“As the global economic crisis forces everyone to downsize, the self-sufficient worker once again has a chance, whether as a farmer growing vegetables for local consumption or as an open-source software developer who makes a living in his basement office.” So argues the first article linked to below. Does this mean that economies of scale are over-exaggerated? Should developing countries provide more support to small-scale production as a growth and development strategy? And does small-scale production provide benefits beyond those of production and profit? Does it meet broader human and social needs? The articles explore the issues: the first two in the context of the developed world and the other four in the context of developing countries.
The Return to Yeomanry New America Foundation (22/6/09)
Entrée: Small-scale farmers on the forefront of a greens revolution The Vancouver Sun (19/6/09)
Extracts – the future of small-scale farming Oxfam International
Malawi’s fertile plan Mail & Guardian Online (25/6/09)
Development: Investment in small farmers crucial in Africa Bizcommunity.com (24/6/09)
Toward Agricultural Sustainability Philippines Business Mirror (24/6/09)
Questions
- What are the benefits of ‘a return to yeomanry’ (a) to the individuals themselves; (b) to society and the environment?
- Why might it prove a risky strategy for those embarking on small-scale production? How could governments help to reduce the risks for the producers? Should they?
- Discuss whether fostering small-scale farming is an appropriate development strategy for developing countries. What specific policy measures should governments adopt?
- Is land reform (a) a necessary condition; (b) a sufficient condition if small-scale farming is to flourish in developing countries? What pitfalls are there from a policy of land reform?
Many industries are struggling in the current climate and, in particular, car sales have been at an all time low. General Motors was the biggest car company in the world, but recently we have seen them becoming the biggest industrial bankruptcy, which will have consequences for many car manufacturers around the world. UK car sales were 25% lower in May 2009 than at the same time last year and Chrysler will sell most of their assets to Fiat when they form a strategic alliance in a bid to help them exit bankruptcy protection.
The troubles of the carmakers have passed up the production chain to automotive suppliers, component manufacturers and engineering firms, and down the chain to the dealerships at a time when consumer confidence has taken a knock. The following articles look at some of the recent developments in the car industry and consider their likely economic impact.
UK new car sales 25% lower in May BBC News (4/6/09)
Creditors cry foul at Chrysler precedent The Wall Street Journal, Ashby Jones, Mike Spector (13/6/09)
The decline and fall of General Motors The Economist (4/6/09)
GM pensioner’s fears for future BBC News (1/6/09)
Opel staff face wait for job news BBC News (2/6/09)
From biggest car maker to biggest bankruptcy BBC News (1/6/09)
GM sales executive lays out company’s direction Chicago Tribune, Bill Vidonic (14/6/09)
Chrysler and Fiat complete deal BBC News (10/6/09)
Fiat gambles on Chrysler turnaround Telegraph, Roland Gribben (1/6/09)
Obama taskforce faces Congress over car industry rescue Times Online, Christine Seib (10/6/09)
Has pledge of assistance revved up the car industry? EDP24, Paul Hill (10/6/09)
Questions
- What is a strategic alliance and how should it help Chrysler?
- What are some of the methods that governments have used to help stimulate the car industry? Consider their advantages and disadvantages.
- Think about the consequences beyond the car industry of the decline of General Motors. Who is likely to suffer? Will there be any winners?
- General Motors was established in 1908. How were they able to expand so quickly and what do you think are the main reasons for their current decline?
- The article in The Economist suggests that, despite the current problems in the car industry and the global recession, selling cars will never really be a problem. What do you think are the reasons for this?
Are businesses concerned solely with profits or sales, or do they take broader social objectives into account? Is ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) a key part of their decision-making? In other words, do they care about the welfare of their employees, about being honest with shareholders and customers, about being energy efficient and non-polluting and about caring for local communities? In general, do they make a genuine attempt to be ethical? One view is that they should do this because, in the end, it’s profitable to do so. Another view is that they should be socially responsible because they have a duty to be so.
In the current economic climate, CSR is being tested. Is CSR something that should be inextricably part of everything a firm does? Or is it a luxury that can be dispensed with when times get tough? The first article below looks at this issue and comes to a fairly optimistic conclusion. The other articles look at approaches to CSR in various countries.
