PA Consulting’s head of emerging markets Dean White has contributed a recent article to The Times Business Section on how to expand into emerging markets. The article gives a ten point guide on how to overcome the risks that come with trying to expand overseas…
Lots of practical advice in the brief article - very relevant for students preparing for BUS 3 (Jan 2011).
Click on this link!
The ten tips in summary are:
- Research
- Have an exit plan
- Choose the right place
- Everything will be different
- Take a test run
- Don’t think like a colonialist
- Know the rules
- Relationships are critical
- Learn from others’ mistakes
- Employ the right people
In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different.- Coco Chanel
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Unit 3: 'Yum' and Chindia!!!!
An excellent feature article in the Independent this week provides a rich source of information to help explain the international business strategy of a US-based fast food multinational.
You may not have heard of Yum! But you will almost certainly have come across its key fast food brands, including KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.
This article describes how a rapid and significant expansion into emerging markets such as China, Russia and India has enabled Yum! to overtake McDonalds to become the world’s largest restaurant chain (as measured by number of outlets).
Lots of great business studies material in the article, including:
- Yum! invested in China earlier than competitors (first-mover advantage?)
- The rise of the middle-class consumer in emerging markets is driving demand for the products and services of global brands
- Product - traditional KFC & Pizza Hut menus have been adapted to suit local tastes
- Yum! increasingly looking to franchising for profitable expansion rather than operating owned-outlets
You may not have heard of Yum! But you will almost certainly have come across its key fast food brands, including KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.
This article describes how a rapid and significant expansion into emerging markets such as China, Russia and India has enabled Yum! to overtake McDonalds to become the world’s largest restaurant chain (as measured by number of outlets).
Lots of great business studies material in the article, including:
- Yum! invested in China earlier than competitors (first-mover advantage?)
- The rise of the middle-class consumer in emerging markets is driving demand for the products and services of global brands
- Product - traditional KFC & Pizza Hut menus have been adapted to suit local tastes
- Yum! increasingly looking to franchising for profitable expansion rather than operating owned-outlets
A2: Business Strategies
I like this two-minute video which highlights the competitive challenges facing Microsoft as the consumers and businesses increasingly opt for non-PC computing products and services. A good lesson introduction for students who want to research the impact of changing technology on established markets.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Sundays Lesson in Buso
Remember ladies, we are looking at pros and cons of multi national companies setting up in forwign countries.
Ah, the Sony Walkman, what a piece of kit that was. But Sony have just announced that they have stopped production of these icons, after what I can only imagine has been a relatively long decline stage.
I was actually surprised that they were still being produced, but as the article says, there is still some demand in Japan (and other places) from the elderly. Thirty plus years is a pretty decent run for a product (introduced in July 1979) and lifetime sales were 220 million units although this can be compared to ipod sales with 270 million units in the past nine years. And it is worth noting that the cassette player is not completely dead, while production in Japan has stopped, there will still be some production in China for those consumers around the world that still think that music through a cassette is worth listening to, although somehow I don’t think it will ever match the nostalgia of vinyl!
It may also be worth a discussion in terms of extension strategies of a brand vs a product - the walkman brand lives on in sony’s range of mp3 players and is using Kareoke to gain a unique selling point.
I was actually surprised that they were still being produced, but as the article says, there is still some demand in Japan (and other places) from the elderly. Thirty plus years is a pretty decent run for a product (introduced in July 1979) and lifetime sales were 220 million units although this can be compared to ipod sales with 270 million units in the past nine years. And it is worth noting that the cassette player is not completely dead, while production in Japan has stopped, there will still be some production in China for those consumers around the world that still think that music through a cassette is worth listening to, although somehow I don’t think it will ever match the nostalgia of vinyl!
It may also be worth a discussion in terms of extension strategies of a brand vs a product - the walkman brand lives on in sony’s range of mp3 players and is using Kareoke to gain a unique selling point.
Monday, 25 October 2010
Business Objectives: It's not always about money!!!!
A friend of mine has just returned from a showing of the very excellent “The Social Network” – the story of Facebook.
