個案總覽

Societies that are better at utilizing tools are likely to be more productive. The authors have studied when 161 countries adopted 104 technologies over the past 200 years, and they conclude that profound economic advantages--as measured by per capita income--accrue to early adopters of technology.

Economists have found that the higher a country's academic test scores, the faster its GDP grows. That puts the United States' perennially mediocre test scores in a particularly ominous light. Progress is being made, says Childress, of the Gates Foundation, but at the rate even the most engaged school systems are improving, it will take 80 years to catch up to where China is now. New approaches, including personalized technology, online videos, and innovations that combine software with classroom programs, could be the breakthrough tools American students need to improve dramatically faster.

The United States is on a glide path to fiscal disaster, with experts projecting that the federal government will take in far less money than it spends--indefinitely. Our current fiscal policy is eroding competitiveness in several ways, and business conditions in the U.S. will deteriorate if there's no change in direction. The authors examine how fiscal policy relates to the three drivers of productivity: improving human capital, increasing physical capital (equipment or software, for example), and using these forms of capital more efficiently. Government spending for many public goods, such as education and infrastructure, contributes directly to one or more of them, whereas spending on health care and entitlements does little to enhance competitiveness directly. Taxes are needed to fund public goods, but they sometimes distort the allocation of human and physical capital. And large government deficits put upward pressure on the cost of borrowing for companies. The authors propose a plan--they call it "20/21 by 2021"--to reduce the deficit from 3.8% of GDP (the Congressional Budget Office's most likely scenario) to just over 1%.

In America today there's a growing sense that the political system is broken and that its ineffectiveness is a major threat to U.S. competitiveness. Why do so many think the political system is not working? Research shows that in Congress, Republicans and Democrats are more polarized than ever. They seem pulled apart by two starkly different conceptions of government: one viewing the government as inefficient, invasive, and easily corrupted, and another seeing it as a vehicle for solving people's problems. Yet the ideological divide may not be the true source of the breakdown. A look at U.S. history shows it's not new. Moreover, sharp ideological battles have often proved highly productive in policy terms, delivering the best ideas from both sides. In the 1840s, for instance, state politicians who were deeply skeptical of government pushed hard for balanced budget amendments while politicians at the other end of the spectrum demanded free public schools for all. In the end many states adopted both policies--a combination that proved enormously powerful. The problem today is that too many have come to view politics as war, where victory is paramount and "compromise" is a dirty word. This take-no-prisoners approach, which came into sharp relief during the debt-ceiling debate, threatens to cripple the best-of-both dynamic. Revitalizing America's culture of democracy--where the health of the nation comes first, above economic interest, party, and ideology--is essential. Business leaders must play a large role in this effort, because the implications for the economy are so great.

To remain a leader in innovation, the United States needs the support of foundational institutions that help seed, grow, and renew enterprises. Historically, these institutions--such as universities, venture creators, labor markets, and job-training programs--have tended to operate in silos. But they are far more effective when they're networked. By collaborating to bridge the gaps between them, business, academic, and policy leaders can help generate more ideas, start-ups, company growth, global competitors, and prosperity. In this article, Harvard Business School's Rosabeth Moss Kanter outlines an agenda for strengthening the links between key institutions. Leaders, she argues, should focus on four goals: 1) Linking knowledge creation to venture creation to speed the conversion of ideas into market-ready enterprises; 2) Linking small and large enterprises to promote the growth of younger companies and revitalize large corporations through partnerships with innovative SMEs; 3) Improving the match between education and employment opportunities, through apprenticeship programs and other education-industry links; and 4) Linking leaders across sectors to develop regional strategies and produce scalable models. In all four of these areas, promising models have already begun to emerge. By highlighting the most successful ones and what can be learned from them, Kanter shows how America can create a richer, more competitive business ecosystem.

The case describes the battle between First Quantum Mineral and Eurasian Resources over mines in Democratic Republic of Congo. After FQM's license to operate was revoked by the government of the DRC, Eurasian bought the rights over the mines that were previously under FQM's control raising questions about the effectiveness of corporate governance at Eurasian.

