Tag: economy

Can governments save declining cities?

Detroit’s decline illustrates the limits of government powers in the face of economic and historic forces.

Following yesterday’s post on comparing the relative problems of Detroit and the Chinese ghost city of Ordos, The Fiscal Times has a somewhat wistful description of Motor City’s decline by one of the city’s sons, Eric Pianin.

Pianin’s story charts the various attempts to revitalise the city following the disastrous 1967 riots that triggered the middle class and white flight from downtown.

As last week’s events show none of these efforts worked, which begs the question of what governments can do to save cities and regions facing structural decline.

Every city has an economic reason for existing — it could be transport links, natural resources or an industrial cluster. When that reason fades the population moves on.

For Detroit, the high point was the late 1960s as the US motor industry reached its zenith. Through the 1970s the sector languished and was then displaced by smarter, better Japanese competitors.

In the face of this there was little local, state or Federal governments could do. Detroit’s importance, wealth and population were destined to decline as industry left regardless of how much money was spent on grand schemes to revitalise the town.

Perhaps sometimes we just have to accept there are limits to government power and the predicaments of cities like Detroit are the natural course of history.

Over time, it may be Detroit manages to reinvent itself however the city will almost be very different, and smaller, city that it was in its heyday.

View of Detroit Central Terminal Station by Jason Mrachina through Flickr.

Similar posts:

Ordos and Detroit – A tale of two cities and two economies

The problems of Detroit and Ordos tell us much about the differences between the US and Chinese economies

This week bought news that that two cities, one in China and one in the US, had fallen into deep financial trouble.

While the bankruptcy of Detroit is very different to the developers of the Ordos new city failing, there is a strange symmetry between the two stories.

Detroit is the biggest US city ever to enter bankruptcy with an estimated $20 billion in debts, dwarfing the previous record of Alabama’s Jefferson Country’s $4 billion default in 2011.

The fall of Detroit wasn’t unexpected as the New York Times tells.

Detroit expanded at a stunning rate in the first half of the 20th century with the arrival of the automobile industry, and then shrank away in recent decades at a similarly remarkable pace. A city of 1.8 million in 1950, it is now home to 700,000 people, as well as to tens of thousands of abandoned buildings, vacant lots and unlit streets.

Like most industrial hubs, Detroit grew became the centre of the US motor industry due to geographic and commercial advantages along with a few historical accidents but as the economy changed, the city’s importance faded.

It’s sad for the people of Detroit but it isn’t the first industrial hub to fade away; Ironbridge, once the cradle of the English industrial revolution, is today an open air museum and a charming rural spot.

Ordos on the other hand is an example of 21st Century government planning with the Inner Mongolian provincial leaders building the city of the basis of build it and they will come.

They haven’t.

The collapse of Ordos is going to be an interesting test of the Chinese economic model. Many of the country’s local and provincial governments – like Australia’s – have become dependent on the revenues from property sales. Now the market is  drying up, local councils are having trouble paying their bills as Bloomberg reports.

Some Ordos district governments had to borrow money from companies to pay municipal employees’ salaries, Economy & Nation Weekly, published by the official Xinhua News Agency, said in a July 5 report on its website.

So while Detroit illustrates the stresses in the US system, so too does Ordos tell us about the problems facing Chinese governments.

The tale of these two cities also shows the difference between the US’ industrialisation of the early Twentieth Century and today’s economic development in the PRC and reminds why the results of ‘Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics’ may be very different to the modern American consumerist economy.

For Detroit, at least there’s good news as one US city manages to works its way out of bankruptcy. For the developers of Ordos though, things must be looking very grim.

Ordos image courtesy of Bert van Dijk through Flickr.

Similar posts:

Google and Microsoft show how online business is changing

Google and Microsoft’s quarterly reports show how all businesses are vulnerable in times of change.

Both Microsoft and Google yesterday reported their second quarter earnings for 2013 and both missed the targets expected analysts. Does this really mean anything?

Microsoft’s earnings were particularly notable as they included a $900 million dollar write off on Surface RT inventories, this almost certainly means a key part of the company’s tablet strategy has failed.

What’s striking in Microsoft’s earnings report is the terrible performance of the Windows Division which saw sales increase 10% year-on-year to 4.4 billion dollars, but earnings collapse by over 50%. Excluding the Surface RT write off, the division would still have seen a ten percent fall.

The company’s statement emphasised how the division is struggling with increasing costs.

Windows Division operating income decreased $1.3 billion, primarily due to higher cost of revenue and sales and marketing expenses, offset in part by revenue growth. Cost of revenue increased $1.2 billion primarily reflecting product costs associated with Surface and Windows 8, including the charge for Surface RT inventory adjustments of approximately $900 million. Sales and marketing expenses increased $344 million, reflecting advertising costs associated with Windows 8 and Surface.

