TIP Strategies is a privately held Austin-based economic development consulting firm committed to providing quality solutions for public and private‑sector clients.
This blog is dedicated to exploring new data and trends in economic development.
via The Washington Post
A sliver of China’s foreign investments, totaling more than $68 billion in 2010, came to the United States, a trend the Obama administration hopes to change. Read related article.
Source: China Commerce Ministry. The Washington Post. Published on February 10, 2012, 8:28 p.m.
By Patrick McGeehan and Kirk Semple
Affluent foreigners are rushing to take advantage of a federal immigration program that offers them the chance to obtain a green card in return for investing in construction projects in the United States. With credit tight, the program has unexpectedly turned into a mainstay for the financing of these projects in New York, California, Texas and other states.
The number of foreign applicants, each of whom must invest at least $500,000 in a project, has nearly quadrupled in the last two years, to more than 3,800 in the 2011 fiscal year, officials said. Demand has grown so fast that the Obama administration, which is championing the program, is seeking to streamline the application process.
Still, some critics of the program have described it as an improper use of the immigration system to spur economic development — a cash-for-visas scheme. And an examination of the program by The New York Times suggests that in New York, developers and state officials are stretching the rules to qualify projects for this foreign financing.
These developers are often relying on gerrymandering techniques to create development zones that are supposedly in areas of high unemployment — and thus eligible for special concessions — but actually are in prosperous ones, according to federal and state records.
One of the more prominent projects is a 34-story glass tower in Manhattan that is to cost $750 million, one-fifth of which is to come from foreign investors seeking green cards. Called the International Gem Tower, it is rising near Fifth Avenue in the diamond district of Manhattan, one of the wealthiest areas in the country.
Yet through the selective use of census statistics, state officials have classified the area as one plagued by high unemployment, the federal and state records show. As a result, the developer has increased the project’s chances of attracting foreigners who will accept little, if any, return on their investment in the project if it means they can secure American visas for their families.
A senior federal immigration official, Alejandro Mayorkas, acknowledged in an interview on Friday that the program might need more scrutiny. Mr. Mayorkas and other federal officials said they were concerned that some of the maps that New York and other states were approving might not adhere to the spirit and intent of the regulations.
The Times’s review of the program in New York indicates that several other major projects are also based on questionable maps.
For example, the Battery Maritime Building, at the foot of Manhattan near Wall Street, has been classified as being located in an area that needs help attracting jobs. That designation is the result of a development zone whose outlines resemble a gerrymandered political district, project documents show.
The zone snakes up through the Lower East Side, skirting the wealthy enclaves of Battery Park City and TriBeCa, and then jumps across the East River to annex the Farragut Houses project in Vinegar Hill, Brooklyn.
In fact, the small census tract that contains the Farragut Houses has become a go-to area for developers seeking to use the visa program: its unemployed residents have been counted toward three projects already.
The giant Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which abuts well-heeled brownstone neighborhoods, has also qualified for the special concessions using a gerrymandered high-unemployment district: the crescent-shaped zone swings more than two miles to the northeast to include poor sections of Crown Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant. A local blogger and critic of Atlantic Yards, Norman Oder, has referred to the map as “the Bed-Stuy Boomerang.”
Since 2008, developers have raised or have planned to raise close to $1 billion on these projects in New York City, according to federal and state records. Almost all of that money would come in increments of $500,000 — much of it from residents of China — and pour into wealthy areas.
In interviews, New York State economic-development officials praised the program but were reluctant to accept responsibility for administering it. Indeed, some state officials who certified projects for the program acknowledged that they did not know what was being built. They said they were following guidance from federal regulators.
“This program serves as a valuable tool to support job-creating projects that will put areas of high unemployment on a continued path to economic recovery and growth,” said Austin Shafran, a spokesman for Empire State Development, the state agency that oversees the program in New York.
Urged on by federal and state officials, investors in faraway places like Shanghai and Seoul along with American developers have been flocking to the program, which was created by Congress during the recession of 1990.
Under the program, known as EB-5, investors receive a visa that provides residency for two years and can be converted into a permanent green card if the holders can show the investment produced at least 10 jobs, even if the project has not been completed.
With the surge in EB-5 projects, many lawyers and consultants, in the United States and overseas, are getting involved. In China alone, more than 500 agents are jockeying to connect wealthy Chinese people to American developers, experts said.
Investors throng EB-5 conferences. Many, successful in their own countries, said they wanted to secure American residency for their children. But the competition has given rise to unsavory practices, EB-5 lawyers and consultants said, like agents who falsely promise guaranteed returns.
The minimum investment in the program was set at $1 million and has not changed in more than 20 years. But if the project is in a rural area or a place where the unemployment rate is 50 percent above the national average, the threshold for investing is $500,000, not $1 million.
By creating development zones that are ruled eligible for $500,000 investments, urban developers are at an advantage in luring contributions.
The zone drawn up for the Gem Tower consists of two census tracts in Midtown Manhattan. According to census figures, the tract that contains the project had an unemployment rate of zero for the last five years.
But the State Labor Department calculated that there were enough unemployed people in an adjoining census tract — one that includes Times Square — to justify calling the small zone an area of high unemployment.
