- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Public-private partnership for competitiveness
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
MiscellaneousSource:
Economics and Research Department Policy Brief Series No 18, Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines (2003)Keywords:
partnershipAbstract:
A key question in development economics has been why some countries grow faster than others. In recent years, the role of the government has come to the center of the discussion, giving rise to the notion of ?national competitiveness.? The debate about national competitiveness has revolved around two questions: first, whether the notion of a country's competitiveness is meaningful; and second, whether the government should do anything to enhance it. This brief addresses these two issues. There are several reasons why competitiveness has recently attracted a great deal of attention. First is the increasing importance of international trade in the world economy, leading some to believe that a country's living standards depend on its capacity to export. Second is the greater mobility of capital across countries. Third is the enormous difference in performance of countries in terms of trade and economic growth, with East Asia outperforming all other regions. Fourth is the increasing popularity of indices of national competitiveness, by which countries are ranked and compared with each other. Finally, the forces of globalization and technological progress have accentuated competition among both domestic and foreign firms. For instance, in recent years, the challenge of the People's Republic of China has heightened the need to be competitive in order to survive. In this new environment, the key resource is knowledge, which is changing the nature of comparative advantage (Yusuf 2002).
Notes:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/EDRC/Policy_Briefs/PB018.pdf
Sublibrary:
Partnership
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page