Structural reform

This chapter presents the latest assessment of transition challenges in the EBRD regions, looking at whether economies are competitive, well governed, green, inclusive, resilient and integrated. It also provides, for the first time, an assessment of six comparator economies in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal. Their scores tend to be lower than those of EBRD economies, in line with their lower levels of income per capita. The largest gap between the two is in the area of integration, with a smaller gap in the area of inclusion. Since 2016, SSA economies have seen marked improvements in competitiveness and resilience, while little progress has been made in terms of integration.

Introduction

This chapter presents the latest assessment of transition challenges in the EBRD regions, tracking progress in the area of structural reform. It focuses on six key qualities of a sustainable market economy, looking at whether economies are competitive, well governed, green, inclusive, resilient and integrated. For each quality, progress is assessed on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 denotes the worst possible performance and 10 corresponds to the standards of a sustainable market economy. Those “assessment of transition qualities” (ATQ) scores are based on a wide range of external and internal data sources and calculated in accordance with a detailed methodology (see Table 5.1).1

Table 5.1

ATQ scores for six key qualities of a sustainable market economy: the EBRD regions
Competitive Well governed Green Inclusive Resilient Integrated
2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016
Central Europe and the Baltic states (CEB)
Croatia 5.84 5.81 5.85 6.51 6.19 6.32 6.91 6.90 6.01 6.88 6.83 6.93 6.73 6.73 6.01 6.67 6.65 6.27
Czechia 6.43 6.42 6.50 7.55 7.50 7.08 7.15 7.18 6.59 7.10 7.09 6.98 7.50 7.52 7.58 7.63 7.58 7.93
Estonia 7.59 7.59 7.24 8.83 8.82 8.59 7.17 7.08 6.22 7.79 7.76 7.33 7.53 7.54 7.44 7.72 7.68 7.57
Hungary 6.08 6.07 5.98 6.04 6.02 5.89 6.86 6.83 6.14 6.28 6.29 6.19 7.02 7.01 6.76 7.46 7.33 7.15
Latvia 6.12 6.10 6.04 7.57 7.55 6.93 7.10 7.11 6.31 7.19 7.19 6.79 7.15 7.18 6.96 7.46 7.38 7.28
Lithuania 6.44 6.41 6.31 7.93 7.96 7.36 7.14 7.17 6.53 7.33 7.26 7.07 7.27 7.27 6.89 7.66 7.59 6.98
Poland 6.28 6.27 6.27 6.85 6.85 7.46 7.05 7.05 6.53 7.13 7.08 7.00 7.49 7.49 7.31 7.13 7.02 6.75
Slovak Republic 6.28 6.27 6.17 6.63 6.62 6.32 7.20 7.27 6.75 6.81 6.82 6.64 7.64 7.63 7.50 7.26 7.33 7.29
Slovenia 6.28 6.26 6.33 7.27 7.26 7.28 7.31 7.29 6.70 7.64 7.55 7.28 7.45 7.41 7.18 7.40 7.32 6.72
South-eastern Europe (SEE)
Albania 4.95 4.93 4.79 4.88 4.87 5.43 4.89 4.89 4.86 5.54 5.59 5.06 4.65 4.61 4.35 5.51 5.50 5.41
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.62 4.60 4.56 4.24 4.25 4.84 5.38 5.32 4.74 5.65 5.68 5.46 4.86 4.83 4.69 5.19 5.22 4.72
Bulgaria 5.51 5.49 5.41 6.08 6.03 5.97 6.67 6.59 5.55 6.19 6.17 5.86 6.10 6.06 5.81 6.70 6.65 6.75
Greece 5.50 5.50 5.84 6.05 6.06 5.84 6.72 6.74 6.00 6.99 6.96 6.74 7.21 7.16 6.85 7.08 7.10 5.90
Kosovo 5.30 5.28 4.91 4.95 4.99 5.09 3.72 3.71 3.56 5.58 5.50 5.43 4.59 4.56 4.10 6.51 6.43 6.01
Montenegro 5.45 5.43 5.17 6.49 6.45 6.06 6.21 6.20 5.48 5.95 5.93 5.55 5.39 5.35 4.96 5.81 5.79 5.30
North Macedonia 5.09 5.09 4.85 5.59 5.56 5.92 5.67 5.68 4.83 5.65 5.57 5.38 5.26 5.25 4.77 6.39 6.36 5.52
Romania 6.11 6.08 5.73 6.31 6.32 6.12 6.70 6.64 5.97 6.08 6.07 6.01 6.66 6.66 6.23 6.71 6.67 6.42
Serbia 5.29 5.28 5.10 6.08 6.11 5.86 5.51 5.52 4.99 5.99 5.98 5.68 5.19 5.17 5.04 6.59 6.55 5.87
Türkiye 5.64 5.62 5.64 6.15 6.22 6.13 5.39 5.38 4.95 5.42 5.41 5.36 6.61 6.66 6.40 6.10 5.99 5.99
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus (EEC)
Armenia 4.41 4.38 4.08 6.52 6.39 5.97 5.73 5.71 5.4 5.23 5.20 4.98 5.61 5.61 4.90 5.67 5.61 5.16
Azerbaijan 3.99 3.98 4.03 5.68 5.74 5.36 5.04 5.01 4.72 5.65 5.60 5.46 3.30 3.24 3.27 5.18 5.15 5.53
Georgia 4.88 4.84 4.53 6.32 6.39 6.58 5.51 5.48 5.03 5.50 5.50 5.28 5.55 5.56 4.50 6.52 6.57 5.80
Moldova 4.58 4.57 4.43 5.23 5.19 4.70 4.70 4.71 4.33 5.77 5.69 5.56 4.70 4.76 4.36 5.15 5.22 5.17
Ukraine 4.72 4.72 4.85 4.52 4.48 4.30 5.46 5.44 5.08 5.90 5.92 5.63 4.54 4.51 3.74 5.24 5.31 5.29
Central Asia
Kazakhstan 4.87 4.85 4.71 6.33 6.32 5.77 5.07 5.09 4.67 5.63 5.59 5.27 5.46 5.42 5.01 5.22 5.24 4.91
Kyrgyz Republic 3.78 3.78 3.64 4.36 4.46 4.44 4.87 4.86 4.49 4.93 4.94 4.79 4.22 4.20 4.18 4.53 4.57 4.20
Mongolia 3.91 3.90 4.23 5.33 5.00 5.48 4.64 4.68 4.76 5.65 5.66 5.23 4.54 4.54 4.22 5.18 5.28 4.74
Tajikistan 3.34 3.33 3.24 4.66 4.74 4.31 5.41 5.40 5.14 4.04 4.02 3.86 3.47 3.47 2.91 4.05 4.08 3.41
Turkmenistan 3.02 3.02 3.27 2.85 2.88 3.01 4.86 4.84 4.85 4.45 4.41 4.19 3.33 3.33 3.14 4.24 4.30 4.24
Uzbekistan 3.77 3.76 3.50 5.00 5.02 4.79 5.42 5.40 4.91 4.78 4.67 4.39 3.76 3.76 3.4 5.25 5.19 4.37
Southern and eastern Mediterranean (SEMED)
Egypt 3.54 3.53 3.52 5.57 5.58 4.95 4.98 5.08 4.53 4.33 4.30 4.28 4.63 4.61 4.29 5.66 5.58 4.70
Jordan 4.53 4.52 4.57 6.12 6.15 6.08 5.34 5.34 5.58 5.01 4.91 4.54 5.06 5.06 4.63 5.58 5.56 5.94
Lebanon 4.30 4.29 4.57 3.63 3.65 4.11 4.79 4.80 4.94 4.29 4.30 4.65 2.95 2.95 3.89 5.19 5.09 5.13
Morocco 3.81 3.8 3.71 5.89 5.86 5.6 5.29 5.29 5.18 4.91 4.88 4.66 4.69 4.68 4.53 5.24 5.18 5.07
Tunisia 3.91 3.91 4.13 4.88 4.90 5.25 4.79 4.82 4.65 4.96 4.98 4.86 4.00 3.98 3.63 4.89 4.93 4.70
West Bank and Gaza 2.56 2.56 2.35 3.60 3.61 3.52 4.13 4.14 3.96 3.87 3.88 3.88 3.68 3.68 3.50 4.59 4.61 4.16

