bailout

Notes from North of 49ºN

It’s not often I agree with Tom Friedman, but last fall when I was preoccupied with the US general election, teaching, and associate directing a center, he was advocating not just a bailout, but a green buildup.  He quoted Van Jones, author of The Green Collar Economy::

“It’s time to stop borrowing and start building. America’s No. 1 resource is not oil or mortgages. Our No. 1 resource is our people. Let’s put people back to work — retrofitting and repowering America. … You can’t base a national economy on credit cards. But you can base it on solar panels, wind turbines, smart biofuels and a massive program to weatherize every building and home in America.”

Friedman was in favour of attaching green strings to bailouts, an idea I think warranted further study, at the very least.  Fast forward 9 months and focus on the province of Ontario, where at the federal level, the Conservatives {Stephen Harper}, and at the provincial level, the Liberals {Dalton McGuinty}, jumped on the US bailout bandwagon to a tune of $9.5B or $10.9B Canadian.  This is in addition to the Obama administration’s $49.8B.  The combined US and Canadian bailouts are worth 130 times the present value of GM.  Here’s what both Harper and McGuinty had to say about this::

“We had to save it all or have zero forever,”

–Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

“The alternative would have been a devastating blow to Ontario families and communities.”

–Dalton McGuinty, Ontario Premiere

The troubles in the industry are not new news and CBC has a chronology of layoffs.  I’ve alluded to this bailout before and the scant jobs it will save, but here are the specifics in terms of the Canadian GM assembly line::

“At present GM Canada has 12,000 hourly and salaried employees, but that number is expected to shrink to about 5,500 over the next couple of years. About 1,100 of the new total is expected to be salaried jobs, which are unrelated to assembly operations. That means Ottawa and the Ontario government are together spending an unprecedented $2.1 million for each assembly job at GM Canada they hope to save.”–Time, 1 June 2009

It’s likely that GM suppliers will also be affected, a $7.2B industry employing 45,000 workers, but it is unlikely that all these jobs are at risk.  While Canada accounts for about 19.4% of North American production, Canadian cost advantages have been eroded by a stronger Canadian dollar, a weakened US union in the UAW, and strong and strategic bargaining by the Canadian Auto Workers union.

While the situation looks gloomy for manufacturing in Ontario, quite a few are banking on green jobs.  So much so that St. Clair College has a 2-year green jobs programme and the province has a commitment to clean energy.  Currently, the province gets 25% of its electricity from coal, but wants to shut down all of its coal plants by 2014.  The province is hoping to convert some of the plants to carbon-neutral biomass, although the yields will be lower.  The slack will need to be picked up by alternatives, with greener options being wind and solar.  Ontario’s Climate Change Action Plan calls for greenhouse gas emission reduction to 6% under 1990 levels and the new Green Energy Act is meant to protect the environment, regulate, and spur investment in green technologies.

Policy & Innovation:: The California Example

The PPIC has a report on the effects of California’s Zero-Emissions Vehicle {ZEV} mandate, particularly in the 1990s and early 2000s.  During this time, the California government, through the Air Resources Board {CARB} initially set in 1990 requirements that by 1998 that 2% and by 2003 that 10% vehicles sold in California would be ZEV.  Suffice it to say, concessions were made over time, but the original mandate set the wheels in motion for innovation.  The effects of the program were::

• The policy spurred patents in near-term technologies
• CARB arguably responded to technological changes when revising the program
• Technological spillovers resulted in a greater number of indirect  innovations
• Increased market development for emerging technologies
• Broadened design parameters
• Lower emissions in California

The program, albeit complex and not without politics and controversy, shows how policy can help to shape market-based activity in ways that would not occur otherwise.

Ontario:: Good Money After Bad

While not surprising, Canada and Ontario should have considered asserting themselves more, rather than caving to bailout pressure.  Why not move forward to develop policies that help transition away from declining industries and in-line with over provincial objectives?, e.g., environmental and energy.  How I see it is that the US and Canada are bailing out a company the capital markets have little faith in and now face the daunting task of rebuilding with a new CEO, “Big Ed,” who has a reputation for being an empire-builder.  I question having an empire-builder in charge of a company needing to be leaner, a company needing to reinvent itself overnight.  Let’s hope he indeed  “learns something about cars,” and doesn’t make mistakes like this one, the old CEO Rick Wagoner copped to:: “axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image.”

While there have been debates on whether or not the US needs an auto industry {NY Times} and criticisms abound, such as this one on how GM betrayed our trust, Canada is nevertheless a 12% equity shareholder.  This creation of a capitalist-state joint venture opens up a huge can of worms, as which interests will prevail and how to balance autonomous management and control versus paternalism?  I think the answers are in economic sociology, a topic for a future post.

