economy | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Looking beyond economics

The Global Innovation Index rates nations on their ability to adapt and compete in the global economy, the authors believe the measure is more than just economics

Last Friday the Global Innovation Index was released rating nations on their ability to adapt and compete in today’s global economy, the authors though believe the measure is more than just economics.

The Global Innovation Index is a joint venture between Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization which measures 81 economic factors that across 143 countries.

Its release in Sydney last week was part of the B20 conference – the business offshoot of the G20 Heads of Government meeting taking place in Cairns later this year.

European countries top the list with Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Finland and the Netherlands making up the leading five. The US and Singapore break the European monopoly at the sixth and seventh positions.

As the results indicate, rich countries have a natural advantage in the index with index scores tracking national GDP – the highest ranked middle income country is China at 29th and the leading low income nation is Kenya at 85.

Kenya, and Sub Sahara Africa in general, is one of the highlights of this year’s report with with countries in the regions being nominated as ‘innovation learners’ with them performing above their expected level of GDP.

“What we find in Africa is growth rates are stabilising,” says Francis Gurry, the Director General of WIPO in discussing the report. “That creates the space for better policy and investments.”

Smaller is better

A key finding in the report is that smaller countries tend to perform better; “there’s a slight bias in the index,” says Gurry “as there’s more evenness across the economy.”

This works against larger countries like the United States while favouring countries such as Switzerland and Singapore.

Being affected by the 2008 financial crisis doesn’t help economies either; “the countries you see on top like Switzerland and the Nordic countries have been less affected than countries like Spain and Greece” says Bruno Lanvin, the Executive Director of the ISEAD Global Index.

Europe’s growing divergence

“Yet Europe remains a land of innovation,” continues Lanvin. “Europe has no choice, it is an aging economy and it has to innovate its way out.”

“A divide has been recreated within Europe, the whole European edifice has been a terrific machine for convergence. This has disappeared with the crisis where we see a new divergence.”

“We see countries like Spain and Italy, not to mention Greece, where the proportion of research and development has been decreasing which has not been compensated by private investment.”

This lack of private investment is a concern that constantly came up in the B20 discussions; despite the world being awash with capital, little is finding its way into infrastructure funding and business lending.

Falling R&D spending

Another area causing concern for the index compliers is the falling rates of research and development spending, noting that support for R&D efforts seems to have lost momentum in some countries with most growth in this area over the near future expected to take place mostly in China, the Republic of Korea, and India.

Innovation by Region
Rank in Region	GII 2013 Overall Rank	Country Name
Central and Southern Asia
1	76	India
2	79	Kazakhstan
3	86	Bhutan
Sub-Saharan Africa
1	40	Mauritius
2	51	Seychelles
3	53	South Africa
Southeast Asia and Oceania
1	7	Singapore
2	10	Hong Kong (China)
3	16	Korea, Rep.
Latin America and the Caribbean
1	41	Barbados
2	46	Chile
3	52	Panama
Northern Africa and Western Asia
1	15	Israel
2	30	Cyprus
3	36	United Arab Emirates
Europe
1	1	Switzerland
2	2	United Kingdom
3	3	Sweden
Northern America
1	6	United States of America
2	12	Canada

While the index was notable for its stability among the top ranking countries, there were stand out performers with the United Kingdom charging from tenth in 2011 to third in 2013 and second this year.

Much of the UK’s success has been around policy reform, something discussed on this blog previously, and the social diversity of London and South East England.

The value of diversity

Along with ethnic diversity, the advantages of having deep, varied economies and societies is emphasised by the report.

“When you’re measuring all of these, you’re measuring the ability of a country to compete;” says Gurry. “The intensity of competition will only increase between countries in respect to both regulatory regimes but also between enterprises.”

For all the talk about the importance of innovation Lanvin sees limits to what governments can do; “innovation is not a matter that can be decreed or implemented by governments alone, government can give the right signals and create an environment.”

Creating a mindset

“In the end it is the dynamics between business, government, academia and civil society that create the right mindset for a country to become an innovator,” continues Lanvin.

Lanvin also observes that innovation is about more than technology, “clearly technological innovation will remain a critical component, but you should expect to see social innovation and political innovation.”

“When we need to address the major challenges of this planet like the environment you need more than technological innovation; you need creativity, new mindset and new attitudes.”

“That’s part of the innovation mindset.”

Times get tougher for journalists and the middle class

Business and sports reporting is increasingly being done by computers, many other middle class jobs are going the same way.

Journalists have had a tough time over the last twenty years and it’s about to get tougher.

