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. Over the last year, scores in the areas of inclusion and integration have increased substantially on the back of previous reforms, while scores for governance have declined. Across all areas, improvements have been concentrated mainly in central Europe, the Baltic states and south-eastern Europe, while declines have mostly been observed in the southern and eastern Mediterranean region, and eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

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 Chart 5.1).1

Analysis of changes in ATQ scores over the last year points to a number of specific developments across the EBRD regions (see Table 5.1). Modest improvements have been made in the area of competitiveness, while scores for inclusion and integration have increased more substantially thanks to previous reforms. At the same time, scores for governance have declined over the past year.

Across the six qualities, increases in scores have been concentrated mainly in central Europe and the Baltic states (CEB) and south-eastern Europe (SEE), while declines have been observed primarily in the southern and eastern Mediterranean (SEMED) and eastern Europe and the Caucasus (EEC) regions.

Many of the underlying datasets on which scores are based are updated irregularly or with time lags. For that reason, some ATQ scores may not capture recent reforms. Consequently, a medium-term perspective on the period 2016-23 gives a better indication of economies’ trajectories in terms of reforms and structural changes. With that in mind, this chapter looks at changes in scores over the period 2016-23 as a whole, as well as looking at developments in the last year.

From 2016 to 2023, many economies have made progress in the area of competitiveness through improved access to finance for SMEs, as well as improvements in labour productivity and the quality of logistics services. Developments in the area of governance have been mixed, however: scores for indicators assessing participation in e-government services and frameworks for challenging regulations have increased, whereas scores for indicators measuring the effectiveness of courts and informality have gradually declined.

Green scores have improved in most economies, driven by the strengthening of emission reduction commitments and increased production of renewable energy. Inclusion scores have also tended to rise thanks to greater financial inclusion, continued human capital development, and improvements in trade and transport infrastructure. Improvements in the area of financial resilience have been driven by declining non-performing loan (NPL) ratios and progress with capital-market infrastructure and regulatory frameworks for the banking sector. Lastly, increases in integration scores reflect the upgrading of ICT infrastructure and improvements in the quality of transport and logistics services.

Read more Collapse text
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. Chapter 5 treats Greece as part of the SEE region.

Table 5.1

ATQ scores for six key qualities of a sustainable market economy
Competitive Well governed Green Inclusive Resilient Integrated
2023 2022 2016 2023 2022 2016 2023 2022 2016 2023 2022 2016 2023 2022 2016 2023 2022 2016
Central Europe and the Baltic States
Croatia 5.35 5.26 5.38 6.08 6.13 6.21 6.67 6.44 5.83 6.73 6.71 6.42 6.97 6.99 6.41 6.54 6.39 5.95
Czech Republic 5.78 5.89 5.88 7.41 7.36 7.00 7.07 6.83 6.46 6.91 6.99 6.68 7.87 7.86 7.90 7.44 7.87 7.77
Estonia 6.88 6.80 6.72 8.70 8.69 8.52 6.77 6.52 6.04 7.66 7.53 7.19 7.87 7.80 7.67 8.00 7.76 7.24
Hungary 5.51 5.57 5.34 5.97 6.04 5.78 6.60 6.35 5.99 6.14 5.96 5.82 7.23 7.26 6.90 7.62 7.63 7.28
Latvia 5.67 5.45 5.62 7.52 7.36 6.84 7.01 6.75 6.10 6.96 6.84 6.44 7.53 7.50 7.31 7.26 6.89 7.28
Lithuania 5.90 5.78 5.94 7.89 7.89 7.28 6.84 6.57 6.23 7.17 6.94 6.92 7.46 7.46 7.03 7.54 7.38 6.81
Poland 5.80 5.79 5.80 6.77 6.90 7.36 6.74 6.50 6.37 6.91 6.82 6.63 7.95 7.97 7.78 6.83 6.76 6.52
Slovak Republic 5.66 5.60 5.59 6.36 6.36 6.23 7.24 7.00 6.68 6.69 6.67 6.41 7.89 7.93 7.78 7.10 7.02 7.25
Slovenia 5.65 5.64 5.68 7.22 7.30 7.19 7.15 6.93 6.52 7.13 7.06 6.77 8.01 7.99 7.61 7.21 7.08 6.82
South-eastern Europe
Albania 4.68 4.74 4.60 4.71 4.74 5.28 4.71 4.71 4.71 5.22 5.08 4.63 4.85 4.88 4.60 5.05 5.14 4.90
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.37 4.32 4.38 4.09 4.17 4.68 5.01 4.81 4.55 5.07 5.03 4.85 5.32 5.30 5.23 4.97 4.84 4.48
Bulgaria 4.88 4.82 4.82 5.95 6.14 5.83 6.27 6.03 5.42 5.80 5.64 5.45 6.31 6.33 6.16 6.66 6.49 6.51
Greece 5.34 5.18 5.69 5.93 6.02 5.70 6.46 6.20 5.79 6.57 6.56 6.48 7.33 7.26 6.93 6.93 6.58 5.81
Kosovo 4.92 4.88 4.64 4.85 4.87 4.92 3.49 3.52 3.38 5.16 5.06 5.14 4.80 4.81 4.41 4.66 4.65 4.20
Montenegro 5.05 5.05 4.87 6.34 6.32 5.93 5.56 5.35 4.90 5.41 5.37 4.98 5.48 5.50 5.29 5.98 5.90 5.36
North Macedonia 4.78 4.65 4.62 5.44 5.43 5.76 5.55 5.16 4.75 5.01 4.91 4.80 5.53 5.51 5.17 6.08 5.69 5.18
Romania 5.56 5.54 5.34 6.16 6.24 5.99 6.35 6.12 5.78 5.96 5.89 5.84 6.94 6.94 6.70 6.27 6.19 5.88
Serbia 4.93 4.94 4.82 5.94 5.96 5.72 5.25 5.14 4.89 5.39 5.42 5.11 5.58 5.60 5.44 6.03 6.01 5.55
 