He was very impressed by its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. After our discussion, I was left wondering about the business objectives facebook. The film repeatedly suggests that Zuckerberg was not motivated by money, for example describing how an early application that he developed was uploaded to Microsoft for free. In a recent interview discussing criticisms of Facebook he suggested:
“It bums me out that people immediately go to “You must be doing this to make money.” Because that’s just so different from the ethos of the company. It is so different from how we actually think about stuff, that you feel so misunderstood.”
This interview with Wired then continues to discuss how the site could provide a greater proportion of the page to advertising than it currently does.
This is an excellent example for all DBS Business Studies students, of a firm looking for increased market share rather than profit maximization.
The book version of the Facebook story is entitled “The Accidental Billionaires” but is this an accurate portrayal? Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg is more of a shrewd businessman than he lets on. Did he play the long game, recognising the importance of reputation and market share before reaping the profits?
With recent estimates of the value of Facebook at over $30 billion and profits of tens of millions it seems it is unlikely that investors are anything less than profit satisficed to date!
He was very impressed by its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. After our discussion, I was left wondering about the business objectives facebook. The film repeatedly suggests that Zuckerberg was not motivated by money, for example describing how an early application that he developed was uploaded to Microsoft for free. In a recent interview discussing criticisms of Facebook he suggested:
“It bums me out that people immediately go to “You must be doing this to make money.” Because that’s just so different from the ethos of the company. It is so different from how we actually think about stuff, that you feel so misunderstood.”
This interview with Wired then continues to discuss how the site could provide a greater proportion of the page to advertising than it currently does.
This is an excellent example for all DBS Business Studies students, of a firm looking for increased market share rather than profit maximization.
The book version of the Facebook story is entitled “The Accidental Billionaires” but is this an accurate portrayal? Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg is more of a shrewd businessman than he lets on. Did he play the long game, recognising the importance of reputation and market share before reaping the profits?
With recent estimates of the value of Facebook at over $30 billion and profits of tens of millions it seems it is unlikely that investors are anything less than profit satisficed to date!
Friday, 22 October 2010
Lets solve the problem of football......
Being a Business teacher and a massive fan of Leeds United (my hometown clunbtw!!!), I would like to solve the problem that is football....
Football, as we all know, is losing its soul, lets face it. If we care about this, how as Economists/Business Studies students can we provide the correct incentive mechanisms to fix it?
You have heard me talk about this in class. Here are some possible ideas:
- The exorbitant salaries at the top end of the game act as a disincentive to care about performances at the national level. Too many of our pampered professionals don’t seem to care, despite professing a love for the national shirt. Let’s test their levels of motivation by asking them to pay a refundable deposit every two years, based on a % of their salaries. If they perform, they get the money back. If they don’t, the money is kept and distributed to the grass roots of the game. If they don’t want to pay this deposit, fine. Give the so-called ‘lesser’ players a chance to show what they can do.
- The American draft system is an excellent idea – bring it into the top levels of football – level the playing field (did you see what I did there?);
- Please hurry up and bring in a system whereby clubs cannot live beyond their means: institute an enforceable system whereby any breaches of a salary/revenue percentage maximum are dealt with harshly, via points deduction and enforced relegation if necessary;
- Re-brand the Champions’ League, for obvious reasons. Back in the day, it was only champions who could win it. 1967 and 1982 are excellent examples. I understand the need for revenue generation in the modern game, but call the competition something else, like the ‘Snouts in the Trough Challenge’;
- Good people of the Home Counties, Manchester United is not for you! There are only two acceptable reasons for supporting a football team: either you have a geographic connection, or a familial one. Any other reason, such as liking the team because they win things, is unacceptable. Fans that are discovered to be breaking these rules should be forced to watch only rugby for the rest of their lives as a punishment.
keep the comments clean please.......
Football, as we all know, is losing its soul, lets face it. If we care about this, how as Economists/Business Studies students can we provide the correct incentive mechanisms to fix it?
You have heard me talk about this in class. Here are some possible ideas:
- The exorbitant salaries at the top end of the game act as a disincentive to care about performances at the national level. Too many of our pampered professionals don’t seem to care, despite professing a love for the national shirt. Let’s test their levels of motivation by asking them to pay a refundable deposit every two years, based on a % of their salaries. If they perform, they get the money back. If they don’t, the money is kept and distributed to the grass roots of the game. If they don’t want to pay this deposit, fine. Give the so-called ‘lesser’ players a chance to show what they can do.
