores and rankings of the 44 states surveyed during that period.The overall ranking corresponds to the comprehensive state development drivers index ranking.3231GLOBAL STATE

268、DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversTab.8 Rankings for Innovative Forces among 44 States from 2019 to 2023States20192020202120222023The innovative forcesRankingOverall RankingThe innovative forcesRankingOverall RankingThe innovative forc

269、esRankingOverall RankingThe innovative forcesRankingOverall RankingThe innovative forcesRankingOverall RankingUSA0.797 110.784 110.774 110.769 110.770 11China0.535 970.554 750.612 320.646 320.686 22South Korea0.617 2140.624 2120.655 2120.662 2120.677 312Sweden0.600 330.604 330.610 440.603 450.620 45

270、UK0.585 460.579 480.587 580.593 570.602 57Japan0.573 5100.559 6100.568 6100.572 790.586 69Germany0.560 750.551 860.565 760.573 660.584 76Denmark0.567 620.560 520.560 830.562 830.581 83Singapore0.550 880.540 970.548 970.547 980.575 98Norway0.508 1040.495 1040.512 1050.513 1040.533 104Canada0.498 1190

271、.494 1190.506 1190.501 12100.528 1110France0.491 12110.492 12110.504 12110.511 11110.518 1211New Zealand0.465 13120.446 13130.438 13140.437 13140.444 1314Italy0.410 14160.406 14160.412 14160.419 14150.431 1415Australia0.381 17130.371 16140.378 16130.376 15130.390 1513Hungary0.383 16200.375 15200.385

272、 15200.374 16210.385 1621Israel0.391 15150.369 17150.373 17150.354 17170.381 1717Malaysia0.350 18210.351 18210.351 18210.334 19200.360 1819Poland0.345 20190.341 19190.348 19190.331 20190.340 1920Russia0.345 19220.338 20230.341 20230.335 18230.336 2025Trkiye0.289 22240.283 22260.306 21240.320 21220.3

273、34 2122India0.279 23350.276 23370.287 22340.289 22290.315 2229Thailand0.295 21330.293 21290.287 23310.279 23330.297 2332Saudi Arabia0.244 31180.233 30180.245 29180.253 24180.264 2418Brazil0.253 28270.244 26280.259 25280.249 25270.259 2527Vietnam0.268 24360.260 25320.261 24320.248 26310.257 2630South

274、 Africa0.240 33390.232 31390.235 33380.220 32370.244 2737Ukraine0.267 25290.260 24300.254 26300.226 30390.237 2839Chile0.253 27280.240 28270.246 28260.240 27250.236 2926Mexico0.253 26300.241 27310.247 27290.228 29300.235 3031Argentina0.247 29250.229 33250.238 30270.230 28280.229 3128Monaco0.216 3817

275、0.220 34170.219 35170.221 31160.225 3216The Philippines0.242 32310.237 29330.237 31330.214 33320.223 3333Indonesia0.216 37340.200 38350.203 38360.208 34340.220 3434Costa Rica0.244 30230.231 32220.236 32220.206 36260.211 3524Kazakhstan0.227 34260.216 35240.215 37250.196 38240.206 3623Colombia0.224 36

276、320.212 36340.217 36350.204 37350.205 3735Peru0.227 35380.206 37380.219 34390.207 35380.200 3838Egypt0.213 39370.196 39360.201 39370.189 39360.198 3936Pakistan0.191 40420.175 40400.187 40410.179 40400.182 4042Bangladesh0.173 43410.158 41420.157 41400.155 41420.157 4141Nigeria0.175 42400.155 42430.15

277、5 42420.139 42410.146 4240Ethiopia0.178 41430.146 43410.149 43430.137 43430.126 4343Iraq0.104 44440.108 44440.109 44440.106 44440.104 4444Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.3433GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development Drive