Türkiye 5.32 5.33 5.33 5.84 5.96 5.96 5.09 5.04 4.75 5.14 5.19 4.88 6.96 6.93 6.98 5.75 5.63 5.71
 
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus
Armenia 4.07 4.13 3.86 6.26 6.34 5.80 5.51 5.51 5.15 4.97 4.94 4.69 5.84 5.87 5.36 5.32 5.35 4.95
Azerbaijan 3.89 3.91 3.95 5.62 5.79 5.19 4.87 4.88 4.58 4.82 4.89 4.75 3.61 3.80 3.59 5.02 5.33 5.35
Georgia 4.42 4.36 4.21 6.28 6.34 6.46 5.15 5.17 4.80 4.98 4.99 4.75 5.63 5.60 4.75 6.39 6.24 5.93
Moldova 4.38 4.40 4.18 5.04 4.96 4.52 4.52 4.43 4.07 4.81 4.82 4.76 5.24 5.08 4.66 4.70 4.70 4.60
Ukraine 4.38 4.42 4.45 4.40 4.44 4.10 5.40 5.34 5.00 5.33 5.38 5.23 4.92 5.06 4.36 5.14 5.31 4.97
Central Asia
Kazakhstan 4.71 4.74 4.66 5.87 5.92 5.61 5.08 5.09 4.62 5.47 5.34 5.04 5.50 5.53 5.39 4.74 4.94 4.78
Kyrgyz Republic 3.65 3.74 3.47 4.11 4.28 4.24 4.75 4.76 4.35 4.31 4.27 4.19 4.54 4.45 4.56 3.91 3.95 4.09
Mongolia 3.68 3.63 3.98 4.84 4.88 5.33 4.71 4.69 4.62 5.06 4.93 4.62 4.79 4.79 4.57 5.29 5.32 4.89
Tajikistan 3.24 3.19 3.12 4.56 4.60 4.10 5.16 5.17 5.01 3.54 3.48 3.35 3.51 3.51 3.10 3.51 3.59 3.06
Turkmenistan 2.92 2.92 3.12 2.75 2.71 2.69 4.46 4.46 4.52 3.75 3.71 3.55 3.14 3.13 3.10 3.88 3.97 3.99
Uzbekistan 3.52 3.50 3.14 4.85 4.86 4.60 5.24 5.25 4.72 3.91 3.83 3.63 3.88 3.83 3.45 4.73 4.68 3.82
Southern and eastern Mediterranean
Egypt 3.36 3.25 3.41 5.44 5.54 4.77 4.73 4.73 4.24 3.72 3.73 3.71 4.77 4.76 4.33 5.12 5.27 4.57
Jordan 4.33 4.32 4.31 5.97 5.90 5.95 5.03 5.03 5.25 4.32 4.38 3.98 5.34 5.34 4.93 5.36 5.36 5.72
Lebanon 3.77 3.79 3.89 3.51 3.57 3.92 4.75 4.75 4.70 3.96 3.67 4.01 3.18 3.18 4.25 4.93 4.86 5.08
Morocco 3.79 3.80 3.69 5.67 5.82 5.44 5.08 5.10 5.04 4.19 4.19 3.97 5.17 5.17 4.95 4.95 4.94 4.77
Tunisia 3.83 3.83 3.77 4.72 4.89 5.09 4.62 4.62 4.42 4.38 4.38 4.29 4.64 4.64 4.24 4.69 4.69 4.39
West Bank and Gaza 2.99 3.00 2.84 3.81 3.90 3.75 4.14 4.14 3.91 3.21 3.21 3.39 4.12 4.12 3.84 4.07 4.03 3.85
Advanced comparators
Canada 6.67 6.44 6.70 8.71 8.72 9.02 6.93 6.92 6.34 8.15 8.11 8.07 8.17 8.18 8.06 7.14 7.01 7.14
Cyprus 5.71 5.69 6.10 7.29 7.42 7.09 6.78 6.54 5.82 7.27 7.29 6.99 6.03 6.02 5.40 7.46 7.74 7.25
France 6.86 6.86 7.02 8.68 8.69 8.97 7.78 7.53 7.64 8.53 8.51 8.36 8.38 8.35 8.31 7.89 7.94 7.71
Germany 6.79 6.76 6.74 8.34 8.35 8.21 7.30 7.05 7.21 8.14 8.12 8.04 8.29 8.29 8.18 7.86 7.73 7.47