Lela Goren, director general of Extell New York Regional Center, which is helping to raise the EB-5 investments for the Gem Tower, said she could not explain how the tower’s zone qualified as needy. “It qualifies, whatever the numbers, and it got approved,” Ms. Goren said.
The consultants arranging the EB-5 financing for the Battery Maritime and Atlantic Yards projects declined to comment.
Officials in other states expressed dismay over how New York developers were using the program. They said New York was unfairly siphoning off investments from less-developed areas.
“A lot of projects are in areas that are head-scratchers,” said James Candido, an official with Vermont’s Department of Economic Development.
Other states have sometimes not allowed such questionable development zones. California told a developer to relocate a manufacturing plant for a surgical-products company from a more prosperous part of San Jose to a poorer one, said Brook J. Taylor, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development in California.
Federal regulators said states determined whether projects were located in areas of “greatest need.”
“The question is, are the state authorities adhering to the spirit of the law?” said Mr. Mayorkas, the federal immigration official who is the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Where is the project being developed, and where are the jobs being created? Are the people from the areas of high unemployment being employed? Because that’s really the purpose. If they’re not being hired from those areas, then the question is justified.”
Mr. Mayorkas, whose staff has been scrambling to keep up with the boom in the program, said in the interview on Friday that he was concerned about allegations of gerrymandering.
If some project designations were not achieving “legislative intent,” he said, “then I think that is something that we need to consider as the laws are reviewed.”
Harvard has released an interesting new index of “economic complexity” which is the productive knowledge of the economy, based on analysis of its output composition.
… the Economic Complexity Index (ECI) is based on the number and the complexity of the products that a country exports with comparative advantage. Empirically, countries that do well in this index, given their income level, tend to achieve higher levels of economic growth. The ability to successfully export new products is a reflection of the fact that the country has acquired new productive knowledge that will then open up further opportunities for progress.
The index is then used to make detailed growth projections, and identify export opportunities on a country-by-country basis. There are also interactive versions of most of these visualizations that you can explore and filter.
via The Heritage Foundation
China’s investment overseas is increasingly important to the United States and the international community. The China Global Investment Tracker created by The Heritage Foundation is the only publicly available, comprehensive dataset of large Chinese investments and contracts worldwide beyond Treasury bonds. Details are available on well over 400 attempted transactions — failed and successful — over $100 million in all industries, including energy, mining, transportation and banking.
Download the data set here.
Chinese investment and business contracts now span the globe. There is a clear effort to diversify across countries and regions but the Western Hemisphere has become especially prominent.
China’s investment total could be higher. Over $160 billion in proposed spending has been rejected by foreign or Chinese regulators or has failed due to mistakes by Chinese firms. However, there are also clear signs that Chinese firms are learning to be better investors.
Chinese Outward Investment: More Opportunity Than Danger
Chinese investment is not taking the world by storm financially, nor will it do so in the near future. It does not pose a major threat to the U.S., either in terms of the purchase of American assets or the expansion of Chinese influence around the globe. At home, American policy concerning Chinese investment should be more transparent. Overseas, the best reply to expanding Chinese commercial influence is to expand American commercial influence—for instance, through free trade agreements. These steps will help create more economic opportunities in the U.S., enhance America’s global position, and pose no threat to national security.
Where China Invests, And Why It Matters
The PRC has hundreds of billions of dollars available for investment and a desire to lock up resources; the U.S. has several trillion already invested and a bigger, more multi-dimensional economy. Concerns about increased Chinese investment and business activity should be addressed by expanding American activity, from investment in Ivory Coast to trade with Taiwan.
China’s Investment Overseas in 2010
The dominant feature of Chinese outward investment in 2010 was a rush to South America, particularly Brazil. Overall investment grew only modestly. The energy and power sectors continued to be the most attractive for Chinese enterprises. Troubled or failed investments – a huge problem in 2009 – were much less prominent in 2010. An obvious implication for American policy is to expand trade and investment ties to South America and around the world.
via the Wall Street Journal
Fast-growing emerging market economies are attracting soaring investment flows as growth in the U.S. and Europe remains sluggish. The trend has produced unexpected downsides such as overvalued currencies. Mouse over each emerging market country to see what the effects have been, and what the governments have tried to do about it.
Click on the image to launch the interactive feature.
via Harvard Business Review
By: Navi Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu, Prasad Kaipa, Simone Ahuja
We recently visited the brand-new R&D lab of Dr Reddy’s, one of India’s leading pharmaceutical firms. This lab isn’t located in Bangalore or Hyderabad (where Dr Reddy’s is headquartered) but in … Cambridge, U.K.
In 2008, Dr Reddy’s acquired Chirotech, Dow Chemical’s R&D unit, for $32 million, and in April 2011 relocated it to a new 33,000 sq. ft. facility in Cambridge Science Park. Chirotech specializes in biocatalysis and chemocatalysis, two important subspecialties of biotechnology and chemistry that help develop key biological and chemical intermediates needed for the efficient production of medicines. Dr Reddy’s plan is to leverage Chirotech’s scientific capabilities to optimize drug development processes, thus lowering manufacturing costs and speeding time-to-market. In doing so, Dr Reddy’s strengthens its core generic drugs business and boosts the custom manufacturing services it provides to Big Pharma and nimble biotech startups.
