1 / 23

Transition Economies: Porter Model Comparisons

Transition Economies: Porter Model Comparisons. Maj Ryan Craycraft. Introduction. Thesis Porter Model Explanation Case Studies Russia Poland China Conclusion. Proposition. If a country is to be successful in the global market economy, its domestic businesses must be competitive.

courtney
Download Presentation

Transition Economies: Porter Model Comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Transition Economies: Porter Model Comparisons Maj Ryan Craycraft

  2. Introduction • Thesis • Porter Model Explanation • Case Studies • Russia • Poland • China • Conclusion

  3. Proposition • If a country is to be successful in the global market economy, its domestic businesses must be competitive. • IV: High levels of competitiveness • DV: Successful Market Economy

  4. Michael Porter’s Index • Michael Porter, Harvard Business School has developed a competitive index • “The Current Competitiveness Index examines the microeconomic bases of a nation’s GDP per capita.” • Macroeconomic conditions are usually the object of study, but although necessary, they are not sufficient • Microeconomic conditions are what actually create wealth and “sustainable productivity” • Comparative in nature

  5. Porter’s Model • Like a business cycle, interactions among the previous activities help countries move along the macroeconomic country cycle

  6. Porter’s Model (Nat’l Corporate Culture) (Consumers) (Supply Context) (Indirect Efficiencies) • Business Environment Diamond, aka “The Diamond”

  7. Poland • Transition Plan: • Free Elections • Evolve to purely private economy • Create the Institutions of a capitalist economy • Rapidly to market economy • Liberalize economic functions (int’l trade / FDI) • Privatization • Construct Social Safety Net • Mobilize Int’l Monetary Aid

  8. Poland’s Successes • Solid GDP Growth • Stable currency • Solid Manufacturing Sector • Exports • FDI • Small / Medium business growth

  9. Poland’s Challenges • Poor Infrastructure • Political Instability • Small inflation (<5%) • Social Safety Net in jeopardy • Unemployment (esp. eastern Poland) • Debt of 50% GDP (2004)

  10. Poland in Porter’s Framework • Moving from Factor Driven to Investment Driven • Strong Manufacturing Sector, esp. automobiles due to relatively cheap, educated labor force • Strong FDI

  11. Poland in Porter’s Diamond (Nat’l Corporate Culture) (Consumers $14K PPP) (Supply Context) (Indirect Efficiencies) • Neutral Achievement • Balanced Income and Competitiveness

  12. Russia: A Middle Income Country • Also a shock-therapy transition • #1 CIS country, but behind E. Europe countries • No EU Charter guidance

  13. Russia: Strengths • Macroeconomic Stability (oil revenue) • 7th highest fiscal surplus in 2006 • Cold War capacities • Higher education • Research institutions spurring innovation • Cultural factors that support innovation • Flexible labor market

  14. Russia: Challenges • Public institutions • Health factors • Infant mortality • Life expectancy • Petrodollars preventing necessary painful reforms • Inflation near 10% • Technological readiness of business sector • Low intensity of domestic competition

  15. Russia in Porter’s Framework • Classified by WEF in the Efficiency-driven stage • “Needs to focus on higher education and training, market efficiency and technological readiness” • While continuing public institution reform

  16. Russia in Porter’s Diamond (Low Competitiveness) (Consumers $12K PPP) (Mixed Bag) (Supporting Infrastructure) • Overachieving Country • High Income compared to low competitiveness index

  17. China: Commanded Transition • Slow transition method • Excess production allowed to go the open market • When private enterprise failed, it was cancelled • Government-controlled financial system

  18. China: Strengths • Macroeconomic indicators • High growth rates • Low inflation • High savings rate • Moderate public debt

  19. China: Challenges • State-controlled banking sector • Low penetration of technology in industry • Poor secondary / tertiary education system • Public and Private institution quality • Turning to capital punishment for corruption • Burdensom government regulation • Poor property rights • Judiciary lacks independence

  20. China in Porter’s Framework • Moving from capture of cheap labor to need for efficiency to compete because cheap labor in other places • Same as Russia’s recommendations: • “Needs to focus on higher education and training, market efficiency and technological readiness” • While continuing public institution reform

  21. China in Porter’s Diamond (Low Technology) (Consumers $7.5K PPP) (Macro indicators Public Institutions) (Supporting Infrastructure) • Underachieving Country • Low Income compared to higher competitiveness index

  22. Conclusion • Transition from Factor-driven economy to Investment-driven economy has coincided with evolution from developing country to middle-income, developed country • New challenge will be to move from Investment-driven to Innovation-driven in order to sustain growth

  23. References • Porter, Michael E. “Enhancing the Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity: The Current Competitiveness Index” • Hunter, Richard J. and Leo V. Ryan, “A Transitional Analysis of the Polish Economy: After Fifteen Years, Still a ‘Work in Progress,” Global Economic Journal 5:2, 2005. • Economist.com, Poland Country Briefing Factsheet, • Marageta Drzeniek, “Russia’s Competitiveness at the Crossroads”, Paper presented at World Economic Forum Russia CEO Roundtable, June 2007, http://www.weforum.org/en/events/russia2007/index.htm • Economist.com, China Country Briefing Factsheet, • Porter, Michael E., World Economic Forum, World Competitiveness Report 2006-2007

More Related