|
National
Dialogue on |
|
Week of October 25 - October 29, 2004Welcome to the National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship, an initiative of the Public Forum Institute made possible by a grant from the Kauffman Foundation of Kansas City. Through NDE-news, we bring you short summaries and analyses of various trends driving the innovation economy. Current and archived issues of are available online at www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/news/nde-news.htm. To subscribe, visit www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/join/ Links to the day's entrepreneurship stories from across the nation and around the world are posted each weekday at www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde - bookmark it and stay informed about the latest entrepreneurship news. |
|
|
Global Competitiveness Report Which nations are the
world’s most competitive? If you picked the high-tax, heavily regulated economies of Scandinavia, you’d be right. The latest study from the World Economic Forum,
The Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005, ranks 104 different nations on a variety of economic measures. Finland takes the No. 1 spot, followed by (in rank order): the
United States, Sweden, Taiwan, Denmark, and Norway. The Nordic nations rank well,
having implemented excellent macro-economic policies and having invested wisely in education and R&D, the real keys to long-term innovation and competitiveness. An accompanying study, the Business Competitiveness Index, examines the competitiveness of each nation’s business sector. Here, the rankings are slightly different with the US holding the No. 1 slot, followed by (in rank order): Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. |
|
|
US and UK Tech Execs Speak Out The US’ strong performance in this year’s
Global Competitiveness Report generates a lot of interest among entrepreneurs struggling to build businesses in other economies. A new study by the UK division of Grant Thornton examines how British technology entrepreneurs view their American counterparts. The conventional wisdom in the UK has been that US entrepreneurs enjoy significantly greater opportunities to succeed than do their British counterparts. While this view still exists, the survey indicates that differences are eroding. In fact, 48% of surveyed UK tech execs think Britain has the best regulatory environment for start-ups. Moreover, British execs are more bullish on the economy. Only 11% expressed worry about the state of the economy; 20% of US execs expressed such worries. The survey also asked tech execs to assess the benefits of various sorts of state support; US firms were much more pleased with state support institutions (such as loan programs or export assistance) than were British executives. The surveys contain a host of very interesting findings on the differences between the policy environments facing US and UK technology firms. The report concludes by noting that, while differences are eroding, America’s strong culture of entrepreneurship provides its firms with important competitive advantages. |
|
|
The Future of China and India If we’re discussing future economic competitiveness, one can’t neglect including China and India in the discussions. The latest edition of the
McKinsey Quarterly includes a series of articles that examine future prospects for both countries. Among the interesting topics included are the impact of China’s aging population and strategies for revitalizing state-owned enterprises.
NDE-news readers may be especially interested in Tarun Khanna’s article, “India’s Entrepreneurial Advantage,” which argues that the economic policies of China and India are fundamentally different. While China embraces foreign direct investment and government intervention to support industry, India has opted to rely more upon home-grown entrepreneurial businesses. Khanna clearly prefers India’s approach, yet he concedes that the long-term effects of these differing policy choices are still uncertain. However, in the short term, he notes that these different models have enhanced China’s capabilities in fields, like manufacturing, that require “hard” infrastructure (e.g. roads, ports, power). Meanwhile, India has been able to prosper in sectors (like software and other creative industries) more reliant on “soft” assets like a well-trained workforce. |
|
|
Small-Business Friendly States Meanwhile, closer to home, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (formerly the Small Business Survival Committee) has released its annual ranking of states that are “small business friendly.” For a variety of reasons, the
Small Business Survival Index findings rarely correlate with other such reports by groups like the Milken Institute, CFED, and others. Instead, the Small Business Survival Index focuses on issues of regulation and taxation, arguing that low-tax, low regulation states are more conducive to entrepreneurial activity. According to this methodology, the following states (in rank order) are most supportive of small business: South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming, Washington, and Florida. In contrast, the most anti-entrepreneur policy environments are found in Washington DC, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. |
|
|
Economic Impacts of Biotechnology A new study from the Milken Institute helps explain why nearly all US state governments have identified biotechnology as a key industry.
Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to State and U.S. Economies assesses the economic impact of this
sector. Overall, the biopharmaceutical industry accounted for 2.7 million jobs and $172 billion in economic output in 2003. The study ranks states by a variety of measures, and several—New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, and Maryland--are best positioned to continue prospering from this sector. Up-and-comers include Nevada, Vermont, Florida, and West Virginia. |
|
|
Correction: Last week’s E-News erroneously noted that the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) began under President Bush. The NNI actually began operations under President Clinton and was later continued by President Bush. |
|
|
Sponsored by:
|
Contact
the
|
|
All
stories © 2004 The Public Forum Institute Privacy
Statement: To
subscribe:
To unsubscribe: |
|