SOURCE: EBRD.

NOTE: Scores are on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 represents a synthetic frontier corresponding to the standards of a sustainable market economy. All scores have been updated following methodological changes, so they may differ from those published in previous years’ reports. Owing to lags in the availability of underlying data, ATQ scores for 2024 and 2023 may not fully correspond to developments in those calendar years. Exceptionally, Chapter 5 treats Greece as part of the SEE region.

Introducing comparator economies in sub-Saharan Africa

For the first time, the analysis in this chapter also covers six new comparator economies in sub-Saharan Africa: Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal (see Table 5.2 and Chart 5.1).

Overall, the scores for SSA economies tend to be lower than those of EBRD economies, broadly in line with their lower levels of income per capita at market exchange rates (see Chart 5.2 and Carruthers and Plekhanov (2023) for a discussion of the relationship between income per capita and ATQ scores). At the same time, ATQ scores for economies in Central Asia with comparable levels of income per capita are, on average, somewhat higher than one would expect on the basis of their income per capita alone.

In terms of the individual qualities of a sustainable market economy, the largest gap between the SSA region and EBRD economies is in the area of integration, reflecting the scarce infrastructure and low levels of intra-regional trade and investment in sub-Saharan Africa (see Chart 5.3). The SSA region stands out for its low levels of cross-border trade and the scarcity of transport and fixed-line broadband infrastructure, even when its modest levels of income per capita are taken into account (see Charts 5.4 and 5.5). Indeed, imports and exports are equivalent to less than 50 per cent of GDP in Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire, compared with around 100 per cent in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tunisia.

Relative to advanced economies, there is also a large gap in the area of competitiveness, reflecting the low levels of productivity and skills in SSA economies (see Chart 5.6). In this analysis, scores for skills are based on the global competitiveness indicators produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF), combining average years of schooling and measures of school infrastructure with qualitative indicators covering the perceived quality of vocational training, graduates’ skill sets, digital skills, the ease of finding skilled employees and use of critical thinking in teaching.

Meanwhile, the average inclusion score for the SSA region is, if anything, slightly higher than the average for Central Asia and the SEMED region – EBRD economies with relatively low levels of income per capita. This reflects the relatively high total labour force participation rates in SSA economies (with the possible exception of Senegal), as well as high levels of female labour force participation (see Charts 5.7 and 5.8).

