The Selected Topics for Comparison in Visegrad Four Countries

economies

Article The Selected Topics for Comparison in Visegrad Four Countries

Anna Kowalska 1, Jaroslav Kovarnik 2,*, Eva Hamplova 2 and Pavel Prazak 2

1 Wrocław University of Economics, Komandorska Street 118/120, 53345 Wrocław, Poland; [email protected] 2 University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanskeho 62, 50003 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic; [email protected] (E.H.); [email protected] (P.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +420-493-332-363

Received: 30 June 2018; Accepted: 28 August 2018; Published: 17 September 2018

Abstract: Visegrad Group is a group of four countries in Central Europe, namely the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary. These countries share not only a similar history, but also similar economic development (measured for example by Gross Domestic Product (GDP)) and geo-political ideas. Nowadays, the economic development of every country and its competitiveness on the world market is supported by the creation of innovation (knowledge-based economy), especially from an Industry 4.0 point of view. The aim of this article is to compare the Visegrad Four (V4) from different perspectives. Firstly, the comparison of GPD development is done, next the analysis of foreign trade. The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of changes in innovativeness and competitiveness of the V4 economies over a period of 5 years. The Global Innovation Index (GII) shows the level of innovation of most countries in the world. Reports publishing GII were established thanks to the cooperation of Cornwall University with INSEAD (fr. Institut européen d'administration des affaires) Business School and World Intellectual Property Organization. The Summary Innovation Index (SII) was used in the European Innovation Scoreboard, as well as the Global Competitiveness Report and Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). The analysis shows that all members of V4 are so called moderate innovators. The Czech Republic begins to diverge from other member states in terms of SII, GII and it has been increasing its GCI as well. Poland occupies one of the last positions in the V4 innovation ranking, where Hungary was the weakest in terms of competitiveness in 2016. However, the mutual connection between GDP and above mentioned indexes shows relatively surprising results.

Keywords: GDP; foreign trade; competitiveness; innovation; Visegrad Group

JEL Classiﬁcation: F43; O52

1. Introduction The economic development of every country can be analysed from different perspectives, but one of the most frequently used indicators is Gross Domestic Product. However, this indicator can give somewhat confusing data. For example, traditional oil exporters have relatively high levels of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but other aspects of life in these countries are usually not so great. Therefore, it is also recommended to compare different aspects of economic development, such as foreign trade (see for example Vannoorenberghe 2014), and other factors such as innovativeness and competitiveness. Innovativeness and competitiveness are frequently used terms in today’s globalized world, especially in the context of the upcoming Fourth Industrial Revolution, generally called Industry 4.0. This revolution puts more pressure on companies that must adapt their approaches to managing

Economies 2018, 6, 50; doi:10.3390/economies6030050 www.mdpi.com/journal/economies Economies 2018, 6, 50 2 of 15 operational processes. For this, innovativeness and competitiveness are very important. Both terms have been analyzed by many researchers, from different points of view; see for example (Despottovićet al. 2014; Gibson and Naquin 2011; Olszańskaet al. 2017; Özcelik and Taymaz 2004). Despite this fact, there exist no universal definitions of these terms. As far as innovativeness is concerned, it can be defined as an ability of the country to produce and commercialize goods and services by using new knowledge and skills. Knowledge is the most comprehensive resource when it comes to developing wealth. Knowledge is dynamic, since it is created in social interactions amongst individuals and organizations (Grzybowska and Łupicka 2016). Another definition claims that innovativeness focuses on the potential of the country to create, improve and use innovations with the purpose of generating economic value. It is quite obvious that these definitions are not same, but they are very similar and both of them emphasize the fact that innovativeness supports economic growth. Innovativeness can be measured using several different tools, where one of the relatively frequently used is the Summary Innovation Index (SII). The phenomenon of competitiveness is even more confusing. In simple terms, it can be explained as the effort of a country to be competitive in the world market (Kowalska 2016; Tarnowska 2014). However, there is still no generally accepted definition of such competitiveness; moreover, some authors have an opinion that the concept of macro-competitiveness does not exist. Despite such debate concerning the definition of competitiveness, it is estimated that there exists more than a hundred different forms of indicators for quantifying this phenomenon. One of them is the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). The aim of this article is to compare the Visegrad Four countries in terms of GDP and foreign trade, but also in terms of the innovativeness and competitiveness of the economies these countries using the SII and GCI indicators and to show the changes that have taken place in this regard in 2011–2016 (Despottovićet al. 2014).

2. Methodology Many authors of scientific publications compare different criterion in different countries with the aim of discovering mutual consistency, to identify differences, and to infer conclusions about possible future tendencies in global economy development. For example, using the Central and Eastern European model of capitalism, Farkas(2017) compares the market economies of the Western Balkan countries to the post-socialist European Union member states. It analyses the main institutional areas of a socio-economic system, such as product markets, innovation system, financial system, labor market and industrial relations, social protection and the educational system. Fagerberg et al.(2007) outline a synthetic framework, based on Schumpeterian logic, for analysing the question why do some countries perform much better than other countries. Four different aspects of competitiveness were identified: technology, capacity, demand, and price. The contribution of the paper was particularly to highlight the three first aspects, which often tend to be ignored because of measurement problems. The empirical analysis, based on a sample of 90 countries on different levels of development from 1980–2002, demonstrated the relevance of technology, capacity, and demand competitiveness for growth and development. Price competitiveness seemed generally to be of lesser importance. Since the collapse of state socialism in the late 1980s, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and the Slovak Republic have introduced a rather successful model of capitalism when compared with other post-socialist states. The article by Nölke and Vliegenthart(2009) identifies the key elements of the Dependent Market Economy (DME) model and discusses their interplay. DMEs have comparative advantages in the assembly and production of relatively complex and durable consumer goods. These comparative advantages are based on institutional complementarities between skilled, but cheap, labor; the transfer of technological innovations within transnational enterprises; and the provision of capital via foreign direct investment. Increased openness has also resulted in a growing inflow of FDI, both as a result of large-scale privatization programs and green-field investment by Cernat(2006). Authors Blanke and Hoffmann(2008) outline the five pillars of an upcoming European social model, although they deny Economies 2018, 6, 50 3 of 15 the existence of a closed system of social and economic regulatory mechanisms designed to correct the operation of markets. Yet, what exists in all western European member states is a comparatively high level of welfare state protection, and, at the European level, a certain number of elements for the development of a specific welfare state framework has been established. The authors of this article evaluate macroeconomic indicators as categories related to the economic power of each analysed country. One of the most important indicators is foreign trade with goods and services, and its influence on global economic development of the Visegrad Four (V4) countries. An inseparable part of comparative analysis is the innovative potential of the analysed countries, where this potential is evaluated with the change of the Global Innovative Index (GII), and by the change of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). The analysis of GDP development has been done through comparative analysis of this indicator. Consequently, the comparative analysis of foreign trade has been done, where foreign trade with goods and with services has been analysed separately, because foreign trade is the part of GDP formula in an open economy, and it can either contribute to GDP or worsen it. Moreover, the comparison of these macroeconomic indicators from the V4 countries has been done through point rating. Every economy can get the number of points given by the formula:

x − x y = min ·100 (1) xmax − xmin where y means the number of points, x presents the value of each macroeconomic indicator for every year and every country, xmin is minimal value of this indicator from all countries and the whole analysed period, and finally xmax is the maximum one. Immediately from (1) it is clear that y ∈ [0, 100] the value for the worst result of x is y = 0, and the value for the best result of x is y = 0. The coefficient y is computed by one of the possible data transformation methods called nonmetric scaling; more details can be found in (James 2016). The analysis of innovativeness of V4 economies was based on Global Innovation Index reports presented by Cornwall University, INSEAD Business School and World Intellectual Property Organization. In addition, European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) reports designed by the European Commission and the University of Maastricht were used. The Global Innovation Index was established in 2007. It is the average of 82 factors belonging to two groups: 1. Factors describing an environment conducive to innovation, called the “contribution of innovation”, i.e., institutions, human potential, infrastructure, market development and development and quality of business operations. 2. Results measuring specific achievements in the field of innovation, referred to as “innovation results”, i.e., scientific results and creative processes. The value of this indicator since 2011 is in the range of 0–100 (where 100 means the highest possible level of innovation) (Kowalska and Tarnowska 2017). The Summary Innovation Index (SII) consists of 27 indicators, divided into ten dimensions (i.e., human resources, attractive research, innovation-friendly environment, finance and support, enterprises, innovations, connections, intellectual assets, impact on employment and economic effects). These dimensions were assigned to one of four groups (framework conditions, investments, innovation activities and impact). The SII index is in the range of 0–1 (where 1 is the highest level of innovation) (European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)(2017)). The competitiveness of the economies of the Visegrad Group was determined using the Global Competitiveness Indicator (GCI) presented by World Economic Forum (WEF) in the World Competitiveness reports. Currently, the GCI index includes 114 indicators grouped in 12 pillars (i.e., institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and basic education, labor market effectiveness, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business advancement and innovation). The GCI methodology takes into account the differences in the economic Economies 2018, 6, 50 4 of 15 progress of the analysed countries. The 12 pillars have been divided between the three stages of development, i.e., driven by factors, driven by efficiency and driven by innovation. (Schwab 2010). Some drawings and tables in this study contain, instead of the names of individual countries, the symbol for each: for the Czech Republic (CZ), for Hungary (H), for Poland (PL), for Slovakia (SK).

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Visegrad Four Countries The countries of the Visegrad Group, or Visegrad Four, namely the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, can be found in Central Europe. These countries share a similar history, where all of them were on the east side of the Iron Curtain, which means under the inﬂuence of the Soviet Union. All countries went through transformation in the 1990s, and all countries also joined the European Union together in 2004. Nowadays, these countries share some similar opinions, for example, in terms of the migration crisis. Because of the common history, these countries established the Visegrad Group in 1991 and have been cooperating together, even before they joined the EU. After their entrance in to the EU, they have still have been cooperating, with greater or lesser success, not only in general ways, but also in the ﬁeld of the EU.

3.2. The Analysis of GDP Development Based on the fact that the Czech Republic has currently around 10.5 billion inhabitants, Hungary around 9.8 billion, Slovakia around 5.4 billion, and Poland almost 38 billion, it is quite obvious that the level of GDP in billions of Euro is the highest in Poland, next in the Czech Republic, in Hungary, and then Slovakia last. However, it is better to use the level of GDP per capita for comparison. According to this, the highest level is the Czech Republic, Slovakia is second, Hungary is currently in third place, and Poland is last. With respect to this information, it is good to add one interesting fact. Even if the development in the number of inhabitants in each country has not been steady, this number grew in the Czech Republic, and Slovakia (comparison of the number of inhabitants in the years 2000 and 2016), while in Hungary and Poland it dropped (all calculations have been made by authors based on data from Eurostat 2017b). Deep analysis of GDP development shows that in all analysed countries, GDP had a signiﬁcant decrease in the year 2009 (both in absolute value and in per capita) as a result of the global economic crisis. However, the after-crisis development is different. The Czech Republic was growing between 2009–2011, it was decreasing between 2011–2014, and it has been growing again since 2014. Moreover, it managed to exceed its pre-crisis value in the year 2011. Poland was last in 2008, it has been growing between 2009 and 2015, it exceeded its pre-crisis value in the year 2011, but it exceeded Hungary in 2012. However, it has dropped in 2016, where Hungary overtook Poland again. Hungary has been growing since 2009, with one exception in 2012. It was third before the crisis and it is now third again, since 2016. Slovakia has been growing since 2009, and it has managed to exceed its pre-crisis value within one year, already in 2010. Table1 shows the growth rate in GDP per capita (based on GDP and Main Components, 2017), where this calculation has been made, ﬁrstly comparing the year 2000 to the year 2016, while the second growth rate describes the after-crisis development (2009–2016), and the last growth rate describes the development since 2011. This last calculation has been made because of the next analysis, where both SII and GCI only have limited available data, and the following analysis has been made since 2011. As far as GDP development is concerned, it can be calculated also on the basis of a year-to-year growth rate, but nevertheless, the authors have decided to use growth rate with some base years (2000, after-crisis development, and 2011). Economies 2018, 6, 50 5 of 15

Table 1. Growth rate in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.

Economies Country2018, 6, x 2000/2016 Growth Rate 2009/2016 Growth Rate 2011/2016 Growth Rate5 of 16 Czech Republic (CR) 154.91% 16.16% 5.67% countries,Hungary but (HU)partly also because 128.14% of unstable development 22.26% after the crisis with several 13.24% drops. The highestPoland growth (PL) rate after the crisis 129.59% is Poland, but compared 34.50% to 2011, Poland is in 11.94%third position. It meansSlovakia that the (SK) decrease of Poland 260.44% in the crisis year was really 25.43% strong and this country 13.91% managed to overcome pre-crisis year in 2011. Since then, the growth rate has not been so strong. Slovakia was in last Theposition relatively in GDP weak per position capita in of the2000, Czech but Republicit had been in thegrowing overall significantly, growth rate describedand it was in in Table second1 is theplace result in the of a pre stronger-crisis positionyear. Moreover, of this country it has comparedbeen growing to other after countries the crisis (in as 2000, well, the and Czech is in Republic second hadplace, a GDP and if per this capita development almost 6500 continue Euro,s where, we can Slovakia expect hadthat only it will a littlebe equal bit over to the 4000 Czech Euro). Republic. However, As thefar after-crisis as Hungary development is concerned, is more its relatively interesting. strong With growth respect rate to isthe a Czechconsequence Republic, of itsrelatively growth weak rate isvalues the lowest. of GDP It per is partly capita. a consequence of the strongest position of the V4 countries, but partly also because of unstable development after the crisis with several drops. The highest growth rate after the crisis is Poland, butTable compared 1. Growth to rate 2011, in Gross Poland Domestic is in third Product position. (GDP) per It means capita. that the decrease of Poland in theCountry crisis year was2000/ really2016 strongGrowth and Rate this 2009/2016 country Growth managed Rate to overcome2011/2016 pre-crisisGrowth Rate year in 2011.Czech Since Republic then, the (CR) growth rate154.91% has not been so strong.16.16% Slovakia was in last position5.67% in GDP per capita inHungary 2000, but (HU) it had been growing128.14% signiﬁcantly, and it22.26% was in second place in13.24% the pre-crisis year. Moreover,Poland it has been(PL) growing after129.59% the crisis as well, and is34.50% in second place, and if11.94% this development continues,Slovakia we can (SK) expect that it will260.44% be equal to the Czech25.43% Republic. As far as Hungary13.91% is concerned, its relatively strong growth rate is a consequence of relatively weak values of GDP per capita. TheThe relationship relationship between between GDP GDP per percapita capita and the and growth the growth rate between rate between 2011 and 2011 2016 isand described 2016 is indescribed Figure1. in Figure Figure1 demonstrates 1. Figure 1 demonstrates that the Czech that Republic the Czech has Republic the highest has levelthe highest of GDP level per capita,of GDP butper thecapita, lowest but the growth lowest rate, growth where rate, other where members other members of the V4 of havethe V4 relatively have relatively high growth high growth rates, andrate moreover,s, and moreover Slovakia, Slovakia has a relatively has a relatively high level high of level GDP of per GDP capita per ascapita well. as well.

