New Articles

Why A Vaccine For COVID-19 Won’t Restore Small Businesses Overnight

vaccine

Why A Vaccine For COVID-19 Won’t Restore Small Businesses Overnight

The vaccine for the COVID-19 virus recently began shipmentThe Wall Street Journal states it will take until sometime in March of 2021 to vaccinate the first 100 million individuals with the highest priority of getting the vaccine. That would leave well over  200 million Americans still in need of the vaccine as we head into spring.

The stock market is doing very well as it hovers around 30,000 – an unbelievable achievement never seen before, even though millions of people have lost their jobs and people continue to lose their jobs on a daily basis. The stock market is based on the theory of expectation, and what it is telling us is that with a vaccine, the economy will begin to turn around and will be much better going forward.

But let’s look at this through the eyes of small businesses.

Outside of government, companies with less than $7 million in sales and fewer than 500 employees are widely considered small businesses by the U.S. Small Business Administration. And the expectation for small businesses to return to what we considered normal pre-pandemic is not going to happen anytime soon.

Here’s why. Multiple states have banned indoor dining at what remaining restaurants are still open. As of Dec. 1, nearly 17% of U.S. restaurants were “closed permanently or long-term,” according to a study by the National Restaurant Association. That percentage amounts to over 110,000 service-industry businesses across the country.

The last known numbers reported at the end of September for businesses in total that had closed were approximately 170,000. And since that time, the total has possibly exceeded 200,000. It is hard to determine how many people have been affected. In November 2020, the national unemployment level of the United States stood at about 10.74 million unemployed persons, which equates to a little over 10%. However, this number only tracks the number of people who are unemployed. It doesn’t record the people who are not drawing unemployment benefits and are out of work. So, in reality, the number is larger than the 10.74 million.

With businesses closing and laying people off, no jobs for people to replace what they lost, and no income for the owners of the businesses, vaccine or no vaccine there is not going to be anyone working to turn the economy around. It will take most of 2021 to make the vaccine available to the millions of people who will want it, but many of the unemployed still will have no work to go to after they get the vaccine and the economy continues to sit.

The economists tell us there will be a surge in business once a vaccine has been made available and administered to the public, but the numbers tell us differently. And here is the biggest kicker of all that the economists have not figured into the equation: People’s habits have changed over the past year.

People are not buying as many clothes as they used to because they have nowhere to go. There is little dining, virtually no entertainment, and no gatherings, so there is no need to buy new clothes. Fuel sales are down because people are not commuting to work like they used to. Any business or venue that needs a gathering of people to remain in business is either closed or ignored due to government restrictions.

It is obvious that small businesses are not going to return to pre-pandemic levels with so many businesses closed in such a short time period. We are looking at 2022 at the earliest before the idea of normalcy begins to occur. And when the economy does begin to turn around, some of our favorite businesses we used to visit will be gone. Businesses cannot survive as long as the states keep changing the rules, which creates volatility in the marketplace. Entrepreneurs and investors seek opportunities but shun regulation and volatility, which can disrupt the flow of business. We eventually will see a surge in small businesses opening, but until then small businesses are on a declining slope.

______________________________________________________________

Terry Monroe (www.terrymonroe.com) is founder and president of American Business Brokers & Advisors (ABBA) and author of Hidden Wealth: The Secret to Getting Top Dollar for Your Business with ForbesBooks. Monroe has owned and operated more than 40 different businesses and sold in excess of 800 businesses. As president of ABBA, which he founded in 1999, he serves as an advisor to business buyers and sellers throughout the nation. As an expert source he has been written about and featured in The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur magazine, CNN Money, USA Today, CEOWORLD, and Forbes.

PPP

Synthetic Identity Fraud in PPP Loans

Most banks and lenders are well aware of how synthetic identities can be used to fraudulently open a bank account and secure a credit card or other type of loan. According to McKinsey, synthetic identity theft is the fastest-growing type of financial crime in the U.S., accounting for 10–15% charge offs in a typical unsecured lending portfolio.

The U.S. government now has synthetic identities on their radar thanks to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Many manipulated and fabricated identities were used to apply for these government loans in 2020.

The amount of fraud executed through the PPP program is still being tallied but there have been notable pending cases that show synthetic identities were used.

There are many factors that enabled fraudsters to take advantage of PPP loans including the speed of issuance, loosened credit criteria, and financial rewards for all involved with little downside risk. Below is a discussion of the evolution of the PPP and the elements that contributed to fraud.

PPP — How Did We Get Here?

When the U.S. economy largely shut down as a result of responses to COVID-19, the government put programs in place to help small businesses weather a major turndown. Nearly half of the U.S. workforce is employed by a small business. Helping these companies continue to pay workers was critical to maintaining a viable economy.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed on March 27th, 2020. This over $2 trillion economic relief package was intended to protect Americans from the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19.

The PPP was established by the CARES Act and was implemented by the Small Business Administration with support from the Department of the Treasury. This program provided small businesses with funds to pay up to 8 weeks of payroll costs. Funds could also be used to pay interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP, specifically, was authorized to fund up to $659 billion of these small business expenses.

Faced with having to distribute over half a trillion dollars within a few short months, the SBA enlisted the help of banks and lenders. The private sector was also tasked with the vetting and funding of applications, a process which the Treasury Department encouraged lenders to complete in as little as a day.

Getting money into the hands of small businesses quickly was vitally important. Claims for unemployment benefits catapulted to over 3 million the week of March 21st from a weekly average of 200,000 for months prior.

To facilitate rapid distribution, the stringent requirements to qualify for funding established at the beginning of the program were relaxed over time. For example, the need to verify an applicant’s tax records and payroll documentation was eliminated.

The huge loan sizes (up to $10M per loan) combined with urgency and relaxed standards drew the attention of fraudsters. “Any time you have large amounts of federal aid available, it’s going to bring out all the bad guys,” said Kathryn Petralia, co-founder and the president of Kabbage, an online lender that handled 297,000 loans for the program.

The PPP ended August 8th and by then, $525B had been distributed to over 5M businesses by nearly 5500 banks and lenders.

PPP — Revenue Boost For Banks & Lenders

Those who were approved by the SBA to administer funds were well rewarded, and there was no penalty for issuing loans to fraudulent entities. Banks and lenders were paid fees for each loan issued plus 1% interest on PPP loans they held that weren’t forgiven. Many banks could earn as much from the PPP loans as they reported in net revenue for all of 2019, according to analysis from S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Below is a sampling of the fees estimated to be earned by some of the largest banks involved in issuing PPP loans.

In pursuit of these fees, lenders were incentivized to fund as many loans as possible. Given the competition for funding loans, those that had the least friction got most of the applications — and likely most of the fraud.

PPP and Fraud—Stay Tuned

While millions of small businesses were helped by the PPP program, work is ongoing to figure out how much money may have been disbursed to fraudulent accounts.

Anecdotal evidence suggests a significant amount of money was issued to illegitimate applicants:

-The Small Business Administration’s fraud hotline, which received fewer than 800 calls last year, has already had 42,000 reports about coronavirus-related fraud.

-The Justice Department has made at least 41 criminal complaints in federal court against nearly 60 people, who collectively took $62 million from PPP by using what law enforcement officials said were forged documents, stolen identities, and false certifications.

-The Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, said the Treasury Department would review every loan over $2MM to determine if funds were disbursed fraudulently.

While the work above addresses funds already disbursed, the real story will likely emerge as small businesses apply for forgiveness. In order to get PPP loans forgiven, small business owners have to show proof that at least 60% of the money was used for payroll and the rest for other permitted expenses. Falsifying these records will result in hefty penalties. However, fraudsters with malicious intent have presumably already taken their PPP money, and are unlikely to apply for forgiveness, leaving the SBA responsible for reimbursing banks.