Read more Collapse text
Table 5.2

ATQ scores for six key qualities of a sustainable market economy: comparator economies
Competitive Well governed Green Inclusive Resilient Integrated
2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016 2024 2023 2016
Advanced economies
Canada 7.61 7.61 7.51 8.76 8.74 9.04 7.10 7.13 6.52 8.33 8.34 8.21 8.15 8.16 8.11 7.23 7.24 7.22
Cyprus 6.65 6.64 7.10 7.36 7.37 7.19 7.03 7.08 6.04 7.43 7.39 7.14 5.80 5.73 5.55 7.09 7.13 6.95
France 7.58 7.58 7.48 8.37 8.38 8.28 7.54 7.52 7.43 8.46 8.45 8.36 8.02 8.05 7.89 7.87 7.96 7.60
Germany 7.72 7.72 7.84 8.71 8.71 9.01 7.99 7.97 7.81 8.58 8.59 8.45 7.46 7.47 7.51 8.03 7.97 7.90
Japan 7.40 7.39 7.37 8.83 8.84 8.73 7.25 7.26 7.23 8.42 8.42 8.20 8.25 8.26 8.02 7.13 7.16 7.30
Sweden 8.44 8.45 8.09 9.12 9.13 9.33 7.89 7.91 7.69 8.77 8.75 8.65 8.10 8.11 8.01 7.75 7.70 7.77
United Kingdom 8.45 8.44 8.50 8.71 8.73 9.15 7.47 7.45 7.25 8.36 8.38 8.43 8.06 8.09 7.89 7.61 7.54 7.66
United States of America 8.09 8.09 8.20 8.74 8.78 8.81 6.15 6.20 6.70 8.08 8.08 7.91 8.70 8.68 8.54 7.35 7.32 7.37
Sub-Saharan Africa
Benin 3.43 3.43 3.04 4.35 4.23 3.79 4.50 4.50 4.38 4.00 4.01 3.98 3.20 3.25 3.04 3.42 3.29 3.18
Côte d’Ivoire 3.73 3.73 3.25 3.98 3.75 3.95 4.65 4.65 4.31 4.33 4.36 3.95 3.36 3.41 3.04 3.68 3.66 3.65
Ghana 3.47 3.47 3.23 4.80 4.57 4.62 4.56 4.56 4.46 4.42 4.41 4.41 3.81 3.90 2.99 3.23 3.24 3.39
Kenya 3.90 3.89 3.70 4.53 4.41 4.36 4.87 4.87 4.67 4.46 4.43 4.44 3.59 3.65 3.17 3.80 3.86 4.10
Nigeria 3.46 3.46 3.37 3.24 3.15 3.48 4.13 4.13 3.78 3.95 3.96 4.04 3.74 3.74 2.97 3.21 3.25 3.46
Senegal 3.64 3.63 3.23 4.57 4.36 4.32 4.55 4.55 4.41 3.90 3.89 3.68 3.18 3.23 3.04 3.68 3.64 3.05
Other comparators
Bangladesh 3.55 3.54 3.45 5.77 5.83 5.73 4.33 4.46 4.07 3.65 3.64 3.68 5.47 5.47 5.10 4.09 4.27 4.37
Belarus 4.73 4.72 4.39 4.59 4.69 4.77 5.56 5.58 5.54 5.52 5.55 5.69 3.48 3.44 3.17 6.17 6.04 5.38
Brazil 4.67 4.67 4.50 5.98 6.04 6.04 5.92 5.94 5.84 5.57 5.58 5.46 5.74 5.70 5.37 5.14 5.05 5.07
Colombia 4.31 4.30 4.41 6.29 6.24 6.37 5.73 5.74 5.59 5.12 5.11 5.11 5.76 5.78 5.53 5.55 5.50 5.06
Mexico 4.86 4.86 4.84 6.27 6.27 6.36 5.50 5.52 5.38 5.20 5.20 5.00 5.77 5.75 5.42 5.72 5.85 5.51
Russia 5.16 5.13 5.02 5.48 5.37 5.56 5.59 5.58 5.09 5.02 5.05 4.98 5.68 5.68 5.28 4.73 4.87 5.41
South Africa 5.70 5.70 5.74 7.36 7.40 7.99 4.58 4.65 4.74 4.93 4.92 4.92 5.60 5.60 5.29 5.87 5.89 5.84
Thailand 5.55 5.54 5.38 7.08 7.05 6.72 5.40 5.44 5.16 5.23 5.23 5.00 6.07 6.06 5.56 6.10 5.99 5.73

SOURCE: EBRD.

NOTE: Scores are on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 represents a synthetic frontier corresponding to the standards of a sustainable market economy. All scores have been updated following methodological changes, so they may differ from those published in previous years’ reports. Owing to lags in the availability of underlying data, ATQ scores for 2024 and 2023 may not fully correspond to developments in those calendar years.

Chart 5.1
Highcharts.com

Source: EBRD.

Note: Scores are on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 represents a synthetic frontier corresponding to the standards of a sustainable market economy.

Chart 5.2
Highcharts.com

Source: EBRD, IMF and authors’ calculations.

Note: ATQ scores are simple averages of the scores for the six qualities. The horizontal axis shows GDP per capita in 2023 at market exchange rates.

Chart 5.3
Highcharts.com

Source: EBRD and authors’ calculations.

Note: Figures are simple averages of the 2024 scores for the economies in the relevant grouping.

Chart 5.4
Highcharts.com

Source: World Bank, IMF and authors’ calculations.

Note: The horizontal axis shows GDP per capita in 2023 at market exchange rates.

Chart 5.5
Highcharts.com

Source: International Telecommunication Union, IMF and authors’ calculations.

Note: The horizontal axis shows GDP per capita in 2023 at market exchange rates.

Chart 5.6
Highcharts.com

Source: WEF, IMF and authors’ calculations.

Note: The horizontal axis shows GDP per capita in 2023 at market exchange rates.

Chart 5.7
Highcharts.com

Source: International Labour Organization (ILO), IMF and authors’ calculations.

Note: The horizontal axis shows GDP per capita in 2023 at market exchange rates.

Chart 5.8
Highcharts.com

Source: ILO, IMF and authors’ calculations.

Note: The horizontal axis shows GDP per capita in 2023 at market exchange rates. The vertical axis shows the ratio of the female labour force participation rate to the male labour force participation rate, with higher values denoting a smaller gender gap.

Overall, the
ATQ scores
for SSA economies
tend to be lower than those of EBRD economies, broadly in line with their lower levels of income per capita at market exchange rates

Trends in ATQ scores since 2016

In the period since 2016 – the year that ATQ scores were first published – the largest overall improvements in the EBRD regions have been seen in the areas of integration and the green economy, with the smallest amounts of progress being observed in the areas of competitiveness, inclusion and governance (see Chart 5.9).

Remaining gaps relative to advanced economies

Advanced economies have, if anything, gone backwards since 2016 in the area of governance (see Chart 5.9). However, the governance gap between the EBRD regions and advanced economies remains large (and is larger than those observed for the other five qualities of a sustainable market economy using the ATQ metric). This is consistent with the findings set out in the Transition Report 2019-20, which highlighted the persistent governance deficit in the EBRD regions relative to economies’ levels of economic development.2

Persistent gaps in the area of governance primarily reflect perceived deficiencies relating to the protection of intellectual property rights, corruption, the rule of law, the effectiveness of government policymaking, transparency and disclosure standards.

