New Criticism on the Competitiveness Concept: A Critical Review of the Concept at the Macroeconomic Level
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Competitiveness of nations has always been a subject of controversy regarding its validity. It is a concept surrounded by paradox, and it is widely used despite its conceptual fragility and the lack of a definition consensus. Moreover, this omnipresent concept in economic analysis is not included in any economic theory in the strict sense. Up to now, there is no theory of national competitiveness.</p><p>Despite the abundant publications about competitiveness, a critical review of competitiveness of nation has not yet appeared. This paper is proposed as a critical review of the concept of competitiveness at the nation’s level, and it aims to examine the reasons that make this concept a point of controversy among economists.</p>This paper summarizes the rejection of the competitiveness concept in three points: Firstly, competitiveness is a microeconomic concept which gets deteriorated when applied to a nation, because nations do not compete like companies. Secondly, competitiveness is gained reputation in the political world; it is used without attention to explain success or defeat of an economy in a simplistic way. Today, the concept of national competitiveness is part of a hegemonic discourse. Finally, neither a definition consensus, nor an empirical evidence or a theoretical foundations, the national competitiveness appears such an international ideology rather than an economic concept. This doctrine is more evident with economic patriotism and the globalization that raises the frenzy of competition (Krugman, 1999).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it