To be clear, a wide variety of fraud schemes were likely pursued to secure PPP funding. The most grievous method was to create fictitious businesses, proprietors, and employees to effectively steal U.S. taxpayer money. The less black and white forms of fraud include companies that spent the funds on non-compliant expenses and companies that leveraged organizational structures to obtain more funding.

The fact that synthetic identities were created to steal PPP dollars demonstrates the pervasiveness of this type of fraud. Synthetic identities have infiltrated financial services and are clearly being used to take advantage of government programs. This type of fraud is not bound by any vertical or medium. Any product or service that requires identity verification is potentially susceptible to synthetic identity fraud.

______________________________________________________________

Sarah Hoisington is head of Marketing at SentiLink, a fraud protection tech firm helping financial institutions and government agencies.

migration

Will Remote Work Lead to Vast Migration in the United States?

Whether we want to admit it or not, times are changing. The United States is going through a definite transformation on many levels. Political, economic, sociological, and cultural. These changes are in no small part due to COVID-19, and all its effects on the general economy and business practices. And one of the more notable changes is that more and more people are working remotely. So, will remote work lead to vast migration in the US, or will things go back to standard work practices once we have COVID-19 under control? Well, let’s find out.

The impact of COVID-19 on general job practices

To understand why remote work is changing the US, we first need to explore how COVID-19 has impacted it. After all, it is no coincidence that there is an astounding spike in the number of remote workers ever since COVID-19 forced us into lockdown. So, is remote work a temporary struggle that people wish to get out of as soon as possible? Or did COVID-19 open our eyes to new job opportunities?

The benefits of working from home

First and foremost, there is hardly a remote worker that won’t emphasize the benefits of working from home. To begin with, you don’t have to struggle with daily traffic. Next, you can wear pretty much whatever you want. Also, there is no need to socialize with coworkers that you don’t like. You have more freedom to organize your time. Finally, you can enjoy home-meals instead of eating fast food or at-work cafeteria.

Are there downsides to remote work? Sure. But, the benefits outweigh them so much that people wonder, “Why haven’t we done this sooner?”. Well, one of the reasons for this is that employers were worried about productivity. And this is precisely what they had to overcome during the COVID-19 pandemic. They had to learn how to manage their staff remotely, ensuring that everyone is doing their job.

Improved monitoring software

Another surprising spike came in the form of monitoring software. Once employers figured out that they need to have most, if not their entire workforce at home, they concluded that having monitoring software was a must. Apart from constant monitoring, you have daily reports, weekly meetings, and improved communication systems to ensure that workers are doing what they are supposed to when they are supposed to. Add to that increased data security and improved worker motivation and, hey presto. Remote work becomes not only functional but quite effective. So much so that most companies either saw no change or an increase in work performance. So, does this mean that remote work will lead to vast migration?

Reasons why remote work might lead to vast migration

As of now, the answer is definitely leaning towards yes. This, of course, depends on what you mean by “vast.” But, if 14 million US are vast enough for you, then yes. Whether this is a permanent migration or whether people will migrate back after coronavirus blows over is hard to tell. But, if we have to give an answer, we would put our money or permanent change. Here is why.

The coming of 5G

One of the main limitations of permanent remote work was that the internet was not good enough. Sure, you can have a stable connection if you live in a big city. But, the smaller towns in the US have been notorious for having slow, unstable internet. Well, if 5G delivers what they promise, we should experience faster, more stable internet, even in smaller cities. Mobile devices should have constant coverage, which will make reaching remote workers that much easier. On the other hand, remote workers won’t have to worry about installing expensive internet packages to have a stable connection, as it will be quite widespread.

Increase in freelance work

Of course, not all jobs can be done remotely. Some simply require you to be there in person to get anything done. But, over the past couple of years, there has been a definite increase in online freelance work. Platforms like Upwork, Fiverr, and Toptal all provide a safe and easy way for freelancers to find a job. So, not only are people getting better at working from home, but companies are finding more and more ways to find workers. This increase in freelance work gives both companies and workers the freedom to choose and learn like they never did before.

Where do people migrate to?

Until recently, the main migration for people was from smaller cities to larger ones to find better-paid jobs. Now, we should see people going back to their hometowns. After all, why pay high rent and utility bills when you can go back home and easily save hundreds of dollars monthly. This train of thought lead many Americans to head back home and enjoy a quieter lifestyle. As it turns out, remote work is also excellent for people that want to practice farming on the side or live in secluded areas, as they don’t have to worry about finding work in the local area.

Final thoughts

In our view, the fact that remote work leads to vast migration is a good thing. Remote work gives people the freedom to live where they want to live. And as far as we are concerned, the more freedom people have, the better. Mind you, we wouldn’t be surprised if remote work changes in the upcoming years, as the whole concept of if being this massive is quite new. But, we are hopeful that those changes will be for the better.

____________________________________________

Anthony Clark has worked as a business manager and consultant for over 15 years. After moving back to his home town, his primary focus has been on writing helpful articles about moving for websites like highqualitymovingcompany.com and raising his daughters.

digital tax

THE GLOBAL DIGITAL TAX MAN IS COMING

The fast-paced shift to digital products and services as well as online purchases is fundamentally changing the traditional basis for taxing commercial transactions. It’s no longer as “simple” as conducting a physical sale in one tax jurisdiction.

In response, discussions have heated up internationally, primarily in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), on how global tax systems can keep up with the digitization of the global economy, including where taxes should be paid and what portion of profits should be taxed, given that companies can achieve global sales without opening a storefront, can earn a profit on data moving across borders, and sell products that are not physical (like a video game or an app). Any digital tax would affect sellers and buyers – but also the platforms that enable digital sales, like Amazon.

A digital tax for a digital world

Digitization is dramatically reshaping what we do and how we do it. Many of us are now daily users of social media, e-commerce, and cloud-based services. Lawmakers around the world struggle to keep up with the break-neck speed of this digital revolution. One key aspect under global discussion is taxation in this new digital world. In particular, member countries of the OECD have engaged in a broad “international collaboration to end tax avoidance,” which includes an agenda focused on the tax challenges arising from digitization of the global economy.

Digital taxation is a tricky issue, not only because digital transactions are less well defined, but because they often involve the collection and use of customer data, which itself has value. Proponents of digital taxes argue that the data generated by users of social media platforms or other services has financial value, even if the service is free, since the platform provider is generating profit from user data. They believe the tech giants making huge sums of money trading digital services and products avoid billions of dollars in taxes by making use of legal loopholes around trade in digital products and services.

Can’t put the genie back in the digital bottle

How big is the “digital economy”? It’s not clear because the term is broad and not clearly defined, but one proxy is the measure of exports in the Information Communication Technology (ICT) services sector. Between 2006 and 2019, worldwide exports in the ICT sector more than tripled, from around $204 billion to over $635 billion.

Global ICT Services Exports

Amid a global pandemic when many small businesses are suffering, the global tech giants have prospered. Public pressure on governments has increased to ensure today’s massive, global digital businesses pay more under a clear and internationally agreed set of tax rules. In a recent statement, participants in an OECD meeting on an inclusive tax framework stressed that digital taxes are needed now more than ever to put governments back on stable financial footing after months of unprecedented coronavirus-related public spending.

The pillars on which a digital tax plan can stand

Back in the summer of 2019, the 129 members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) adopted a Programme of Work, based on two main pillars, to resolve the tax challenges of the growing digitized economy. Pillar One tackles the question of where taxes should be paid and on what basis. Pillar Two encompasses solutions to “ensure Multinational Corporations (MNCs) pay a minimum level of tax”.