There is also a pronounced gap relative to advanced economies in the area of competitiveness. This reflects large gaps relating to exports of advanced business services, skills and productivity, the quality of transport and logistics services, access to finance, and the economic complexity of production and exports.

The smallest gap between the EBRD regions and advanced economies is in the area of integration. However, significant gaps persist here, too, particularly when it comes to transport and logistics services, the quality of transport infrastructure and the connectivity of the electricity grid.

There is also a more modest gap in the area of the green economy. Most economies in the EBRD regions exhibit gaps relative to more advanced economies when it comes to a fair transition, vehicle emission standards, the implementation of carbon-pricing mechanisms and greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities.

In the area of inclusion, gaps relative to advanced economies are most pronounced when it comes to financial inclusion, ICT skills,3 access to affordable fixed-line broadband and attitudes regarding women’s role in the economy.

In the area of resilience, meanwhile, gaps between the EBRD regions and higher-income economies are especially pronounced when it comes to the development of local capital markets, particularly as regards the availability of money market benchmarks, bond issuance in local currencies by financial institutions and firms, and the activity levels of insurance companies, pension funds and other non bank financial institutions.

Read more Collapse text
Chart 5.9
Highcharts.com

Source: EBRD and authors’ calculations.

Note: Figures are simple averages of the scores for the economies in the relevant grouping.

Trends in SSA economies since 2016

In the period since 2016, SSA economies have made the most progress in the areas of resilience and competitiveness (see Chart 5.9). Improvements in competitiveness reflect increases in labour productivity, growth in exports of ICT and financial services as a percentage of GDP, increases in the number of new firms and a decline in subsidies as a percentage of GDP. Higher resilience scores, meanwhile, reflect improved liquidity ratios in the region’s banking systems, lower non-performing loan (NPL) ratios and lower levels of loan dollarisation. At the same time, however, those improvements to SSA economies’ ATQ scores are modest as a percentage of the remaining gap relative to advanced economies or the EBRD regions.

In contrast, little progress has been observed since 2016 in the area of integration, despite a large gap relative to advanced economies in that area. That lack of progress reflects the slow pace of improvements to the quality of transport infrastructure, as well as a decline in observed levels of openness to trade and investment. In fact, exports and imports have declined as a percentage of GDP in all SSA economies except Senegal, while inflows of FDI and foreign portfolio investment have fallen as a percentage of GDP in Benin, Ghana and Nigeria. Progress has also been fairly limited in the area of inclusion, albeit the SSA region started from a stronger position in that respect.

Read more Collapse text

Changes to scores since last year

Changes to scores since last year’s Transition Report reflect (i) recent developments in the economies in question, (ii) a number of methodological changes (such as the fact that exports of advanced business services are now expressed as a percentage of GDP, rather than as a percentage of total exports of services, in order to measure their contribution to economic activity more accurately) and (iii) changes to historical data series (such as the updating of data on greenhouse gas emissions, which are now sourced from the World Resources Institute and were previously sourced from the International Energy Agency). Where changes have been made to the methodology or historical data, all scores for earlier years have also been updated.

The analysis in this section looks at differences between (i) the updated scores for 2023 (as presented in Table 5.1), which largely reflect indicators for 2022, and (ii) the newly calculated scores for 2024 (which are based on the latest information available, much of which relates to 2023).

Across the six key qualities of a sustainable market economy, increases in scores over the last year have been concentrated in the CEB and SEE regions, while declines have been observed primarily in the SEMED region and Central Asia.

Across the EBRD regions, the largest improvements have tended to be observed in the areas of inclusion, integration and, to a lesser extent, competitiveness. Inclusion scores have increased particularly strongly in Uzbekistan and Jordan. In Uzbekistan, the percentage of young people who are not in employment, education or training has declined, while an indicator based on the Women, Business and the Law index has improved. Jordan, meanwhile, has seen its male and female labour force participation rates increase. In contrast, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina have seen their inclusion scores fall, primarily on account of declining labour force participation rates.

Integration scores have increased significantly in Hungary, Poland and Türkiye, driven in part by improvements in broadband internet infrastructure and, in some cases, stronger net inflows of FDI as a percentage of GDP. In contrast, falling scores in Moldova and Mongolia reflect declines in FDI and portfolio investment inflows as a percentage of GDP. In the Slovak Republic and Ukraine, meanwhile, declining scores reflect a reduction in cross-border trade as a percentage of GDP.

Competitiveness scores have risen appreciably in Armenia, Croatia, Georgia, Lithuania and Romania, primarily as a result of improvements in labour productivity.

At the same time, scores for governance have declined slightly further on average, contributing to the large and persistent governance gap relative to advanced economies that was discussed earlier in the chapter. Croatia and Mongolia have seen their governance scores increase markedly, reflecting better compliance with standards aimed at tackling money laundering and improved corporate governance. However, significant declines have been recorded in Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Türkiye, primarily reflecting changes to indicators measuring media freedom and perceptions of corruption.

Across the EBRD regions, changes to average scores in respect of the green economy and resilience have been fairly limited. Green scores have improved modestly in a number of economies in the CEB region owing to increased production of renewable energy, as well as improved protection of land and maritime areas and a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies. In contrast, a marked decline has been observed in Egypt as a result of increased water stress.

While Ukraine’s overall score for resilience has risen, its score for energy resilience has fallen, reflecting the negative impact that Russia’s war on Ukraine has had on the operations of the state-owned gas company. Azerbaijan and Greece, meanwhile, have seen their financial resilience scores improve significantly. In Azerbaijan, that increase reflects improved loan-to-deposit ratios, lower NPL ratios, a decline in foreign-denominated loans and an increase in the average return on assets in the banking sector. The increase in Greece’s financial resilience score has been driven mainly by improved capital adequacy ratios, increased provisioning for NPLs and lower NPL ratios. In contrast, Türkiye’s financial resilience score has fallen, reflecting lower liquidity ratios, reduced provisioning for NPLs and a decline in the average return on assets in the banking system.