Last July The Associated Press announced they will automate most of their business reporting. AP’s Business News Managing Editor, Lou Ferrara explained in a company blog how the service will pull information out of company announcements and format them into standard news reports.

instead of providing 300 stories manually, we can provide up to 4,400 automatically for companies throughout the United States each quarter

This isn’t the first time robots have replaced journalists, three years ago National Public Radio reported how algorighms were replacing sports reporters.

Ferrara admits AP has already automated much of its sports reporting;

Interestingly, we already have been automating a good chunk of AP’s sports agate report for several years. Data comes from STATS, the sports statistics company, and is automated and formatted into our systems for distribution. A majority of our agate is produced this way.

Reporting sports or financial results makes sense for computer programs; the reciting of facts within a flowing narrative is something basic – Manchester United led Arsenal 2-0 at half time, Exxon Mobil stock was up twenty cents in morning trading and the Japanese Yen was down three points at this afternoon’s close don’t take a super computer to write.

Cynics would say rewriting press releases, something many journalists are accused of doing, could be better done by a machine and increasingly this is exactly what happens.

The automation of commodity reporting isn’t just a threat to journeyman journalists though; any job, trade or profession that is based on regurgitating information already stored on a database can be processed the same way.

For lawyers, accountants and armies of form processing public servants the computers are already threatening jobs – like journalists things are about to get much worse in those fields.

It could well be that it’s managers who are the most vulnerable of all; when computers can monitor the workplace and prepare executive reports then there’s little reason for many middle management positions.

This is part of the reason why the middle classes are in trouble and the political forces this unleashes shouldn’t be underestimated.

Competing in the global tech race

Some countries’ leaders recognise they live in the Twentieth First Century while others are struggling with Twentieth Century.

Last week I wrote a piece for Business Spectator on the contrast between countries competing for tech investment and skills.

Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny was in Silicon Valley promoting Ireland as an investment and operating location while in London the Queen hosted 350 British tech companies at Buckingham Palace.

Earlier this week President Obama hosted the first White House Makers’ Faire with over thirty inventors showing their ideas.

All of this contrasts with the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s recent North America where he touted the country was ‘open for business’ by offering mines and toll roads to Canadian pension funds.

It’s clear some countries’ leaders recognise they live in the Twentieth First Century while others are struggling with Twentieth Century.

Living in a changing world

If we want to understand how to adapt to a rapidly changing world, we could learn from our great-grandparents.

“We’re looking at a future where every aspect of our lives could be utterly different to how it is now,” declared ABC Radio host Linda Mottram in our semi-regular technology spot on Monday.

Linda’s concern was based around our talk on 4D printing and the future of design and she’s absolutely right – life is going to be totally different by the end of this century.

We won’t be the first generation to experience such massive change to society and the economy, our great grandparents at the beginning of the Twentieth were born into a world without electricity, the motor car or antibiotics.

Those who survived the two world wars and lived to a ripe old age in the 1970s saw life expectancy soar, childhood mortality rates collapse and the western economies shift from being predominately agricultural to mainly industrial and service based.

From our position, it’s difficult to comprehend just how radically life changed in western countries during the Twentieth Century.

When we wonder where the jobs of the 21st Century will come from, it’s worth reflecting that many careers we take for granted today didn’t exist a hundred years ago and the same will be true in a hundred years time.

The technology we’re using may be new, but adapting to massive change isn’t.

What happened to Australia?

Australia turned insular in the 1990s, can its luck continue well into the 21st Century?

Today I have a piece up in Technology Spectator on PwC’s Expanding Australia’s Economy report, the headline for which probably guarantees I’ll never get a job in a large Australian corporation again.

While the headline – which wasn’t mine – is inflammatory, there is an element of truth to it as Australian companies have become far more insular and comfortable in the last twenty years.

It wasn’t always like that, for a brief period in the late 1980s and early 1990s corporate Australia was prepared to take on the world. But something happened in the mid 1990s.

John Winston Howard

One of the key turning points was the election of the Liberal government in 1996, John Howard’s fundamental belief was that things were better in the 1950s and Australia should return to those days. He delivered.

The Australian people thought his vision was a great idea, having become exhausted by the reform agenda of the 1980s Hawke and Keating Labor governments that had opened and reinvigorated the economy.

Howard was helped by the Labor Party abandoning its reformist agenda with its successful 1993 campaign against the Liberal’s policy of changing the tax system. As George Megalogenis pointed out in his book The Australian Moment, Paul Keating’s populist victory over John Hewson demolished any appetite for meaningful reform among Australia’s political classes.

Cosy clubs

The centerpiece of Keating’s economic reforms was the compulsory retirement savings system; while the idea was good in principle, the practice of private fund managers looking after the savings has meant most of the investment has been concentrated in the top ASX stocks.