At Google, the company’s 2nd Quarter report show trend is still upwards but the core business of online advertising is showing some cracks as the total number of paid clicks grows, but the value of each falls. At the same time traffic aquisition costs are rising at the same rate as revenues.

This could indicate that advertisers’ appetite for online links is fading. For smaller businesses, the cost of adwords campaigns has been escalating to the point where the old days of newspaper classifieds and Yellow Pages listings start to look cheap.

Couple the cost of advertising with the inevitable ‘ad blindness’ that web surfers have developed and a worrying trend for Google starts to appear. Overall Google’s net profit margin was 26%, down from 31% a year earlier.

While both companies remain insanely profitable – Google earned $14 billion this quarter and Microsoft $6 billion – both businesses are showing stresses as their markets evolve. It proves no business can afford to be complacent in these times.

Similar posts:

Why Australia is losing the digital race

Despite the best intentions of government, Australia is falling behind in the digital economy. What can the nation’s political leaders do?

This story originally appeared in Business Spectator on 17 June 2013
At the beginning of this century, Melbourne hosted a meeting of the World Economic Forum. Among the visiting luminaries was Microsoft founder Bill Gates who laid out his vision for governments in the digital economy.

“The Government itself needs to become a model user of information technology,” Gates said at the time.

“Literally seeing government work with its citizens, with its businesses will change how we do our taxes, licences, registrations, all these things, on a basis where you don’t have to know the organisation of government and its various departments, you don’t have to stand in line, you don’t have to work with paperwork.”

Last month in Brisbane, the Federal government re-released their Digital Economy Strategy with the ambitious goal to make Australia a “leading digital economy by 2020”. A key part of the strategy is for the government to allow citizens to “fully complete priority services online”.

Thirteen years after Bill Gates articulated the need for governments to move services online – and he was by no means the first person to do so – the Federal government has posted a target to partly achieve this by the end of the decade.

It’s hard to see how achieving such a belated objective will put Australia in a position of leadership in a rapidly changing world, although this is a direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by the nation’s leaders, and society, over the last thirty years.

Thirty years ago the debate on Australia’s position in the global economy resulted in the Hawke government’s Clever Country policies. In many ways, today’s Digital Economy Strategy is an echo of the Labor’s halcyon days under Paul Keating.

Keeping things in perspective

In Sydney on the day before re-releasing the strategy, Minister Conroy channelled Paul Keating in talking about the J-Curve of technology adoption at a lunchtime panel with the Australia Israeli Chamber of Commerce.

Preceding Senator Conroy’s panel was Anna-Maria Arabia, general manager of the Questacon National Science and Technology Centre in Canberra, who described her trip to Israel to look at how the nation that derives 40 per cent of its export incomes from high tech industries is nurturing its technology sector.

Arabia was accompanying Federal minister Bill Shorten and she described a meeting with the chief scientist of the Israeli Ministry of the Economy, Avi Hasson, where Shorten asked him about the success rate of Israeli government research and development projects.

Hasson’s reply was very different to the risk averse response often heard from Australian bureaucrats, ministers and business leaders.

“Had I been told that we enjoyed an 80 per cent success rate I would have concluded the government was investing in the wrong projects,” Hasson is quoted as saying. “Such a success rate would have meant we were investing in low risk projects and, quite frankly, the private sector could have taken care of that.”

The risk-reward equation

In Australia, there is no such vision or appetite for risk. At best the Federal government has announced another review of tax rules and industry support programs while the opposition is vague on its plans to support innovation and R&D should it occupy the Treasury benches later in the year.

While it’s easy – and fair – to criticise both sides of politics, the business sector is equally negligent with its reluctance to invest in research and development while claiming R&D tax credits for projects that are closer to capital improvements rather than real innovation.

Two weeks ago the ABC Business Insiders program had featured an interview between Business Spectator’s Alan Kohler, Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris and Australian Business Council chief Tony Shepherd where they discussed Australia’s role in the modern global economy.

Australian born Liveris, who is also chairman of the US Business Council and sits on the Obama’s board of innovation, said Australia needs a vision building on the country’s strengths.

At present he warns the country is in a state of rigor mortis having “lost the will to innovate.”

Thinking beyond mining

When Gates visited Australia in 2000, he warned that the nation needed to think beyond mining and agriculture and secure a place in the high tech economy.

That warning was disregarded and Australia as a nation made the decision to focus on domestic consumption driven by rising property prices and mining exports.

Reserve Bank of Australia governor Glenn Stevens summed up that national decision in a speech made to the Australian Industry Group in 2010 where he dismissed Bill Gates’ warning about ignoring high tech industries at the beginning at the decade.