278、rsAccording to the data in Tab.8,in general,in terms of relative ranking,the United States consistently ranked first from 2019 to 2023,while China rose from 9th place in 2019 to 2nd in 2023.The remaining states in the top ten are all developed states from Asia and Europe.In contrast,several states i

279、n the Middle East,Africa,and South Asia remained at the bottom of the rankings.In terms of absolute values,in 2023,the highest innovative forces index score among the 44 states reached 0.797,while the lowest was only 0.104,reflecting a significant disparity in innovative forces among states.Among th

280、ese,China and Saudi Arabia demonstrated notable improvements in their innovative forces rankings over the five-year period.Specifically,the rise of Chinas innovative forces was primarily driven by three indicators:research and development investment increased by 21.5%over the past five years;the num

281、ber of universities in the top 200 of QS World University Rankings rose from 11 to 17;and annual patent applications grew by more than 103%within five years.The improvement in innovative forces for Saudi Arabia is mainly due to increases in its state innovation index.Further analysis of the data rev

282、eals that in terms of state innovation index,Saudi Arabia has shown stable growth in innovation infrastructure and human capital for innovation,though still facing challenges in market and business maturity.This also highlights the innovation challenges faced by developing states,specifically the ef

283、fective marketization and commercialization of innovation outputs.In addition,Iraq,Ethiopia,Nigeria,Bangladesh,and Pakistan ranked relatively low in innovative forces.Although these five states experienced fluctuations in their innovative forces scores over the five-year period,the values consistent

284、ly remained below 0.2.A closer look at the specific indicators reveals that these states had low scores in the state innovation index,particularly Iraq,which has hovered around a score of 10.0 for years.Their research and development investment and number of patents grew very slowly,with some years

285、even seeing negative growth.Furthermore,none of the five states had any colleges and universities ranked in the top 200 of QS World University Rankings.It is worth noting that although the United States consistently ranked first in innovative forces,its score actually declinedfrom 0.797 in 2019 to 0

286、.769 in 2022,and then stabilized at 0.070 in 2023.Further analysis shows that while the United States maintained an overall upward trend in both its state innovation index and research and development investment,the number of colleges and universities in the top 200 of QS World University Rankings d

287、eclined year by yearfrom 43 in 2019 to 35 in 2023.In addition,the number of patents in the United States peaked in 2019(within the 19902023 period),but has steadily declined each year since.In terms of the relationship between innovative forces rankings and comprehensive state development drivers in

288、dex rankings,on one hand,the innovative forces levels of some states,such as Norway,Saudi Arabia,Kazakhstan,and Denmark are significantly lower than their state development drivers.Specifically,the innovative forces of Norway and Denmark is held back by their performance in number of patents,researc

289、h and development investment,and number of high-quality universities.Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia,however,rank relatively low in terms of indicators related to innovative forces.On the other hand,some states demonstrate significantly higher levels of innovative forces compared to their comprehensive

290、state development drivers,such as South Korea and Ukraine.This is related to the relatively high levels of research and development investment in both states.Finally,from 2019 to 2023,early signs of a“Matthew Effect”emerged in innovative forces development,where the strong continued to grow stronger

291、 while the weak remained weak.States with higher rankings in terms of innovative forces tend to have faster growth rates in their innovative forces index;however,states with lower rankings in the innovative forces tend to have smaller increases in their innovative forces index.If this trend continue

292、s,the gap in innovative forces among states may become wider in the future.4.Continuity capacity:Diverging development trajectories among 44 states after 2020Sub-indexIndicatorThe continuity capacitySafety resourcesMilitary expenditureNatural resourcesLand area,environmental performance index,and th

293、e ratio of natural resource rentsHuman resourcesTotal population,birth rate,death rate,aging degree,scores in Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA),proportion of population with higher education,number of students studying abroad,and number of international students enrolled locallyTh

294、e continuity capacity refers to a states long-term ability to exist and develop continuously for the long term,which includes its state defense power,ecological and natural resources and intergenerational population.Specifically,the evaluation of continuity capacity involves the following indicators

295、:military expenditure in terms of state defense capabilities;land area,environmental performance index,and the ratio of natural resource rents in terms of natural resources;total population,birth rate,death rate,aging degree,scores in Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA),proportion o

296、f population with higher education,number of students studying abroad,and number of international students enrolled locally in terms of human resources.Fig.8 presents the rankings of continuity capacity among the 44 states in 2023,along with annual changes in their scores.The top five states in cont

297、inuity capacity in 2023 were the United States,Saudi Arabia,the United Kingdom,Singapore,and China.In contrast,Indonesia,Ukraine,and Thailand performed relatively poorly in continuity capacity and ranked near the bottom.Compared to 2022,the average continuity capacity score of the 44 states slightly

298、 increased in 2023,but the specific circumstances varied across states:26 states experienced an improvement in their continuity capacity score,while 18 states saw a decline.Among them,Argentina had the largest increase in continuity capacity score in 2023,with a rise of 0.024.This was mainly due to

299、improvements in its environmental performance index,total natural resource rents,and scores in Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA).The state with the largest decline was Ukraine,which was linked to increases in its death rate and aging degree,as well as decreases in its environmenta

300、l performance index,higher education enrollment rate,and scores in Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA).Developmental forcesInnovative forcesContinuity capacityProductive forcesSociocultural vitality3635GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indic

301、es of State Development DriversTab.9 Rankings for Continuity Capacity among 44 States from 2019 to 2023States20192020202120222023The continuity capacityRankingOverall RankingThe continuity capacityRankingOverall RankingThe continuity capacityRankingOverall RankingThe continuity capacityRankingOveral

302、l RankingThe continuity capacityRankingOverall RankingUSA0.681 110.679 110.661 110.641 110.652 11Saudi Arabia0.593 2180.564 5180.582 2180.576 4180.596 218UK0.559 660.568 480.574 580.586 270.592 37Singapore0.552 780.541 770.559 670.578 380.581 48China0.580 470.575 350.576 420.569 620.573 52Australia0

303、.591 3130.592 2140.581 3130.570 5130.571 613Trkiye0.529 10240.537 8260.543 8240.562 7220.567 722The Philippines0.520 12310.500 20330.516 11330.545 9320.542 833Peru0.501 19380.488 24380.507 15390.539 10380.533 938Ethiopia0.490 24430.497 21410.519 10430.547 8430.530 1043Canada0.545 890.547 690.550 790

304、.534 11100.529 1110Norway0.528 1140.526 1040.526 950.522 1240.529 124Egypt0.512 15370.504 17360.516 12370.509 15360.516 1336Kazakhstan0.531 9260.528 9240.506 16250.511 13240.516 1423Argentina0.510 17250.503 18250.505 18270.489 23280.513 1528Malaysia0.461 34210.461 33210.476 29210.493 22200.513 1619N

305、ew Zealand0.518 13120.508 15130.502 23140.508 16140.506 1714Germany0.511 1650.511 1260.516 1360.510 1460.506 186Denmark0.509 1820.509 1420.505 1730.500 1930.505 193Nigeria0.491 23400.461 34430.484 26420.501 18410.505 2040Russia0.566 5220.512 11230.504 21230.506 17230.502 2125Fig.8 Rankings for Conti

306、nuity Capacity among 44 States in 2023 Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.To assess the continuity capacity development trends from 2019 to 2023,Tab.9 presents the continuity capacity index scores and rankings of the 44 states surveyed during that period.The“overall ranking”corresponds

307、to the comprehensive state development drivers index ranking.Fig.8 Rankings for Continuity Capacity among 44 States in 2023Color LegendUSASaudi ArabiaUKSingaporeChinaAustraliaTrkiyeThe PhilippinesPeruEthiopiaCanadaNorwayEgyptKazakhstanArgentinaMalaysiaNew ZealandGermanyDenmarkNigeriaRussiaChileSwede