Two Pillars

More specifically, the first pillar explores what portion of transactions and profits can or should be taxed in the jurisdiction where the consumer of digital products and services reside, rather than where the producer of the product or service is located. The second pillar is concerned with developing tools that allow countries to require MNCs to pay a minimum level of tax to minimize the ability of MNCs to shift profits to low and no-tax jurisdictions.

Where to next?

Given the level of disagreement among governments and stakeholders on these thorny questions, the original end-of-2020 deadline has been extended to mid-2021. Nonetheless, October saw the release of OECD reports on the Pillar One and Pillar Two blueprints, demonstrating emerging agreement on a number of important issues.

Under Pillar One, participants established a set of building blocks for new rules to permit taxation in a foreign country in the absence of a company’s physical presence. Market jurisdictions would obtain a new taxing right to a share of the profit generated by a business as well as a fixed rate of return for certain marketing and distribution activities taking place in that market jurisdiction. Participants would also establish effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms in the name of offering greater tax certainty to businesses. Once the basis of taxation can be agreed upon, participants will also need to tackle the difficult subject of scope and amount of profit to be reallocated.

Pillar Two must cope with the differences between national and subnational systems of taxation and business operating models. Whatever approach is agreed to ensuring minimum levels of MNC taxation, it much be transparent, non-discriminatory and not overly burdensome to administer and comply with. Participants have discussed applying a set of interlocking rules. They include:

-Income inclusion rule (IIR), allowing the income of a foreign entity to be taxed if that foreign income is taxed below a minimum rate.

-Under-taxed payments rule (UTPR), acting as a backstop to the IIR, enabling countries to disallow deductions or apply a withholding tax to untaxed or under-taxed payments.

-Switch-over rule (SOR), allowing the changing of tax treaty implications for profits of entities taxed below a minimum rate.

-Subject to tax rule (STTR), where treaty benefits may be changed for items of income where payments are under-taxed relative to a minimum rate.

TradeVistas | interlocking digital tax rules

A Taxing Road Ahead

Much remains to be hammered out, but the plans have already received criticism from those who believe they will not do enough to bring MNCs to account.

2019 report by the Tax Justice Network found the proposed OECD rules could worsen global inequality, leading to a three percent reduction in the tax bases of lower-middle-income countries while benefitting rich countries where the MNCs are headquartered. The authors claim that 80 percent of the tax recovered from corporate tax havens would accrue to the wealthiest countries, even though the tax abuses the OECD rules are meant to address disproportionately disadvantage poorer countries, a claim the OECD says ignores vital features of the framework.

The OECD proposals must also clear the hurdle of what is likely to be a long and drawn-out political process. The United States in particular has long resisted a global tax regime, butting heads with France over how such rules might be implemented.

With the blueprints released and a public consultation period initiated, multinational companies and advocacy groups alike will have their chance to be heard and influence future action. Whatever is decided will likely have a significant impact on how tech companies choose to operate and how we interact with them, too.

______________________________________________________________

Alice Calder

Alice Calder received her MA in Applied Economics at GMU. Originally from the UK, where she received her BA in Philosophy and Political Economy from the University of Exeter, living and working internationally sparked her interest in trade issues as well as the intersection of economics and culture.

voters

NEW POLL: TRADE WAS A TOP ISSUE FOR MANY 2020 VOTERS

Nearly Half of U.S. Voters Identified Trade as a Top Issue in Presidential Election

In a likely reflection of the front-and-center emphasis President Donald Trump has put on trade policy in his Administration, nearly half of U.S. voters identified trade as a top issue influencing their vote for president in 2020, according to TradeVistas’ latest survey.

Our poll also found that over the next four years, Americans want to prioritize policies supporting the U.S. production of goods and services, such as increasing U.S. exports abroad and promoting “Buy American” at home.

In our post-election survey of 1009 American adults, conducted by Lincoln Park Strategies, 22 percent of respondents said trade was “the most important issue to me” in determining their 2020 vote, while 27 percent said it was “one of the most important issues” to them. Of the rest, 32 percent said while trade was important, it didn’t affect their vote, and 20 percent said they were not sure or that it’s “not an issue I really care about.”

Importance of Trade in Vote for President

Over 60 Percent of Republicans Said Trade Was “Most” or “One of Most” Important Issues

Republicans were more likely to see trade as a top concern, with 61 percent saying it was the most important or one of the most important issues to their vote (versus 45 percent of Democrats. Independents, on the other hand, were the most likely to say it did not influence their vote (43 percent). Men were more likely to say trade was “the most important” issue to them (31 percent), while women were more likely to say a candidate’s position on trade did not affect their vote (39 percent).

Importance of Trade to Vote by Party

Trade as a Proxy for the General Economy

While the salience of trade as an election issue might seem surprising to some, there are a couple of potential explanations for our results. First, many voters may see trade policy as a proxy for their concern about the economy more generally. (In national exit polls, 37 percent of U.S. voters – including 83 percent of those voting for President Trump – said the economy was the issue that mattered most to their vote.) Moreover, Trump has made trade policy a centerpiece of his economic agenda, particularly with his trade war against China, the renegotiation of NAFTA as USMCA, and his promises to bring back jobs lost to offshoring. The President’s advocacy of policies like “Buy American” also explicitly linked the creation of U.S. jobs to U.S. production, which has arguably led to the conflation of trade and economic policy in the public mind.

Buy American to Remain a Top Priority

As our September survey found, Buy American enjoys immense bipartisan support, and respondents in our post-election poll indicated that this policy is their top priority among the options we tested. In our survey, 33 percent of respondents said policies like Buy American are “extremely important” to pursue over the next four years, compared to 26 percent who believed it extremely important to negotiate new trade agreements with other countries and 24 percent who said the same of increasing the export of U.S. goods and services. Consistent with our September survey, men and Republicans were somewhat more likely to consider Buy American to be “extremely important” (40 percent and 43 percent respectively). Overall, 61 percent of Americans said Buy American was “extremely important” or “very important,” while 59 percent said the same of new trade deals and more exports.

Tariff Fatigue Could Go Either Way

One policy that did not enjoy as strong support was the idea of imposing new tariffs. Just 20 percent said imposing new tariffs on foreign goods was “extremely important,” while an almost equal number – 19 percent – said new tariffs were not important (13 percent) or were opposed to the idea (6 percent).

On the other hand, low rates of opposition to new tariffs could indicate newfound acceptance of tariffs as a tool (or cudgel) in future trade policy.

Importance of Different Trade Policies

The Next Four Years

What all this means for the next four years is that Americans want to see and will support trade policies that aggressively promote American economic interests abroad and will create new jobs at home.

Methodology: Lincoln Park Strategies conducted 1009 interviews among adults age 18+ were from November 9-10, 2020 using an online survey. The results were weighted to ensure proportional responses. The Bayesian confidence interval for 1,000 interviews is 3.5, which is roughly equivalent to a margin of error of ±3.1 at the 95% confidence level.

______________________________________________________________

Anne Kim

Anne Kim is a contributing editor to Washington Monthly and the author of Abandoned: America’s Lost Youth and the Crisis of Disconnection, forthcoming in 2020 from the New Press. Her writings on economic opportunity, social policy, and higher education have appeared in numerous national outlets, including the Washington Monthly, the Washington Post, Governing and Atlantic.com, among others. She is a veteran of the think tanks the Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way as well as of Capitol Hill, where she worked for Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). Anne has a law degree from Duke University and a bachelor’s in journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

reset

How The Economic ‘Reset’ Can Work In Your Favor

While news of vaccines on the horizon signal hope, some analysts think a sizable chunk of the U.S. economy has been damaged permanently by COVID-19, with more layoffs and business closures still to come in 2021.