“Ten years on, though, it does not seem to have been to Australia’s disadvantage not to have built a massive IT production sector,” Stevens sneered. “On the contrary, the terms of trade are at a 60-year high, the currency just about equals its American counterpart in value and we face an investment build-up in the resources sector that is already larger than that seen in the late 1960s and that will very likely get larger yet.”

Stevens’ speech illustrates the Australia we have today – high-tech industries along with the research, development and innovation are something other countries do.

The vision for Australia being a global leader in the digital economy by 2020 is a laudable and equal to any of the noble objectives proposed in the Gonski education review or the Asian Century report.

Unfortunately to achieve those aims, and to overcome the deliberate national decisions we’ve made over the last thirty years, it’s going to take more than the modest and belated objectives of last week’s re-released Digital Economy Strategy.

Similar posts:

Can mobile networks build Myanmar’s economy?

Myanmar, or Burma, is emerging from being a backward economy, can mobile networks help the nation’s economic development?

Fifty years ago Myanmar, or Burma, was one of Asia’s most affluent nations, but a succession of poor governments have seen the country become one of the world’s poorest. Can mobile phone networks be part of Myanmar’s econmic recovery?

The potential economic impact of mobile communications in Myanmar is a report prepared by Deloitte Consulting for network equipment vendor Ericsson claiming that rolling out cellphone networks across the nation will create 90,000 jobs in the emerging economy.

Myanmar is starting from a low base with only 2% mobile penetration rates, compared to over 40% in Timor-Leste and Laos while the average across South-East Asia is over 100%.

Myanmar lags south east asia mobile penetration rates

To address this the Myanmar Post and Telecommunications Department is looking a splitting the existing phone monopoly into three or possibly four licenses.

Ericsson’s report looks at the economic effects of rolling out these networks and some of the opportunities for local entrepreneurs and communities.

The biggest employment effect identified in the Ericsson/Deloitte report is through the reseller networks with 50,000 of the 90,000 jobs created by new mobile services being in the sales channel.

What’s striking about that prediction is how it doesn’t look at the broader effects of modernising the country’s phone network. The report’s authors do mention they believe the overall benefits could boost the Burmese economy by over 9% in a best case scenario but don’t fully delve into where they believe that growth will come from.

myanmar-gdp-effects-of-mobile-networks

It can be expected there’ll be many more indirect benefits as Myanmar’s communications networks jump into the 21st Century, the report itself has a chapter citing various benefits mobile networks have delivered to countries as diverse as Kenya, Chile and Bhutan.

Particularly interesting with Myanmar’s development will be the Chinese influence in rolling out these networks – the PRC is already the biggest foreign investor in the country having largely ignored western sanctions on the military regime and it can be expected players like Huawei and China Mobile will be well positioned in bidding for licenses and contracts.

For local entrepreneurs the complex Burmese language is a natural opportunity for app developers and programmers to develop localised versions of successful applications, the lack of English and Chinese language skills among the population – another terrible neglect by successive governments – will hamstring Myanmar’s digital media export opportunities.

Probably the biggest risk to Myanmar’s success though is the role of the military who are expected to get one of those mobile licenses.

Burma’s terrible economic performance over the last fifty years has been largely due to the incompetence, greed and corruption of various military rulers and, while their continued influence in the nation’s economy may be necessary to placate them and their cronies, the legacy of these people may act as a break on a really open economy or fair markets.

For Myanmar, the opening of cell phone networks is great opportunity. Hopefully the vested interests that have held this nation back for so long will resist the temptation to further damage the country’s prospects.

Burmese landscape image by ZaNuDa through sxc.hu.

Similar posts:

Australia’s startup challenge

Creating a startup culture in Australia is tough when the nation is addicted to property speculation.

While I’ve been using CNet’s story on Kansas City’s startup community to compare Google’s Fiber project with the Australian National Broadband Network, the US article touches on something far more fundamental about Australia’s ability to build new businesses and industries.

The fundamental problem is property prices.

In Kansas City, local entrepreneurs wanting to set up a startup house can afford to take a chance.

The house is the pet project of Web designer and Kansas City local Ben Barreth, who did the insane last fall and cashed in his savings and liquidated his retirement account to put a down payment on a $48,000 house in the city’s Startup Village. Why? Barreth, a husband and father of two small children, wanted to be among the first to buy a house in a Google Fiber neighborhood.

$48,000 for a house is unthinkable in Australia. Even if we disregard Sydney and Melbourne, regional centres are vastly more expensive than their US counterparts. Geelong in Victoria for instance has an average house value of $390,000 while in Wagga Wagga in the New South Wales Riverina district houses sell for a median of over $300,000.

This pattern is true across almost all of populated Australia – it is very, very difficult to find a property under $250,000 and there are few, if any, regions in the country where a house can be bought for less than five times the average local income.

