Madam Chair and hon members, the latest Global Competitiveness Index provides a useful opportunity for this House to honestly assess South Africa's economic condition. A careful diagnosis is a necessary precursor to a coherent prescription. Some quarters of our current leadership are so divided over the diagnosis that the ruling party has produced no less than four different macroeconomic frameworks since 1994.
The two currently on the table, the New Growth Path and the National Development Plan, could not be more ideologically opposed, despite the spin doctors' attempt to reconcile irreconcilable differences. This demonstrates a problem of leadership, for the lack of policy co-ordination is primarily a function of poor leadership. The World Economic Forum itself notes that this year's global deceleration to a large extent reflects the inability of leaders to address the many challenges that were already present last year. The fact that we are not alone is no excuse for our national acceptance of a leadership vacuum. Improving South Africa's competitiveness will require an honest assessment of the problem and a humble acceptance of the evidence, in order to improve the situation. Again, this requires leadership and political will, both of which are severely lacking, from the hon President down, at the present time.
The World Economic Forum categorises South Africa as a Stage 2: efficiency- driven economy. We must put mechanisms in place to truncate the curve and move us to an innovation-driven economy as rapidly as possible. Human capital development is critical to this mission. Meanwhile, the education system fails our learners. A cursory glance at the index reveals that we are in 52nd place overall out of 144 countries surveyed, two places down from 2011. With no further exploration, this may seem a reasonable place to be.
However, even a superficial examination reveals that we perform worse that Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and Oman, not exactly bastions of inclusive growth and democracy. Chile, structurally and historically comparable to us, comes in at 33rd place, nearly 20 positions better than us. The latest global investment monitoring index reveals that Chile has attracted an 82% increase in foreign direct investment since 2010, whilst over the same period, South Africa has suffered a decline of 43,6%. Interestingly, we scored 84th for basic requirements. Our overall score is pulled up by efficiency enhancers, where we were placed 37th, and innovation and sophistication factors, where we were placed 42nd. The promise of the latter would have a more optimal effect off a stronger base of human capital.
A slightly deeper exploration, even on the basic requirements, starts to paint a picture that requires humility to stomach, without which we deny ourselves the opportunity to learn. The ruling party's leadership has a tendency to criticise methodology and sentiment, instead of engaging with it. That attitude will not lock us in on the correct trajectory. We scored 43rd for basic institutional competitiveness. Given the importance of institutions for sustainable economic growth, this is concerning. Our infrastructure constraints place us in 63rd place on that score. The macroeconomic environment, in part reflecting endemic policy incoherence and uncertainty, places us in 69th place. The most concerning variable here is health and primary education, in which we rank 132nd, behind Senegal, Rwanda, Paraguay, Pakistan, Zambia, Liberia, Libya, and even Zimbabwe, which is 13 places above us. Madam Chair, this is not acceptable.
In addition to our woeful performance on education, our labour market regime is a painful reminder of how much work we have yet to do. We rank 113th for labour market efficiency, which includes scores of 143rd for rigid hiring and firing practices and 140th on flexibility in wage determination by companies. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Time expired.] [Applause.]