RANKINGS GONEWRONG
In 2016, China was ranked just 84th out of around 190 countries in its overall score. For a country with a long-term plan to reassume what it viewed as its natural position at the top of the global economic and geopolitical pecking order, that simply would not do. As the Economist explained, [In] 2017 Li Keqiang, China’s prime minister, grumbled that his country was lagging behind its peers [in the EoDB rankings]. At his urging, officials began freeing entrepreneurs from red tape – and crimson ink. They cut fees, streamlined approvals, and began to use electronic seals instead of the traditional ink stamp on many documents. Chinese officials – presumably feeling the hot breath of the prime minister on their neck – were in frequent touch with the World Bank about China’s placement in the upcoming annual ranking. Within a few years, the time required to launch a company was cut from nearly 23 days to just nine. Incentivized bureaucrats made it easier to plug into the electricity network by expanding network capacity, making it cheaper to connect, and introducing a mobile application. Whatever its motivation – a sense of competition, keeping up with other developing markets, pride – China did it. By 2020, China rallied to reach a ranking
of 31, beating out the likes of France (32), Switzerland (36), and India (63). Or did it? CHINA’S RANKING LEVITATION A few weeks ago, a commissioned report produced by law firm WilmerHale accused then-World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva of manipulating the rankings to boost China’s position in the 2018 EoDB report. In September and October of 2017, the report explains, Chinese officials – presumably feeling the hot breath of the prime minister on their neck – were in frequent touch with the World Bank about China’s placement in the upcoming annual ranking. According to the WilmerHale report, there was some internal discussion – prompted by Georgieva and then-World Bank president Jim Yong Kim – about how to bring about an upward adjustment in China’s position. One (rejected) suggestion was that Hong Kong be integrated into China’s overall score. (The Special Administrative Region is ranked separately in the EoDB, and regularly places in the top three.) That would be like U.S. News &World Report allowing New Jersey public institution Rutgers University to co-opt Princeton (a perennial top 5 finisher and No. 1 this year, versus Rutgers’ ranking of 63) for the purposes of the survey. It would do the trick, but would be far too heavy-handed. Instead, according to the WilmerHale report – a compelling read, if bureaucratic intrigue is
52
October 2021
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online