16%

14% SK 2016 (%) 2016 - HU 12% PL

10%

CR GDP per Capita Growth Rate 2011 Growth per GDP Rate Capita 4% 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 GDP per Capita in 2016 (€)

FigureFigure 1.1. RelationRelation betweenbetween GDPGDP perper capitacapita (2016)(2016) andand growthgrowth raterate(2011–2016). (2011–2016). SK,SK, Slovakia;Slovakia; HU,HU, Hungary;Hungary; PL,PL, Poland;Poland; CR, CR, Czech Czech Republic. Republic. 3.3. Foreign Trade Development—Trade with Goods 3.3. Foreign Trade Development—Trade with Goods The analysis of foreign trade development shows some different results to that of GDP The analysis of foreign trade development shows some different results to that of GDP development. Calculation has been done based on Eurostat 2017a, where more detailed information development. Calculation has been done based on Eurostat 2017a, where more detailed information can be found, for example, in Kovárník and Hamplová 2016. can be found, for example, in Kovárník and Hamplová 2016. The first interesting fact is that all countries had a negative trade balance in the first analysed year The first interesting fact is that all countries had a negative trade balance in the first analysed (2000), which means they had higher imports than exports. Even if the current trade balance (in 2016, year (2000), which means they had higher imports than exports. Even if the current trade balance (in 2016, in 2015 in Poland) is positive in all analysed countries, the development has still been quite irregular. The highest surplus in 2016 was the Czech Republic, where this surplus is just over 9000 billion. For mutual comparison, the surpluses have been recalculated again per capita. The Czech Republic had the worst position in 2000 (the highest deficit per capita, while in absolute amount, Poland had the worst result), but it has been growing (with few exceptions) and Economies 2018, 6, 50 6 of 15 in 2015 in Poland) is positive in all analysed countries, the development has still been quite irregular. The highest surplus in 2016 was the Czech Republic, where this surplus is just over 9000 billion. For mutual comparison, the surpluses have been recalculated again per capita. EconomiesThe 2018 Czech, 6, x Republic had the worst position in 2000 (the highest deficit per capita, while in absolute6 of 16 amount, Poland had the worst result), but it has been growing (with few exceptions) and currently the Czechcurrently Republic the Czech has the Republic biggest surplus has the of biggest all V4 countries. surplus Theof all exact V4 opposite countries development. The exact hasopposite been seendevelopment in Slovakia. has This been country seen in had Slovakia. the best This result country of the had V4 countries the best result in 2000 of (both the V4 in absolutecountries amount in 2000 and(both per in capita), absolute but amount it has theand worst per capita), result inbut 2016 it has in absolutethe worst amount, result in and 2016 the in second absolute worst amount in terms, and ofthe net second balance worst per capitain terms (in of comparison net balance with per Poland capita in(in 2015). comparison A really with interesting Poland fact in 2015). is that A in r 2009,eally duringinteresting the economic fact is that crisis, in the 2009, net during balance the was economic increasing crisis, in all the analysed net balance countries. was Figure increasing2 describes in all againanalysed the relationcountries. between Figure the2 describes values of again net balance the relation of trade between with goods the value in 2016s of andnet thebalance growth of trade rate betweenwith goods 2011 in and 2016 2016. and the growth rate between 2011 and 2016.

800%

700% SK

2016, 2016, %) - 600%

500%

400%

300%

200% CR PL 100% HU

Net Balance (Goods) (2011 GrowthRate (Goods) Balance Net 0% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Net Balance in Trade with Goods per Capita in 2016 (€)

FigureFigure 2.2. RelationRelation between between net net balance balance in intrade trade with with goods goods per c perapita capita (2016) (2016) and g androwth growth rate (2011 rate– (2011–2016). 2016). Figure2 describes relatively different results than that of GDP (Figure1). The Czech Republic Figure 2 describes relatively different results than that of GDP (Figure 1). The Czech Republic has the highest level of net balance per capita, but it has second highest growth rate (almost 200%). has the highest level of net balance per capita, but it has second highest growth rate (almost 200%). However, the second highest net balance per capita is Hungary, but this country has the lowest growth However, the second highest net balance per capita is Hungary, but this country has the lowest rate (less than 100%). Slovakia has the third highest net balance per capita, but it also has a signiﬁcantly growth rate (less than 100%). Slovakia has the third highest net balance per capita, but it also has a higher growth rate (almost 700%). On the other hand, it has to be mentioned that Slovakia was in a significantly higher growth rate (almost 700%). On the other hand, it has to be mentioned that small deﬁcit in 2011, and it has a relatively high surplus in 2016, therefore the growth rate between Slovakia was in a small deficit in 2011, and it has a relatively high surplus in 2016, therefore the these two years is so extraordinarily high. The lowest value of net balance per capita in 2016 is Poland, growth rate between these two years is so extraordinarily high. The lowest value of net balance per where this country has also relatively low growth rates. It appears that foreign trade with goods is not capita in 2016 is Poland, where this country has also relatively low growth rates. It appears that as important in this country as it is in the other V4 member states. foreign trade with goods is not as important in this country as it is in the other V4 member states. However, the export/GDP ratio shows that Slovakia currently has the highest value of this However, the export/GDP ratio shows that Slovakia currently has the highest value of this indicator. This indicator measures the openness of a particular economy and it is relatively surprising indicator. This indicator measures the openness of a particular economy and it is relatively that even if Slovakia has a relatively bad result in terms of net balance with goods, it can be considered surprising that even if Slovakia has a relatively bad result in terms of net balance with goods, it can as a really open economy, where this share is more than 84% in 2016. Another open economy is be considered as a really open economy, where this share is more than 84% in 2016. Another open Hungary (more than 73%) and also the Czech Republic (almost 68%), whereas Poland is a relatively economy is Hungary (more than 73%) and also the Czech Republic (almost 68%), whereas Poland is closed economy (less than 40%). This is likely because the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary are a relatively closed economy (less than 40%). This is likely because the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and dependent on foreign trade, but in the case of Poland, this country is relatively closed, but because of Hungary are dependent on foreign trade, but in the case of Poland, this country is relatively closed, low value of GDP, other parts of the GDP formula are more important than foreign trade. but because of low value of GDP, other parts of the GDP formula are more important than foreign trade.