Japan 7.27 7.29 7.23 9.11 9.12 9.32 7.78 7.54 7.61 8.59 8.62 8.51 8.07 8.02 7.88 7.58 7.69 7.70
Sweden 7.66 7.77 7.77 8.66 8.69 9.11 7.34 7.10 7.12 8.19 7.99 8.19 8.25 8.24 8.12 7.59 7.94 7.81
United Kingdom 6.51 6.55 6.54 8.75 8.77 8.68 7.18 7.17 7.14 8.18 8.18 7.96 7.71 7.71 7.75 6.76 6.95 6.81
United States of America 7.38 7.26 7.49 8.71 8.73 8.75 5.92 5.69 6.40 7.93 7.96 7.81 9.02 8.99 8.92 6.87 6.95 7.08
Other comparators
Bangladesh 3.37 3.39 3.33 5.65 5.74 5.53 3.77 3.77 3.73 3.30 3.20 3.15 5.94 5.95 5.66 3.94 3.95 3.88
Belarus 4.33 4.31 4.02 4.55 4.79 4.60 5.54 5.48 5.40 6.02 5.98 6.06 3.67 3.67 3.49 5.62 5.59 5.05
Brazil 4.36 4.29 4.18 5.84 5.87 5.89 5.38 5.36 5.36 5.05 4.98 5.10 6.30 6.33 6.02 4.79 4.63 4.53
Colombia 4.09 4.25 4.02 6.08 6.20 6.22 5.36 5.35 5.22 4.56 4.54 4.60 6.18 6.28 5.97 5.22 5.23 4.93
Mexico 4.42 4.47 4.29 6.09 6.16 6.21 5.40 5.38 5.26 4.59 4.57 4.45 6.24 6.26 5.89 5.49 5.60 5.46
Russia 4.81 4.86 4.75 5.52 5.69 5.38 5.61 5.61 5.04 5.48 5.52 5.36 6.27 6.30 5.93 4.78 4.98 5.01
South Africa 5.04 5.01 4.92 6.94 6.90 6.58 4.92 4.87 4.61 4.67 4.62 4.46 6.03 6.05 5.80 5.79 5.72 5.31
Thailand 5.44 5.34 5.41 7.30 7.42 7.87 4.19 4.25 4.32 4.21 4.16 4.21 5.87 5.88 5.41 5.34 5.24 5.49

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. Scores for years prior to 2023 have been updated following methodological changes, so they may differ from those published in previous Transition Reports. Owing to lags in the availability of underlying data, ATQ scores for 2023 and 2022 may not fully correspond to developments in those calendar years.

Changes to scores since 2016

Competitiveness

Competitiveness scores have improved modestly in many economies in the EBRD regions over the last year, with notable increases being observed in Egypt, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and North Macedonia. This is primarily a result of further incremental improvements in labour productivity and the quality of logistics services. Meanwhile, minor deteriorations have been recorded in the Czech Republic and the Kyrgyz Republic, driven mainly by declines in labour productivity and a reduction in exports of advanced business services (including information, telecommunication and financial services).

