When Ethics are Compromised by Ideology: The Global Competitiveness Report
The Global Competitiveness Report raises ethical issues on multiple levels. The traditional high ranking accorded the US is largely attributable to fallacies, poor science and ideology. The ideological bias finds expression in two ways: the inclusion of indices that do not provide competitive advantage, but that fit the Anglo/US ideology; and the exclusion of indices that are known to offer competitive advantage, but that do not fit the Anglo/US ideology. This flaw is compounded by methodological problems that raise further doubt as to the reliability and validity of the survey results. The resultant false high ranking of the US, a strong proponent of Anglo/US capitalism, pseudo-legitimizes the propensity of US-dominated institutions and entities to persuade, coerce and, in the worst-case force other countries and their constituents to adopt Anglo/US practices and behaviours. This is ethically reprehensible because research shows that these practices and behaviours, when compared with other approaches, are sub-optimal in the results they produce for individuals, corporations and nations. The report also unjustly and unnecessarily stigmatizes entire groups of countries with little conceivable benefit to anyone. Given the report’s gravitas through the profound global influence it exerts on the decisions of top government and business leaders, these are serious ethical and economic issues. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 109 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Marco Herpen & Mirjam Praag & Kees Cools, 2005. "The Effects of Performance Measurement and Compensation on Motivation: An Empirical Study," De Economist, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 303-329, 09.
- Bradley Ewing & Phanindra Wunnava, 2004. "The Trade-Off Between Supervision Cost and Performance Based Pay: Does Gender Matter?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 453-460, December.
- Jay Squalli & Kenneth Wilson & Sarah Hugo, 2008. "An analysis of growth competitiveness," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 105-126.
- Ichniowski, Casey & Shaw, Kathryn & Prennushi, Giovanna, 1997. "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 291-313, June.
- Alan Singer, 2010. "Integrating Ethics and Strategy: A Pragmatic Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(4), pages 479-491, April.
- Bishop, John Douglas, 2000. "A Framework for Discussing Normative Theories of Business Ethics," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 563-591, July.
- Reynolds, Scott J., 2003. "A Single Framework for Strategic and Ethical Behavior in the International Context," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(03), pages 361-379, July.
- S. Trevis Certo & Richard H. Lester & Catherine M. Dalton & Dan R. Dalton, 2006. "Top Management Teams, Strategy and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analytic Examination," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 813-839, 06.
- Zhenzhong Ma, 2009. "The Status of Contemporary Business Ethics Research: Present and Future," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 255-265, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:4:p:391-410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.