3.4. Foreign Trade Development—Trade with Services The analysis of foreign trade with services shows completely different results. All V4 countries have been in surplus, with only a few exceptions in the case of Slovakia. However, the development is Economies 2018, 6, x 7 of 16 quite irregular in all countries, with several increases and decreases. Surpluses in the Czech Republic andis in quite Slovakia irregular decreased, in all countries, while surpluses with several in Poland increases and and in Hungary decreases. increased. Surpluses in the Czech RepublicInterestingly, and in inSlovakia 2009, wheredecreased, GDP while in all surpluses analysed in countriesPoland and dropped, in Hungary the increased. net balance with services droppedInteresting as well, wherely, in trade 2009, balances where GDP in terms in all ofanalysed goods increasedcountries in dropped, all analysed the net countries. balance The with biggest netservices balance dropped per capita as well, was where Hungary, trade balances the Czech in terms Republic of goods is increased in second in all position, analysedPoland countries is. third, andThe Slovakia biggest isnet in balance last position. per capita Onwas theHungary, other the hand, Czech Slovakia Republic has is in the second highest position, growth Poland rate is (more third, and Slovakia is in last position. On the other hand, Slovakia has the highest growth rate (more than 300%), but it is probably also because of low level of net balance. Interestingly, Hungary, even if it than 300%), but it is probably also because of low level of net balance. Interestingly, Hungary, even if has the highest net balance per capita, also has a growth rate over 100%. it has the highest net balance per capita, also has a growth rate over 100%. TheThe highest highest export export of of services/GDP services/GDP share share is isHungary, Hungary, where where thisthis ratio ratio is almost is almost 19%. The 19%. Czech The Czech RepublicRepublic has has this this share share currently around around 12.4%, 12.4%, and and the other the other countries countries less than less 10%. than However, 10%. However,the thedevelopment development in inall allanalysed analysed countries countries has been has beenmore moreor less orirregular. less irregular. Figure 3 Figuredescribes3 describes again the again therelation relation between between the the values values of net of balance net balance per capita per capitain 2016 in and 2016 the andgrowth the rate growth between rate 2011 between and 2011 and2016. 2016.

350%

300% SK

2016, 2016, %) -

250%

200%

150% PL

100% HU Balance (Services) (2011 Rate (Services) Balance Growth 50%

Net CR

0% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Net Balance in Trade with Services per Capita in 2016 (€) FigureFigure 3. 3Relation. Relation between between net net balance balance in trade in trade with s withervices services per capita per (2016) capita and (2016)growth andrate (2011 growth– rate (2011–2016).2016).

3.5.3.5. Nonmetric Nonmetric Scaling Scaling of of Visegrad Visegrad Four Countries Countries AsAs was was mentioned mentioned in thein the methodology, methodology, the the method method of of point point rating rating has has been been used used for for this this analysis. Threeanalysis. different Three macroeconomic different macroeconomic indicators indicators have been have usedbeen used for thefor rating,the rating, namely namely GDP GDP perper capita in Eurocapita (A); in E balanceuro (A); balance of goods of goods per capita per capita in Euro in Euro (B); (B) and; and balance balance of of services services per per capita capita in inEuro Euro (C). The(C). analysed The analysed period p foreriod this for analysis this analysis is 2000–2016, is 2000–2016, because because it it is is possible possible toto findfind enough data data for for such such analysis (unfortunately, for GII and SII development analysis it is not). However, the years 2011 analysis (unfortunately, for GII and SII development analysis it is not). However, the years 2011 and and 2016 are compared in the analysis, where points in every country for every analysed indicator 2016have are been compared calculated in theand analysis, summed up. where points in every country for every analysed indicator have been calculatedFigure 4 andevaluates summed V4 countries up. from the perspective of GDP per capita and foreign trade per capitaFigure, separately4 evaluates foreign V4 trade countries with goods from theand perspectivewith services. of In GDPthe analysed per capita period and 2011 foreign–2016, tradethe per capita,Czech separately Republic and foreign Hungary trade have with had goods more andpoints with than services. Slovakia Inor thePoland. analysed On the period other hand, 2011–2016, theSlovakia Czech Republic and Poland and have Hungary had the have higher had growth more points rate of than these Slovakia points (probably or Poland. because On the of other low hand, Slovakiavalues and of points). Poland Moreover, have had the the analysis higher shows growth that rate all of countries these points except (probably Slovakia continually because of have low values of points).grown in Moreover, terms of poi thents analysis during the shows analysed that period all countries (2011–2016), except where Slovakia Slovakia continually had been losing have grownits in position since 2013. This is because the foreign trade in Slovakia has not had as a significant impact on GDP as in the other V4 member states, especially in the Czech Republic and in Hungary. Foreign Economies 2018, 6, 50 8 of 15 terms of points during the analysed period (2011–2016), where Slovakia had been losing its position Economies 2018, 6, x 8 of 16 since 2013. This is because the foreign trade in Slovakia has not had as a significant impact on GDP as Economies 2018, 6, x 8 of 16 in thetrade other has V4 the member positive states, effect especially on growing in the GDP Czech per capitaRepublic in and all the in Hungary.analysed Foreigncountries, trade but has it is the positivepossibletrade effect to has identify on the growing positive significant effectGDP differencesper on growing capita among in GDP all the perV4analysed members. capita in countries, all the analysed but it countries, is possible but to it identify is significantpossible differences to identify among significant V4 differences members. among V4 members. 300 300 CR 250 CR 250 HU HU 200 200 SK

Points SK

Points PL 150 PL 150

100 100

50 50 20112011 20122012 20132013 2014 20152015 20162016

FigureFigureFigure 4. Development4. Development4. Development of of pointsof points points in in in 2011–2016 2011 2011––20162016 (years, ((years,years, points);points));; Point Point areare are calculated calculated calculated together together together for for GDP for GDP GDP perper capitaper capita capita in in€, in€ Balance, Balance€, Balance of of goods of goods goods per per per capita capita capita inin in€ € ,€, and, andand BalanceBalanceBalance of services services per per per capita capita capita in in €. in €. € .