What should business leaders do about corruption? In December 2011, four HBS alumni met to debate how to engage the unprecedented protests against Vladimir Putin's corrupt government, which had erupted in Russia in response to alleged fraud in the recent parliamentary elections. A notable figure in the protests was anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny. Navalny used publicly available requests for tender, "crowd-sourcing", and volunteer experts to discover, expose, and encourage prosecution of corrupt dealings by the Russian government. These efforts made Navalny a cause celebre in Western media, and a popular figure with Russia's tech-savvy population. But was Navalny the right figure for business leaders in Russia to organize around? What were the risks of getting involved with a politically volatile activist?

In late September 2009, nine months after he took office, President Barack Obama appointed Shelley Metzenbaum to the position of associate director for performance and personnel management at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Metzenbaum's charge was to lead government-wide efforts to improve the performance of federal agencies: in short, to make government work better. To improve performance and public confidence in government, the Obama administration wanted agencies to set ambitious goals focused on improving outcomes. Metzenbaum was the administration's choice for advancing this agenda. Metzenbaum realized she had many options from which to choose, but few resources with which to carry out her charge: she had a tiny staff, strained budget and very little direct influence over the agencies tasked with improving their performance. This case focuses on the challenge facing Metzenbaum as she contemplates each of her choices in her approach to indirect management. Case number 1980.0

Dirigo International is proposing a major expansion of its life sciences research and manufacturing facilities in the heart of a major city and middle-to-lower-income residential neighborhood. The company and city government are seeking a development solution in the form of unique land use regulations and a resulting development strategy that weighs the financial, economic, aesthetic, and environmental impacts of the development. Companies and governments around the world often find themselves on opposite sides of land use proposals. This case demonstrates the dilemmas and tradeoffs related to private land owner rights and the role of government in seeking positive outcomes for broader society. Students will rigorously look at issues of development density, funding responsibilities, financial capacity, land use regulation, and development politics.

The last thirty years have seen the widespread embrace of market capitalism as not only a highly efficient form of economic organization but also as one that best meets the diversity of human preferences. In large, complex societies, an increasing body of theoretical and empirical research suggests, however, that the existence of competitive markets rests on strong institutional foundations. This note explores the appropriate role for the general manager, if any, in sustaining these conditions for market capitalism.

The case focuses on the execution challenges facing Nandan Nilekani, the Chairman, and Ram Sevak Sharma, Director General and Mission Director of the Unique Identification Authority of India. India had no nationally accepted way to prove identity and hence 42% of the population at the base of the pyramid had to resort to bribery to access entitlements, while a web of fake or multiple identities facilitated criminal diversion of government subsidies. UIDAI was tasked to deliver a unique identification number to every Indian resident. This involved the issue of a total of 1.2 billion unique IDs by 2020 and an interim goal of 600 million UIDs by 2014 - the largest data management program in the world. The case deals with the challenge of implementing a towering vision, of executing on an epic technology project, and of changing minds on an unprecedented scale. It examines the forces that both facilitate and derail change. It also examines the leadership style and motivation of Nilekani, and the transition in skills required to move from building a global organization to working within the Indian bureaucracy.

In January 2012, the government of India faced significant challenges to achieving three key objectives of high growth, inclusive development, and improved governance. The economy was experiencing a growth slowdown, persistently high inflation, and infrastructure and energy deficits. Policy reforms were hampered by several recent corruption scandals, widespread citizen protests against corruption, and disagreements with coalition partners. Could India make the right decisions needed to lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty?

Capitalism remains the most powerful, flexible, and robust system for driving broad-based prosperity and enhancing quality of life. But keeping capitalism on track will depend on our ability to rethink the priorities that guide everyone in the system, from entrepreneurs to regulators to investors. In particular we will need to throttle back the headlong pursuits of competition and ROE, and that process begins with recognizing them for what they are: runaways. The runaway, a concept from evolutionary biology, is explained best by the peacock's tail. That feature grew ever more flamboyant across the centuries thanks to a simple fact: Peahens showed a preference for large-tailed mates. But after many generations the tail created a problem: It required more nutrients and was heavy, slowing down its owner and making him easier prey--eventually causing the peacock population to decline. Capitalism is on a similar runaway trajectory, say Meyer and Kirby, mostly because it has taken the ideas of competition and ROE--brilliant in their time--too far. By reining in these metrics and developing new ones more suited to today's world, we can reformulate capitalism and break the runaway cycle.