As a consequence, Australia’s top companies were relieved of the chore of answering to stroppy shareholders as their registries were dominated by their friends from Sydney’s Balmoral Beach Club and the hallowed halls of the Melbourne Club.

Domestic duopolies

Compounding that problem was another failure of the Hawke-Keating years of allowing domestic monopolies to develop on the basis that Australian companies needed a strong local footing in order to compete in global markets.

For a while that worked until Australia’s now powerful duopolies decided it was more profitable to exploit their domestic market strength rather than competing as global players. This happened around the time Keating won the 1993 election, by time Howard became PM the practice was well established.

The combination of tame shareholders and comfortable markets is why Australian corporations haven’t responding to global pressures; they simply don’t have to. Which leads us back to the conclusions of the PwC report.

Australia needs to lift its game. We are lagging behind our peers globally and are not considered a leader of innovation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012 rates Australia as average against its key drivers that measure competency and capacity to innovate. Change is required.

It’s difficult to see where change is going to come from for Australia while everyone – business leaders, politicians and the population at large – are comfortable. As the long as The Lucky Country stays lucky it can afford not to invest in the 21st Century.

Leading the disruptive wave

Uber’s fight with taxi regulators is part of a broader business disruption

I’ve a story up on Technology Spectator that pulls together Uber’s fight with taxi regulators around the world with the Australian government’s Commission of Audit.

While the story is written in an Australian context, the key message about business disruption is universal; as barriers to entry fall, no incumbent can assume they are immune from having their business upended.

For Australia, this is a particularly important message as the affluent economy is kept afloat by consumer spending underpinned by a favoured and protected housing market.

The economy though is nowhere near as untouchable as it looks; along with being way over invested in property, Australia’s industries are hopeless uncompetitive and have a cost base similar to Germany’s.

It’s an entire country ripe for disruption, it will be interesting to see if the Lucky Country’s luck holds in the 21st Century.

A consumerist utopia – where does Australia go in the 21st Century?

A raft of reports and media stories highlight the threats to Australia’s continued prosperity but the nation’s business leaders aren’t listening.

Today has been a big day for Australian navel-gazing with a range of reports released on the country’s prospects on in the Twenty-First Century.

One of the reports was the Joined Up Innovation survey commissioned by Microsoft and written by PwC, I wrote a story for Business Spectator on the results.

While the Microsoft report focused on the small business sector, Startup Aus released their Crossroads report that warns Australia is falling behind the rest of the world. Smart Company’s Rose Powell has a more detailed summary of the report.

Alan Noble, head of Google’s Australian Engineering operations warns, “we still lag behind many other nations, with one of the lowest rates of startup formation in the world, and one of the lowest rates of venture capital investment.”

“If we fail to address this, we risk forfeiting over $100 billion in economic benefits from emerging tech companies, and an irreversible decline in Australia’s competitiveness.”

Looking in from the outside

Particularly notable from the two surveys is that the discussion about Australia’s tech competitiveness is the debate is being led by two local employees of US Multinationals.

For a local perspective, the Macrobusiness blog joins the day’s chorus with a long examination of the risks to Australia’s living standards by being too far down the global value chain.

In the Business Spectator piece, I compared some of PwC’s recommendations with the efforts of the UK and Singapore to rebuild their manufacturing industries.

Australia’s collective decision

For Australia, it’s probably way too late to worry about most of the manufacturing industry as in the 1980s the country made a collective – and almost unanimous – decision to shift the economy to being resources and high value added services.

The high value added services haven’t eventuated; mainly because the internet has shifted the global dynamics towards lower cost centres and partly because Australian business leaders decided it was easier to exploit their domestic market power rather than compete globally.

Mining proved to be a better bet, more by the accident of China’s turn of the century boom rather than any deliberate policy, however the industry employs less than ten percent of the workforce and the vast majority of Australians living in the South East corner of the country have little contact with the resources industry.

A consumerist utopia

For most Australians, employment and prosperity relies upon a growing population driving city GDP growth with domestic wealth supported by buoyant property prices. Australia truly is the consumerist utopia.

As a result of a booming, seemingly unstoppable, housing market and an expending resources sector, Australia’s exchange rate has soared while the nation’s productivity has slumped.

Making matters worse is that outside of mining and a few agricultural markets most of Australia’s industry is grossly expensive by global standards and suffering from chronic under-investment.

An unsustainable economic model

That model is not sustainable, it will take one shock to Australia’s housing market to see the good burghers of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne impoverished so the nation’s continued prosperity requires something to drive the economy beyond low interest rates and Chinese commodity purchases.