3.6.3. Innovativeness6.3. Innovativeness6. Innovativeness of of the ofthe Visegradthe Visegrad Visegrad Four Four FourCountries—GII Countries Countries——GIIGII andand SII Indicator Indicator GIIGII dataGII data data show show show that that that in in 2016,in 2016, 2016, the the the innovation innovation innovation of of of the the V4 countries countries was was was low. low. low. The The The value value value of of the of the the innovationinnovationinnovation index index index of of all ofall theall the the Visegrad Visegrad Visegrad Group Group Group countriescountr countriesies waswaswas below below thethe the EU EU EU average. average. average. T Thehe The innovation innovation innovation rate rate rate in thesein thesein these countries countries countries did did did not not not exceed exceed exceed 50 50 50 points points points out outout of ofof 100100100 possible.possible. PolandPoland Poland and and and Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia have have have adopted adopted adopted thethe lowestthe lowest lowest values values values of of innovation of in innovationnovation rate rate rate among among among EU EU EU countries countries and and found found found themselves themselves themselves in in the in the the weakest weakest weakest groupgroupgroup of of so-called ofso -socalled-called “catching-up “catching “catching-up-up countries”.countr countriesies””. . TheThe higher higher value value ofof of GII,GII, GII, althoughalthough although below below below the the theaverage, average, average, was recorded by the Czech Republic and Hungary. These countries were in the so-called “moderate waswas recorded recorded by by the the Czech Czech Republic Republic and and Hungary.Hungary. These countries were were in in the the so so-called-called “mod “moderateerate innovatorsinnovators” group” group (Fig (Figureure 5 ,5 based, based on on Dutta Dutta andand INSEADINSEAD 2011;2011; INSEADINSEAD 2011; 2011; Dutta Dutta et et al. al. 2016; 2016; innovators”Cornell University group (Figure et al. 52016, based; World on Economic Dutta and Forum INSEAD 2017). 2011; INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016; CornellCornell University University et et al. al. 2016 2016; World; World Economic Economic Forum Forum 20172017).

10 10

) PL

% ) ( PL

% 8 ( 8 Medium SK EUMedium 28 6 SK EU 28 6 CR 4 CR 4 2 2 0

40 42 44 46 48 50 52 I w 2016 in relation to to 2011 in 2016 w I relation

I 0

40-2 42 44 46 48 50 52 I w 2016 in relation to to 2011 in 2016 w I relation

I HU -2

-4 HU Change G Change -4

Change G Change -6

-6 Global Innovation Index in 2016 (points)

Global Innovation Index in 2016 (points) Figure 5. Global Innovation Index (GII) in 2016 and change over the period of 5 years (2011–2016) in Visegrad Four (V4) countries (points, %). FigureFigure 5. Global5. Global Innovation Innovation Index Index (GII) (GII) inin 20162016 andand change over over the the period period of of 5 5years years (2011 (2011–2016)–2016) in in VisegradVisegrad Four Four (V4) (V4 countries) countries (points, (points, %). %). The European Institute of Management provides data on innovativeness of economies, taking into account the division into indicators of innovative position and ability to innovate (Dutta and TheThe European European Institute of of Management Management provides provides data dataon innovativeness on innovativeness of economies, of economies, taking INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016). The analysis of the Institute’s data on the V4 countries showed both takinginto account into account the division the division into indicators into indicators of innovative of innovative position and position ability to and innovate ability (Dutta to innovate and INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016). The analysis of the Institute’s data on the V4 countries showed both Economies 2018, 6, 50 9 of 15

(Dutta and INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016). The analysis of the Institute’s data on the V4 countries showed both differences in the level of innovation in the countries discussed, as well as signiﬁcant changesEconomies in some2018, 6, x of them between 2011 and 2016 (Table2, based on Dutta and INSEAD9 of 162011 ; INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016; Cornell University et al. 2016; World Economic Forum 2017). differences in the level of innovation in the countries discussed, as well as significant changes in some of them between 2011 and 2016 (Table 2, based on Dutta and INSEAD 2011; INSEAD 2011; Table 2. Innovation rating, innovation output and innovation input in V4 countries in 2016 compared Dutta et al. 2016; Cornwell University 2016; World Economic Forum 2017). to 2011.

Table 2. Innovation rating,Innovation innovation Output output Sub-Index and innovation input Innovation in V4 countries Input Sub-Index in 2016 comparedCountry to 2011. 2011 2016 Change (%) 2011 2016 Change (%) Innovation Output Sub-Index Innovation Input Sub-Index Czech RepublicCountry (CR) 41.5 44.5 7.3 53.1 54.3 2.3 2011 2016 Change (%) 2011 2016 Change (%) Hungary (HU) 45.2 40.5 −10.4 51.0 48.9 −4.1 Czech Republic (CR) 41.5 44.5 7.3 53.1 54.3 2.3 Slovakia (SK) 29.8 35.4 18.7 48.3 48.0 −0.6 Hungary (HU) 45.2 40.5 −10.4 51.0 48.9 −4.1 Poland (PL) 29.7 31.7 6.6 46.3 48.7 5.2 Slovakia (SK) 29.8 35.4 18.7 48.3 48.0 −0.6 Poland (PL) 29.7 31.7 6.6 46.3 48.7 5.2 The V4 countries are not among the innovation leaders in the world. The Czech Republic, among The V4 countries are not among the innovation leaders in the world. The Czech Republic, the countries discussed, occupied the highest position in the Global Innovation Index and improved among the countries discussed, occupied the highest position in the Global Innovation Index and (over five years) both the value of the sub-index of innovative contributions (by 2.3%) as well as improved (over five years) both the value of the sub-index of innovative contributions (by 2.3%) as the sub-indexwell as the of sub innovative-index of innovative results (by results 7.3%). (by Lower 7.3%). indices Lower indiceswere visible were visible in the in case the of case Hungary: of the sub-indexHungary: of the innovative sub-index contributions of innovative (by contributions 4.1%) and (by the 4.1%)sub-index and theof innovative sub-index results of innovative (by 10.4%). In theresults analysed (by 10.4%). period, In Poland’s the analysed ratios pe increasedriod, Poland significantly,’s ratios increased although significantly, they still although had the lowestthey still values amonghad the the V4 lowest countries. values In among 2016, the the V4 sub-index countries. of In innovations 2016, the sub for-index Poland of innovations amounted for to Poland31.7 points (increaseamounted by 6.6% to in31.7 five points years). (increase In the by case 6.6% of the in five sub-index years). ofIn the the innovative case of the contribution, sub-index of the Poland overtookinnovative Hungary contribution, by 0.7 points. Poland overtook Hungary by 0.7 points. AlsoAlso in the in reports the reports European European Innovation Innovation Scoreboard Scoreboard (EIS) proposed (EIS) proposed by the European by the European Commission, Commission, the value of SII for all countries of the Visegrad Group in both 2011 and 2016 was the value of SII for all countries of the Visegrad Group in both 2011 and 2016 was below the EU average below the EU average (Figure 6, based on Dutta and INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016; European (Figure6, based on Dutta and INSEAD 2011; Dutta et al. 2016; European Union 2016). In the case Union 2016). In the case of SII reports, all V4 countries were included in the so-called “moderate of SIIinnovators reports, all” group. V4 countries In 2016, werethe value included of the inSII theindex so-called for the Czech “moderate Republic innovators” was 0.42 and group. was the In 2016, the valuehighest of theamong SII indexthe V4 forcountries. the Czech The Republiclast position was was 0.42 taken and by was Poland the highestand Hungary, among for the whom V4 countries. the The lastSII positionindex value was was taken 0.27. by The Poland value andof SII Hungary, index in for2016 whom in relation the SII to index2011 increased value was in 0.27.the case The of value of SIISlovakia index in (by 2016 4.9%) in relationand Poland to 2011(by 2.7%), increased the decrease in the casewas recorded of Slovakia by the (by Czech 4.9%) Republic and Poland (by 5.2%) (by 2.7%), the decreaseand Hungary was recorded(by 2.2%). by the Czech Republic (by 5.2%) and Hungary (by 2.2%).