Read more Collapse text

References

A. Carruthers and A. Plekhanov (2023)
“Attitudes, beliefs and reforms: Measurement and stylized facts”, EBRD Working Paper No. 283.

EBRD (2019)
Transition Report 2019-20 – Better Governance, Better Economies, London.

EBRD (2024)
Life in Transition IV – Household resilience in a turbulent world, London.

Methodological notes

Transition indicators: six qualities of a sustainable market economy

The transition indicators reflect the judgement of the EBRD’s Office of the Chief Economist, the Impact and Partnerships department, and the Policy Strategy and Delivery department on the transition progress in the economies where the EBRD invests. According to this approach, a sustainable market economy is characterised by six qualities: competitive, well governed, green, inclusive, resilient and integrated.

This approach measures the state of each quality and its components in a given economy, as compared with the other economies in the EBRD regions and a few select developed economies,1 against a frontier. The frontier is set either by the best performance in this group of economies or by an unobserved theoretical value, and provides a common benchmark against which all economies are assessed consistently and comparably. The same frontier values are also applied across the years to ensure that computed scores are comparable and capture changes in underlying indicators through time.

Assessment of transition qualities (ATQ) scores are composite indices combining information from a large number of indicators and assessments in a consistent manner. The underlying indicators within each ATQ score are constructed using a wide range of sources, including national and industry statistics, data from other international organisations and affiliated databases (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund [IMF], the United Nations); surveys (the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS); the Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) and assessments prepared internally by EBRD experts (see Table M.1 below for the list of indicators).

The computation of ATQ indices involves multiple steps, namely: data preparation, normalisation and aggregation. Details of each of these steps are provided below.

Data preparation and treatment of missing observations

The underlying data for the majority of indicators either enter the composite index directly or are scaled using a meaningful related measure. A number of indicators may themselves be composite indices (for example, the EBRD SME index or EBRD Knowledge Economy index) and they enter the ATQ composites in index form. No further transformation is applied to the underlying indicators before normalisation. For some indicators, no data are available for the current year and simple imputation methods are used.2 One method of imputation uses the latest available observation from past years, thus assuming that no change from the latest available observation has been observed. When there are no past or present observations available for a particular indicator, then, based on the judgement of EBRD experts, either the regional mean (using the EBRD classification of regions for the economies where it invests) or the observed regional minima are used to impute the missing observations.

To mitigate the effect that extreme values may have on scores, observations that lie above the 98th percentile are considered outliers and replaced by the next value within the acceptable range. Outlier detection and replacement is only applied to select continuous variables.

Normalisation

The raw data for each indicator are normalised to the same scale using the min-max normalisation method as follows:

The resulting scores are then rescaled from 1 to 10, where 10 represents the frontier for each quality. The frontier is taken to be the best performance, observed either in an economy where we invest, a comparator economy or a theoretical value determined based on expert judgement.

If an observation for an economy exceeds the selected frontier, then the normalised value of the indicator is capped at the frontier value. For indicators where any deviation from the frontier is undesirable, values either below or above the frontier are treated similarly (the same score is computed and assigned to two observations that are equally distant from the frontier).

Aggregation

Normalised indicators are aggregated to a single composite index (by quality) using weights determined by expert judgement (see Table M.1 for details of weights). A simple weighted averaging method is used for aggregation.

Changes to methodology from 2023

During the past year, further work on strengthening the methodology for computing ATQ indices was carried out. This work did not involve changes to the process of computation of ATQ indices, rather it focused largely on modifications to the set of underlying indicators. The primary purpose of this work has been to ensure that ATQs better capture the relevant phenomena and allow adequate monitoring of the pace of reforms and transformation in the region. This work resulted in the addition of new indicators, a discontinuation of the use of others, and the use of equivalent data series from alternative sources. Details of these changes are provided below.

Overall

The sample of economies used to calculate ATQs was expanded to include six sub-Saharan African economies, namely: Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal.

Competitive

The services export indicator, previously measured as a percentage of total services exports, is now measured as a percentage of GDP.

Green

Mitigation indicators, measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for various sectors, previously sourced from the International Energy Agency are now sourced from the World Resource Institute.

The following tables show, for each quality, the components used in each quality index along with the indicators and data sources that were fed into the final assessments.