Whether Australia’s business and political leadership are capable of hearing and reacting to these reports remains to be seen, but they will have no excuse to say they weren’t warned.

Burying capitalism with the Internet of Things

A strange piece by author Jeremy Rivkin in The Guardian argues the internet of things will facilitate an economic shift from markets to collaborative commons which threatens capitalism as marginal costs fall to zero.

Rivkin argues that the rise of the ‘prosumer’, who contributes content and adds economic value for free, is undermining the basic tenants of capitalism.

A telling blow to capitalism in Rivkin’s eyes is the abundant data generated by the Internet of Things;

Siemens, IBM, Cisco and General Electric are among the firms erecting an internet-of-things infrastructure, connecting the world in a global neural network.

There are now 11 billion sensors connecting devices to the internet of things. By 2030, 100 trillion sensors will be attached to natural resources, production lines, warehouses, transportation networks, the electricity grid and recycling flows, and be implanted in homes, offices, stores, and vehicles – continually sending big data to the communications, energy and logistics internets.

Anyone will be able to access the internet of things and use big data and analytics to develop predictive algorithms that can speed efficiency, dramatically increase productivity and lower the marginal cost of producing and distributing physical things, including energy, products and services, to near zero, just as we now do with information goods.

That Rivkin mentions large corporations like Cisco, Siemens, IBM and General Electric illustrates the flaw in his idea — these companies are profiting from the Internet of Things and the data it’s generating.

Rather than being killed, capitalism is evolving to the new marketplaces.

Nowhere is this truer than in the sharing economy where the new lords of the digital manor are profiting from the work and free content generated by unpaid ‘prosumers’.

How long the free business models can survive is open to question, in many respects the age of the digital sharecropper is a transition phase that isn’t sustainable and it’s more likely we’re seeing a move to an economy where information is far more abundant than it was previously.

Such a change is not unprecedented, far more basic human needs are food and energy. In Western economies, we have been living in a time of unimagined abundance of both for the last century.

In subsistence economies, food and the energy to grow or hunt it is scarce and its why living standards are low and life expectancies are short. Agricultural society start to solve the food scarcity problem and industrial societies automate farming and increase living standards through abundant energy.

During the pre-industrial era, the basic unit of energy was the horse – hence the term horsepower – and it was rare to have more than four horses driving a coach or piece of machinery.

Today, we have locomotive engines that provide 6,000 horsepower, a basic farm tractor delivers around 100 HP and a typical family car around 200. We live in an age of abundant energy and our living standards reflect it.

We’re moving into an era of abundant information that will change our societies in a similar way to the age of abundant power has changed economies over the past 300 years.

Open source, the sharing economy and the internet of things will all change aspects of our economies and society but people will still be making a living one way or another so they can buy a meal and pay their rent.

The age of abundant information means massive change to the way we work, but it no more means the end of capitalism than the steam engine did.

Sense-T and the Tasmanian economy

Tasmania’s Sense-T is a brave project to reinvigorate the state’s economy through the internet of things

On Networked Globe I have an interview with Sense-T’s director, Ros Harvey.

Sense-T is a project to connect the entire state to the internet of things using a sensor network monitoring soil, water and other environmental conditions to help the state’s agriculture and business communities.

Harvey’s ambitions for the project are high where she sees Sense-T even having the potential of rekindling the interest of the state’s students in science and technology courses.

It’s a brave project that means a lot to a state that’s doing it tough.

Contemplating a jobless future

Few industries are going to be untouched by the disruptions of the next decade and that’s going to present challenges for all of us.

Last October, ahead of the company’s Orlando Symposium, Gartner Research Director Kenneth Brant released a paper looking at the effects of technology on the workplace.

“Most business and thought leaders underestimate the potential of smart machines to take over millions of middle-class jobs in the coming decades,” Brant wrote. “Job destruction will happen at a faster pace, with machine-driven job elimination overwhelming the market’s ability to create valuable new ones.”

Brant’s view about middle class jobs is a sobering thought, many of the corporate ‘knowledge worker’ positions can be easily replaced by computers to make the decisions now being made by armies of mid level managers, bean counters and clerks.

Indeed the whole concept of ‘knowledge worker’ that was fashionable in the 1980s and early 90s in describing the post-industrial workforce of nations like the US, Britain and Australia is undermined by the rise of powerful computers and well crafted algorithms to do the jobs unemployed steel workers and seamstresses were going to do.

Twenty years later and the ‘knowledge workers’ had morphed into the ‘creative class’ and it appears the computers are coming for them, too.