- The American draft system is an excellent idea – bring it into the top levels of football – level the playing field (did you see what I did there?);
- Please hurry up and bring in a system whereby clubs cannot live beyond their means: institute an enforceable system whereby any breaches of a salary/revenue percentage maximum are dealt with harshly, via points deduction and enforced relegation if necessary;
- Re-brand the Champions’ League, for obvious reasons. Back in the day, it was only champions who could win it. 1967 and 1982 are excellent examples. I understand the need for revenue generation in the modern game, but call the competition something else, like the ‘Snouts in the Trough Challenge’;
- Good people of the Home Counties, Manchester United is not for you! There are only two acceptable reasons for supporting a football team: either you have a geographic connection, or a familial one. Any other reason, such as liking the team because they win things, is unacceptable. Fans that are discovered to be breaking these rules should be forced to watch only rugby for the rest of their lives as a punishment.
keep the comments clean please.......
The story of the i pod...so far!
Click here for an excellent graphic charting the growth in sales of the i pod.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Unit 1: Google Offices
Would you want to work here?
Why do google do this?
Would it work for every business?
Would it work at DBS?
Why do google do this?
Would it work for every business?
Would it work at DBS?
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Unit 3: Google, Profits & Diversification!
The story is simple. The global recession simply hasn’t dampened Google’s performance. It has announced continued growth in its core business - the display and sale of online advertising. It is generating stunning profits nearly all of which are retained and reinvested in a wide range of internal development projects and external acquisitions.
Indeed Google has made dozens of acquisitions in the last 12-18 months and it is also investing heavily in internal R&D projects with the aim of “solving the world’s problems using technology”. The savvy business student will see that Google is now much more than a search engine - it is using its massive retained profits to diversify into a wide range of seemingly unrelated industries.
Will it succeed? Wher does it go next?......
Indeed Google has made dozens of acquisitions in the last 12-18 months and it is also investing heavily in internal R&D projects with the aim of “solving the world’s problems using technology”. The savvy business student will see that Google is now much more than a search engine - it is using its massive retained profits to diversify into a wide range of seemingly unrelated industries.
Will it succeed? Wher does it go next?......
Monday, 18 October 2010
China & India Worksheet
The classwork/homework sheets you have been given can also be found below!
China and India worksheet
View more documents from mattbentley34.
Strategic Planning: Tesco - Activity
Tesco is a success story - it was the first UK business to make £2 billion in profits when it announced the feat early in 2005. Despite this, the share price fell when its results were announced. Why?
Task
This Activity will provide you with a review of the growth of Tesco over the last 80 years. Use the information to present a report, using an appropriate format, to assess the future strategic opportunities open to the supermarket giant.
Tesco opened its first store in Edgware, North London in 1929. It gets its name from the combination of the founder of Tesco, Sir Jack Cohen and a partner in a firm of tea suppliers who Cohen worked with, T.E. Stockwell. Since that time, the company has grown and has reflected the changes in retailing. Prior to the Second World War, most grocery stores served customers but self service stores were on their way and, once introduced, allowed stores to grow bigger to become the superstores we know today.
The company floated on the stock exchange in 1947 with an initial share price of 25p. Tesco became a familiar name on the high streets of the UK and whilst it was able to take advantage of commercial economies of scale through bulk purchase of supplies, the existence of resale price maintenance restricted the ability of Tesco to be as competitive as trading conditions now allow. The system allowed suppliers to insist that retailers sold their products for a set price. Tesco used other strategies to build customer loyalty including the use of stamps that could be exchanged for cash or goods.
The Tesco strategy up to this time was encapsulated by the title of Cohen's autobiography, 'Pile it high and sell it cheap', but the increasing affluence of customers and the changing needs meant that Tesco altered its approach and moved into opening out of town stores with more attractive interiors. Such refurbishment was also carried out in the existing stores and with the onset of selling petrol at some of its stores it broke the £1 billion turnover level in 1979.
The 1980s saw a continuation in the growth of new stores and also the development of new initiatives. In 1985, Tesco announced its Healthy Eating options with nutritional information and advice on some of its own branded foods. By the 1990s, the move to overtake the other major supermarkets was well under way. The emphasis was on finding new ways of satisfying consumer needs and building customer loyalty. A range of new services and facilities were introduced, including Tesco Metro, a store concept aimed at the high street customer but offering the benefits of a large supermarket. In some respects, this was Tesco returning to the high street after selling off many stores in the 1960s and '70s in the move to join the out-of-town shopping trend.