Table M.1. List of indicators used to compute the ATQ indices
COMPETITIVE
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
Market structures [50%] Applied tariff rates a (weighted average) [14%] World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI), International Trade Centre, Market Access Map, 2021 Georgia 2 15.9
Subsidies expense a (share of GDP) [14%] IMF, government finance statistics, 2021 Albania 0.12 7.05
Resolving insolvency score [14%] EBRD assessment, 2022 United States of America 88.38 38.33
Number of new business entries (scaled by population) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 Estonia* 18.62 0.04
SME index adjusted (1 = worst, 10 = best) [14%] EBRD assessment, 2019 United Kingdom 7.73 3.52
Competition Law, Institutions and Enforcement index adjusted (1 = worst, 10 = best) [14%] EBRD assessment, 2019 United Kingdom 8.02 4.89
Business services exports (percentage of GDP) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 Cyprus 0.05 0
Capacity to generate value added [50%] Economic Complexity Index [14%] Harvard, Centre for International Development, 2020 Japan 2.26 -1.84
Knowledge economy index (KEI) adjusted (1 = worst, 10 = best) [14%] EBRD assessment, 2019 Sweden 8.02 1.92
World Bank Logistics Performance Index (1 = worst, 5 = best) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 Germany 4.10 2.06
Skills [14%] World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Germany 84.18 42.90
Labour productivity (output per worker, GDP in constant 2011 int. US$ PPP) [14%] ILOSTAT, WDI, 2023 United States 110,498.84 7,818.28
Credit to private sector b (percentage of GDP) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2023 Canada* 193.49 8.58
Global value chain participation [14%] UNCTAD, EBRD, 2018 Slovak Republic 0.81 0.31
WELL GOVERNED
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
National level governance [75%] Quality of public governance [53%] Regulatory quality (-2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best)  [13%] World Bank Governance Indicators, 2020 Germany 1.75 -2.30
Government effectiveness (-2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [13%] World Bank Governance Indicators, 2020 Canada 1.66 -1.86
Budget transparency (1 = worst, 7 = best) [6%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 89.00 3.00
Private property protection  (1 = worst, 7 = best) [6%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan* 6.17 2.87
Intellectual property protection  (1 = worst, 7 = best) [6%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan* 5.98 2.91
Burden of government regulation (1 = worst, 7 = best) [13%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Azerbaijan* 4.81 1.59
Political instability a [4%] World Bank/EBRD BEEPS, 2018-20 Montenegro* 0.01 0.96
Political stability and absence of violence and terrorism  (-2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [4%] World Bank Governance Indicators, 2020 Canada 1.02 -2.61
Political and operational stability [4%] Global Innovation Index, 2019 Sweden* 89.1 14.90
Government ensuring policy stability (1 = worst, 7 = best) [6%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Azerbaijan 5.41 1.83
World press freedom index a (100 = least free, 0 = most free)  [13%] Reporters Without Borders, 2024 Sweden* 87.73 8.82
E-government participation [7%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan* 0.99 0.0
Online services index [7%] UNDESA, 2022 Estonia* 0.98 0.09
Integrity and control of corruption [20%] Corruption Perception index (0 = highly corrupt, 100 = not corrupt) [43%] Transparency International, 2024 Sweden* 82.00 19.00
Perception of corruption a [14%] World Bank/EBRD BEEPS, 2018-20 Sweden* 2.68 77.91
Informality a [14%] World Bank/EBRD BEEPS, 2018-20 Sweden 0.00 63.38
Implementation of anti-money laundering (AML)/combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) and tax exchange standards a (0 = low risk, 10 = high risk) [29%] International Centre for Asset Recovery, 2023 Estonia* 3.12 8.30
Rule of law [27%] Judicial independence (1 = worst, 7 = best) [22%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan 6.19 1.99
Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes (1 = worst, 7 = best) [22%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Sweden* 5.35 1.86
Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regulations (1 = worst, 7 = best) [22%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Germany* 5.04 1.79
Rule of law (-2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [22%] World Bank Governance Indicators, 2020 Sweden* 1.69 -1.88
Effectiveness of courts a [11%] World Bank/EBRD BEEPS, 2018-20 Montenegro 0.60 45.40
Corporate level governance [25%] Corporate governance frameworks and practices [100%] Structure and functioning of the board [20%] EBRD Legal Transition Team (LTT) Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019-2022 Serbia* 3.55 1.34
Transparency and disclosure [10%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019.2022 Lithuania* 4.7 1.41
Internal control [20%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019-2022 Lithuania* 4.03 1.33
Rights of shareholders [20%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019-2022 Latvia* 4.15 1.99
Stakeholders and institutions [20%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019-2022 Estonia* 4.07 0.98
Strength of auditing and reporting standards (1 = worst, 7 = best) [10%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Canada* 5.97 3.08
GREEN
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
Mitigation [35%] Physical indicators [37%] Electricity production from renewable sources, including hydroelectric (percentage of total) [17%] World Bank, World Resources Institute (WRI), 2023 Albania* 94.59 0.03
Value added from industry (construction, manufacturing, mining, electricity, water and gas)  per unit of CO2 emissions from industry (GVA (US$)/total CO2) [17%] World Bank, WRI, 2021 Estonia* 24,648.61 573.2
MWh consumed per tonne of CO2 emitted from electricity and heat generation (MWh/total CO2) [17%] World Bank, WRI, 2021 Albania* 24.45 0.46
GDP per tonne of CO2 emitted from residential buildings (from fuel combustion) (GDP(US$)/total CO2) [17%] World Bank, WRI, 2020 Sweden 82,448.77 1,314.96
Number of registered vehicles per tonne of CO2 emitted from transport [17%] World Health Organization, WRI, 2016 Turkmenistan* 6.88 0.01
Agricultural sector GVA per tonne of GHG emissions from agriculture (GVA (US$) / total CO2eq) [17%] World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021 Japan 2,516.34 43.02
Structural indicators [63%] Market support mechanism for renewable energy production (0 = no support, 0.5 = regulatory support, 1 = revenue support) [20%] IEA, 2022 Canada* 1.00 0.00