But to others, the future of a “new economy” in the post-COVID world is bright, opening doors for entrepreneurs, working professionals and small-to-medium business owners, says Rod Robertson, Managing Partner of Briggs Capital (www.briggscapital.com), international entrepreneur, and author of Winning at Entrepreneurship: Insider’s Tips on Buying, Building, and Selling Your Own Business.

“While about 40 percent of the American economy has been turned into debris, the playing field has been cleared, and the whole business environment has gone through a reset,” Robertson says.

“At the same time, people who upgrade their skill-sets and broaden their thinking won’t be left behind. So instead of people saying, ‘How lost I am, how crushed I am, woe is me,’ this is an exciting time, especially for young people, who don’t have to wait for 10, 20, or 30 years for their turn to be a business leader. They can make a generational jump by stepping up and embracing technology, and by understanding in the rubble and chaos what kernels of business are sprouting up.”

Robertson says these points are worth considering when planning for success in a changing U.S. economy:

Don’t buy the theory that COVID will destroy entrepreneurship. “It’s a great time to invest in or buy a business because the playing field has been reset,” Robertson says. “There is going to be a whole new generation of fortunes made in the next three to five years. These are small businesses, companies that are nimble and can shift easily.”

Investment in tech is trending. Robertson notes that over $50B has been spent by private equity on tech deals in 2020. “This fact dwarfs the issues that have swamped legacy or regular businesses that have seen a huge retraction in investments,” Robertson says. “The pivot to tech has accelerated and beware those firms that cling to their old ways of doing business.”

Make the necessary cuts and stay streamlined. “Seismic shifts are coming in 2021 as companies prepare for the new world economy,” Robertson says. “Some businesses must make drastic cuts and changes in directions. Pivot quickly and don’t be among the last firms to embrace change; it could be your demise. It is more important than ever to streamline operations and create an implicit trust with employees to ensure your business thrives in the post-pandemic world.”

Remote workers can’t afford to coast. report on remote work productivity during the pandemic found that global productivity among employees working from home due to COVID-19 has dropped. “U.S. employees are leading the pack both in terms of the amount still working remotely, and productivity declines,” Robertson says. “Salespeople without direct supervision aren’t producing like they used to. Remote workers who are coasting need to get in tune with their organizations to keep their jobs.”

Going solo isn’t a bad thing for boomers. Robertson says older workers who may get displaced can make the most of opportunities to fly solo. “The people over 50 and 60 are not grasping technology,” Robertson says, “and a lot of them are going to be pushed off the playing field. How do they switch to being an independent contractor, and stretch out their working years to 70-72? It’s time to reinvent and reinvigorate themselves.”

“Businesses and their best workers must shift with the times or invite extinction,” Robertson says. “The good news is, the reset opens great new opportunities, and people can take the blessing coming from all this chaos and turn it into business success.”

____________________________________________________________

Rod Robertson (www.briggscapital.com) is an international entrepreneur and author of Winning at Entrepreneurship: Insider’s Tips on Buying, Building, and Selling Your Own Business. Robertson is the owner of Briggs Capital, a boutique international investment bank. He has conducted business in over 15 countries while focusing on developing small-to-medium-sized businesses and taking them to market worldwide. Robertson’s 20-plus-year career in transaction experience and entrepreneurship includes guest lecturing around the globe at institutions such as Harvard Business School and other top-flight MBA schools as well as business forums and news outlets worldwide. He sits on numerous boards, guiding firms to streamline operations and make businesses more profitable before selling.

exports

2020 is Ending: Will Phase One Deal Exports Hit the Mark?

You may have heard about soybeans lately. After a tumultuous year, the crop’s futures surged above $10.70 in October, in large part because of sales to China. The world’s second-largest economy bought more than 17 million tons of soybeans in the current marketing year, according to the Department of Agriculture, surpassing both 2019 and 2018 figures. This buying frenzy pushed prices to a two-year high.

Some of it can be attributed to phase one trade deal between the world’s two largest economies. In January, the United States agreed to lower tariffs on $120 billion worth of Chinese goods. In exchange, China agreed to beef up its imports by $200 billion above 2017 levels over a two year period.

The commitment included soybeans, but it extended to other products too. China committed to importing an additional $77 billion in 2020, made up of $12.5 billion in agricultural products, $32.9 billion in manufactured goods, $18.5 billion in energy products, and $12.8 billion in services. In 2021, that number will increase to $123 billion.

So how are actual exports stacking up? Will China hit those goals this year?

‘The answer is no,’ says Dr. Chad Brown, a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. ‘The agreement itself is written to have an overall target and four sector-specific targets – agriculture, manufacturing, energy, and services. There’s a chance we could get there for agriculture, but not for energy or manufacturing.’

According to the Peterson Institute’s US-China Phase One Tracker, China is behind on purchases in each of these categories. By the end of the third quarter, the country imported $65.9 billion worth of goods. In order to reach the 2020 target, China would have to purchase another $110 billion in the last three months of the year. Forces outside of trade policies are making that difficult or impossible.

Agriculture has the most robust sales so far. Corn and pork exports both exceeded targets for the year, and cotton is on track to meet its goal. But purchases of other products, like wheat and sorghum, are nowhere near their target numbers. Even soybean sales are below target, in spite of the rally this fall. It spells trouble for agriculture exports overall. ‘You’re not going to make up lost soybean sales with pork or lobster or any of that, we just don’t sell nearly enough of that other stuff,’ Brown explains.

Sadly, manufacturing is much further behind. While PPE and semiconductor sales were healthy, automotive and aerospace products (typically some of the largest exports to China by dollar amount) were nowhere close. ‘Before the trade war, China was the second-largest export market for American vehicles, after Canada. Now, tariffs imposed on imports from China made autos more expensive. If you are making a car in the United States, it suddenly costs a lot more to do so,’ says Brown.

By the end of September, auto products had only reached a quarter of their goal. Chinese aircraft imports were little more than 10% of the pledged amount for 2020.

Energy commitments are farthest off the mark. This year, China imported $5.9 billion worth of products from the United States. That’s more than in 2017, but not ‘$200 billion commitment’ more. At $4.4 billion, crude oil purchases are at about half of where they should be to reach their goal. Meanwhile, coal and refined energy are nowhere close. As Dr. Brown explains, the commitments were made in dollar amounts, and as we are all painfully aware, oil prices have been extremely unstable this year. ‘You could pull all the oil out of Texas that exists, but if the price is either zero or negative, you’re not going to make any progress towards these purchase commitments.’

These commitment levels would have been a stretch during a typical year. But of course, 2020 has been anything but typical. As it stands, no United States industry is likely to reach its goals this year, and in 2021, the gap will only widen.

ABRAHAM ACCORDS

ABRAHAM ACCORDS EXPECTED TO YIELD IMMEDIATE MIDDLE EAST TRADE DIVIDENDS

More United Under Abraham

On September 15 at the White House, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Israel signed the Abraham Accords to normalize relations. It had been more than 25 years since Israel signed a peace deal with a major Arab country, the previous being Jordan in 1994 and Egypt before that back in 1979. One diplomatic breakthrough can beget others. Sudan followed on October 23. Oman and Qatar are reportedly in discussions.

These agreements – and those that may follow – could portend a significant turning point for the Middle East and North Africa region. Greater regional economic integration would be a stabilizing force for peaceful relations. It would enable broader-based prosperity for struggling economies in the region and could become a key ingredient of post-COVID growth that is less dependent on oil as a driver for Gulf state economies (and for Israel to rely less on oil that transits Turkey from Iraq). As European and American companies offer a natural bridge to commercial ties with Israel, Gulf states could reduce their reliance on China.