Strategy
"We have continued to make strong progress with all four parts of our strategy - a strong UK core business, non-food, retailing services and international - by keeping our focus on trying to improve what we do for customers:
•making their shopping trip as easy as possible
•constantly seeking to reduce our prices to help them spend less
•offering the convenience of either large or small stores
•bringing simplicity and value to complicated markets"
A similar move saw the advent of Tesco Express, a petrol station with a supermarket providing local shoppers not only with petrol at competitive prices but also a range of essential grocery items. This type of approach also extended to the Tesco Extra stores where both food and non-food items were sold. This proved a direct challenge to some of the larger Asda supermarkets that had sold non-food items like white goods (washing machines, fridges, etc.), gardening equipment, kitchenware, clothing, CDs and so on for some time. Sainsbury's meanwhile kept its food and non-food services separate with the development of the Homebase chain.
In 1995, Tesco introduced the Clubcard, a loyalty card for customers who were able to collect points from purchases and use them to exchange for goods. It also gave Tesco a massive amount of information about the customers who visited its stores, what they bought, the regularity with which they bought them and how they responded to the in-store promotions and special offers. Sainsbury's dismissed the card as a gimmick but were soon to lose out on sales to Tesco and in the latter part of 1995, Tesco became the market leader with a market share of 17%.
Throughout the 1990s, Tesco introduced further measures to improve its service and the range of goods and services it offered its customers. This included such things as making staff available to help customers pack bags and take them to the car, having a policy of opening checkouts if there was more than one person in a queue, linking in with the Airmiles group in relation to its Clubcard and the provision of facilities such as baby changing units, restaurants and coffee bars.
Apart from the basic services it was providing, it was building on the range of products it was offering. It opened pharmacies in some stores, developed a range of financial services including a Visa card, mortgages, insurance and a bank account all in conjunction with the Royal Bank of Scotland. The expansion of the non-food side included offering entertainment goods such as TVs, DVD players and home entertainment systems as well as white goods, household products, clothing and so on. Its well-publicised battle with Levi's over the selling of jeans at prices considerably below that of Levi's outlets was lost but not before Tesco had presented itself as a champion of the customer in its battle to bring quality and value for money to the retail supermarket scene.
In the new century, further developments pushed Tesco's profits higher still; it introduced shopping via the Internet and home delivery, Internet service provision, and a range of foods reflecting different qualities from the 'Value' range which had been introduced in 1993 through to its 'Finest' products as well as a brand called 'Free from' for customers with special dietary needs.
Tesco has also taken steps to expand abroad. It has acquired stores in Japan, China, Taiwan, Poland, Slovakia, Ireland, Turkey, South Korea and Malaysia amongst others and has links with Safeway Inc in the United States. It continues to try to improve the quality of its customer service provision and the range of goods and services it is offering. It did make a bid to takeover the Safeway group when Morrisons initially put in a bid. However, it was unlikely to ever succeed in this given the market share it now has in the supermarket business.
Given this massive growth, Tesco announced a profit of over £2 billion for 2004 - the first UK supermarket to break this barrier. The fall in the share price reflects what analysts expect to happen in the future rather than what has happened in the past.
So where does Tesco go from here? Have they reached a peak from which there is now only a downward trend or are there strategies that Tesco can put in place to cement their position in the market and continue to expand in the future?
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Unit 3: Research question
My group will be attempting this question over this week. In addition to the theories you have studied, it will involve some research on your part.
Despite being the UK’s largest supermarket, Tesco has put in place an international expansion strategy. They now have stores in, for example, Poland, Slovakia, Japan, South Korea and China. You should investigate Tesco’s domestic competition within the UK, why they think Tesco has decided to expand abroad, and how they have achieved this.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Sunday, 10 October 2010
A2 Unit 3: The Clear & Simple gains from Trade
To hear most politicians talk, you’d think that exports are the key to a country’s prosperity and that imports are a threat to its way of life. Trade deficits—importing more than we export—are portrayed as the road to ruin… US Politicians are always talking about the necessity of other countries’ opening their markets to American products. They never mention the virtues of opening U.S. markets to foreign products.