INDC rating (0 for no INDC. 0.5 for INDC but not ratified. 1 for ratified INDC) [20%] World Resources Institute (WRI), CAIT, 2022 Canada* 1.00 0.00
Carbon price (0 = worst, 1 = best) [20%] World Bank, 2021 France* 1.00 0.00
Fossil fuel subsidies (percentage of GDP) a [20%] IMF, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 -0.01 -58.49
Just Transition Plan [20%] EBRD assessment, 2021 Germany 1.00 0.00
Adaptation [30%] Physical indicators [45%] NDGAIN human habitat score a [25%] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, 2020 Germany* -0.37 -0.63
Aqueduct water stress index a [25%] WRI, 2023 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 0.00 -4.82
NDGAIN projected change in cereal yield a [25%] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, 2020 Turkmenistan* 0.13 -0.98
Number of people affected by droughts,  extreme temperatures, floods and wildfires in the last 10 years  a (per 100,000 people ) [25%] EM-DAT database, 2022 Jordan 6.42 866,271.76
Structural indicators [55%] NDGAIN agricultural capacity a [20%] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, 2020 Uzbekistan* 0.13 0.99
World Governance Indicators: Institutional Quality ( -2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [40%] World Bank, World Governance Indicators, 2020 Sweden* 1.69 -1.88
Adaptation in INDCs (1 = there is a national adaptation plan, 0.5 = adaption is mentioned in INDCs, 0 = none of the above) [40%] CGSpace, CGIAR, 2022 Czechia* 1.00 0.00
Other environmental areas [30%] Physical indicators [37%] Population weighted mean annual exposure to PM2.5 a [22%] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019 Estonia* 5.95 88.21
Waste intensive consumption (kg municipal solid waste/US$ household expenditure) a [22%] Waste Atlas, 2015 Japan 0.01 0.33
Waste generation per capita (kg/cap) a [22%] Waste Atlas, 2015 Armenia 149.70 777.00
Number of animal (terrestrial and marine) species threatened as proportion of total number assessed a [17%] IUNC Red list, 2020 Estonia* 0.04 0.18
Number of plant (terrestrial and marine) species threatened normalised by total number assessed a [17%] IUNC Red list, 2020 Mongolia 0.00 0.27
Structural indicators [63%] Vehicle emission standards (0 = worst, 6 = best) [34%] UN Environment Programme, 2021 Bulgaria* 6.00 0.00
Municipal solid waste collected (percentage of total generated) [34%] Waste Atlas, 2015 Czechia* 100.00 20.00
Proportion of terrestrial protected area (percentage of total area) [16%] World Bank, 2022 Bulgaria 40.36 0.13
Proportion of marine protected areas (percentage of total area) [16%] World Bank, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 213.43 0.00
Cross-cutting [5%] Number of environmental technology patents (per cent of GDP (billion US$)) [100%] OECD, 2017 Japan 0.97 0.00
INCLUSIVE
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
Human capital development [33%] Labour force participation rate (% of population aged 15+)  [11%] ILOSTAT, modelled estimates, 2024 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 74.41 38.67
Labour force participation rate (gap women/men) [11%] ILOSTAT, modelled estimates, 2024 Turkmenistan 1.07 0.15
Output per worker (GDP constant 2017 international $ in PPP) [11%] ILOSTAT, 2023 United States 132,347.32 7,818.28
Youth not in education, employment or training (% of youth population) a [11%] ILOSTAT, 2023 Japan 2.97 38.6
Human Capital Index [11%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 Japan 0.84 0.3
Firms offering formal training to employees (% firms) [11%] World Bank, WDI, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 70.30 3.40
Individuals with standard ICT skills (% of population aged 15+)  [11%] International Telecommunications Union (ITU), 2020 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 47.17 2.85
Workers employed in occupations at risk of automating (%) a [11%] OECD, EBRD calculations, 2019 Jordan 0.38 0.53
Workers employed in carbon-intensive sectors (%) a [11%] Bruegel, EBRD calculations, 2019 Georgia 0.03 0.14
Access to finance and services [33%] Saving at financial institutions (% of population aged 15+)  [14%] World Bank Financial Inclusion Database (FINDEX), 2021 Sweden 80 0.12
Borrowing from financial institutions (% of population aged 15+)  [14%] World Bank FINDEX, 2021 Canada 82.83 0.84
Fixed broadband subscriptions (% of population) [14%] ITU, 2022 France 49.4 0.06
Cost of a 5GB fixed broadband basket (% GNI per capita) a [14%] ITU, 2022 United Kingdom 2.2 39.73
Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 Germany 4.44 1.90
Using safely managed drinking water services (% of population) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2021 Hungary 100.00 24.81
Using safely managed sanitation services (% population) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2021 Japan 99.14 2.33
Policies and norms [33%] Social benefit spending by the government (% of GDP) [20%] IMF IFS, 2021 France 28.66 0.48
Equal treatment and absence of discrimination [20%] World Justice Project, 2023 Japan 0.84 0.34
Women, Business and the Law composite score [20%] WDI, 2022 Canada* 100.00 26.25
Disagreeing that “it is better for everyone involved if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children” (% population) [20%] LiTs, 2016 Canada* 0.92 0.05
Women subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in the last 12 months  (% female population) a [20%] WDI, 2016 Slovenia 2.00 28.80
RESILIENT
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
Energy sector resilience [30%] Liberalisation and market liquidity [50%] Sector restructuring, corporatisation and unbundling (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [33%] EBRD assessment, 2023 Estonia* 0.67 0.00
Fostering private-sector participation  (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [33%] EBRD assessment, 2023 United States* 0.67 0.00
Tariff reform (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [33%] EBRD assessment, 2023 Czechia* 0.67 0.00
System connectivity [20%] Domestic connectivity (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [35%] EBRD assessment, 2023 Czechia* 0.67 0.09
Inter-country connectivity (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [65%] EBRD assessment, 2023 Germany* 0.67 0.00
Regulation and legal framework [30%] Development of an adequate legal framework (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [50%] EBRD assessment, 2023 Czechia* 0.67 0.00
Establishment of an empowered independent energy regulator (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [50%] EBRD assessment, 2023 Czechia* 0.67 0.00
Financial stability [70%] Banking sector health and intermediation [50%] Capital adequacy ratio [9%] IMF Financial Soundness Indicators (FSI), IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, national authorities, Fitch Ratings’ Sovereign Data Comparator, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2023 Estonia* 0.35 0.1