AA Map

Through the Abraham Accords, commercial, cultural and personal relationships can take root and blossom. In anticipation of its signing, delegations from the UAE and Israel were deployed to establish direct flights and sign bilateral deals to promote infrastructure and technology investments, tourism, educational and scientific exchange, and to collaborate in advanced healthcare-focused most immediately on coronavirus treatments and vaccination.


The UAE, with its concentration of logistics infrastructure, financial expertise and venture capital, is a good match with Israel, renowned for technological invention and entrepreneurship. Their economies have complementary economic strengths. Speaking at a September 16 Atlantic Council event, UAE Minister of Economy Abdulla bin Touq Al Mari said the agreement could lead to as much as $500 million in new bilateral trade and investment, growing to $4 billion a year.

Science Nerds, Students and Traders as Peacemakers

Scientific inquiry is a common human denominator. The Middle East Desalination Research Center based in Oman was an outgrowth of the 1996 Middle East Peace Process and continues today as a model of cooperation in shared research and capacity-building on transboundary water projects between Israel and Arab states.

The Abraham Accords are likely to yield a more significant surge in joint research in areas such as space exploration, technologies to address common food security challenges in the region, renewable energy, and advances in computing. The Accord opens the door to freer travel by scientists and exchanges of scientific samples and research equipment. Already, the Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence and the Weizmann Institute of Science signed an agreement to create a joint institute for artificial intelligence.

After prohibitions on travel, the UAE could become an attractive destination for Israelis to experience Arabian culture in a Persian Gulf country. UAE airlines Emirates and Etihad will begin flights to Tel Aviv. Observers think these airlines’ existing connections to global destinations through Dubai and Abu Dhabi could be enticing to Israeli tourists but also for business travelers to deliver professional services.

Another important way to foment integration and understanding is through student exchange. Arab students accounted for 16.1% of undergraduate students in Israeli universities in 2018. The Abraham Accord and diplomatic efforts to implement them will focus on greater student exchange.

AA Quote

Set for Takeoff from Free Zones

Intraregional trade throughout the Middle East – North Africa (MENA) region is today fairly insignificant. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates just 5 percent of exports from MENA countries go to regional neighbors, the lowest rate in the world. It’s difficult to know exactly how much of Israel’s trade is intertwined with Gulf states since trade is transacted through subsidies outside the Middle East. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change calculates it may be only about $1 billion.

One of the important and relatively quiet ways that more direct trade relations have been established is through free trade zones. As Arab Gulf States Institute scholar Robert Mogielnicki has put it, special economic zones in the Middle East have served as “politically neutral commercial gateways,” a way of dipping a toe in diplomatic relations.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress authorized a Qualifying Industrial Zone (QIZ) program to extend the benefits of the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement. Firms operating in QIZs located in Egypt and Jordan could export to the United States duty-free if the exported products contained inputs from Israel. The opportunity to do so created foundational commercial partnerships among Israeli firms and those in neighboring Arab countries with which Israel had signed peace agreements and provided the basis for extending benefits for those countries to the U.S. market.

As the ink dried on the Abraham Accords, Dubai-based logistics firm, DP World, entered into a partnership with a major Israeli port operator to assess free zone opportunities in Israel and possible direct shipping routes between Eilat and Jebel Ali ports. The Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce is also moving quickly to work with major free zone operators in Dubai.

Mogielnicki says the QIZs not only became commercial incubators, they “started to act as bellwethers for the geopolitical and economic reconfigurations underway across the broader Middle East”. Perhaps the flurry of new zones under the Abraham Accord will send similar signals across the region.

Blair quote

And What of Palestine?

Critics of the Abraham Accords cite concerns that Palestine is left out in the cold. Supporters believe the Abraham Accords are a road that leads back to Palestine in a more constructive way.

As the White House recognizes in its seminal proposal from January 2020, Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People, “the conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinians has kept other Arab countries from normalizing their relationships and jointly pursuing a stable, secure, and prosperous region.”

A deeply complex set of issues to resolve, the Trump administration writes that durable solutions must combine political agreements with an “economic vision for investments and government reforms” to create jobs, reduce poverty and create conditions for growth of the Palestinian economy. The administration’s proposal offers support to Palestine to develop property and contract rights (fundamental growth drivers), to put in place anti-corruption measures and infrastructure for capital markets, and to implement a low-tariff scheme for Palestine to make it more attractive to traders.

The plan proposes coupling policy reforms with strategic infrastructure investments to help hospitals, schools, homes and businesses secure reliable access to affordable electricity, clean water, and digital services. Businesses in the West Bank and Gaza should be better connected with key trading partners in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon – including through free zone arrangements. The plan even proposes a U.S. free trade agreement with Palestine to solidify the continuation of duty-free treatment but also undergird economic reforms; it encourages countries in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere to pursue its own free trade agreements with Palestine.

There’s a lot to be worked out. For example, Palestine doesn’t have direct access to key ports and must enter into more expansive arrangements with Israel regarding use of port facilities. A focus on these kinds of economic details is a good way to keep the conversation going.

A Strategic Agenda

As part of the Abraham Accords, the Parties agreed “to join with the United States to develop and launch a ‘Strategic Agenda for the Middle East’ in order to expand regional diplomatic, trade, stability and other cooperation.” The language is vague but future looking. It’s broad but opens the door to more specific initiatives. Following the October 23 joint statement, Sudan and Israel plan to exchange delegations to negotiate cooperative agreements in agriculture technology and aviation.

Even Saudi Arabia, which is not ready to sign the Abraham Accord, was supportive of the UAE and Bahrain in their decisions to do so and will directly support commercial relations by allowing Israel commercial flights to UAE to cross Saudi airspace. It becomes harder to turn back on peace when relationships begin to proliferate among individuals, companies, universities, institutes, and other entities outside of governments. Economic insecurity is destabilizing. Stronger economic ties induce cooperation. The Abraham Accords will be much more than symbolic if they produce a swell of private commercial activity and stronger trade relations.

__________________________________________________________________________

Andrea Durkin is the Editor-in-Chief of TradeVistas and Founder of Sparkplug, LLC. Ms. Durkin previously served as a U.S. Government trade negotiator and has proudly taught international trade policy and negotiations for the last fifteen years as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program.

PMO

Dubai Customs Earns Second PMO Award for 2020

The world’s largest award by the PMO Global Alliance selected Dubai Customs for the coveted award recognizing them as the “Best PMO in the World” for 2020, right after being named Asia-Pacific PMO of the Year in August. The PMO Award is known as the largest of its kind globally and highlights exemplary practices in international standards and exceptional project management for economic development-focused projects. This year’s annual ceremony was conducted virtually on October 29th and featured delegates from across the globe.

“We have implemented comprehensive development plans that integrate global project management best practices based on AI applications and advanced technologies run by skilled and highly motivated teams,” HE Sultan bin Sulayem, DP World Group Chairman & CEO and Chairman of Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation said. “Inspired by the vision of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, we follow an innovative project management methodology that seeks not only to promote sustainable development but also turn challenges into opportunities.”

Dubai Customs maintained its competitive position against private companies and government departments with a total of 125 projects worth AED 350 million implemented between 2007 and 2019 paired with a business-minded approach. These and the implemented technology-focused integrations continue to support economic vitality and development support.

