This case builds upon Bank Vozrozhdeniye (V.Bank) (A) and (B), bringing the subject up to the year 2012. The (C) case again encourages students to balance economic and political risks against the likely increase in future profitability.
By 2011, many nations had experienced an escalation in deficits and debt. It appeared that some might be unable to service their debt, and might have to default. The United States had a budget crisis in which “left-wing liberal” Democrats wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy while “right-wing conservative” Republicans wanted to cut expenditures. A philosophical divide existed over the role of personal responsibility versus the role of government. In the European Union, the “PIIGS” — Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain — seemed on the verge of default, and other members of the eurozone created new loan programs to assist them in their budget crises. However, these loans included a requirement to move towards balanced budgets. Citizens in the borrowing nations objected to the severe tax increases and expenditure cuts, while citizens of the successful nations asked why they should have to pay. It was not clear who would bear the burden of reducing the deficits and debt.
In 1992, the United Nations (UN) Convention on Climate Change urged UN members to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to limit global warming and climate change. In 1997, international negotiations established the Kyoto Treaty in which 160 signatory nations agreed to achieve specific reductions by the period 2008 to 2012. While the overall commitment was to reduce GHG emissions to a level 5.2 per cent lower than 1990 levels, nations committed to different percentage reductions. Each signatory would determine how it wished to reach its target, and no penalties were threatened to those who might not reach their goal. By 2001, when the time came to ratify the treaty, various credits were provided to some nations for carbon sinks, particularly for existing forests. Even with such concessions, the United States refused to sign, as did most developing nations. The Kyoto Protocol proceeded at very different speeds in different nations. International negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancun in 2010 attempted to add clarity to the intentions of signatories. However, many significant details had not yet been addressed. Future negotiations in Rangoon and elsewhere would be necessary.
Beginning in the 1990s, Wal-Mart sought to maintain its rapid growth by investing outside of the United States. It chose to enter other countries through the purchase of existing retail chains. This process created a new set of challenges, since the existing chains had their own corporate cultures and operating procedures, and Wal-Mart experienced several surprising defeats. In 2000, Wal-Mart launched a chain of what it called Neighborhood Markets, limited to the sale of groceries. Meanwhile, its Latin American acquisitions included stores of only 4,000 square feet. In 2010, Wal-Mart announced a strategy to create a major chain of mini-Supercenters, each of some 40,000 to 60,000 square feet, to be located within cities. Some of the new smaller stores would be focused on local ethnic groups, with Hispanic neighborhoods being an obvious target for this paradigm. In addition to the need to change its inventory levels and to rely on parking buildings rather than large parking lots, Wal-Mart encountered strong opposition from labour unions. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart was using its new small-format stores in China. It was also experimenting with online grocery sales with home delivery. Wal-Mart was continuing to cut costs by consolidating its global purchases and shifting to more global supply chains with the elimination of many wholesalers. At the same time, Wal-Mart was taking a dramatic position in compelling its suppliers to adopt green practices, conducting audits of its suppliers, and refusing to purchase from those who failed to measure up to new environmental standards.
Governments throughout the world have offered subsidies for a wide variety of reasons, including increasing investments and jobs (particularly those that are high-tech), stimulating economically depressed regions, supporting domestic agriculture, and preventing bankruptcies through “bail-outs.” Subsidies now play a key role in business location decisions, and impact international competitiveness. Recipients of subsidies can offer their goods and services for sale at lower prices than would exist in the absence of subsidies. Foreign-based corporations may regard these lower prices as unfair competition in international trade. Consequently, international trade negotiations have come to focus on many of these subsidy programs as trade distortions that should be limited by formal international agreements. Some countries, especially the United States, impose special countervail duties if their corporations are being hurt by foreign subsidies. With current and projected reductions in trade barriers, subsidies will become relatively more important as a trade-determining process. Nevertheless, subsidies are implemented to pursue certain social objectives, and so an intergovernmental pact that limits subsidies may diminish, rather than improve, the well being of signatories.