This perspective on imports and exports is called mercantilism. It goes back to the 14th century and has about as much intellectual rigor as alchemy, another landmark of the pre-Enlightenment era.
The logic of “exports, good—imports, bad” seems straightforward at first—after all, when a factory closes because of foreign competition, there seem to be fewer jobs than there otherwise would be. Don’t imports cause factories to close? Don’t exports build factories?
But is the logic really so clear? As a thought experiment, take what would seem to be the ideal situation for a mercantilist. Suppose we only export and import nothing. The ultimate trade surplus. So we work and use raw materials and effort and creativity to produce stuff for others without getting anything in return. There’s another name for that. It’s called slavery. How can a country get rich working for others?
Then there’s the mercantilist nightmare: We import from abroad, but foreigners buy nothing from us. What would the world be like if every morning you woke up and found a Japanese car in your driveway, Chinese clothing in your closet, and French wine in your cellar? All at no cost. Does that sound like heaven or hell? The only analogy I can think of is Santa Claus. How can a country get poor from free stuff? Or cheap stuff? How do imports hurt us?
We don’t export to create jobs. We export so we can have money to buy the stuff that’s hard for us to make—or at least hard for us to make as cheaply. We export because that’s the only way to get imports. If people would just give us stuff, then we wouldn’t have to export. But the world doesn’t work that way.
It’s the same in our daily lives. It’s great when people give us presents—a loaf of banana bread or a few tomatoes from the garden. But a new car would be better. Or even just a cheaper car. But the people who bring us cars and clothes and watches and shoes expect something in return. That’s OK. That’s the way the world works. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the goal of life is to turn away bargains from outside our house or outside our country because we’d rather make everything ourselves. Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.
And imports don’t destroy jobs. They destroy jobs in certain industries. But because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones. That’s why we trade—to leverage the skills of others who can produce things more effectively than we can, freeing us to make things we otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.
Discussion Questions:
“Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty” – Discuss…
Explain the logical economic fallacy of the mercantilist philosophy of “exports good, imports bad”
“…because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones”. What basic economic principle is Professor Roberts alluding to here?
This perspective on imports and exports is called mercantilism. It goes back to the 14th century and has about as much intellectual rigor as alchemy, another landmark of the pre-Enlightenment era.
The logic of “exports, good—imports, bad” seems straightforward at first—after all, when a factory closes because of foreign competition, there seem to be fewer jobs than there otherwise would be. Don’t imports cause factories to close? Don’t exports build factories?
But is the logic really so clear? As a thought experiment, take what would seem to be the ideal situation for a mercantilist. Suppose we only export and import nothing. The ultimate trade surplus. So we work and use raw materials and effort and creativity to produce stuff for others without getting anything in return. There’s another name for that. It’s called slavery. How can a country get rich working for others?
Then there’s the mercantilist nightmare: We import from abroad, but foreigners buy nothing from us. What would the world be like if every morning you woke up and found a Japanese car in your driveway, Chinese clothing in your closet, and French wine in your cellar? All at no cost. Does that sound like heaven or hell? The only analogy I can think of is Santa Claus. How can a country get poor from free stuff? Or cheap stuff? How do imports hurt us?
We don’t export to create jobs. We export so we can have money to buy the stuff that’s hard for us to make—or at least hard for us to make as cheaply. We export because that’s the only way to get imports. If people would just give us stuff, then we wouldn’t have to export. But the world doesn’t work that way.
It’s the same in our daily lives. It’s great when people give us presents—a loaf of banana bread or a few tomatoes from the garden. But a new car would be better. Or even just a cheaper car. But the people who bring us cars and clothes and watches and shoes expect something in return. That’s OK. That’s the way the world works. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the goal of life is to turn away bargains from outside our house or outside our country because we’d rather make everything ourselves. Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.
And imports don’t destroy jobs. They destroy jobs in certain industries. But because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones. That’s why we trade—to leverage the skills of others who can produce things more effectively than we can, freeing us to make things we otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.
Discussion Questions:
“Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty” – Discuss…
Explain the logical economic fallacy of the mercantilist philosophy of “exports good, imports bad”
“…because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones”. What basic economic principle is Professor Roberts alluding to here?