Juma Al Ghaith, Executive Director of Customs Development Division at Dubai Customs added:

“As part of its digital transformation strategy, Dubai Customs’ future projects are driven by fourth industrial revolution technologies like AI and blockchain. Our projects seek to better facilitate trade operations, automate customs procedures and reduce cost on clients. Projects managed by Dubai Customs’ Development Division have reduced operational costs of clients by AED898 million, generated revenues of AED384 million, reduced internal operational costs by AED561 million, and safeguarded AED25 billion worth of customs revenue.

Dubai Customs has achieved a 100% digital transformation, which has enabled us to raise the happiness levels of clients to 98%. Key projects that have made this possible include the Mirsal System developed in house by Dubai Customs. The project was praised by the World Customs Organization as one of the world’s leading customs systems and adopted by the Federal Customs Authority to create a unified customs system integrating all local customs departments in the UAE.”

Source: Dubai Customs
japan

Global Trade Talk: How Japan is Utilizing the Coronavirus as a Catalyst for Economic and Structural Change and Increased Multilateral Cooperation

Global Trade Talk is part of an ongoing series highlighting international business, trade, investment, and site location issues and opportunities.

This article focuses on the conversation between Mr. Takeshi Tashiro, Director of Policy Planning and Research Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan) and Keith Rabin, President, KWR International, Inc.

 

Hello Mr. Tashiro, it is a pleasure to meet you and to be speaking with a Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) official, who our firm has worked to support for many years. Before we begin, can you tell our readers about your background and current activities?

Thank you. My name is Takeshi Tashiro and I am a Director of Policy Planning and Research Office at the Trade Policy Bureau of METI. In this capacity, I provide international economic and policy analysis and help to develop planning options. Earlier in my career, I supported the development of “Abenomics”, the economic policies that have guided Japan since Shinzō Abe was elected to his second term as Prime Minister in December 2012. It is based on “three arrows”, including monetary easing from the Bank of Japan, fiscal stimulus through government spending, and structural reform. I also lived in the United States for three years while working at a think tank in Washington and studying for my master’s degree in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. So, my work has focused on how to strengthen the Japanese economy, both domestically and internationally, how to alleviate deflation, and how to build economic ties and supply chains with Japan’s neighbors and other countries around the world.

Most recently, I directed the preparation of METI’s annual White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2020. It was released in July and includes our latest thinking on a wide range of issues. METI has been preparing annual White Papers for 72 years, and the current edition focuses on the Coronavirus pandemic, its impact on the global and Japanese economy, and trade policy direction.

While Japan is one of the world’s most advanced, and its third-largest economy, it attracts relatively little attention from international companies and investors. This is partially due to demographic pressures and several decades of perceived stagnation. Why is Japan underappreciated, what are its strengths and weaknesses, and can you give us some insight into the current state of Japan’s economy and why companies and investors should be paying more attention?

I think it is not just companies and investors, but the world itself should pay more attention to Japan. Our economy possesses many interesting opportunities – while providing lessons on pressing issues, including how to deal with an aging society, low growth, low-interest rates, and deflation. Larry Summers has described this as “secular stagnation” (some call this “Japanification”) and I believe the force of secular stagnation will become one of the world’s most formidable challenges as the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic crisis – which is the greatest economic disruption since the great depression – continues to rise. We don’t know when a vaccine will become available and despite rising asset prices – given abundant central bank liquidity – companies will be reluctant to expand and make long-term investments in this uncertain environment. That creates a rising propensity for savings, which has also been the main cause of Japan’s long stagnation for the past few decades.

Many people only look at the negative side, but it is important to also understand that even as Japan faced this long stagnation, it has silently transformed itself while maintaining social stability and high quality of life. There are so many interesting changes. One as you mentioned, is the strength of our development as a trading nation following the second world war, when we accumulated a large surplus though companies as Sony and Toyota manufactured products in Japan. That changed, however. Costs rose and we faced pressures from trading partners over surpluses and as a result Japan became an “investing nation”, optimizing supply and production chains by establishing facilities in developing and developed markets around the world. Although Japanese companies have expanded their overseas operations, Japan enjoys a relatively low unemployment rate among advanced economies. We leverage off Asian neighbors and their growing power and desire to develop themselves, both to maintain our own competitiveness and to grow their economies.

Given the difficulties Japan has faced in recent decades, coping with domestic stagnation, an aging society, and depressed demand, Japanese companies have enjoyed relatively strong performance and profitability, and one has to ask how this was achieved. The answer is through dedicated efforts to work overseas and establish a long-term presence in these economies. The Japanese government is also moving to understand the needs of countries in the region and to facilitate local and regional development while encouraging Japanese firms to optimize supply chains and production and to sell Japanese brands, products, components, and services in these markets and third countries around the world.

In the process, it has become more difficult to say that a company belongs to any one nation. Yes, the nationality of the company remains Japanese, but they rely on partnerships, labor and other agreements with other companies, people and institutions in the countries where they operate.  That is how Japan has maintained its edge and competitiveness in a globalized world, at a time when our own economy faces many challenges. In recent years, however, we are becoming increasingly concerned with the rising backlash against globalization and increased nationalist pressures. That is creating a wide range of risks as well.

Other nations, however, particularly mature economies that face similar, though perhaps fewer extreme challenges such as an aging population, can draw from this experience,  recognizing the benefits of expanded international trade and engagement.

Japan possesses formidable strength as an industrial and manufacturing power. This is true, not only in terms of consumer- and end-products, but even more so in terms of components, technology and machinery which is essential to the production of well-known products and brands from other nations and global supply chains across a wide range of sectors. Can you talk about Japan’s industrial strength and capacity, its role as a technology leader and as a critical link within global manufacturing and supply chains?

In addition to Japanese branded products, our companies provide important goods and components for brands and products all over the world as well as the machinery from which they are made. For example, without Japanese companies, you might not be able to obtain iPhones as many critical components are Japanese, even though the product itself is not from Japan. That is how global supply chains are now structured. Japanese firms provide components not only for iPhones but for automobiles, computers, airplanes, and other products. So even though Japanese firms face increased competition from Korean, Chinese, European, and other brands, inside these products you will find many Japanese parts and components, and, in some cases, they are Japanese-managed production on an OEM basis.

Therefore, while in the US you see many Toyota’s, Honda’s and other Japanese cars on the road, which are highly successful, I think our strength is based more on our ability to establish, manage and optimize complex supply chains. This allows us to compete in, and contribute to the development of, industries and countries all over the world, both in terms of sourcing and manufacturing, as well as distribution to businesses and consumers.

For example, Japanese manufacturers build plants in the US, Southeast Asia, and other markets. These provide jobs, investment, and products that boost local and national economies, within markets that enjoy stronger growth rates than Japan. This allows our companies to expand and to grow and enjoy profitability far beyond what they could find in our economy.

I think that is one major industrial strength of Japan, and global supply chains are especially important for our economy. This necessitates a careful balance between efficiencies and disruption – including not only concerns over a host of trade issues but events such as the coronavirus pandemic. So, this reliance on trade and global supply chains is a strength but it is also a risk. It requires careful and ongoing reexamination so that our companies and economy do not become too dependent on any single source of supply and outlet so that we achieve sufficient diversification and have options given inevitable disruptions moving forward.

For many decades Japan-focused heavily on its relationship with the United States, both as its largest trading partner and as a guarantor of its security, as well as sales to Europe and other developed economies. As costs within Japan rose and China emerged as an alternative, Japan took advantage of its low-cost labor, and then targeted the market as consumption rose while demand was stagnating in Japan and exhibiting low growth in the US and other advanced economies. Today, China is the world’s second-largest economy.

