‘Competitiveness’ is an undeniably global discourse. As discussed in chapter two, there are debates about the competitiveness of nations, and particularly from an economic standpoint, whether this is in fact a meaningful term. However, whether or not one subscribes to its veracity, it is true that a variety of actors are promoting competitiveness internationally. From international organisations to private consultancy companies to many national governments, ‘competitiveness’
is an common aim. These organisations are linked to a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms which promote competitiveness. In fact, the “concern with competitiveness has spawned a large industry aimed at policy makers, analysts and enterprises” (Lall 2001:1501), which is “busy urging governments everywhere to reform the business climate, promote investment and stimulate competitiveness” (Bristow 2010:3).
One organisation which receives particular attention due to its annual “Global Competitiveness Reports” is the World Economic Forum (WEF). This is an organisation rooted in industry, which describes itself as being “committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas” (WEF 2011). Their desire to ‘shape’ policy is explicit. The “Global Competitiveness Reports” are one of the WEF’s major products, and they receive a significant amount of attention in policy-making, academia and the wider media (Lall 2001).
Lall (2001) has analysed these reports from a development economics standpoint, and has found them to be lacking in terms of their overall aims. She also has concerns about the implications of the policies they encourage for developing economies. As I will demonstrate with the Danish case, the preoccupation with being ‘competitive’ that these types of reports encourage is by no means limited to countries of the developing world.
Sum (2009) gives a broad overview of the different competitiveness discourses and instruments that exist at different scales, from the WEF’s reports, to various country’s competitiveness policies, right down to the plans of particular cities.
The popularity of benchmarking reports and indices is particularly notable here,
as “‘competitiveness’ narratives are linked to the development of knowledging apparatuses such as benchmarking reports and indices” (Sum 2009:192). Sum argues that the numerical order and annual revisions of these reports have a disciplinary power. This is not necessarily a direct power, and as Graz underlines as well, the power of such “world-wide élite groups” rests not on a direct connection to states, for example through an allocation of resources, but on “loose and informal channels of power” (Graz 2003:322). This power places countries in high or low positions “in the competitive race” (Sum 2009:194), and there is potentially a pressure to produce certain types of economic and social policies due to “the treadmill of competitiveness” (Sum 2009:194), in the hope that one’s country will gain a higher position in the hierarchy.
Whereas the WEF is a private organisation, based in industry, the OECD is an international organisation. Yet, like the WEF, it “does not focus on classic foreign policy issues, nor does it possess the budgetary or sanctioning powers enjoyed by the main economic international organizations” (Mahon & McBride 2009:87).
Mahon & McBride (2009) emphasise the role of the OECD in terms of ‘inquisitive’
and ‘meditative’ regulation, whereby the organisation surveys and monitors the actions of member states, and discusses and researches the ‘best practices’ and
‘benchmarks’ for these actions. The OECD has a role mainly in terms of
“influencing the direction of policy” (Mahon & McBride 2009:84), although it is also important to note that states can ignore (and have done so) OECD advice and the institution is “far from monolithic” (Mahon & McBride 2009:98). Even so, when OECD recommendations and policy ideas are not adopted wholesale, there often seems to be OECD influence in reforms, and furthermore neoliberal
“economic imperatives for the most part outweigh those represented by other portfolios” (Mahon & McBride 2009:99).
The EU is another organisation where competitiveness is a highly visible discourse. The Lisbon Strategy (2000) is particularly notable in this regard, however the EU’s concern with competitiveness dates back further. Rosamund (2002) argues that competitiveness was an important element of policy discussions in Europe as early as the 1980s, and Fougner (2006) also states that policy literature on competitiveness began to appear in that decade. Rosamund
(2002) argues in fact that competitiveness is part of the very foundation of Europe’s construction as an economic space. Here he highlights the importance not just of the EU’s ‘competitiveness’, but also the discourse of a ‘competitive threat’ from other parts of the world. This shows some of the relative and comparative elements of the competitiveness discourse, through a concern with being ‘more’ competitive than other places.
As well as national competitiveness, the OECD has also turned its focus to other scales, for example in the 2006 report “Competitive Cities in the Global Economy”. This report proposes that it is cities that are “important generators of wealth, employment and productivity growth” (OECD 2006:3), attributing them a special importance within national economies. This report encourages the
‘increase’ of the competitiveness of cities, by focusing on trends and factors of competitiveness as well as issues which policy-makers might face. This also demonstrates that, although international organisations seem to be mainly occupied with states as competitive units, there is also some focus placed on the urban scale, and in particular on the city as a ‘generator’ of national competitiveness.
This brief overview offers just a glimpse of the international discourse of competitiveness, providing a contextualisation for the study of the discourse in Denmark. Competitiveness is being promoted by inter-governmental organisations and private international institutions, usually with the overall aim of making the mobility of international investment and business easier. Policy reports, benchmarking and the promotion of particular discourses of development are often aimed at national governments, but also at actors within cities, encouraging them to take certain actions. The power of these policies and reports is generally not direct, but is rather loose and undefined. Furthermore these policies and reports propagate a certain view of the world and the ‘need’ to be competitive.