Over the period 2016-23, the most significant improvements in competitiveness have been observed in the EEC region, the SEE region and Uzbekistan, driven mainly by a rise in the number of new businesses (as a proportion of the total population), improved logistics services, better access to finance for SMEs, improved skills, higher labour productivity and greater sophistication of service exports. In contrast, Greece’s competitiveness score has fallen significantly, reflecting a decline in credit to the private sector as a percentage of GDP, a fall in labour productivity and an increase in government spending on subsidies. Similarly, the decline in Mongolia’s score reflects a significant increase in government subsidies, a rise in tariff rates and a decline in credit to the private sector.

Overall, significant gaps continue to be observed vis-à-vis more advanced comparators in terms of competitiveness, with more pronounced gaps being seen in Central Asia and the SEMED region. Those gaps tend to be larger when it comes 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.

Read more Collapse text

Governance

Governance scores, in contrast, have mostly deteriorated over the last year. Declines have been driven mainly by reduced compliance with standards aimed at tackling money laundering and the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT standards), the erosion of press freedom and increases in perceived corruption. There have been a few exceptions, however – notably Latvia and Moldova, where the use of e-government services has increased.

Over the period 2016-23, notable improvements have been observed in Armenia, Egypt, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova. Armenia has seen advances in the provision of public services online, perceptions of corruption, the framework for challenging regulations, judicial independence and the protection of property rights. In Egypt, the improvements relate to perceptions of political stability, corruption and the effectiveness of the courts. In Latvia and Lithuania, improved scores reflect the strengthening of corporate governance as regards internal control, transparency, disclosure and the composition of boards. And in Moldova, improvements relate to the roll-out of e-government services, a decline in perceived corruption, less burdensome regulations, greater transparency and the enhancement of corporate disclosure standards. At the same time, notable deteriorations have been observed in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, Mongolia and Poland, although in the case of Poland this decline has been from a higher score relative to the other four countries. Those deteriorations primarily reflect declines in indicators measuring the effectiveness of the courts and judicial independence (in Poland, for instance),2 informality, perceived corruption, media freedom (in Lebanon and Mongolia), frameworks for challenging regulations and transparency regarding budgets.

Overall, gaps persist relative to advanced comparators when it comes to the protection of intellectual property rights, corruption, the rule of law, the effectiveness of government policymaking, and transparency and disclosure standards, especially in Central Asia.

Read more Collapse text

Green economy

Green scores have improved somewhat over the last year, reflecting increased production of renewable energy in many economies in emerging Europe, greater protection of land and maritime areas, and a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies in the CEB region. Meanwhile, small declines have been observed in Georgia, Kosovo, the Kyrgyz Republic and Morocco, driven by increases in fossil fuel subsidies and a reduction in the production of renewable energy.

Over the period 2016-23, green scores have improved in almost all economies in the EBRD regions. Those improvements have been driven mainly by reduced emissions from agriculture and the heating of buildings (notably in Bulgaria and North Macedonia), greater uptake of renewable energy, and more ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs) aimed at meeting the targets set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change. The most significant improvements have been observed in Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Latvia and North Macedonia, driven by stronger commitments in intended NDCs, the inclusion of adaptation considerations in NDCs, progress on a fair transition and increased production of renewable energy (with the exception of Croatia and North Macedonia). At the same time, Jordan’s green score has declined on account of a failure to comply with the latest guidance on best practices for carbon-pricing mechanisms, a reduction in the size of its maritime conservation area and increases in greenhouse gas emissions from transport and industrial activities.

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.

Read more Collapse text

Inclusion

Over the last year, inclusion scores have improved in many economies – particularly Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lebanon, Lithuania and Mongolia. Those improvements have mainly been due to increased labour force participation (including for women), declines in the percentage of young people who are not in employment, education or training, and increases in the quality of trade and transport infrastructure. In Lebanon and Mongolia, those better scores have been driven mainly by the greater affordability of fixed broadband.

In contrast, notable deteriorations have been recorded in Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Jordan and Türkiye, driven primarily by the reduced affordability of fixed broadband services. In Jordan and Türkiye, those declines also stem from the worsening of national frameworks for ensuring equal treatment and preventing discrimination.