It has become more assertive and there is growing concern about supply chain diversification as well as national and technological security, as seen in tensions in the South China Sea, events in Hong Kong, and the conflict over Huawei technology. We also note Japan’s recent announcement that it will be subsidizing companies to diversify their production base to strengthen supply chain resilience. What are your thoughts on this transformation? What does it mean for Japan and the region? What are the global obstacles and reasons behind it?

The role of China has been evolving and it is an important neighbor of ours. Economically it is rising rapidly, both as a source of production as well as a market for Japanese products and components. Growth has been strong over many decades and as you noted it is now the world’s second-largest economy. At the same time, we need to be careful not to become too concentrated or dependent on any trading partner. As I mentioned, if companies or Japan as a whole, places too much production, for example in electrical machinery, electronics or critical components, etc. in one geographic location, it can become dangerous, causing supply constrictions that can lead to major disruptions far beyond that product.

That is a trade-off we must address, particularly when considering the pandemic that has caused so much disruption to logistics and supply across the world. In fact, we need to consider this with every country though in the case of China it is particularly important given its growing size, proximity and the concentration of manufacturing and production-based there. We introduced subsidies for Japanese companies to diversify their supply chain. This is an initiative that seeks to maximize supply chain resilience across a range of industries for the benefit of the region and the global economy as a whole.

At the same time, even though Japan has become increasingly open to foreign workers, which some analysts believe could encompass up to about 5-6% of our total workforce by 2030, we recognize domestic production alone is not the answer. Aside from cost issues, we have also experienced disruptions from natural disasters in Japan such as the 2011 earthquake and we understand both the importance of diversification and that many products can be made more efficiently elsewhere. As a result, China became an important center of production and market for Japan.

In the US the coronavirus is generally viewed as a traumatic, but hopefully temporary obstacle, to be overcome so we can get back to “normal” as quickly as possible. At the same time some analysts in other countries, while recognizing the urgent need to address the pandemic, view it more as an accelerator of changes that have been occurring over the last decade, rather than a short-term phenomenon to be resolved once a vaccine is in place. While we hear Japan has been relatively successful in suppressing its spread, how has the coronavirus affected Japan? What are the regional and global implications, and do you view the virus more as a temporary obstacle or a transformational accelerant of trends already in motion? If the latter, what actions should governments and companies undertake to maintain and enhance their competitiveness moving forward?

I think we have to make this crisis an accelerator of change – though our success in doing so is likely to depend on our ability to join together, both within Japan, as well as other countries, to move in that direction. It would be unfortunate to just view it as a temporary traumatic obstacle and we have already seen dramatic changes of behavior and acceleration of trends that were underway. The rise of e-commerce, use of video conferencing, and more flexible workplace are just a few examples and are unlikely to reverse even after effective treatment and inoculation are available. To me, seeing so many people in the US and the western world wearing masks is quite surprising. It is something I could not have imagined when I lived in the US a short while ago.

Many other changes are underway, and we are developing policies to make the crisis work for us. This includes improving public health, infrastructure, supply chain, and other issues while allowing social distancing and our economy to reopen. In Japan, people wear masks as we learned from the pandemic a century ago and have high concern over spreading illness. That has allowed Japan, as you noted, to be successful in suppressing the spread. As other nations adopt, we will all be more prepared moving forward.

As a result, Japan is taking a comprehensive approach to encourage this transformation. We are working to create a new lifestyle that better allows social distancing to prevent illness and save and protect lives. Initiatives to facilitate digital transformation, online and digital payments, teleworking and telemedicine are all underway. I think even though, or because, this crisis is extremely traumatic we need to recognize and address the obstacles that are presented and use them as catalysts for needed change. Even though a therapeutic approach is needed to resolve the crisis, supplemented by provisions of liquidity to minimize economic disruption, we also recognize this is an opportunity to address and remove structural problems that have long troubled our economy.

That includes the need to digitalize our economy and our government and healthcare and payment systems. So, we are now trying to change our society and the crisis is helping to showcase the need to move more rapidly in that direction. The role of government is to help provide this support. The Japanese government is using fiscal stimulus not only to provide liquidity support to households and businesses but also to push telework and other forms of digital transformation.

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated global efforts to stimulate national economies through massive stimulus programs similar to those that have existed in Japan for many years. This is leading to ever-accelerating levels of global debt which seem manageable when interest rates are at record lows and even negative in many countries – but potentially troubling for the long term. Similarly, many believe the world would be better off with a shift from monetary to fiscal solutions and infrastructure development.  Japan also has a lot of experience in this area as well. What are your views on the present health of the international economic system? What can the world learn from Japan and would a fiscal approach produce better results and help countries better deal with massive unemployment and the business trauma that has accompanied the pandemic?

The initial stimulus packages enacted at the onset of the coronavirus have been very effective. It is essential that we cope with the pandemic with the necessary tools both in terms of health and the economy. As a result, the US, Japan and other nations supported by their central banks invoked stimulus programs at an unprecedented scale, with low or in some cases negative interest rate policies, which have helped to contain and minimize the effect of the disruptions that have occurred. This was basically the right move and necessary to confront the panic and initial effects of the pandemic.

Now, however, our attention is shifting to how to reopen our economies longer-term while maintaining social distancing and addressing other measures that constrain economic activity. This is difficult as if we stimulate and encourage face-face contact – infection rates will rise. So that is a major challenge. We have to proceed carefully, crafting measures that provide sufficient effect at an unprecedented scale, while accounting for necessary public health safety as well as concerns over rising debt load.

So, one lesson is we need to ensure advance planning and coordination so we can respond quickly and effectively to meet the challenges of the pandemic and other emergencies as they unfold. Another is that international cooperation is more important than ever before. Not just for dealing with the infection itself, but also to deal with the economic effects. Relating to your previous question – this is not just a catalyst for digital transformation – but also for international cooperation and political, economic and societal transformation with national, regional and global implications.

We also realize it is difficult to stimulate sufficiently with monetary policy alone, which is focused on liquidity and interest rates. The pandemic requires more careful targeting. That is because the negative impact is skewed toward service sectors such as travel, restaurants and entertainment and workers in these areas – while other areas such as cloud services, supermarkets and other industries benefit. Policies should be directed more specifically, including areas that lead to reform and I think that is important. This is not just our Japanese experience and our White Paper seeks to highlight how the pandemic provides opportunities that address important local as well as global issues through a careful, targeted approach.

Our firm has spent many years facilitating East Asian integration and trade and investment development for Japanese and other clients as well as other efforts in Southeast Asia to develop special economic zones and effective energy and infrastructure policies and planning. How do you view the importance and potential of Southeast Asia, both as an emerging market for goods and services and as a production platform and link within the global supply chain?  What advice can you give to firms and investors with an interest in this market?

Let me explain one interesting initiative METI is launching, called Asian Digital Transformation. Japan has long had good relations with its Asian neighbors. Many of these countries are undergoing very rapid deployment of digitalization and the societal and economic effects are enormous. Given they are starting from a lower base, in some cases the change is more rapid than what is occurring in Japan. This provides interesting economic opportunities as well as a catalyst for change in our own economy.

For example, Japanese companies and people can learn by interacting with our Asian neighbors. In the case of contact tracing, Southeast Asian government’s developed digital applications in cooperation with private companies and we can learn and facilitate these efforts by utilizing our networks and resources. This includes developing policies and guidelines that facilitate business activity and investment, regional development and integration, connecting Japanese funds, technologies and networks to encourage innovation and business activity within Southeast Asia. This is important, not just for their development but also for ours.

Since the end of the Second World War, the world has been guided by Bretton Woods institutions and a system that encouraged global coordination and led to free trade and prosperity. Over time it also led to the economic rise of nations who are now demanding a greater say. Modern technology, and the shift toward globalization, also introduced efficiencies and wealth – but resulted in more inequality, disparities, and concerns.