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Web sites you MUST sign up to...
Please can all Business Studies students in Y12/13 sign up to the following sites:
www.prezi.com - Prezi
www.twitter.com - twitter
http://db.tt/ANbmfjr - dropbox
www.voicethread.com - Voicethread
www.diigo.com - Diigo
www.prezi.com - Prezi
www.twitter.com - twitter
http://db.tt/ANbmfjr - dropbox
www.voicethread.com - Voicethread
www.diigo.com - Diigo
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
The Divorce between ownership & control!
Here is a fine that the guilty party may find tough to repay.
Jerome Kerviel - rogue trader for Société Générale has been found guilty of breach of trust, forgery and entering false data into computers all linked to covering huge and illicit stock bets that are estimated to have cost France’s second biggest bank just under Euro 5 billion in losses. Kerviel faces three years in jail - in other words, plenty of time to organise the bring and buy sales, whip-rounds and begging letters to make a chink in the Euro 4.9bn bill.
One of the aspects of the case is that bank’s defence that it did not know what Kerviel was doing - in other words we see here an example of the principal agent problem, a massively costly failure of information and back office controls and systems.
The presiding judge told the court that he was confident that Société Générale was not aware of Jerome Kerviel’s fraudulent activities. The trader had taken speculative positions on selected stocks without the knowledge of the bank. Societe Generale has already been fined four million euros after admitting to lax financial controls. Kerviel himself was something of a loner and took home a meagre salary by city standards.
The principal agent problem stems in part from a separation of owners from managers where the agent (or manager) acts in their own self-interest, not in support of the aims of the principal (stockholder). Much has been written in recent years about the incentives to cheat (Dan Ariely has plenty of say on this in his two recent books - see this talk - “Finding Cheating’s Comfort Level ). For many the pressure or incentive to cheat is greatest when you are given the chance to ‘Play’ with other people’s money (you do not have the same sense of ownership). The Kerviel case highlights just how risky this can be for huge financial organisations if there is a failure of control over the trading floors.
Jerome Kerviel - rogue trader for Société Générale has been found guilty of breach of trust, forgery and entering false data into computers all linked to covering huge and illicit stock bets that are estimated to have cost France’s second biggest bank just under Euro 5 billion in losses. Kerviel faces three years in jail - in other words, plenty of time to organise the bring and buy sales, whip-rounds and begging letters to make a chink in the Euro 4.9bn bill.
One of the aspects of the case is that bank’s defence that it did not know what Kerviel was doing - in other words we see here an example of the principal agent problem, a massively costly failure of information and back office controls and systems.
The presiding judge told the court that he was confident that Société Générale was not aware of Jerome Kerviel’s fraudulent activities. The trader had taken speculative positions on selected stocks without the knowledge of the bank. Societe Generale has already been fined four million euros after admitting to lax financial controls. Kerviel himself was something of a loner and took home a meagre salary by city standards.
The principal agent problem stems in part from a separation of owners from managers where the agent (or manager) acts in their own self-interest, not in support of the aims of the principal (stockholder). Much has been written in recent years about the incentives to cheat (Dan Ariely has plenty of say on this in his two recent books - see this talk - “Finding Cheating’s Comfort Level ). For many the pressure or incentive to cheat is greatest when you are given the chance to ‘Play’ with other people’s money (you do not have the same sense of ownership). The Kerviel case highlights just how risky this can be for huge financial organisations if there is a failure of control over the trading floors.
A2 Unit 3: China's emergence in the global economy
Check out video on the emergence of China in the global economy, essential for Unit 3 Business students:
Monday, 4 October 2010
Unit 3: International Trade debate
Paul Krugman in his book, Naked Economics writes;
“You could say that globalization, driven not by human goodness but by the profit motive, has done far more good for more people than all the foreign aid and soft loans provided by well-intentioned governments and aid agencies.”
I would like you to think whether this is true or not. Below are some of the arguments you should think about;
Anti-trade arguments
80% of the toys sold in America are made in China.
Foreign companies make toys in factories operated and owned by Chinese.
Working conditions in China are horrible with a minimum wages that is far too low.
In addition to low wages, standards of worker safety are lower than the United States, leading to exploitation of labor to produce cheap toys for Americans.
