Retailers "Scream" Discrimination

This little story from 2002 illustrates the harms of trade restrictions:

For years, retailers from Wal-Mart and Target to tiny fancy-goods outlets have counted on low-cost imports from China to scare up sales at Halloween. A cheap polyester ghoul robe, along with a "Scream" mask retails for less than $20.  Classed as "flimsy festive articles," party-goods suppliers imported them duty free -- until U.S. Halloween giant, Rubie's Costume Company, got them reclassified as "fancy dress apparel."

U.S. Leadership Is Essential

This is a preview of my new book, Global Business: Positioning Ventures Ahead to appear with Taylor and Francis in June of 2010. I will be posting little snippets from the book every once in a while. I encourage you to read, comment, share, and your thoughts to the comment section. And look for the book in June.
---
As we write this, governments worldwide are working to counteract the 2009 economic crisis by developing stimulus plans. The efforts of any one nation will have an impact globally because national economies are intertwined, but economic activity is highly concentrated among a few players – the U.S., European Union, Japan, China and Canada – who account for more than 75 percent of the world’s economy. That clout makes it critical for U.S. companies to become more involved in international marketing, whether it is export-import trade, licensing, joint ventures, wholly-owned subsidiaries, turnkey operations, or management contracts.

Please Comment:  Do you think the protectionist measures that are being enacted as a part of the stimulus plans will help or hurt domestic economic recovery?  What is the best way for governments to react to the recession?  Do you think that a global outlook is key to recovery?

GM Needs A Global Strategy to Survive

The U.S. government now owns 60 percent of General Motors. Some say that the company really belongs to the taxpayers ― but just have them try to sell some of ``their'' GM shares ― they'll quickly see how limited their ownership rights are. U.S. officials now have a new mandate that is familiar to business executives: meet increased sales goals in an ever-expanding sales territory. If GM is to succeed, global sales and operations, not just American, must be a priority.

In an industry that is among the most competitive in the world, GM's future will inevitably be linked to global markets and how well it does as an Asian car company.

Of course, this is not lost on GM. Indeed, at the same time as the firm filed for Chapter 11 protection, CEO Fritz Henderson said that ``China remains a key part of our business. Our ventures in China are a critical part of the new GM ― unequivocally. Our business in China continues to grow at a very fast, even torrid pace and remains a critical part of GM going forward.''

As GM pares down its presence in Europe with the sales of Opel and Saab, the company has expansive ambitions in Asia.

China is GM's largest growth market. The firm has more than 20,000 employees, enjoys booming sales and occupies the leading position among global automakers with market share of about 12 percent in the region. The China Daily reported that GM plans to open a new factory and double sales in China over the next five years.

Another significant Asian market for the new GM will be South Korea, where it is the majority owner of GM Daewoo Auto & Technology, Korea's third largest automaker. Elsewhere in Asia, auto markets have been more depressed by the economic crisis, yet GM has plans for growth throughout the region with emphasis on Thailand and India. In India, look for GM to engage Tata's Nano in competition with its own version of a mini car. India should be a hot market as the country continues its strong economic growth. With 95 percent of the world's customers living outside the United States, GM must look overseas for long-term expansion.

The growing needs of Asian markets will require adjustments in production capacity and product. Consistent with the product cycle theory, over time, established products are produced in new locations with more local advantages.

Asian production sites with lower cost structures and locally based R&D are essential for the new GM to fulfill its mission. To succeed in its post-bankruptcy life, GM will need to rationalize its global production platform to maximize economies of scale and eliminate waste.

While GM will need to temper its ambitions to avoid mistakes of the past, it must compete globally or be marginalized as a niche competitor. However, global efficiency becomes particularly sensitive if GM uses overseas production facilities to import cars to the United States

Indeed, the U.S. administration's rescue plan for GM is contingent upon producing more cars in the United States, even as it closes factories and eliminates jobs at home. Yet, inefficient production is one of the principal reasons for GM's Chapter 11 filing and should not be championed under the guise of protecting American jobs.

Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman, the designated U.S. ambassador to China, has his work cut out. He will be confronted with competitive realism while supporting American idealism. But he's the right man for a tough job.

The Obama administration may not intend to be an active manager of the new GM but its policies on trade, foreign investment and taxation will shape the company's future. Government policies must allow and even encourage GM to be competitive not just at home, but also abroad. Don't expect administration officials to go on commission, but, whether they like it or not, they have a new obligation to help GM increase sales. Asia is the smart place to look.

Culture Clue #1

Choose gifts with care.  While liquor makes a suitable gift in Japan, it is banned in Saudi Arabia.  Fine compasses - the direction for prayer - are welcome.  Avoid leather objects or snake images in India, and gifts that come in sets of four or nine in Japan.  The mainland Chinese don't like to receive anything that comes from Taiwan.

The G20 Supremacy: Fact or Wishful Thinking?

The G20 meeting in Pittsburgh has ended with a grandiose self promotion of the event and its future relevance. The participants declared the meeting from now on to be the world’s principal economic gathering. But designation alone is not enough. The real question is how the impact of the meeting will change.

Time was, that the host of an international summit could use the meeting to not only discuss pertinent issues but also initiate policy action. Such potential was also there for the Pittsburgh meeting. For example, as President Obama raised a global trade vision for economic recovery, job creation, and environmental sustainability, he could have demonstrated a commitment to these principles through the announcement of promising policies.

Yet, the Obama Administration’s decision to invoke safeguards and impose tariffs on Chinese tire imports dealt a major blow to such a vision. Many U.S. trading partners were hoping that ‘Buy America’ provisions of the economic stimulus legislation and the U.S. failure to live up to its NAFTA obligations on Mexican trucking were products of an increasingly trade-phobic Congress. Widespread expectations that the Administration could keep legislators on a leash, were far from met. The recent decision against tire imports from China was President Obama’s own, driven by union pressure. It reveals more precisely and loudly than any trade policy speech ever could, the details of the direction of U.S. policy.

It says that the U.S. now views the rules-based global trading system, which successive U.S. Administrations—both Republican and Democrat—placed at the center of U.S. global economic policy, as outdated and expendable. This takes place despite of the fact that rules are in large measure responsible for the post war global economic success.

It says that the U.S. has now created a subclass of economic interests. Manufacturers of auto parts, exporters of poultry, producers of aircraft are now at constant risk of international retribution. For example, in retaliation of the tire decision the Chinese are now threatening not to buy U.S. goods which are in demand and competitive. Motivated workers in successful industries now have their legitimate interests subrogated to the trade agenda of the major U.S. unions.

It says that the U.S. had its fingers crossed when signing on to the anti-protectionist pledge, and raises real doubts about future adherence.

It says that the “Yes we can” Administration has lost confidence in the American model of competitiveness.

China is absolutely right to choose this ground to challenge the U.S. on protectionism. While trade lawyers can argue the letter of the WTO commitment—it is absolutely clear that the spirit of the Safeguards Agreement has been violated in this case.

Unquestionably, there are numerous issues on which the U.S. can challenge China’s approach to trade—including subsidies, exchange rate issues, disregard for intellectual property rights and denial of equal treatment. But a safeguard action addresses none of these. It doesn’t identify any fault with the Chinese—only with the ability of U.S. workers to compete. When faced with competition from Chinese tire producers, the U.S. could not point to dumping or government supports, so the Administration went to the “no we can’t” option.

Larry Summers has said that the long term formula for U.S. economic recovery will be to become an export oriented economy. To do that, U.S. products will have to compete aggressively and successfully with other countries for world markets. Trading partners will also need to be convinced to open up their markets to international products.

There will have to be a reversal of the deepening slide into protectionism heralded by the tire decision. America needs to participate in a trade agenda that gets the world working again. Only then will the next G 20 meetings be relevant and of impact.