In State capitalism, does the operative word “capitalism” come in? State capitalism and State-run enterprises are neither to be applauded nor feared, writes prof. james l. Heskett of harvard business school
Whether we think we are part of a free market or not, are we really living in an era of state capitalism? What are we to make of estimates that State-owned sovereign funds, led by Abu Dhabi and fuelled mostly by oil revenues and trade surpluses, now total more than the value of the world’s hedge funds and will grow by six times over just in the next seven years? Or that states like China and Russia now own the world’s largest corporations? Or that, according to an estimate by the American Enterprise Institute, economies of countries with authoritarian regimes have grown faster over the past ten years than economies of the most politically free countries?
One doesn’t hear much about that these days as State-owned corporations now dwarf even the largest privately-owned global organisations, with PetroChina currently leading the list with a market value of more than $1 trillion. The impact of this phenomenon on competition is interesting. Just ask the manager of a privately-owned global corporation how easy it is to compete with a State-owned institution (and the state’s sovereign fund investors) when his competitor is able to arrange to have State aid or investment provided or withheld in large quantities to a potential customer’s country of origin depending on whether that customer favours a private or State-owned vendor. Whatever happened to the fears just a few short years ago that global corporations with allegiance to no government would constitute an important challenge to the world economic order, one that would be impossible to control with conventional laws & regulations?
The phenomenon has interesting implications for those in need of capital, particularly if the source of the capital is your strongest economic competitor. For example, the United States, the European Union, and South Africa recently have seen several of their very large financial institutions seek help from sovereign funds or State-owned companies with ample money to invest. Among the largest investors have been Abu Dhabi’s and Kuwait’s Investment Authorities and the China Investment Corporation. There have been outcries for measures requiring investors to adhere to certain practices regarding disclosure and intent. But typically, unless majority investments are at stake, there is little other than moral suasion that can be used to persuade investors to avoid making investments for political reasons or adhere to certain standards for transparency in their investment practices. The stronger the need for capital, the fewer even the most modest requests placed on the investors. Only when investments in what is perceived as critical infrastructure, such as ports, is involved has the US Congress, for example, drawn the line in prohibiting a transaction.
This raises a number of questions. Can national or even regional laws or regulations even begin to deal with what in effect are global markets? Will some kind of global agreement be required? Just how easily will that be achieved? Or does this phenomenon really matter in the long run? Is State capitalism just another way of redistributing the ownership of the world’s assets, something that has gone on for centuries? Is it better to have the available money, regardless of origin, invested in assets located in free market democracies than somewhere else? Will this help insure the world’s long-run prosperity and security as lenders or investors increase their stake in the success of currencies in markets in which they invest? Or, alternatively, will the situation take care of itself as a new equilibrium reoccurs when those managing huge pools of money and gigantic corporations succumb to inefficiencies of size, poor investment decisions, and the potential for corruption?
In state capitalism, is the operative word “capitalism”? State capitalism is neither to be applauded nor feared. That is, “as long as the key decisions are in favour of making money for the State,” as Saaketh Preetham commented. Omer E. puts it this way: “What this suggests is nothing more than the emergence of changing political tides.” In fact, in M. F. Procaccini’s words, “the whole ‘mixed economy’ models of the 20th Century and today are based mostly on combinations of state and private forms of capitalism.” Citing examples of Dutch and British investments abroad, Cole Woodson comments, “I find the question to be somewhat delinquent... to the tune of several centuries.” He adds that to the extent that returns from investments of governments and State-owned sovereign funds can replace taxes, they can be beneficial to a citizenry.
One doesn’t hear much about that these days as State-owned corporations now dwarf even the largest privately-owned global organisations, with PetroChina currently leading the list with a market value of more than $1 trillion. The impact of this phenomenon on competition is interesting. Just ask the manager of a privately-owned global corporation how easy it is to compete with a State-owned institution (and the state’s sovereign fund investors) when his competitor is able to arrange to have State aid or investment provided or withheld in large quantities to a potential customer’s country of origin depending on whether that customer favours a private or State-owned vendor. Whatever happened to the fears just a few short years ago that global corporations with allegiance to no government would constitute an important challenge to the world economic order, one that would be impossible to control with conventional laws & regulations?
The phenomenon has interesting implications for those in need of capital, particularly if the source of the capital is your strongest economic competitor. For example, the United States, the European Union, and South Africa recently have seen several of their very large financial institutions seek help from sovereign funds or State-owned companies with ample money to invest. Among the largest investors have been Abu Dhabi’s and Kuwait’s Investment Authorities and the China Investment Corporation. There have been outcries for measures requiring investors to adhere to certain practices regarding disclosure and intent. But typically, unless majority investments are at stake, there is little other than moral suasion that can be used to persuade investors to avoid making investments for political reasons or adhere to certain standards for transparency in their investment practices. The stronger the need for capital, the fewer even the most modest requests placed on the investors. Only when investments in what is perceived as critical infrastructure, such as ports, is involved has the US Congress, for example, drawn the line in prohibiting a transaction.
This raises a number of questions. Can national or even regional laws or regulations even begin to deal with what in effect are global markets? Will some kind of global agreement be required? Just how easily will that be achieved? Or does this phenomenon really matter in the long run? Is State capitalism just another way of redistributing the ownership of the world’s assets, something that has gone on for centuries? Is it better to have the available money, regardless of origin, invested in assets located in free market democracies than somewhere else? Will this help insure the world’s long-run prosperity and security as lenders or investors increase their stake in the success of currencies in markets in which they invest? Or, alternatively, will the situation take care of itself as a new equilibrium reoccurs when those managing huge pools of money and gigantic corporations succumb to inefficiencies of size, poor investment decisions, and the potential for corruption?
In state capitalism, is the operative word “capitalism”? State capitalism is neither to be applauded nor feared. That is, “as long as the key decisions are in favour of making money for the State,” as Saaketh Preetham commented. Omer E. puts it this way: “What this suggests is nothing more than the emergence of changing political tides.” In fact, in M. F. Procaccini’s words, “the whole ‘mixed economy’ models of the 20th Century and today are based mostly on combinations of state and private forms of capitalism.” Citing examples of Dutch and British investments abroad, Cole Woodson comments, “I find the question to be somewhat delinquent... to the tune of several centuries.” He adds that to the extent that returns from investments of governments and State-owned sovereign funds can replace taxes, they can be beneficial to a citizenry.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Prof. Rajita Chaudhuri's Website
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
Arindam Chaudhuri's Portfolio - he is at his candid best by Society Magazine
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
IIPM B-School Detail
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Prof. Rajita Chaudhuri's Website
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
Arindam Chaudhuri's Portfolio - he is at his candid best by Society Magazine
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
IIPM B-School Detail