Return on assets [9%] IMF FSI, IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, national authorities, Fitch Ratings’ Sovereign Data Comparator, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2023 Türkiye* 4.86 -12.47
Loan to deposits ratio c [9%] IMF FSI, IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, national authorities, Fitch Ratings’ Sovereign Data Comparator, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2023 Sweden 2.13 0.33
Non-performing loans (NPLs) to total gross loans (per cent) a [9%] IMF FSI, IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, national authorities, Fitch Ratings’ Sovereign Data Comparator, S&P BICRA, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2023 Canada* 0.42 54.82
Loan loss reserves to NPLs (Provisions to NPLs) b [9%] IMF FSI, IHS Markit, national authorities, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2023 United States* 100.00 15.14
Asset share of five largest banks a  [9%] World Bank Global Financial Development Database (GFDD), IMF FSSA, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2021 Japan 43.88 100.00
Asset share of private banks [9%] World Bank GFDD, EBRD FI Risk Reports, IMF Article IV, IMF FSSA, Bank Focus, 2021 Canada* 100.00 33.20
Financial sector assets c (percentage of GDP) [9%] IMF FSI, EBRD, Internal Sovereign Risk Report, Bank Focus, national authorities, IHS Markit, 2023 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 100.00 28.00
Credit to private sector c (percentage of GDP) [9%] World Bank GFDD, S&P BICRA, IMF Article IV, WDI, 2023 No economy was at the frontier in 2024 80.00 4.02
Foreign currency-denominated loans a (percentage of total loans) [9%] IMF FSI, IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, national authorities, 2023 United States* 0.00 -98.65
Liquid assets to short-term liabilities (per cent) [9%] IMF FSI, World Bank GFDD, IMF Article IV, national authorities, EBRD FI Risk Overview, 2023 United States* 241.80 15.54
Alternative sources of financing [32%] Other financial corporation’s  assets b (percentage of GDP) [14%] IMF FSI, World Bank GFDD, IMF Article IV, national authorities, EBRD FI Risk Overview, IMF FSSA, AFDB, 2023 Canada* 100.00 0.0
Legal environment for financial transactions [14%] ISDA, ICMA, 2022 United States* 2.50 0.00
Capital market infrastructure [14%] EBRD assessment, 2022 United States* 1.00 0.00
Investor base [14%] OECD, IMF, Bloomberg, Swiss RE, WEF, IMF, ECB, S&P (SNL), 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 0.92 0.00
Market capitalisation b [5%] WEF, IMF, Bloomberg, local stock exchanges, 2022 United States* 100.00 0.00
Trading to market cap b [5%] WEF, IMF, Bloomberg, local stock exchanges, 2022 United States* 100.00 0.00
IPO b [5%] WEF, IMF, Bloomberg, local stock exchanges, 2022 United States* 0.34 0.00
FI debt b [4%] Cbonds, IMF, 2022 Germany* 0.35 0.00
Non-FI debt b [4%] Cbonds, IMF, 2022 United States* 0.29 0.00
Debt diversity [7%] Vanguard Investment, ICMA, 2020 United States 6.75 0.00
Money market quality [14%] EBRD assessment, 2020 United States* 1.00 0.00
Regulation governance and safety nets [18%] Is there a well-functioning deposit insurance scheme? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czechia* 10.00 1.00
Do the banks have good risk management and corporate governance practices? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czechia* 10.00 1.00
Is there an adequate legal and regulatory framework in place? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czechia* 10.00 1.00
Is the supervisory body independent and competent? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czechia* 10.00 1.00
INTEGRATED
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
External integration [50%] Trade openness [33%] Total trade volume (percentage of GDP, five-year moving average) [50%] World Bank, WDI, 2023 Slovak Republic 185.99 25.26
Number of regional trade agreements [17%] World Trade Organization (WTO), 2023 Czechia 47.00 1.00
Binding overhang ratio a, b (%) [17%] WTO, 2022 Germany* 0.00 142.20
Number of non-tariff measures a [17%] WTO, 2022 Mongolia* 1 46
Investment openness [33%] FDI net inflows  (percentage of GDP, five-year moving average) [50%] IMF, International investment position statistics, 2023 Cyprus* 0.89 -0.35
Number of bilateral investment agreements [25%] UNCTAD, 2023 Germany 183.00 8.00
FDI Restrictiveness indicator a [25%] OECD, 2020 Slovenia 0.01 0.29
Portfolio openness [33%] Non-FDI inflows (percentage of GDP, five-year moving average) [50%] IMF, International investment position statistics, 2022 Cyprus 0.06 -0.59
Financial openness index (Chinn-Ito) [50%] Chinn-Ito webpage, 2021 United States* 2.30 -1.93
Internal integration [50%] Domestic transport [33%] Road connectivity a [25%] EBRD assessment, 2019 United States 107.53 309.27
Quality of non-road transport infrastructure [25%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan 89.92 24.25
Competence and quality of logistics services (1 = worst, 5 = best) [13%] World Bank, LPI database, 2022 Germany 4.31 1.90
Tracking and tracing of consignments (1 = worst, 5 = best) [13%] World Bank, LPI database, 2022 Sweden 4.38 1.64
Timeliness of shipments (1 = worst, 5 = best) [13%] World Bank, LPI database, 2022 Germany 4.45 2.04
Proportion of products lost to breakage or spoilage during shipping a [13%] World Bank/EBRD BEEPS, 2018-20 Estonia* 0.00 2.60
Cross-border transport [33%] Quality of customs and border management, trade and transport infrastructure and ease of arranging shipments (1 = worst, 5 = best) [50%] World Bank, LPI database, 2022 Germany 4.14 1.84
Cost of trading across borders [50%] ESCAP – World Bank trade cost database, 2020 Czechia 107.97 392.08
Energy and ICT [33%] Quality of electricity supply (1 = worst, 7 = best) [25%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2017 Sweden 6.78 1.65
Electric power transmission and distribution losses as percentage of domestic supply a [25%] IEA, 2019 Slovak Republic 2.34 23.73
Broadband subscription (per 100 habitants) [13%] ITU, 2021 France 48.76 0.01
Number of internet users (percentage of population) [13%] ITU, 2021 United States 96.97 14.5
Level of competition for internet services (50 = monopoly, 75 = partially competitive, 100 = competitive) [6%] World Bank, The Little Data Book 2017 Canada* 100.00 50.00
Mobile broadband basket price a [6%] ITU, 2023 France 0.16 5.14
International internet bandwidth per internet user [6%] ITU, 2022 Bulgaria* 353,000.00 41.6
4G coverage (percentage of population) [6%] ITU, 2022 Poland* 100.00 75.70
* Additional economies are at the frontier. Further information is available on request.
a Inverted before normalisation.
b Capped at frontier.
c Mirrored from frontier.