) SK

% (

4 PL Medium EU 28 2

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 I w 2016 in relation 2011 I to relation in 2016 w

SI HU

-2 Change -4 CR

-6 Summary Innovation Index in 2016 (points)

FigureFigure 6. Summary 6. Summary Innovation Innovation Index Index of the of theEU 28EU and 28 and V4 countriesV4 countries in 2016 in 2016 year year and and change change in change in in relationchange to in 2011 relation (points, to 201 %).1 (points, %). Economies 2018, 6, 50 10 of 15

Analysis of the Visegrad Group countries data according to EIS reports from 2011 and 2016, divided into 4 groups of indicators showed (similarly as in the case of GII) differences both in the level of innovativeness of the countries studied and signiﬁcant changes that took place during the analysed period (Table3, based on European Union 2016, European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)(2017)).

Table 3. Innovativeness ranking by four thematic groups EU and V4 in 2016 as compared to 2011 (points, %).

Framework Conditions Investments Innovation Activities Impacts Country Change Change Change Change 2011 2016 2011 2016 2011 2016 2011 2016 (%) (%) (%) (%) EU 28 0.5 0.48 −4.0 0.42 0.48 14.3 0.49 0.46 −6.1 0.52 0.48 −7.7 Czech Republic (CR) 0.29 0.38 31.0 0.55 0.44 −20.0 0.41 0.34 −17.1 0.64 0.56 −12.5 Slovakia (SK) 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.25 0.36 44.0 0.23 0.22 −4.3 0.62 0.64 3.2 Hungary (HU) 0.26 0.3 15.4 0.27 0.29 7.4 0.27 0.2 −25.9 0.71 0.66 −7.0 Poland (PL) 0.19 0.27 42.1 0.29 0.3 3.4 0.21 0.18 −14.3 0.47 0.41 −12.8

In 2016, the Czech Republic, in comparison with other V4 countries, obtained the highest values in three out of four thematic groups, i.e., framework conditions, investments and innovative activities. The lowest values of the indicators in three of the four groups were obtained by Poland, while in the case of the fourth indicator—“Investments” this country overtook Hungary by only one point. The remaining countries of the Visegrad Group recorded an increase in the value of the index in the investment area—the highest was achieved by Slovakia (by 44%). In the group framework conditions, the index increased in Poland (by 42.1%), in the Czech Republic (by 31%) and in Hungary (15.4%). Slovakia, as the only one, maintained its value from 2011. In all V4 countries, the index in the group of innovative activities decreased. The largest decrease was recorded, in addition to the mentioned Czech Republic, also in Hungary. In the last group of “Impacts”, three from V4 countries, i.e., Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, recorded a decrease. The highest value of the indicator in 2016 (despite a decrease by 7%) was obtained by Hungary. In the case of Poland and the Czech Republic, the index decreased by 12.8% and 12.5% respectively. Slovakia was the only one that recorded growth in the Impacts ratio by 3.2%.

3.7. Competitiveness of the Visegrad Four Countries—GCI Indicator According to the Global Competitiveness Report for 2015–2016, the countries of the Visegrad Group were qualiﬁed (as in the case of GII index) into two different groups: Czech Republic and Slovakia to the so-called group advanced economies and Poland and Hungary to the “emerging and developing Europe” group (Schwab 2015). In 2015–2016, the highest value of the GCI index among the V4 countries was recorded by the Czech Republic, just as in the case of previous indicators. This country has increased the value of GCI index, compared to 2011, by 2.2% (Figure7, based on Schwab 2010, 2015). Hungary, in the same period, recorded a decrease of its value by 2.3%. On the other hand, the other countries, i.e., Poland and Slovakia, have maintained GCI value at the same level. The analysis of the competitiveness level of the economies of the Visegrad countries divided into three groups of indicators also showed equations between the surveyed countries (Table4, based on Schwab 2010, 2015). In 2010–2011 and 2015–2016 the Czech Republic, in comparison with other V4 countries, obtained the highest values of indices in all sub-indices. In the years 2015–2016, the values of individual sub-indices for the Czech Republic were as follows: basic requirements—5.27 points, efﬁciency enhancers—4.78 points and innovations and sophistication factors—4.14 points. The lowest index values in all three sub-indices in the years 2015–2016 were obtained by Hungary. Economies 2018, 6, 50 11 of 15 Economies 2018, 6, x 11 of 16

2.5 CR

2 2010 (%) 2010 - 1.5

0.5

0 SK PL

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 2015 in relation 2011 to relation in 2015

- -0.5

-1

-1.5

-2 Change GCI2016 w Change HU -2.5

-3 Global Competitiveness Index in 2015-2016 (point)