In the 1990s, considerable debate arose concerning the strength and stability of China's banks. Of particular concern were the debts owed to the banks by state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Many SOEs were experiencing financial difficulties and so they might not have been able to repay these loans. Some analysts emphasized that, since the banks and the SOEs were both owned by the government, the only relevant concern was the financial strength of the government and its preparedness to take responsibility for any of the banks' non-performing loans. In the early years of the 21st century, the government undertook a widespread program aimed at improving the balance sheets at the banks by purchasing non-performing loans from the banks and then reselling these at a discount, often to foreign private sector financial institutions. Prior to 2010, this process provided a generally accepted faith in the stability and security of China's banks. Total non-performing loans as a per cent of total bank loans decreased from 20 per cent in 2003 to three per cent in 2008. The year 2010 brought a new realization that the non-performing loan problem had reappeared. However, China's banks now had private as well as government shareholders, and so the solution had become more complex. The government's response was to insist that China's banks increase their capital base by issuing new equity.
For more than a decade, the government of China had sought to develop an automotive industry. The government's initial steps involved the creation of joint ventures in which government-owned firms became partners of foreign privately owned corporations. Most of these joint ventures were extremely successful financially. However, ongoing differences in management preferences created a continual tension within the joint ventures. Of particular concern was a desire of the government of China to ensure that its new automotive industry would adopt the latest advances in technologies. This subject of technology transfer, and how the government of China could best support it, became a central issue in China's automotive industry. From the perspective of the government of China, Geely's acquisition of Volvo would be a major step in achieving technology transfer on an ongoing basis. Geely's China operations would be able to quickly and easily adopt Volvo's cutting-edge safety features and production operations. From Geely's perspective, the Volvo acquisition would provide it with a new set of luxury vehicles for sale in China that would fill a gap in Geely's automotive lineup. Nevertheless, Geely faced the challenge that Ford had continually lost money in Volvo. How to reverse these losses would become a major challenge for Geely.
By 2010, China's economy faced a series of challenges that could threaten its growth and trade balance. This case presents a structure for students to discuss China's economy in the context of these threats. Prior to this time, there had been general feeling that China could continue indefinitely with its exceptionally high growth rate of approximately 10 per cent annually. The substantial gap between wages in economically advanced nations and China might continue to attract huge volumes of foreign investment indefinitely. This optimism was being questioned by 2010.
By 2009, China's exports had increased dramatically from $250 billion in 2000 to a projected $1,500 billion in 2009. This enormous growth of exports severely damaged competing businesses in the advanced nations, particularly the United States and Europe. China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 guaranteed China's right to export to these nations, but at the same time the WTO required China to adhere to certain rules that sought to support fair trade and create a level playing field. Several broad subjects each gave rise to a series of trade disputes: the protection of intellectual property, health and safety concerns about China's products, labour and environmental standards, China's manipulation of their currency, and costs and prices determined by the government rather than free markets. This case examines each set of trade disputes and China's attempts to resolve them. Many disputes were embedded in cultural practices and ideological positions and so they might not disappear quickly. Shortcomings in China's legal and judicial system hampered enforcement. In addition, many rested on the government's desire to protect the interests of Chinese businesses and their employees, and so China might alter its practices only if confronted with credible retalitory threats. China's central government experienced the principal-agent problem where its wishes and decisions could be ignored by local governments and firms. Meanwhile, changes in industry structure within the advanced nations were altering the negotiation positions of Western governments. The case examines the WTO dispute resolution procedures and enforcement mechanisms that have been directed at China's trade disputes.
A recession in the U.S. economy began at the end of 2007. Concerns deepened as an epic financial crisis shattered business and consumer confidence. By the fall of 2008, the United States was in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, and major financial institutions were on the verge of bankruptcy. The financial crisis and recession spread around the world. Many saw a risk that the global financial system might collapse, perhaps precipitating a repetition of the lengthy economic devastation of the 1930s depression. Governments reacted by creating huge stimulus packages that greatly increased national deficits and debts, and by loosening monetary policies with interest rates close to zero and huge expansions of the money supply. In their efforts to save the financial system, governments also offered bail-out packages to banks, including loans, guarantees and equity. By the fall of 2009, the crisis had stabilized, and the appearance of green shoots gave promise of recovery. By 2010, it was possible to put the financial crisis in perspective, and to raise questions about the causes and consequences. Of particular concern was whether new regulations might be needed to prevent a recurrence, and whether some of the tighter regulations should be international in scope. A related concern was whether such regulations should be applied to non-bank financial institutions as well as banks. Governments were also trying to determine how to exit the unique fiscal and monetary positions that now seemed to put their economies at risk of ongoing deficits and future inflation.