Over the period 2016-23, nearly all economies in the EBRD regions have improved their inclusion scores, with the most significant improvements being seen in Albania, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Mongolia and Montenegro. In Albania and Montenegro, those increases have been driven primarily by greater access to internet services and digital skills. In Estonia and Latvia, they stem from improved access to training through employment, greater financial inclusion and improvements in the quality of transport-related services. In Kazakhstan and Mongolia, improvements in inclusion scores reflect greater financial inclusion, a decline in the cost of fixed broadband and increased social spending, with Mongolia also seeing the adoption of legislation aimed at improving opportunities for women.

Only Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza have seen their inclusion scores fall over the period 2016-23. In Lebanon, the level of financial inclusion has continued to decline against the backdrop of the country’s deep economic and financial crisis. In the West Bank and Gaza, new legislation has allowed for gender-based discrimination, while the quality of trade and transport infrastructure has declined. The gender gap in labour force participation has also widened, and the percentage of the population with standard ICT skills has declined.

Economies across the EBRD regions lag behind advanced economies when it comes to financial inclusion, penetration levels for standard ICT skills, access to affordable fixed broadband and attitudes regarding the role of women in the economy.

Read more Collapse text

Resilience

ATQ scores for resilience cover issues pertaining to (i) energy security and (ii) financial stability. Energy resilience scores have only changed very modestly over the last year, with the exception of Ukraine (where the operations of the state-owned gas company have been negatively impacted by the war).

Financial resilience scores have improved in most economies in the EBRD regions over the past 12 months, with notable improvements being observed in Estonia, Greece, the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova. Those improvements have been driven mainly by higher capital adequacy ratios (in Greece, the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova), increased provisioning for NPLs (in Estonia, Greece and Moldova) and lower NPL ratios (in Greece). At the same time, financial resilience scores have fallen in Azerbaijan and Ukraine. In Azerbaijan, this is a result of reduced provisioning for NPLs, an increase in the percentage of total loans that are denominated in foreign currency and a decline in capital adequacy ratios. In Ukraine, it stems from an increase in NPL ratios, reduced provisioning for NPLs and a decline in the return on assets.

Over the period 2016-23, marked improvements in energy resilience have been observed in Croatia, Estonia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. In Croatia, higher scores reflect the diversification of gas supplies, while Ukraine has undertaken various reforms in its gas sector (including the unbundling of the state owned gas company). In Uzbekistan, those increased scores reflect continued efforts to improve the regulatory environment and the unbundling of the power sector. At the same time, declines have been observed in the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova, where necessary reforms in the energy sector have been delayed.

Notable increases in financial resilience have been observed in Armenia, Georgia and Moldova over the period 2016-23, reflecting improved provisioning for NPLs, lower NPL ratios, declines in the percentages of loans denominated in foreign currency, increases in the activities of non-bank financial institutions, and improvements to legal and regulatory frameworks governing the banking sector. In Georgia, those improved scores also reflect the upgrading of capital market infrastructure. In Lebanon and Türkiye, meanwhile, financial resilience scores have fallen. In Lebanon, this stems from lower levels of liquidity in the financial system, greater market concentration, a sharp increase in NPLs, and the reversal of earlier reforms to regulatory frameworks and banking supervision. In Türkiye, the decline in the financial resilience score stems mainly from greater concentration in the banking sector, a fall in credit to the private sector as a percentage of GDP and a decline in the assets of non-bank financial institutions as a proportion of GDP.

Gaps between the EBRD regions and higher-income economies in terms of financial stability stem from the lower levels of development in money markets and local capital markets (as reflected in the absence of money market benchmarks, the relative lack of bond issuance in local currencies by financial institutions and firms, and lower levels of activity by non-bank financial institutions).

Read more Collapse text

Integration

Over the last year, integration scores have increased significantly in Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and North Macedonia, driven mainly by improvements in the quality of transport and logistics services. In contrast, notable deteriorations have been seen in Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. In Azerbaijan, that lower score reflects a decline in FDI inflows as a percentage of GDP. In the Czech Republic and Kazakhstan, lower scores reflect deterioration in the quality of transport and logistics services and a reduction in portfolio inflows (with the Czech Republic’s integration score remaining relatively high, despite that recent downward adjustment). In Egypt, portfolio inflows have declined, while the price of mobile broadband has increased. And in Ukraine, transport and trade infrastructure have been adversely impacted by the war, as have trade volumes.

Most economies in the EBRD regions have improved their integration scores over 2016-23. The largest improvements have been seen in Greece, North Macedonia and Uzbekistan, driven by better mobile and fixed broadband coverage, improvements in the quality of transport and logistics services, and increased trade volumes. In Greece and Uzbekistan, those increased scores also reflect greater financial openness and larger portfolio inflows. The most notable deteriorations have been observed in Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic and Jordan. In Azerbaijan and the Czech Republic, those deteriorations mostly reflect developments over the last year, as described above. In Jordan, the conditions for international trade and direct investment have worsened, as have logistics services.

Economies in the EBRD regions continue to lag behind advanced comparators in this area, especially when it comes to transport and logistics services, the quality of transport infrastructure and electricity. In most Central Asian economies, there are also significant gaps in the area of digital infrastructure, especially when it comes to mobile internet coverage.

Read more Collapse text

References

WEF (2016)
The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017, Geneva.

WEF (2019)
The Global Competitiveness Report 2019, Geneva.

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 is 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.

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 0.85 17.89
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, 2020 Estonia 19.43 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
Share of advance business services  in services exports [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 82.01 6.55
Capacity to generate value added [50%] Economic Complexity Index [14%] Harvard, Centre for International Development, 2019 Japan 2.27 -1.67
Knowledge economy index (KEI) adjusted (1 = worst, 10 = best) [14%] EBRD assessment, 2019 Sweden 8.02 1.92
WB 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 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 84.37 42.90
Labour productivity (output per worker, GDP in constant 2011 int. US$ PPP) [14%] ILOSTAT, WDI, 2022 United States 112,078.29 12,136.45
Credit to private sector b (per cent of GDP) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2021 Canada* 100.00 10.34
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, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 1.76 -2.10
Government effectiveness (-2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [13%] World Bank Governance Indicators, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 1.70 -1.29
Budget transparency (1 = worst, 7 = best) [6%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 92.31 3.00
Private property protection  (1 = worst, 7 = best) [6%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan 6.21 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 4.83 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, 2019 Sweden 1.03 -2.01
Political and operational stability [4%] Global Innovation Index, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 91.10 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, 2023 Sweden 87.84 8.82
E-government participation [7%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 Japan 0.99 0.07
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, 2023 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, 2022 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 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 5.35 1.86
Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regulations (1 = worst, 7 = best) [22%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 5.04 1.79
Rule of law (-2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [22%] World Bank Governance Indicators, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 1.75 -1.48
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 Serbia* 3.55 1.34
Transparency and disclosure [10%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019 Lithuania* 4.57 1.41
Internal control [20%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019 Lithuania* 4.03 1.33
Rights of shareholders [20%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019 Latvia* 4.15 1.99
Stakeholders and institutions [20%] EBRD LTT Corporate Governance Assessment, 2019 Estonia* 4.13 0.98
Strength of auditing and reporting standards (1 = worst, 7 = best) [10%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 5.97 3.33
GREEN
Components Sub-components Indicators Source Frontier economy Frontier value Worst performance
Mitigation [35%] Physical indicators [37%] Electricity production from renewable sources, including hydroelectric (per cent of total) [17%] World Bank, International Energy Agency (IEA), 2022 Albania 0.97 0.00
Value added from industry (construction, manufacturing, mining, electricity, water and gas)  per unit of CO2 emissions from industry (GVA (US$)/total CO2) [17%] World Bank, IEA, 2020 Sweden 47,005.28 513.44
MWh consumed per tonne of CO2 emitted from electricity and heat generation (MWh/total CO2) [17%] World Bank, IEA, 2020 Albania 34.36 0.49
GDP per tonne of CO2 emitted from residential buildings (from fuel combustion) (GDP(US$)/total CO2) [17%] World Bank, IEA, 2020 Sweden 260,431.65 1,314.96
Number of registered vehicles per tonne of CO2 emitted from transport [17%] World Health Organization (WHO), IEA, 2016 Turkmenistan 9.32 1.46