Song:: “Canada” – Low

Video::

Twitterversion:: #Canada #bailout of #GMfail =more #fail ? Can #Ontario still dvel #greeneconomy & innov.w/enviro&energy policy objctves? http://url.ie/1wdt  @Prof_K

Notes from north of 49ºN.

I now live in a relatively small country, ranked 36th. in population, at 33.7M {versus 306.7M in the US}, but in the top 10 in terms of economies with a GDP of $1.3T {#9 ranking}, versus 13.8T for the US {#1 ranking}.  I mention this, as I wonder about scale and innovation, i.e., can smaller countries effectively compete in technology in a global environment?  One of my interests in innovation is biotechnology, a “new economy” area focusing on better outcomes for “health, the environment, and for industrial, agricultural and energy production.”  Advances in genetics are creating a race for companies and countries, with the idea of dominating the biotech field in order to enjoying profits and prosperity.

Last summer, I saw on a Canadian network a segment on how Canadian government investments in biotech were getting bought up by US firms, implying that the relatively small Canadian government was, in part, subsidizing innovations flowing south of the border.  The Matthew effect kicks in, as rich get richer and the poor get poorer, given that Canadian firms were being snapped up by US firms with deep pockets, transferring value southward.  According to a Globe & Mail article {click on license option}, another issue is that Canadian venture capital is lacking, so Canadian biotech firms often are capitalized by US venture capital firms that like to keep close tabs on operations and encourage offices/operations in the US.

Well, is Canada even a player in this biotech area?

According to 2006 OECD data, Canada is a player in terms of the number of firms {532}, the number of patents {ranked #6 in 2004}, and revenues {$83M}, along with an 11% compound annual growth rate {CAGR} of revenues from 1999-2005.

Given how collaboration and capital are now global, does it even matter where innovations are incubated?  A study by Bagchi-Sen & Scully {2004} is illuminating.  They divide biotech forms into two categories:: high R&D intensity and low R&D intensity.  Each has a different take with respect to strategies within the context of globalization::

• High R&D Intensity:: Ties to local universities/Canadian researchers & collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, but desire global capital inflows.  Prototypical firm is in health theraputics.
• Low R&D Intensity:: Emphasis on local production and development of Canadian market.  Focus on strategic alliances with foreign firms.  Prototypical firm is in diagnostics or agricultural biotech.

In terms of innovation policy, this brings up interesting food for thought for Canadian politicians in light of this recession.  Thanks to Barack Obama, Canada’s large neighbour to the south is pumping $21.5B of stimulus towards science and technology, which begs the question, how will this affect Canada?

It makes sense that Canadian policy would encourage the projects of low-intensity R&D firms with ties to the US, as these firms:: may be able to capitalize on relationships with stimulus-receiving firms, will develop innovations for the Canadian market, and will be focused on local Canadian production and manufacturing.  The high-intensity R&D firms could use funding {hint:: even more than $1B+CAN stimulus} that focuses on spurring innovations and the building of a sustainable base of Canadian talent and resources.  Dalton McGuinty’s {Liberal Premiere} efforts in Ontario might be a step in the right direction, but I’m not seeing clearly how this all fits together with an economic recovery plan.  Biotech. is not without risks, particularly with respect to agricultural biotech, which consumers are uncertain of.  Activists have alerted consumers with terms like “Frankenfood” for genetically-modified organisms {GMOs} and Monsanto’s lawsuits against journalists and farmers don’t help the cause.  So, maybe ag. biotech is a lose, but developing Canadian competitive advantage in innovations, in terms of other forms of biotech, nanotechnologies, clean energy, and green collar jobs, may provide fertile terrain for politicians and policymakers.

Well, enough of this talk of the “new economy” of biotech and innovations, what about the old economy, still prevalent in many parts of Canada?  Globalization has drawn Stephen Harper’s {Prime Minister} Conservative government into bailout fever to the tune of $9.5B, in order to secure that 16% of GM’s production remains in Canada.  This includes $3.1B that the Province of Ontario ponied up by Dalton McGuinty’s government.  Unfortunately, this might only save 4,400 jobs, after projected layoffs, according to CBC::

Given how the Tories and the Grits have played their cards in this {along with playing a current game of Federal “chicken”}, I see an opportunity for the NDP to make inroads with their platform based on developing new technologies and saving jobs.  Alas, more on “GMfail” and job losses in Canada in a future post.

So, it looks like nation matters, but in a global milieu.  Nothing surprising.  If you were to advise Canadian politicians, should new technologies {e.g., biotech, green, energy} be developed more aggressively {or at least explored} and does it make sense to commit billions to save jobs with an untested GM restructuring?

Twitterversion:: #newblogpost How should Canada compete {bio}tech, given globalzatn, US domnce, & recession? #GMfail bailout, good idea? http://bit.ly/18bBq8 @Prof_K

Song:: Genetic Engineering – Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark

Video::