308、nSouth AfricaFranceBrazilVietnamIraqColombiaSouth KoreaPolandIndiaMexicoCosta RicaIsraelJapanBangladeshPakistanItalyHungaryMonacoIndonesiaUkraineThailandIncreaseDecreaseNo ChangeGreatest IncreaseArgentina +0.0242Malaysia +0.0203Saudi Arabia +0.0202Greatest DecreaseUkraine -0.0373South Korea -0.0174E

309、thiopia -0.0166IndexStates3837GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversAccording to the data in Tab.9,in general,both the absolute values and relative rankings of the continuity capacity index of the states surveyed have shown si

310、gnificant fluctuations from 2019 to 2023.In terms of absolute values,the 44 states generally fell into economic difficulties in 2020,which was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,after which their development trajectories diverged notably.States such as the United States and Australia followed a“decline

311、-decline-rise”pattern in continuity capacity score over the subsequent three years;Saudi Arabia and the Philippines followed a“rise-rise-decline”pattern;China and Egypt showed a“rise-decline-rise”trajectory;the United Kingdom and Singapore experienced continuous increases over the three years;while

312、South Korea and Japan saw continuous declines.In terms of relative rankings,states that achieved notable leaps in continuity capacity rankings between 2019 and 2023 can be categorized into two groups.The first category,represented by the United Kingdom,has seen considerable growth in indicators such

313、 as higher education enrollment rate,the number of students studying abroad,and the number of international students enrolled locally following the COVID-19 pandemic,reflecting the higher education advantages of traditional developed states.The second category includes developing states in Latin Ame

314、rica,Asia,and Africa,such as Peru,the Philippines,and South Africa.This is mainly because,starting from 2021,these states experienced rapid increases in indicators such as the environmental performance index and the ratio of natural resource rents,showcasing a development pattern driven by natural r

315、esources.Conversely,states whose continuity capacity rankings declined can be categorized into three groups.The first group comprises states constrained by indicators related to the quantity of human resources,including Japan,South Korea,Costa Rica,and Ukraine,which saw its aging rate increase by 3.

316、5%over the past five years.The second group includes states affected by indicators related to the quality of human resources,particularly France and Ukraine.France saw a decrease in its Program for International Student Assessment(PISA)scores in 2022,while Ukraine,impacted by the Russia-Ukraine conf

317、lict,experienced significant drops in both PISA scores and higher education enrollment rate.The third group includes Argentina,Chile,and Israel,which were affected by environmental indicators.Although these states maintained relatively stable proportions of natural resource rents,the decline in envi

318、ronmental performance index underscores reduced sustainability in resource utilization.In terms of the relationship between continuity capacity rankings and comprehensive state development drivers index rankings,the gap between states continuity capacity rankings and their comprehensive state develo

319、pment drivers index rankings is greater than that observed in other sub-indices.In the design of the“continuity capacity”indicator system,human resources and natural resources constitute key components of a states long-term development.However,some developed states,due to factors such as population

320、aging,small land area,or relative scarcity of natural resources,are unable to stand out in the assessment of this sub-index.For example,Japan,South Korea,and Western European developed states such as France,Germany,and Sweden rank significantly lower in continuity capacity than in their comprehensiv

321、e state development drivers index due to serious aging populations.In contrast,states like Saudi Arabia,Trkiye,and the Philippines in Asia;Nigeria,Ethiopia,and South Africa in Africa;and Peru in Latin America stand out in the continuity capacity assessment due to resource advantages and demographic

322、dividends.Chile0.517 14280.510 13270.514 14260.497 21250.501 2226Sweden0.498 2230.500 1930.505 1940.497 2050.495 235South Africa0.451 35390.461 35390.475 30380.475 27370.491 2437France0.489 25110.492 23110.502 22110.479 26110.489 2511Brazil0.479 29270.473 28280.476 28280.479 25270.484 2627Vietnam0.4