As a result, we are now experiencing a serious backlash and retreat from multilateralism toward more nationalist governments at a time when serious global problems, including the pandemic, climate change, technological standards, and other important issues that require a coordinated approach. What is your view of this problem and what steps can be taken to encourage global cooperation and to transform global institutions and systems to help guide us for the next 70+ years?

While the world is more connected than ever before, we are now facing a tough time when it comes to multilateralism. Last year marked the 75th anniversary of the post-war Bretton Woods agreements and divisive forces including growing distrust in international organizations, US withdrawal from the WHO, and Brexit, which are representative of a few of the many barriers that divide us. Nevertheless, improved global governance and cooperation is essential – with the pandemic being one of many issues we face – that does not respect national borders and requires a coordinated multilateral approach. It is also necessary to cope with other issues including inequality and vulnerable populations, food security and climate issues to name a few. I think Japan can help in that regard and we have been supporting the development of regional and bilateral trade agreements, and rules-based policies, not only in Asia but also in Europe, the US and other countries around the world.

This is not just about trade. Japan actively promotes global health at the United Nations, and while we realize it is a tough time for multilateralism we are determined not to give up and abandon it. With cooperation we can do a lot. For example, during the onset of the pandemic the US Federal Reserve provided liquidity to many countries with the support of the Bank of Japan other central banks and this helped to stabilize the markets. Without that cooperation the economic effects would have been far worse. Continuing cooperation now that the immediate panic has passed – to devise longer-term structures and solutions – is difficult though extremely important. We must recognize the world is far more integrated and bound than it was 75 years ago, and the role and importance of multilateralism is more important than ever before. In spite of the difficulties, however, I remain optimistic that we will find a way to deal with these pressures moving forward.

There is substantial potential for US and Japanese cooperation to strengthen supply chain resilience and to enter into other arrangements both between our governments and individual companies that allow closer cooperation, policy dialogue and innovation as well as profitable business arrangements and investments. How do you view the potential for US-Japanese government and private-sector cooperation? What areas are most suitable both globally as well as within third countries and the US and Japan?  

The US is our friend and ally. We share many values including democracy, liberty, freedom and dedication to a market economy, so I think our foundation is very strong and there is so much potential. Energy for example is one area worth highlighting. For example, there is already a program that has been developed called the Japan-US Strategic Energy Partnership (JUSEP), which provides cooperation to develop third-country infrastructure development. This has produced tangible developments including the Mekong Power Partnership, and in Vietnam, US and Japanese companies are working together on several sites that have been selected for development.

Another potential area of cooperation is in Latin America. We have not really explored this sufficiently, either as a market or a sourcing platform. In Brazil for example, Japanese and US companies are working together on digital infrastructure with Brazilian telecom companies. We also envision cooperation in Africa. This is a vast and challenging market with favorable demographics, which has huge potential both in terms of natural resources, supply chain management and growing consumer demand. US and Japanese companies have complementary characteristics. For example, US companies’ have knowledge and networking power in the region, while Japanese companies can provide strong manufacturing capabilities. As a result, this is a market where the US and Japan can work together.

India is also a major emerging economy. It is now hindered by the coronavirus – though over 200 Japanese companies have created investment plans which we think will go into effect as the danger recedes. There are so many opportunities there and in other developing countries around the world. This is a topic we address in the White Paper I mentioned. These are young markets, with favorable demographics, a range of resources, and substantial growth before them for decades to come.

The Japanese and US governments are also working together to develop guidelines and policies to set up global rules to deal with trade-distorting practices in third countries. These include subsidies to boost sectors that are not always the most efficient, such as non-market-oriented policies and practices that lead to severe overcapacity. One success we had in a recent trilateral trade ministers (EU, Japan and US) meeting was a proposal to strengthen rules concerning industrial subsidies and a basic structure for cooperation has pretty much been developed to address forced technology transfer and other important issues. This activity will be expanded over time between our nations. The trilateral group cooperate on WTO reforms and to multilateralize the proposals.

For many years in our research, we have separated international investment and business activities by those that focus on production and supply to third countries and those that emphasize consumption and demand.  What opportunities and investment themes do you think are most important for foreign companies in the new environment that is emerging in Asia around the world? What regions are most important and what should US and other companies understand when considering long-term opportunities and expansion plans outside their own economies, particularly in the developing world?

The developing world is extremely attractive and there are many growth opportunities as their living standards rise, creating strong demand and consumption within a young, rapidly expanding middle class. At the same time, one also should look at developed countries such as Japan. While growth rates may be low, developed countries are large and established. They also lead in technological and supply chain reconfiguration, as well as many other trends that are rapidly changing life and society all over the world.

In Japan itself, we have been transforming our economy over the past few decades without a lot of attention and there are many opportunities here. Much can be learned from our achievements. One strength that is rarely noticed is that female participation in the Japanese economy has been rising to unprecedented levels. In many ways, it exceeds that of the US. For example, according to OECD, Japan’s female labor force participation rate was 72.6 percent, and that of the US was 68.9 percent in 2019.

In addition to investment, these developments have important societal and political implications. In Japan, for example, we can contribute to the discussion of how to adapt to an aging society including healthcare and related issues. This provides many opportunities for US and foreign firms, both within Japan as well as in adopting our approaches within their own economies. Another issue is payment systems. Japan aims to double the digital payment rate until 2025. When the additional consumption tax was introduced last October, METI devised a digital rebate program to offset the impact and promote cashless payments.

Although the rebate program ended this June, more people are now willing to use electric payments. We also lag in other industries and the development of important services. This is a real opportunity for US and foreign companies who have expertise in disruptive new services utilizing digital technology and an interest in introducing them to Japan.

Japan was an early leader on the climate change issue, organizing the Kyoto Protocol meetings which ultimately led to the 2015 Paris Agreement that seek to keep increases in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. While international coordination has been difficult, particularly after the 2017 US withdrawal under President Trump, the pandemic has actually at least temporarily caused a global reduction of carbon emissions. There is also more emphasis on renewable energy and some advocate shifting more toward nuclear as a clean energy source. What is the potential effect of the pandemic on climate change discussions?

The pandemic has shown how many challenges remain in terms of climate change and other complicated global issues. While there have been short term benefits as industrial activities recede and production is suspended, over time this will come back if we do not develop long term solutions.

I think the pandemic has made it clear and allowed us to recognize how vulnerable global society is if we do not pay attention and react carefully in a coordinated way. We cannot simply deny the existence of problems and develop piecemeal solutions. In many ways the challenges of addressing the spread of the virus and climate change are the same – though the virus is occurring at a faster rate – so it is more visible and showcases the issue. These are global challenges and to effectively contain, resolve and manage these problems – in an age where we are so connected through supply chains, travel and technology – we need a global and coordinated approach.

In that sense, while the spread of the pandemic has been a real tragedy, we hope that ultimately it will serve as a positive influence serving as a catalyst for stronger international cooperation not only on climate change but the whole range of important issues we face today.

Thank you, Mr. Tashiro, for your time and attention. Look forward to speaking again soon!

_______________________________________________________________

To read previously released articles in the series, click the links below:

Global Trade Talk: Navigating Geopolitical Currents in a Changing Southeast Asia

Global Trade Talk: Enhancing US-Korea Trade and Investment Cooperation in a Changing World Environment

Global Trade Talk: Reconfiguring US-China Supply Chains for a Post-Coronavirus World

Keith Rabin serves as President at KWR International, Inc., a global consulting firm specializing in international market entry; trade, business, investment and economic development; site location, as well as research and public relations/ public affairs services for a wide range of corporate and government clients.