In prior blog posts, we have described how Western multinationals such as Xerox and GE are embracing polycentric innovation by sourcing more R&D capabilities from emerging markets such as India and China and integrating them into a synergistic global innovation network. In recent years, Indian firms such as Dr Reddy’s have also started globalizing their R&D footprint by moving into Western markets. They have been tapping into the sophisticated technical and scientific talent available in Western economies as part of their strategy to access international markets and build global brands.
Besides Dr Reddy’s, several leading Indian firms are pioneering polycentric innovation:
Tata Motors. While the $2000 Nano car was mostly developed in India, Tata Motor’s Indica Vista Electric Vehicle and the Pixel city car were primarily designed and built by the Tata Motors European Technical Centre (TMETC) in Coventry, U.K., in close partnership with the University of Warwick. TMETC, which was established in 2005, got a big talent boost when Tata Motors acquired Jaguar and Land Rover in 2008.
Suzlon. The world’s eighth-largest wind turbine manufacturer may be headquartered in Pune, India, but its main R&D centers are located in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, nations that actively promote wind energy and boast a huge talent pool. Suzlon recently completed its acquisition of Germany-based REpower Systems, gaining access to cutting-edge expertise in aerodynamics and electronics.
Reliance MediaWorks. This media powerhouse offers creative and production services as well as cutting-edge post-production services to such films as Avatar and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. To best leverage worldwide creative talent, Reliance MediaWorks operates a global network of creative centers located in Burbank, San Francisco, London, Tokyo, and across India.
TCS. Asia’s largest IT service provider has built what it calls a global Co-Innovation Network (COIN), which includes technology partnerships with startups and VC firms in Silicon Valley as well as academic tie-ups with leading American universities such as MIT, Georgia Tech, and Stanford.
Having extensively interacted with the leaders of these organizations, we find that Indian firms have developed several best practices around how to implement polycentric innovation effectively:
Cultivate a polycentric mindset to make global innovation work. Polycentric innovation won’t work in organizations that promote groupthink. The Indian firms we studied promote diversity in their R&D management by hiring external talent to build and oversee their global innovation network. Tata Motors appointed Tim Leverthon, who previously led R&D at BMW, as head of its global R&D. Suzlon’s head of technology is John O’Halloran, a former Cummins Engine executive who now leads Suzlon’s 500-strong global R&D team out of Hamburg.
Decentralize and empower global R&D units. You can’t run your global R&D operations from headquarters in Mumbai. The Indian firms we worked with strive to empower their regional R&D units. TMETC has full operational autonomy even though it collaborates closely with Tata Motors’ Indian R&D unit. Reliance MediaWorks’ global creative network is highly decentralized, allowing each design studio head in the U.S. and the U.K. to make independent decisions that best serve local customer needs.
Communicate constantly to break down cultural barriers. Cultural differences can severely hamper cooperation between Western and Eastern engineers. Constant communication across geographically dispersed teams is vital to keep creative synergies flowing in a global R&D network. The senior leaders of the Indian firms we examined regularly meet with their global R&D units to ensure they feel part of a ‘global family,’ as Ravi Kant, Vice Chairman of Tata Motors, puts it.
Integrate with local innovation ecosystems. Building a global innovation network doesn’t just mean opening R&D labs all over the world. It also means integrating yourself into local innovation ecosystems. That’s why Tata Motors collaborates extensively with the University of Warwick in the U.K. while Suzlon has forged partnerships with Delft University in the Netherlands and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft and the University of Kiel in Germany.
Leverage global talent to move up the value chain while defending core business for now. It is commonly believed that emerging market companies tap Western R&D talent in order to ‘move up the value chain.’ That is certainly true in the case of Tata Motors, which is using TMETC to develop its electric car, and Reliance MediaWorks, which is leveraging its studios in California and London for high-end work. At the same time, these companies are using foreign expertise to bolster their core business as well. Some TCS academic alliances in the U.S. are aimed at finding ways to lower the cost of its core activities like software testing. And Dr Reddy’s is using Chirotech’s talent to make its generic drug business more cost-competitive rather than develop new branded drugs.
In an increasingly polycentric world, the battle between incumbent Western multinationals and up-and-coming Eastern multinationals will be fought around who is best at integrating and driving synergies across globally-distributed R&D networks. Moreover, Western and Eastern firms come to this battle with different assets and backgrounds. Western firms are masters of structured approaches to innovation that deliver scale and efficiency. Eastern firms excel at more frugal and flexible forms of innovation. In a global market that includes both affluent and mass market consumers, and in a world of polycentric innovation, firms will need to master and integrate both structured and flexible approaches to innovation. It will be interesting to see which firms turn out to be best at seamlessly integrating both approaches into a new paradigm for a polycentric world.
Is your company globalizing R&D? How are you preparing for the world of polycentric innovation? Do you have examples of companies that are innovating wisely across geographies? Please share with us your stories, challenges and best practices.