FigureFigure 7.7. GlobalGlobal CompetitivenessCompetitiveness IndexIndex inin V4V4 countriescountries inin 2010–20112010–2011 andand 2015–20162015–2016 (points, (points, %). %). Table 4. The competitiveness index in V4 country by three sub-indexes in 2015–2016 as compared to The analysis of the competitiveness level of the economies of the Visegrad countries divided 2010–2011 (points, %). into three groups of indicators also showed equations between the surveyed countries (Table 4, Innovation and based on Schwab 2010, Basic2015). Requirements Efficiency Enhancers Sophistication Factors Country Change Change Change 2010–2011 2015–2016 2010–2011 2015–2016 2010–2011 2015–2016 Table 4. The competitiveness index in(%) V4 country by three sub-indexes(%) in 2015–2016 as compared(%) to Czech2010 Republic–2011 (CR) (points 4.91, %). 5.27 7.33 4.66 4.78 2.58 4.19 4.14 −1.19 Slovakia (SK) 4.77 4.73 −0.84 4.43 4.34 −2.03 3.54 3.68 3.95 Hungary (HU) 4.65 4.67 0.43 4.38 4.31 −1.60 3.71Innovation 3.57 and− 3.77 Basic Requirements Efficiency Enhancers Poland (PL) 4.69 4.91 4.69 4.62 4.64 0.43 3.76Sophistication 3.70 Factors−1.60 Country 2010– 2015– Change 2010– 2015– Change 2010– 2015– Change The analysis of sub-indices2011 2016 in V4 showed(%) that2011 in the years2016 2015–2016 (%) the Czech2011 Republic2016 increased(%) Czech Republic (CR) 4.91 5.27 7.33 4.66 4.78 2.58 4.19 4.14 −1.19 the valueSlovakia of (SK) followed 4.77 sub-indexes: 4.73 “basic−0.84 requirements”4.43 4.34 (by 7.33%)−2.03 and3.54 “efficiency 3.68 enhancers”3.95 (byHungary 2.6%). On(HU) the other4.65 hand,4.67 the sub-index0.43 “factors4.38 of innovation4.31 −1.60 and sophistication”3.71 3.57 dropped−3.77 (by 1.2%).Poland (PL) The increase4.69 in value4.91 of “basic4.69 requirements”4.62 4.64 sub-index 0.43 was also3.76 recorded3.70 in Poland−1.60 (by 4.7%) and Hungary (by 4.3%). In the case of Slovakia, its value decreased slightly (by 0.82%). In the case ofIn the 2010 “efficiency–2011 and enhancers” 2015–2016 sub-index, the Czech the Republic, growth in in its comparison value was with recorded, other apart V4 countries, from the Czechobtained Republic, the highest also in values Poland. of However, indices in the all increase sub-indices. in the Invalue the years of this 2015 indicator–2016, in the the values case of of Polandindividual was subinsignificant-indices for (only the0.4%). Czech The Republic other two were countries, as follows: i.e., basicSlovakia requirements and Hungary,—5.27 recorded points, aefficiency decrease in enhancers the value— of4.78 this points sub-index. and innovat In the lastions sub-index, and sophistication which is “factors factors— of4.14 innovation points. and The sophistication”lowest index values only in Slovakia all three in sub the-indices analysed in the period years obtained 2015–2016 an were increase obtained (by 4%). by Hungary. This allowed SlovakiaThe to analysis be promoted of sub in-indices the ranking in V4 to showed the third that position. in the Other years countries 2015–2016 recorded the Czech a decrease Republic in thisincreased indicator; the the value highest of fo inllowed the case sub of Hungary-indexes: amounted“basic requirements to 3.8%. ” (by 7.33%) and “efficiency enhancers” (by 2.6%). On the other hand, the sub-index “factors of innovation and sophistication” 3.8.dropped The Relation (by 1.2%). between The GDP increase and Innovation in value of Indexes “basic (GII, requirements SII, GCI) ” sub-index was also recorded in Poland (by 4.7%) and Hungary (by 4.3%). In the case of Slovakia, its value decreased slightly (by The mutual relation between GDP development and GII, SII, and GCI development is analysed 0.82%). In the case of the “efficiency enhancers” sub-index, the growth in its value was recorded, in this section, where all these indicators have been already analysed separately in previous sections. apart from the Czech Republic, also in Poland. However, the increase in the value of this indicator in Figure8 describes the position of every analysed country in 2011 and 2016, where it is possible to the case of Poland was insignificant (only 0.4%). The other two countries, i.e., Slovakia and Hungary, compare not only the development, but also the size of the country (thanks to the size of every bubble). recorded a decrease in the value of this sub-index. In the last sub-index, which is “factors of innovation and sophistication” only Slovakia in the analysed period obtained an increase (by 4%). Economies 2018, 6, 50 12 of 15 Economies 2018, 6, x 12 of 16

FigureThis8 allowed describes Slovakia the mutual to be relationpromoted between in the ranking GDP and to the each thi index,rd position. where Other the size countries of the bubblerecorded (for bettera decrease visualization) in this indicator; presents the the highest size of in the the country case of measuredHungary amounted by the number to 3.8%. of inhabitants.

GII 2016 GII 2011 51 49 CR HU 47 CR 45 HU 43 41 SK PL 39 SK PL Global Innovation Innovation Index Global 37 35 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 Gross Domestic Product per Capita in €

SII 2016 SII 2011 0.5

0.45 CR 0.4 CR

0.35 HU SK Innovation Index Innovation HU 0.3 PL SK

0.25 PL Summary

0.2 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 Gross Domestic Product per Capita in €

GCI 2016/2015 GCI 2011/2010 4.8

4.7

Index CR 4.6 CR 4.5 PL PL 4.4

4.3 HU HU SK Global Competitiveness Global 4.2 SK

4.1 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 Gross domestic product per capita in €

FigureFigure 8. Relation8. Relation between between GDP GDP per per capita capita and and GII GII (A); ( SummaryA); Summary Innovation Innovation Index Index (SII) ( (SIIB);) and(B); Globaland CompetitivenessGlobal Competitiveness Index (GCI) Index (C ().GCI) (C).

3.8.It The is possible Relation between to see thatGDP even and Innovation if every V4 Indexes member (GII, hasSII, recordedGCI) signiﬁcant increase in terms of GDP per capita development between 2011 and 2016, this increase was not followed by the increase of The mutual relation between GDP development and GII, SII, and GCI development is analysed each innovation index, namely by Global Innovation Index, Summary Innovation Index, and Global in this section, where all these indicators have been already analysed separately in previous sections. Competitiveness Index. Figure 8 describes the position of every analysed country in 2011 and 2016, where it is possible to compare not only the development, but also the size of the country (thanks to the size of every Economies 2018, 6, 50 13 of 15

The biggest increase of GDP per capita has been in Slovakia (13.91%), where GII and SII have increase as well, but GCI has decreased in this country (2016 compared to 2011). Hungary has had the increase of GDP per capita for 13.24%, but all indexes have dropped. Poland has had the increase of GDP per capita for 11.94%, but the positive development was only in case of GII, where other indicators either have remained almost same or have decreased. The Czech Republic has a unique position among V4. The absolute value of GDP per capita is the highest in this country, where this indicator has shown change only for 5.67% (the lowest in V4), GII and GCI have increased, but SII has decreased. Based on these facts is not possible to ﬁnd any relation between the growth of every V4 country (measured by GDP per capita), and the development of Global Innovation Index, Summary Innovation Index, and Global Competitiveness Index. These indexes include a lot of partial evaluated criterion, which did not have the impact on economic growth of each country during evaluated period.

4. Conclusions The article analyses selected aspects of the Visegrad Four Countries, namely GDP development, foreign trade, innovation, and competitiveness indicators of the V4 economies. The authors are aware of different aspects of global development, as well as different influences affecting GDP development; however, the aim of this article was to discover the relationship between GDP development, foreign trade development, and innovative potential. On the basis of the comparison of V4 countries’ indices, it can be seen that they differ both in terms of innovation and competitiveness. The analysis of the GDP development has shown the strong position of the Czech Republic among V4 countries, but this strong position is getting weaker every year because of the slow growth rate of this country after the global economic crisis in 2008. Slovakia, especially, is getting closer to the Czech Republic. Foreign trade is very important for almost every country around the world. Not only does it solve the proportionality problem, but it can also either increase or worsen the level of GDP, because it is part of the GDP formula in open economies. All the member states of the V4, except Poland, can be considered as open economies; however, the analysis of net balance with trade with goods is showing relatively different results than the GDP analysis. The Czech Republic is again the strongest economy with the highest net balance per capita, but it has also the second highest growth rate. Significantly highest growth rate is Slovakia, but this country has the third lowest level of net balance per capita. Trade with services also shows some surprising results. The highest value of net balance per capita is Hungary, where the growth rate is also over 100%. The highest growth rate is Slovakia (more than 300%), but it is probably only because of the lowest value of net balance per capita in this country. The GII and SII innovation reports presented in the article either put all the Visegrad countries in one group (so-called moderate innovators—SII report) or divided them into two different groups: the Czech Republic and Hungary to moderate innovators, Poland and Slovakia to so-called “catching-up countries” (GII report). The higher value of GII was recorded in the Czech Republic and Hungary. The value of GII shows that all the V4 countries in 2016 had values below the average for the European Union. On the other hand, the SII index values obtained by these V4 countries were, in the analysed years, in the range of 50–90% of the EU average. The results from the Global Index Innovation and from the European Innovation Scoreboard report from 2011–2016 show a growing gap in the level of innovation between the V4 countries. According to SII reports, the Czech Republic is beginning to move away in terms of innovation from other V4 countries. The Czech Republic is catching up with the countries from the so-called supporters of innovation group, while Poland is moving towards the so-called overtaking countries. Poland occupies one of the last places in innovation rankings (this is evidenced by both GII and SII values) among the V4 countries in general as well as in individual thematic groups. Also, the analysis of the competitiveness of the V4 economies showed a significant difference between the countries surveyed. The Czech Republic, which is increasing its GCI index year by year, Economies 2018, 6, 50 14 of 15 is the most competitive than the other V4 countries. In 2016, Hungary was the weakest in terms of competitiveness. The value of competitiveness indices for this country in the period covered by the study has deteriorated even further, whereas Slovakia is trying to maintain the unchanged index value. Analysis of innovation and competitiveness indicators shows that V4 countries are beginning to differ more and more from each other. Despite the adoption of a different methodology in the discussed indices, one notices in all cases, the growing advantage of the Czech Republic (regardless of the type of report). Certainly, the increase in innovation and competitiveness of individual economies (including the Czech Republic) would not be possible without adequate financial resources. Only countries that are able to obtain and then properly use their financial resources (e.g., EU subsidies) are able to improve their market position. From the obtained results it can be concluded that the strategy adopted by the Czech Republic was correct. It is a pity that the remaining countries of the Visegrad Group failed to increase their innovation and competitiveness indices to get closer to the countries of the old European Union. However, mutual comparison between GDP development and development of analysed indexes (GII, SII, and GCI) has shown no relation. These indexes include many partial evaluated criteria, which do not have the impact on economic growth of each country during evaluated period.