To make matters worse, the prices of a certain toy may vary greatly from rich country to rich country. For example, a doll that sells for $29 in the USA sells for $64 in Holland. How is this fair?
The cost of labor makes up less than 5% of the price of the toy.
Free trade only increases the profits of the capitalists, but does not help the workers in the poor countries where products are manufactured.
The Negative Impact of Free Trade eHow.com
Due to free trade, demand for labor in more developed countries decreases since production occurs in other countries where it’s cheaper to produce.
This means jobs lost in rich countries, so less economic growth, less consumption, lower incomes.
Growth in some countries comes at the expense of growth in other countries. There are winners and LOSERS in free trade.
Doha trade deal ‘will hurt Africa’ Environment The Guardian
Under free trade as we call it today, subsidies to farmers in Europe make it difficult for African farmers to compete.
Africa accounts for less of the total trade in the world today than it did in 1990, mostly because of its inability to export produce due to subsidies to farmers in Europe.
With less access to advanced capital and the lack of government subsidies, African farmers find it difficult to compete on the global produce market.
Free trade hurts poor countries’ farmers and therefore increases the gap between rich and poor. Trade liberalization creates some losers as it increases the gap between those with skills to work in the global market and those who don’t have those skills.
Trade leads to an increase in inequality and more relative poverty.
Trade creates severe tensions between big and small firms and workers who succeed and those who lag behind.
Export growth can exacerbate the exploitation of natural resources. Without environmental protection, trade may make us richer but at the price of future development.
Pro-trade arguments
allAfrica.com: Africa: Free Trade Area for East, Southern Africa Making Progress
Africa is establishing Free Trade Areas to improve the flow of goods and services across country. If trade were not beneficial, then why would so many countries be clamoring to enter a free trade area?
When workers can move freely in a region it can lead to better, more efficient resource allocation. The same is true of capital, goods and services. Larger markets lead to more efficiency and greater opportunities for employment and for business operators.
Reducing tariffs, quotas and other barriers to trade increases efficiency and allows for more opportunities for all those who live within a free trade areal.
Foreign Trade, Not Foreign Aid « John Stossel
If we help developing countries improve and increase their trade with each other and the rest of the world, it will create jobs, allow entrepreneurs to start companies and therefore reduce unemployment.
Greater opportunities and less unemployment leads to more social stability, reduction in poverty, and less likelihood that the poor people of the world will become “extremists” or result to violence and terrorism to express their dissatisfaction with the world.
More trade and international relationships reduces likelihood of conflict between and within poor countries.
We should expect to see social and political stability arising from increased economic opportunity.
Free trade WILL increase economic opportunities in poor countries.
General comments from the class after both sides have presented their arguments
Unlike aid, free trade cannot be “used up”. Aid is a one-off, when it’s gone it’s over, but trade can be self-perpetuating.
On the other hand, “but it all depends on the kind of aid and how it is used!”
Aid can be invested responsibly, but often times it is not.
So maybe there is room for BOTH aid AND trade.
“In extreme circumstances, aid is necessary. In other, trade is better as a long-run means of achieving growth and development”
Discussion questions:
Is it possible that free trade has increased not only the relative poverty in the world, but also the number of people living in absolute poverty? In other words, trade makes the rich get richer, but does it make the poor get poorer? Or do the poor just feel poorer due to increased wealth and income of the rich?
In 1970, the economies of China and Africa were roughly the same size, and the average income of a Chinese person was around the same as an African’s. Today, China’s economy is more than three time’s the size of Africa’s. What has China done differently than Africa to lead to such a huge income gap between the two regions?
Why should people in Europe, America and other high income regions of the world care about the economic development of the world’s poorest countries? Does improving the lives of Africans require that we in Europe and the rich West make sacrifices in our own standards of living?
African countries want Europe to stop subsidizing its farmers to make it easier for African farmers to compete. But doing so would mean the loss of an important part of European history and culture. Why would less subsidies to farmers in Europe help Africa, and should Europe listen to Africa on this issue or not?
“You could say that globalization, driven not by human goodness but by the profit motive, has done far more good for more people than all the foreign aid and soft loans provided by well-intentioned governments and aid agencies.”
I would like you to think whether this is true or not. Below are some of the arguments you should think about;
Anti-trade arguments
80% of the toys sold in America are made in China.