What is Baosteel, a top Chinese steelmaker, doing in Brazil? The company is responding to the Chinese government's "go global" policy and to the possible rise in iron ore input costs. But steel mills are complex, capital-intensive projects, and Brazil is an emerging market that poses manifold risks to foreign investors. Vale do Rio Doce, Baosteel's prospective partner, is an iron miner with little experience in steelmaking. Baosteel must evaluate whether it is choosing the right country, partner, and site for its first overseas greenfield investment.

This case begins with Baosteel's decision to build a steel mill in Brazil with Vale do Rio Doce, the world's leading iron mining company. Regulatory obstacles and unexpected costs have placed the project in jeopardy. Outside Brazil, however, Baosteel has been growing rapidly, and market trends favor an overseas plant. Baosteel must decide whether or not to continue its efforts to build a steel plant in Brazil.

The case begins with Baosteel's renewed effort at building a steel mill in Brazil with Vale do Rio Doce. But again, the company runs into problems with obtaining regulatory approvals. This is compounded by the global financial crisis that seriously impacts the global steel industry. How will Baosteel react to this adverse situation?

In early 2004, residents of Inglewood, California, a working-class community just outside Los Angeles composed primarily of African- and Hispanic-Americans, were preparing to vote on a referendum that would change the city charter to allow Wal-Mart to build a supercenter on a huge, undeveloped lot in the city. Walmart had put forward the measure after the city council refused to change the zoning of a sixty-acre plot on which it held an option to build. Numerous community and religious groups opposed Wal-Mart's entry and campaigned against the referendum. Walmart promised low-priced merchandise and jobs, but these groups were skeptical about the kinds of jobs and compensation that would be offered, the healthcare that would be provided to employees, and the broader impact Walmart would have on the community. Inglewood was a pro-union community, so there was also opposition based on Walmart's anti-union position. On April 6 Inglewood residents voted to reject the referendum by a margin of 60.6 percent to 39.9 percent. Though smaller, less organized, and with fewer resources than Walmart, this coalition of community and religious leaders had defeated the global retailing behemoth.

Native Americans were subjected to a protracted and painful process of forced removal from their land. The case provides "first hand" evidence on the debate over Indian removal as it took place during the early nineteenth century. The first document is excerpted from Andrew Jackson's First Annual Message to Congress in 1829 and the second document from Jackson's Second Annual Message in 1830, the year the Indian Removal Act was passed. The third and fourth documents cover the Congressional debate over the relocation of Indians, which led to strong partisan splits and divisions between the North and the South. Document three is excerpted from Whig Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey's six-hour speech to Congress opposing Indian removal. Document four is excerpted from a speech by Senator John Forsyth, a Democrat and former Governor of Georgia who spoke in response to Senator Frelinghuysen's remarks. A final document presents the Cherokee perspective and the reasons for their opposition to removal as represented by a memorial letter, written to the United States Congress in 1829. A statistical portrait follows the documentary evidence.

French advertising company JCDecaux and the city of Paris jointly developed Vélib', a wildly popular bicycle sharing system. Despite Vélib's public appeal, vandalism and theft led to ballooning operating costs-costs borne by JCDecaux alone. The two parties opted to renegotiate their contract, which would impact prices, revenue sharing, cost allocation, and the operation of the system as a whole. Could the parties agree on a common strategy that would meet their objectives, while still delivering a first class bicycle sharing service to the city of Paris?

French advertising company JCDecaux and the city of Paris jointly developed Vélib', a wildly popular bicycle sharing system. Despite Vélib's public appeal, vandalism and theft led to ballooning operating costs-costs borne by JCDecaux alone. The two parties opted to renegotiate their contract, which would impact prices, revenue sharing, cost allocation, and the operation of the system as a whole. Could the parties agree on a common strategy that would meet their objectives, while still delivering a first class bicycle sharing service to the city of Paris?