By 2009, China's exports had increased dramatically from $250 billion in 2000 to a projected $1,500 billion in 2009. This enormous growth of exports severely damaged competing businesses in the advanced nations, particularly the United States and Europe. China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 guaranteed China's right to export to these nations, but at the same time the WTO required China to adhere to certain rules that sought to support fair trade and create a level playing field. Several broad subjects each gave rise to a series of trade disputes: the protection of intellectual property, health and safety concerns about China's products, labour and environmental standards, China's manipulation of their currency, and costs and prices determined by the government rather than free markets. This case examines each set of trade disputes and China's attempts to resolve them. Many disputes were embedded in cultural practices and ideological positions and so they might not disappear quickly. Shortcomings in China's legal and judicial system hampered enforcement. In addition, many rested on the government's desire to protect the interests of Chinese businesses and their employees, and so China might alter its practices only if confronted with credible retalitory threats. China's central government experienced the principal-agent problem where its wishes and decisions could be ignored by local governments and firms. Meanwhile, changes in industry structure within the advanced nations were altering the negotiation positions of Western governments. The case examines the WTO dispute resolution procedures and enforcement mechanisms that have been directed at China's trade disputes.
This case points to the challenges that Canada faces in regards to its ongoing productivity gap with the United States and its ongoing failure in regard to international competitiveness. This case also discusses the regional differences within Canada in regard to international competitiveness. This case also discusses the regional differences within Canada in regard to economic structure and public policy issues. Finally, the case indicates a series of strategies that Canadian businesses and governments might pursue in order to deal more effectively with Canada's economic challenge.
Mexico had a history of repeated financial crises, with high inflation leading to current account deficits with volatile capital inflows, culminating in significant devaluations. Concerns persisted that this pattern might repeat itself in the future. In the years prior to 1980, the government of Mexico had put in place a command and control economy with an extensive array of regulations through which it intervened in the economy on an ongoing basis and with discretionary powers. Governments created barriers to entry for foreign investment and imports and put in place price controls that protected existing Mexican firms. After 1980, a series of trade and investment reforms opened the economy. Nevertheless, many expressed the view that Mexico's reform movement stalled under President Fox (2000-2006) and that extensive government intervention continued to stifle competition. Exhibits present macroeconomic data as well as World Bank Investment Climate Indicators. A series of challenges now confronted Mexico, including the U.S. financial crisis and recession, competition with China, appropriate monetary policy, opening oil production to foreign companies and a rise in corruption and violent crime.
For 200 years, there were substantial differences among U.S. regions in per capita incomes and economic growth. Each region had a distinct set of economic activities and, to a major degree, the differences in regional economic performance were linked to the differences in economic structure. Individual states experienced periods of expansion and contraction as the basic business activities dominating their economy expanded and contracted. These changes led to significant migration of people and businesses among regions and to a gradual narrowing, since the 1930s, of regional disparities. Over the period of 1990 to 2007, the United States experienced outstanding economic success. Many analysts expressed the view that this economic success rested on consistently high productivity growth. The public philosophy supported low taxes and low government expenditure for health, education and welfare, with a heavy reliance on the need for each individual to succeed on one's own. In the second half of the 20th century, a general recognition developed that knowledge has a major impact on economic growth, and that increasingly intense international competition is based upon knowledge and innovation. Each nation, as well as each region within a nation, has a distinct innovation system. At the forefront has been the United States. By the fall of 2008, it was clear that the United States had entered a major financial and economic crisis, and that reforms might be needed to achieve recovery and to prevent a recurrence.
The financial system is the heart of free market economies. The 2007-2008 financial crisis raised concerns that the global financial and economic system might experience a truly substantial collapse. New financial instruments had proliferated to the degree that it had become impossible to calculate the market value of many of them, and so it had become impossible to know the market value of institutions that held them or that guaranteed them. The initial disaster occurred with the U.S. subprime residential mortgage market, but it quickly spread globally to institutions that held new financial instruments related to these mortgages. Firms that had guaranteed these financial instruments found that their net worth was disappearing, leading to concerns about the institutions that had relied on their guarantees. Meanwhile, new kinds of hedge funds introduced the risk of greater volatility, and they exposed investors to sudden shocks. Many banks were caught in this web and suddenly had to obtain additional equity capital in order to meet regulatory requirements and maintain the confidence of depositors. As a result of these developments, liquidity disappeared from the financial system. It seemed that recession in the United States was inevitable. Previous expectations that other economies had become decoupled for the United States were being replaced by fears that economies throughout the world would follow the United States into recession. Central banks reacted dramatically with attempts to reduce interest rates and to increase financial liquidity, and the U.S. government cut personal taxes through a tax refund program. It was not clear whether monetary and fiscal policies could prevent a long and deep recession. Debate arose concerning the advisability of a wide variety of new regulations that might be able to prevent future recurrence of such a financial crisis.
