With due respect to the Business World article – Economic issues for [the] next president – it is a good template but then again is it a classic output of linear and incremental thinking? This kind of thinking starts with the obvious as spelled out in the article, i.e., “finding the resources to raise investment and social spending; government interventions in imperfect and/or important markets; how do we reduce poverty and make growth more inclusive, etc”.
The mind plays tricks and starting with the obvious is like stacking “old baggage” that magnifies the barriers we face, and narrows our playing field? As we know problem-solving is brain-storming and generating options, i.e., (a) have a clean slate, widen our playing field and find the nuggets of ideas that could shine a new and brighter light on our challenge; and (b) turn the challenge on its head, start with the end in view, not with the obvious, and set the desired outcome or object.
The object is to be a developed economy – it goes beyond “restoring growth after the crisis”? Our growth before the crisis was dismal – we’re not restoring dismal growth?
The mind plays tricks: that’s why there are winners and losers. And losers could be wondering why they could be beaten when they’re as smart as the next guy? The writer has talked about his Eastern European friends because they were likewise doing linear and incremental thinking; and realized they could be blown away – by competition (i.e., MNCs). And could have walked away from manufacturing? They had all the reasons to be killed: inefficient factory, low-priced products that were selling but not generating healthy margins, cottage-industry level, not world-class, R&D, etc. And history was against them: there were scores upon scores of losers in the private sector (like market leaders becoming followers, if not extinct) as well as in economic development (like promising countries becoming economic laggards). Yet, they kept thinking like winners . . .
In our case, we keep focusing on the obvious, quoting from the article: our “key constraints [are] the culprits: a) a vulnerable fiscal situation, b) inadequate infrastructure, c) weak investment climate due largely to governance concerns”. There’s logic to our thought process but because we haven’t turned our challenge on its head, we fell into a trap thus shrinking our playing field: “Should we still look at the East Asian models, relying more on manufacturing as the big driver. Or is India a more relevant model, i.e., very focused on services, or even Caribbean, i.e., remittances and tourism? Other models?” The object is developing compelling products, it goes beyond manufacturing – “start with the end in view” . . . or we will run out of model countries to emulate? (And the characterization of India is misleading: the number of R&D centers erected in India in partnership with MNCs is mind boggling, 63; and they aspire to market the world’s cheapest car, among others! We don’t want to be like ‘no problem, Jamaica’?) How can we frame our efforts so that we generate more options instead of magnifying our constraints – and not stay with the exact, same mindset which we’ve had for decades?
‘We want to be a developed economy; developed economies are characterized by high investment levels and high competitiveness and low poverty. They aggressively attract foreign investment and have done their homework on defining strategic industries where they could attain competitive advantage, i.e., they drilled down to their core – in pursuit of innovation and compelling products. The public and the private sectors embrace foreign investment as manifested in their policies and legislations.’
The JFC (Joint Foreign Chambers) have helped us define our strategic industries – that will generate billions in foreign direct investments and create millions of jobs – and develop compelling products & services. How do we get there? By partnering with the JFC – not being an island unto ourselves, with ‘very little to no confidence’ in R&D and manufacturing?
But our albatross – a parochial instinct – keeps pulling us inward, and thus falling short?
No comments:
Post a Comment