Personally, I subscribe to the view in the medium to long term new jobs in new industries will evolve – a view shared by economists like GE’s chief economist, Marco Annunziata.

Over the next decade however there’s no doubt we’ll be seeing great disruption to established industries and the hostility to Google buses in San Francisco may be just an early taste of a greater antagonism to the technology community in general.

For managers, the problems are more complex; while their own departments, corporate power bases and even their own jobs are at risk, they are going to have to find ways to incorporate these changes into their own business. Gartner warns CIOs in its briefing paper;

The impact will be such that firms that have not begun to develop programs and policies for a “digital workforce” by 2015 will not perform in the top quartile for productivity and operating profit margin improvement in their industry by 2020. As a direct result, the careers of CIOs who do not begin to champion digital workforce initiatives with their peers in the C-suite by 2015 will be cut short by 2023.

Few industries are going to be untouched by the disruptions of the next decade and the resultant job losses are going to present challenges for all of us.

The taxing business of options

The Australian attempt to reform the tax system is an interesting exercise in international comparisons.

I’m burning the midnight oil tonight pulling together a story for Business Spectator on reforming Australia’s tax treatment of employee option schemes.

This is a fraught subject as Australia bucked the global trend in 2009 after it became obvious the corporate sector was abusing the existing tax rules that were largely in line with most OECD nations.

In a clumsy, poorly thought out reaction – which is sadly the mark of modern Australian governments of all shades – the then Rudd Labor government radically changed the rules governing employee schemes that made it difficult for any business to offer stock to their staff.

Last week I spoke to Sydney business intelligence company Encompass and after the video the founders told me about the importance of their share scheme, it illustrated exactly the problem facing Australian startups.

Five years on and it’s apparent the strict rules are working against Australian business and various industry associations, accounting groups and startups are lobbying for reform.

One of the lobbying initiatives is Deloitte’s Retaining Talent project that has some fairly modest proposals in bringing fairer rules back for smaller and younger startups.

The story’s particularly interesting for me in that I’m bringing together a number of previous posts citing how other countries and cities like San Francisco and the United Kingdom have changed their rules on option schemes.

For Australia, the closure of the country’s car manufacturing industry and the struggles of the agricultural sector are bringing home to voters and the government just how seriously the country squandered the massive mining boom of the last decade.

While reforming startup option schemes is a useful start, it’s hard not to think it’s way too little and way too late for the country to begin planning for the post mining boom economy.

Revisiting the Lipstick effect

How real is the lipstick effect? The Irish experience says it’s complex.

During the recession much was made about the ‘lipstick effect’ – the idea some businesses and products would survive because they’re little luxuries that cash strapped consumers will spend on while scrimping and saving in other areas.

Some of those areas are ladies’ cosmetics (lipstick), chocolate, movies and coffee shops. All of them offering small pleasures for a few dollars.

It’s a theory I’ve always been sceptical of and an episode of the BBC’s World Of Business where Peter Day travels to Cork to see how Ireland’s second city is recovering from the great recession illustrates the reality is a lot more complex than the theory suggests.

“We really struggled to keep alive,” Claire Nash of Nash 19 restaurant says in her interview with Day on her business experience during the recession.

“My turnover just absolutely took a spiralling tumble and it wasn’t that the customer weren’t coming in – those that had lost their jobs weren’t coming in – but those that hadn’t lost their jobs were really hurting and they were very careful with their spend.

“So they started using us as a treat, which was a model I never wanted to enter into but we weathered the storm.”

It can be argued that Claire survived because of the lipstick effect – she kept enough customers to survive – but it was tough and had she taken out the loans offered to her during the boom it’s unlikely her restaurant would have survived.

The key point though is the lipstick effect turned out to be a very different, and much less lucrative business, for Claire and other businesses in Cork.

So assuming a business will remained unscathed because of the assumption the lipstick effect is a big risk, if that’s the plan then Sequoia Capital’s infamous Powerpoint of Doom comes to mind.

While the presentation was aimed at tech companies and investors, it’s a good overview of how the Global Financial Crisis happened and Slide 49 – Survival of the Quickest – is probably the best lesson for any business: Act fast to adapt.

The lipstick theory is a nice way to justify unsustainable business models, particularly those that rely on consumer spending, in the face of a recession but the assumption spending will remain the same as customers will seek little luxuries is deeply flawed.

A business that doesn’t respond quickly to changed circumstances and reduced spending is one that might not survive a downturn.

Peter Day’s Cork story is a good listen on how Ireland and Cork have weathered the global financial crisis, the main question from the piece is how much have the Irish and the rest of the world learned from the mistakes of the boom years at the start of the 21st Century.