At the time of the Mekong Corporation (Mekong) and the Vietnam Motor Vehicle Industry (A) case, product 9A96H002, some analysts felt that the Vietnamese automotive market was about to expand substantially. By 2007, the industry's capacity had increased enormously to nearly 150,000. However, the domestic sales had only expanded to approximately 40,000, and exports were negligible. This (B) case examines the government's interventionist policies that stimulated the expansion of production capacity while restraining vehicle sales. A key element was the continuation of very high import tariffs and other taxes that maintained a protected market for domestic manufacturers. In this context, Mekong continued to operate successfully. This case encourages students to consider the appropriate role of government in stimulating economic development, as well as appropriate corporate strategy in a protected market.
This note uses several reports to compare China and India, and it encourages students to analyse the long list of public policies that have restrained India's economic growth and FDI inflows, and that have acted as barriers to liberalization reforms. Presented are the historical realities that supported India's political philosophy of autarky and government intervention. Finally, the note leads students to consider the future prospects for India, and potential foreign investors there, through comparisons with China.
By 2006, Hungary had experienced more than 15 years of transition from central planning to free markets. The reform process had involved several distinct phases. The initial leap to the market, with its widespread privatizations, included a dramatic deregulation with a guillotine procedure. A more refined process of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) followed this period. A newly empowered competition office sought to strengthen the extent of competition within markets dominated by a single firm or a small group of firms. The goal of EU membership was a consistent driver of the reforms as early as 1991, since the EU model was compulsory for EU members. These years had been turbulent, and the transition was not yet complete. In 2006, Hungary faced the challenge of a fiscal deficit that was 9.5 per cent of GDP, and responded by raising corporate tax rates from 16 per cent to 20 per cent as an attempt to close the fiscal gap. However, Hungary was in an intense competition with Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania to attract opportunities. Tax rates were an important element in this competition, but so were the regulatory impediments and distortions that still remained in the economy. How to create a rapidly growing economy was a question at the forefront of public policy debate. A 2006 Financial Times article discussed this dilemma.
Many nations have created geographically distinct areas with special features designed to attract foreign investment. In deciding where to locate various operations, businesses today must investigate the benefits and incentives offered by a plethora of special economic zones (SEZs) throughout the world. The business location decision involves a comparison of many alternative sites, each with its own set of incentives. Many small nations have put in place minimal corporate tax rates as a way of gaining some revenue by attracting head office functions, particularly those tasks related to finance. This government revenue may be only a very small percentage of a corporation's international profit; nevertheless, it may form a significant portion of the tax haven's income. Many businesses make their international location decisions so as to accumulate their taxable profits in tax havens. Apart from these zero-tax regimes, countries impose a wide range of corporate profit tax rates. A business can often find a country with a tax rate lower than both the country where it was incorporated and the country where it wishes to invest. By funneling profits to a zero-tax or even a lower tax jurisdiction, a business is able to minimize its aggregate tax payments. Although recent international agreements have sought to limit these practices, opportunities are still available for tax minimization. Tax havens, as well as SEZs, can play an important role in business location decisions.
In 2001, the Dabhol Power Company (DPC) ceased operations following several years of bitter acrimony between the state of Maharashtra and the foreign owners. GE and Bechtel each owned 10 per cent of the equity, the Maharashtra State Energy Board (MSEB) owned 15 per cent and Enron owned 65 per cent. The Overseas Private Insurance Corporation (OPIC), a U.S. government agency, had lent $138 million and also had provided insurance against political risk for some of the other 19 foreign lenders. The lengthy and convoluted experiences of the Enron Dabhol power project are described in detail in Andrew Inkpen's case Enron and the Dabhol Power Company, Thunderbird Case # A07020008. The purpose of India's Negotiations Concerning the Dabhol Power Company 2001-2005 is to discuss the negotiation between the various foreign investors and the government of India in an attempt to reactivate the Dabhol project. Ultimately, in 2005 a settlement was negotiated. This case adds a further dimension to the case by Andrew Inkpen, and it can be taught most effectively as a sequel to that case.