Agricultural sector GVA per tonne of GHG emissions from agriculture (GVA (US$) / total CO2eq) [17%] World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2020 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 2,516.34 43.02
Structural indicators [63%] Market support mechanism for renewable energy production (0 = no support, 0.5 = regulatory support, 1 = revenue support) [20%] IEA, 2022 Canada* 1.00 0.00
INDC rating (0 for no INDC. 0.5 for INDC but not ratified. 1 for ratified INDC) [20%] World Resources Institute (WRI), CAIT, 2022 Canada* 1.00 0.00
Carbon price (0 = worst, 1 = best) [20%] World Bank, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 1.00 0.00
Fossil fuel subsidies (per cent of GDP) a [20%] IMF, 2022 Sweden -0.28 -45.49
Just Transition Plan [20%] EBRD assessment, 2021 Germany 1.00 0.00
Adaptation [30%] Physical indicators [45%] NDGAIN human habitat score a [25%] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, 2019 Egypt -0.34 -0.63
Aqueduct water stress index a [25%] WRI, 2019 Croatia -0.18 -4.82
NDGAIN projected change in cereal yield a [25%] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, 2019 Canada* 0.00 -0.98
Number of people affected by droughts,  extreme temperatures, floods and wildfires in the last 10 years  a (per 100,000 people ) [25%] EM-DAT database, 2022 Jordan -6.42 -866,271.76
Structural indicators [55%] NDGAIN agricultural capacity a [20%] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, 2019 Uzbekistan* -0.13 -0.99
World Governance Indicators: Institutional Quality ( -2.5 = worst, 2.5 = best) [40%] World Bank, World Governance Indicators, 2019 Sweden* 1.82 -1.61
Adaptation in INDCs (1 = there is a National Adaptation Plan, 0.5 = adaption is mentioned in INDCs, 0 = none of the above) [40%] CGSpace, CGIAR, 2022 Czech Republic* 1.00 0.00
Other environmental areas [30%] Physical indicators [37%] Population weighted mean annual exposure to PM2.5 a [22%] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019 Estonia* 5.95 88.21
Waste intensive consumption (kg municipal solid waste/US$ 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 (per cent of total generated) [34%] Waste Atlas, 2015 Czech Republic* 100.00 20.00
Proportion of terrestrial protected area (per cent of total area) [16%] World Bank, 2022 Bulgaria 40.59 0.22
Proportion of marine protected areas (per cent of total area) [16%] World Bank, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 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, 2023 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 70.33 38.94
Labour force participation rate (gap women/men) [11%] ILOSTAT, modelled estimates, 2023 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 1.00 0.21
Output per worker (GDP constant 2017 international $ in PPP) [11%] ILOSTAT, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 131,111.92 12,136.45
Youth not in education, employment or training (% of youth population) a [11%] ILOSTAT, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 2.97 38.44
Human Capital Index [11%] World Bank, WDI, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 0.84 0.41
Firms offering formal training to employees (% firms) [11%] World Bank, WDI, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 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 2023 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 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 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 79.74 0.12
Borrowing from financial institutions (% of population aged 15+)  [14%] World Bank FINDEX, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 82.83 0.84
Fixed broadband subscriptions (% of population) [14%] ITU, 2021 France 48.76 0.06
Cost of a 5GB fixed broadband basket (% GNI per capita) a [14%] ITU, 2021 Croatia 2.00 -12.08
Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 4.44 1.90
Using safely managed drinking water services (% of population) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2020 Greece 100.00 28.64
Using safely managed sanitation services (% population) [14%] World Bank, WDI, 2020 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 98.31 12.18
Policies and norms [33%] Social benefit spending by the government (% of GDP) [20%] IMF IFS, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 28.75 2.50
Equal treatment and absence of discrimination [20%] World Justice Project, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 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, 2022 Estonia* 0.67 0.00
Fostering private-sector participation  (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [33%] EBRD assessment, 2022 United States* 0.67 0.00
Tariff reform (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [33%] EBRD assessment, 2022 Czech Republic* 0.67 0.00
System connectivity [20%] Domestic connectivity (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [35%] EBRD assessment, 2022 Czech Republic* 0.67 0.09
Inter-country connectivity (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [65%] EBRD assessment, 2022 Germany* 0.67 0.00
Regulation and legal framework [30%] Development of an adequate legal framework (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [50%] EBRD assessment, 2022 Czech Republic* 0.67 0.00
Establishment of an empowered independent energy regulator (0 = worst, 0.67 = best) [50%] EBRD assessment, 2022 Czech Republic* 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, 2022 Moldova* 0.28 0.06