Foreign companies make toys in factories operated and owned by Chinese.
Working conditions in China are horrible with a minimum wages that is far too low.
In addition to low wages, standards of worker safety are lower than the United States, leading to exploitation of labor to produce cheap toys for Americans.
To make matters worse, the prices of a certain toy may vary greatly from rich country to rich country. For example, a doll that sells for $29 in the USA sells for $64 in Holland. How is this fair?
The cost of labor makes up less than 5% of the price of the toy.
Free trade only increases the profits of the capitalists, but does not help the workers in the poor countries where products are manufactured.
The Negative Impact of Free Trade eHow.com
Due to free trade, demand for labor in more developed countries decreases since production occurs in other countries where it’s cheaper to produce.
This means jobs lost in rich countries, so less economic growth, less consumption, lower incomes.
Growth in some countries comes at the expense of growth in other countries. There are winners and LOSERS in free trade.
Doha trade deal ‘will hurt Africa’ Environment The Guardian
Under free trade as we call it today, subsidies to farmers in Europe make it difficult for African farmers to compete.
Africa accounts for less of the total trade in the world today than it did in 1990, mostly because of its inability to export produce due to subsidies to farmers in Europe.
With less access to advanced capital and the lack of government subsidies, African farmers find it difficult to compete on the global produce market.
Free trade hurts poor countries’ farmers and therefore increases the gap between rich and poor. Trade liberalization creates some losers as it increases the gap between those with skills to work in the global market and those who don’t have those skills.
Trade leads to an increase in inequality and more relative poverty.
Trade creates severe tensions between big and small firms and workers who succeed and those who lag behind.
Export growth can exacerbate the exploitation of natural resources. Without environmental protection, trade may make us richer but at the price of future development.
Pro-trade arguments
allAfrica.com: Africa: Free Trade Area for East, Southern Africa Making Progress
Africa is establishing Free Trade Areas to improve the flow of goods and services across country. If trade were not beneficial, then why would so many countries be clamoring to enter a free trade area?
When workers can move freely in a region it can lead to better, more efficient resource allocation. The same is true of capital, goods and services. Larger markets lead to more efficiency and greater opportunities for employment and for business operators.
Reducing tariffs, quotas and other barriers to trade increases efficiency and allows for more opportunities for all those who live within a free trade areal.
Foreign Trade, Not Foreign Aid « John Stossel
If we help developing countries improve and increase their trade with each other and the rest of the world, it will create jobs, allow entrepreneurs to start companies and therefore reduce unemployment.
Greater opportunities and less unemployment leads to more social stability, reduction in poverty, and less likelihood that the poor people of the world will become “extremists” or result to violence and terrorism to express their dissatisfaction with the world.
More trade and international relationships reduces likelihood of conflict between and within poor countries.
We should expect to see social and political stability arising from increased economic opportunity.
Free trade WILL increase economic opportunities in poor countries.
General comments from the class after both sides have presented their arguments
Unlike aid, free trade cannot be “used up”. Aid is a one-off, when it’s gone it’s over, but trade can be self-perpetuating.
On the other hand, “but it all depends on the kind of aid and how it is used!”
Aid can be invested responsibly, but often times it is not.
So maybe there is room for BOTH aid AND trade.
“In extreme circumstances, aid is necessary. In other, trade is better as a long-run means of achieving growth and development”
Discussion questions:
Is it possible that free trade has increased not only the relative poverty in the world, but also the number of people living in absolute poverty? In other words, trade makes the rich get richer, but does it make the poor get poorer? Or do the poor just feel poorer due to increased wealth and income of the rich?
In 1970, the economies of China and Africa were roughly the same size, and the average income of a Chinese person was around the same as an African’s. Today, China’s economy is more than three time’s the size of Africa’s. What has China done differently than Africa to lead to such a huge income gap between the two regions?
Why should people in Europe, America and other high income regions of the world care about the economic development of the world’s poorest countries? Does improving the lives of Africans require that we in Europe and the rich West make sacrifices in our own standards of living?
African countries want Europe to stop subsidizing its farmers to make it easier for African farmers to compete. But doing so would mean the loss of an important part of European history and culture. Why would less subsidies to farmers in Europe help Africa, and should Europe listen to Africa on this issue or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)