Author Contributions: Data calculation, A.K., J.K., E.H., P.P.; Formal analysis, A.K., J.K., E.H. and P.P.; Methodology, A.K., J.K., E.H. and P.P.; Writing—original draft, A.K., J.K., E.H., P.P.; Writing—review and editing, A.K., J.K., E.H. and P.P. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.

References

Blanke, Thomas, and Jurgen Hoffmann. 2008. Towards a European social model preconditions, difﬁculties and prospects of a European social policy. International Journal of Public Policy 3: 20–38. [CrossRef] Cernat, Lucian. 2006. Institutions and Economic Growth in Central and Eastern Europe: A Quantitative Analysis in Europeanization, Varieties of Capitalism and Economic Performance in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cornell University, INSEAD, and The World Intellectual Property Organization. 2016. The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation. Available online: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/ about-gii#reports (accessed on 3 March 2018). Despottovi´c,Danijela, Slobodan Cvetanovic, and Vladimir Nedic. 2014. Innovativeness and Competitiveness of the Western Balkan Countries and Selected EU Member States. Industrija 42: 27–45. [CrossRef] Dutta, Soumitra, Bruno Lanvin, and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, eds. 2016. The Global Innovation Index 2016. Winning with Global Innovation. Ithaca: Cornell University; Fontainebleau: INSEAD; Geneva: The World Intellectual Property Organization. Dutta, Soumitra, and INSEAD, eds. 2011. The Global Innovation Index 2011. Accelerating Growth and Development. Fontainebleau: INSEAD and Knowledge Partners. European Innovation Scoreboard. 2017. European Innovation Scoreboard 2011–2016. Available online: http: //ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/24829 (accessed on 3 March 2018). European Union. 2016. European Innovation Scoreboard 2016. Available online: https://publications.europa. eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6e1bc53d-de12-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format- PDF/source-31234102 (accessed on 3 March 2018). Eurostat. 2017a. International Trade of EU, the Euro Area and the Member States by SITC Product Group. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/international-trade/data/database (accessed on 3 March 2018). Eurostat. 2017b. GDP and Main Components. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national- accounts/data/database (accessed on 2 November 2017). Fagerberg, Jan, Martin Srholec, and Mark Knell. 2007. The competitiveness of nations: Why some countries prosper while others fall behind? World Development 35: 1595–620. [CrossRef] Farkas, Beáta. 2017. Market Economies of the Western Balkans Compared to the Central and Eastern European Model of Capitalism. Croatian Economic Survey 19: 5–36. [CrossRef] Economies 2018, 6, 50 15 of 15

Gibson, David V., and Heath Naquin. 2011. Investing in Innovation to Enable Global Competitiveness: The Case of Portugal. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78: 1299–309. [CrossRef] Grzybowska, Katarzyna, and Anna Lupicka. 2016. Knowledge Acquisition in Complex Systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Economics and Management Innovations. Edited by Xiao-Guang Yue and Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte. Amsterdam: Atlantis Press, vol. 57, pp. 262–66. INSEAD. 2011. The Global Innovation Index 2011: Accelerating Growth and Development. Available online: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/about-gii#reports (accessed on 3 March 2018). James, Simon. 2016. An Introduction to Data Analysis Using Aggregation Functions in R. Cham: Springer. Kovárník, Jaroslav, and Eva Hamplová. 2016. The Analysis of Foreign Trade Development in the Countries of Visegrad Four. In 19th International Colloquium on Regional Sciences. Edited by Viktorie Klímová and Vladimír Žítek. Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 240–46. Kowalska, Anna, and Agnieszka Tarnowska. 2017. Innovation of the economies of European Union countries against selected countries in the world in the years 2007–2016. In Economics & Management Innovations (ICEMI). Edited by Xiao-Guang Yue and Michael Mcaleer. Bangkok: Dhurakij Pundit University, vol. 1, pp. 334–38. Kowalska, Anna. 2016. Mi˛edzynarodowa konkurencyjno´sćpolskiego sektora owocowego po przyst ˛apieniu do Unii Europejskiej. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie. Problemy Rolnictwa Swiatowego´ 16: 176–85. Nölke, Andreas, and Arjan Vliegenthart. 2009. Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism. The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe. World Politics 61: 670–702. [CrossRef] Olszańska,Anna, Arkadiusz Piwowar, and Małgorzata Olszańska.2017. Size and Seasonality of Buying of Pigs for Slaughter in the Countries of the Visegrad Group (2005–2015). In Hradec Economic Days. Edited by Pavel Jedliˇcka,Petra Marešová and Ivan Soukal. Hradec Králové: University of Hradec Králové, vol. 7, pp. 652–61. Özcelik, Emre, and Erol Taymaz. 2004. Does Innovativeness Matter for International Competitiveness in Developing Countries? The Case of Turkish Manufacturing Industries. Research Policy 33: 409–24. [CrossRef] Schwab, Klaus. 2010. The Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011, 1st ed. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Schwab, Klaus. 2015. The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016, 1st ed. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Tarnowska, Agnieszka. 2014. Konkurencyjno´sćpodazowa˙ polskiego sektora warzywniczego w Unii Europejskiej. Economics of the 21st Century 3: 23–35. [CrossRef] Vannoorenberghe, Gonzague. 2014. International trade, risk taking and welfare. Journal of International Economics 92: 363–74. [CrossRef] World Economic Forum. 2017. The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018. Available online: http://reports. weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/ (accessed on 3 March 2018).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).