Return on assets [9%] IMF FSI, IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, National Authorities, Fitch Ratings’ Sovereign Data Comparator, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2022 Türkiye 4.20 -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, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 1.00 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, 2022 Canada* 0.50 54.82
Loan loss reserves to NPLs (Provisions to NPLs) b [9%] IMF FSI, IHS Markit, National Authorities, EBRD FI Risk Reports, 2022 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 0.00
Financial sector assets c (per cent of GDP) [9%] IMF FSI, EBRD, Internal Sovereign Risk Report, Bank Focus, National Authorities, IHS Markit, 2021 Albania 100.00 28.00
Credit to private sector c (per cent of GDP) [9%] World Bank GFDD, S&P BICRA, IMF Article IV, WDI, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 80.00 4.02
Foreign currency-denominated loans a (per cent of total loans) [9%] IMF FSI, IMF Article IV, IHS Markit, National Authorities, 2022 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, 2022 United States* 241.80 15.54
Alternative sources of financing [32%] Other financial corporation’s  assets b (per cent of GDP) [14%] IMF FSI, World Bank GFDD, IMF Article IV, National Authorities, EBRD FI Risk Overview, IMF FSSA, AFDB, 2022 Canada* 100.00 0.32
Legal environment for financial transactions [14%] ISDA, ICMA, 2020 United States* 2.50 0.00
Capital market infrastructure [14%] EBRD assessment, 2020 United States* 1.00 0.00
Investor base [14%] OECD, IMF, Bloomberg, Swiss RE, WEF, IMF, ECB, S&P (SNL), 2020 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 0.92 0.00
Market capitalisation b [5%] WEF, IMF, Bloomberg, local stock exchanges, 2020 United States* 100.00 0.00
Trading to market cap b [5%] WEF, IMF, Bloomberg, local stock exchanges, 2020 United States* 100.00 0.00
IPO b [5%] WEF, IMF, Bloomberg, local stock exchanges, 2020 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 0.10 0.00
FI debt b [4%] Cbonds, IMF, 2020 United States* 0.10 0.00
Non-FI debt b [4%] Cbonds, IMF, 2020 United States* 0.15 0.00
Debt diversity [7%] Vanguard Investment, ICMA, 2020 United States 7.00 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 Czech Republic* 10.00 1.00
Do the banks have good risk management and corporate governance practices? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czech Republic* 10.00 1.00
Is there an adequate legal and regulatory framework in place? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czech Republic* 10.00 1.00
Is the supervisory body independent and competent? (1 = worst, 10 = best) [25%] EBRD assessment, 2020 Czech Republic* 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 (per cent of GDP, five-year moving average) [50%] World Bank, WDI, 2022 Slovak Republic 186.08 25.26
Number of Regional Trade Agreements [17%] World Trade Organization (WTO), 2022 Czech Republic 46.00 1.00
Binding overhang ratio a, b (%) [17%] WTO, 2021 Germany* 0.00 142.30
Number of non-tariff measures a [17%] WTO, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 0.00 -5,439.00
Investment openness [33%] FDI net inflows  (per cent of GDP, five-year moving average) [50%] IMF, International Investment Position Statistics, 2022 Hungary* 0.10 -0.01
Number of bilateral investment agreements [25%] UNCTAD, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 183.00 8.00
FDI Restrictiveness indicator a [25%] OECD, 2020 Slovenia 0.01 0.29
Portfolio openness [33%] Non-FDI inflows (per cent of GDP, five-year moving average) [50%] IMF, International Investment Position Statistics, 2022 Cyprus 0.06 -0.02
Financial openness index (Chinn-Ito) [50%] Chinn-Ito webpage, 2020 United States* 2.31 -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 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 4.31 1.96
Tracking and tracing of consignments (1 = worst, 5 = best) [13%] World Bank, LPI database, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 4.38 1.84
Timeliness of shipments (1 = worst, 5 = best) [13%] World Bank, LPI database, 2022 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 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 -1.70
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 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 4.14 1.95
Cost of trading across borders [50%] ESCAP – World Bank trade cost database, 2020 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 107.97 392.08
Energy and ICT [33%] Quality of electricity supply (1 = worst, 7 = best) [25%] WEF Global Competitiveness Index, 2017 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 6.78 1.65
Electric power transmission and distribution losses as percentage of domestic supply a [25%] IEA, 2019 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 2.34 23.73
Broadband subscription (per 100 habitants) [13%] ITU, 2021 France 48.76 0.06
Number of internet users (per cent of population) [13%] ITU, 2021 No economy was at the frontier in 2023 96.97 19.80
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, 2022 Lithuania 0.07 3.73
International internet bandwidth per internet user [6%] ITU, 2021 Bulgaria* 336,635.01 0.00
4G coverage (per cent of population) [6%] ITU, 2021 Poland* 100.00 80.00
* Additional economies are at the frontier. Further information is available on request.
a Inverted before normalisation.
b Capped at frontier.
c Mirrored from frontier.