Goals of the Model
The goal of the model is to provide information about the position of individual regions in all (in the author’s opinion) areas of their development. The model compares not only the regions’ present performance, but also factors in their potential further development, i.e., the dynamic component of the development of the indicators selected. The author strove to create a model that would offer maximum simplicity, flexibility, and universality, which could be adapted as required, with indicators being added or subtracted.
The Comparative Method
The model compares the PERFORMANCE component of the given indicator, i.e., the condition and position of a region in the last known year (in certain cases, the indicator average since 2000 has been used). The performance component is displayed on axis x. Axis y displays the DYNAMIC component of the indicator, i.e., the index of the growth or decline of the given indicator from the time the regions were established, i.e., 2000, until the last known period (in certain cases, again the indicator average since 2000 was used). With each indicator, the regions are ordered from the worst to the best in both components, and the relevant order is attributed to them in graphs, for the sake of clarity, i.e., ranking No. 14 means the best of regions, and No. 1 the worst. On the overall rating for all indicators, the average of all ranks is used, and all indicators are given equal value. The position of a particular region with regard to other regions is important when displayed in graphs. The higher a region is placed, the higher development dynamics it displays, and vice versa. A position on the right means a high current level of performance, whereas on the left, on the other hand, means a low level of performance relative to other regions. The methodology chosen is based on the publication of Jaroslav Kahoun “Ukazatele regionální konkurenceschopnosti v ČR” (Indicators of Regional Competitiveness in the Czech Republic).
The Indicators Selected
Those indicators for which there is a demonstrable time-line since 2000, and for which the regional reporting value is not too distorted, have been included in the model. The issue is not the absolute value of any of the indicators, but, rather, a comparison of regions amongst themselves or to the national average.