A stress test for good intentions The Economist (14/5/09)
The Future of CSR: 2009 report CSR Asia (05/09) (This may take a little while to load: try right clicking and saving it before opening)
CSR efforts score well in trusted brand poll BusinessMirror (Philippines) (29/5/09)
Minister Presents Corporate Responsibility Index Awards Australia.TO (28/5/09)
CSRwire Welcomes New Members to its Global Network of CSR News and Information CRSwire (27/5/09)
Straight Talk about Corporate Social Responsibility The Huffington Post (13/5/09)
Social Responsibility WA Today
See also the UK government’s CSR site Corporate Social Responsibility
and Business in the Community’s Corporate Responsibility Index
Questions
- Explain how self-interest can go some way to making companies more socially responsible.
- Why may the free market fail to provide the optimum level of CSR?
- To what extent does the current recession threaten CSR? Are there any ways in which it could encourage companies to be more socially responsible?
Competition authorities in the USA and Europe tend to have a different approach to firms that have a dominant market position by virtue of their ownership of specific intellectual property, such as software codes. Thus companies such as Microsoft can exploit network economies, thereby making it hard for rival firms to compete. After all, if most people use Windows, there is an incentive to keep using it so as to be compatible with other users. Similar arguments apply to the ownership of physical property, such as ports, airports, railways and power lines, where the owners may choose to deny access to competitors.
So should companies such as Microsoft grant rivals access to their intellectual property? Would such access increase competition, or would it be a disincentive for rivals to innovate? The following article from The Economist considers the issue and refers to a recent paper by Sir John Vickers, former head of the Office of Fair Trading and now Warden of All Souls College, Oxford and President of the Royal Economic Society. He argues for a mid-way course between Europe and America – more interventionist than in the USA, but less rigidly regulated than in the EU.
What’s mine is yours The Economist (28/5/09)
Competition Policy and Property Rights, John Vickers Oxford University , Department of Economics, Discussion Paper Series (26/5/09)
See also
‘Intel inside’ could be outside the law
Questions
- Explain what is meant by ‘network economies’ and give some examples.
- What are the arguments for and against requiring companies to give rivals access to their intellectual property?
- If companies are required by the competition authorities to give others access to their intellectual property, should they be allowed to charge their rivals for using such property, and, if so, how would the authorities determine the appropriate amount?
Until changes in their governments, both the USA and Australia were unwilling to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. But things are changing. In both countries, cap and trade bills have been proposed by their administrations (see A changing climate at the White House). In the USA, President Obama’s bill would see the imposition of carbon quotas aimed at achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 of 17 per cent, with emissions trading allowing an efficient means of achieving this. In Australia, Kevin Rudd’s Labor government plans to introduce quotas and emissions trading in 2011 to achieve a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.
But are there lessons to be learned from the European Emissions Trading scheme? The following articles look at some of the issues.
Cap-and-trade off Houston Chronicle (23/5/09)
US climate change bill passes key hurdle Telegraph (22/5/09)
Obama climate change bill defies Republicans to pass key committee Guardian (22/5/09)
Cap and Trade Debate CNN (video) (22/5/09)
Historic emissions trading scheme bills tabled Sydney Morning Herald (14/5/09)
A pattern behind fire and flood Sydney Morning Herald (25/5/09)
Interview with Australian Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong ABC (21/5/09)
Can Copenhagen achieve much? ABC PM programme (includes link to audio) (20/5/09)
Plunging price of carbon may threaten investment Independent (9/2/09)
EU ETS emissions fall 3% in 2008 Environmental Expert (18/5/09)
European investors call for carbon trading revamp businessGreen (20/5/09)
The carbon scam 21st Century Socialism (19/5/09)
Economy and the environment: growing pains Guardian (17/5/09)
See also
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Defra: emissions trading
Questions
- Discuss the merits and problems of cap-and-trade systems for reducing carbon emissions in an efficient and effective way.
- Is the price of carbon a useful indicator of the success or otherwise of cap-and-trade schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
- In what ways does the current recession (a) aid, and (b) hinder the introduction of tougher schemes to tackle global warming?