323、19 43360.425 41320.447 37320.466 29310.482 2730Iraq0.489 26440.475 27440.485 24440.465 31440.481 2844Colombia0.482 27320.482 26340.475 31350.469 28350.474 2935South Korea0.500 21140.506 16120.505 20120.487 24120.470 3012Poland0.479 30190.471 29190.470 34190.464 32190.468 3120India0.466 32350.463 323

324、70.474 32340.464 33290.463 3229Mexico0.474 31300.469 30310.473 33290.466 30300.461 3331Costa Rica0.482 28230.487 25220.476 27220.451 35260.458 3424Israel0.500 20150.495 22150.485 25150.457 34170.449 3517Japan0.445 37100.444 36100.443 39100.441 3690.438 369Bangladesh0.426 42410.421 43420.421 42400.42

325、7 41420.436 3741Pakistan0.445 36420.435 39400.447 36410.441 37400.436 3842Italy0.439 39160.436 38160.445 38160.427 40150.434 3915Hungary0.427 41200.426 40200.423 41200.428 39210.423 4021Monaco0.404 44170.415 44170.416 44170.415 43160.419 4116Indonesia0.440 38340.440 37350.431 40360.423 42340.417 423

326、4Ukraine0.464 33290.465 31300.459 35300.433 38390.396 4339Thailand0.433 40330.422 42290.417 43310.399 44330.395 4432Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.4039GLOBAL STATE DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS INDEX (2024)III.Evaluation of the Five Sub-Indices of State Development DriversFig.9 Rankings for S

327、ociocultural Vitality among 44 States in 2023Note:Measured and compiled by the Research Team.Fig.9 Rankings for Sociocultural Vitality among 44 States in 2023Color LegendIncreaseDecreaseNo ChangeIndexGreatest IncreaseCosta Rica+0.0425Peru+0.0425Egypt +0.0409Greatest DecreaseMexico -0.0279Singapore -

328、0.0147Australia -0.012DenmarkNorwaySwedenNew ZealandAustraliaGermanySingaporeCanadaChinaJapanUKItalySaudi ArabiaMalaysiaUSAFranceCosta RicaKazakhstanMonacoSouth KoreaBrazilIsraelIndonesiaPolandVietnamIndiaMexicoHungaryColombiaChileThe PhilippinesThailandArgentinaEgyptSouth AfricaTrkiyeRussiaBanglade

329、shPakistanNigeriaEthiopiaPeruUkraineIraqStates5.Sociocultural vitality:Nordic and Oceania developed states lead the rankingsSub-indexIndicatorThe sociocultural vitalityPolitical activityGovernment effectiveness indexEconomic activityGlobal consumer confidence indexCapacity utilization rateSocial act

330、ivitySuicide rateWorld happiness indexThe sociocultural vitality refers to a states energy in terms of spiritual and cultural aspects,which is mainly reflected in its level of state unity and recognition.When the people of a state have a strong sense of belonging and identification with their state,

331、and have confidence in the governments capability and economic development,the state is more likely to exhibit a thriving trend of development.Specifically,the evaluation of sociocultural vitality is based on 5 indicators:government effectiveness index,global consumer confidence index,capacity utili

332、zation index,suicide rate,and world happiness index.Fig.9 presents the rankings of sociocultural vitality among the 44 states in 2023,along with annual changes in their scores.The top five states in sociocultural vitality in 2023 were Denmark,Norway,Sweden,New Zealand,and Australia.In contrast,Peru,

333、Ukraine,and Iraq performed relatively poorly in sociocultural vitality and ranked near the bottom.Compared with 2022,the average sociocultural vitality score across the 44 states increased overall in 2023,with a growth rate of 0.019.Among them,35 states experienced an improvement in their sociocultural vitality score,while only 9 states saw a decline.The state with the largest increase was Monaco,