Expensive property comes at a price, it discourages people from starting businesses as the risk of being left out of the property market is so high. Leith van Onselen, co-founder of the Macrobusiness blog, made a very good point about this effect on his decision to set up a business.

Indeed, the main reason why I took the risk of leaving Goldman Sachs to concentrate on MacroBusiness full-time (a start-up business) is that I had all but paid-off my house and was in the fortunate position not to be saddled with onerous mortgage repayments. Had I a large mortgage, like many Australians, there is no way that I would have left a high paying, relatively steady job, to work on a business where pay is much lower and irregular, and where the outcome is unknown.

Leith was commenting on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald reporting the risks to Australian business should property prices fall.  In this respect, Australia has managed to paint itself into an economic corner.

The Sydney Morning Herald article illustrates Australia’s predicament – Michael Pascoe (the ‘Pascometer’) reported how Reserve Bank bureaucrat Chris Aylmer had warned of the dangers of falling property prices.

With most Australian businesses dependent on bank finance guaranteed by their proprietor’s home equity, falling property prices would see a nasty economic spiral as lines of credit were called in, forcing companies to slash expenses, including wages, which in turn would drive further real estate falls.

Property also makes up the bulk of Australians’ retirement savings, so a fall in property prices would smash consumer confidence.

It’s no surprise that in the face of a recession or economic shock the first thing Australian governments do is prop up the property market.

Another damaging effect of high property prices is that it turns the country conservative. This graph from Business Spectator’s Philip Soos does much to explain why Australians turned insular in the late 1990s.

Soos-graph-australian-property-prices

Having a population locked into paying their mortgages guarantees a conservative, risk adverse culture and that’s exactly what Australia has achieved over the last fifteen years – much of the opening up from the 1970s through to 1990s has been undone as the country looks inward at protecting its housing prices and bank repayments.

That safe, insular society has its attractions. However if you want to build an entrepreneurial culture, it’s safe to say you can’t get there from here.

While it’s not impossible to build a startup nation in a society addicted to property speculation,  it won’t be easy either.

Similar posts:

Michael Dell’s struggle to transform his business

The Rationale for a Private Dell states some stark truths about the PC manufacturing industry and global management in general

Michael Dell continues to press on with his buy out bid for the computer manufacturing giant he created with a presentation to shareholders stating his case why Dell Computers would have a better future as a private company.

Dell’s assertion is the company has to move from being a PC manufacturer to a Enterprise Solutions and Services business (ESS) as computer manufacturing margins collapse in the face of a changing market and more nimble, low cost, competitors.

What’s telling in Dell’s presentation is just how fast these changes have happened, here’s some key bullet points from the slide deck.

  • Dell’s transformation from a PC-focused business to an Enterprise Solutions and Services (ESS) -focused business is critical to its future success, especially as the PC market is changing faster than anticipated.
  • The transition to the “New Dell” is highly dependent on challenged “Core Dell”performance.
  • The speed of transformation is critical, yet “Core Dell” operating income is declining faster than the growth of “New Dell” operating income.
  • Dell’s rate of transformation is being outpaced by the rapid market shift to cloud.

The market is shifting quickly against Dell’s core PC manufacturing and sales business and the company’s founder is under no illusions just how serious the problem is.

Should Michael Dell succeed, the challenge in transforming his business is going to be immense – Dell Computing was one of the 1990s businesses that reinvented both the PC industry and the vast, precise logistics chain that supports it.

It was PC companies like Dell and Gateway who showed the dot com industry how to deliver goods quickly and profitably to customers around the world. Businesses like Amazon built their models upon the sophisticated logistics systems and relationships the computer manufacturers created.

A lesson though for all of those companies that followed Dell and Gateway is that those supply chains may turn around and bite you in the future, as Michael says in his presentation;

Within the PC market, Dell faces increasingly aggressive competition from low cost competitors around the world and shifts in product demand to segments where Dell has historically been weaker.

Those low cost competitors were many of Dell’s suppliers as over time the company’s Chinese manufacturers, Filipino call centres and Malaysian assemblers have developed the management skills to compete with the US retailers rather than just be their contractors.

Something that’s being missed in the debate about globalisation at present is that its not just low value work that can be done offshore – increasingly sales, marketing and legal are moving offshore along with programmers and engineers. Now the same thing is happening with management.

The same thing is also happening with corporations as Asian giants like Samsung, Huawei, Wipro and others displace US and European incumbents.

Dell Computing has been a much a victim of that move as it has been of the decline in the PC market which means its more than one battle Michael Dell has to fight.

It may well be that Dell can survive, but we shouldn’t underestimate just how great the challenge is as the company faces major changes to its markets and the global economy.

Similar posts: