Here's an article that I would like all my viewers to go thru.....taken out from the Business Age magazine....February 2007
"BIG AND SMALL...."
US President George W Bush’s famous dichotomy either with us or against has well seeped into realms of Nepali philosophizing: Any attempt at reviving the middle ground between the extremes of khattam kancha theory and the rising Nepal theory is seen to be a sabotage against Nepalipan. I still choose to fight between the two_edged sword. I narrow my battleground to dry front of private sector development, and to try to articulate my position: the middle ground does exist and it has two components: big and small. Period. This is how the feeble and female fight back.
The big component includes an array of infrastructure, energy, banksand universities. Often, Nepali are not producers but the consumers here;and they need foreign investment and management to come to grip to these. Small is everything else where Nepali stand the chance of competitively producing and selling.
Let’s contextualize the big and small. The world afar is increasingly taking note of the shining India and roaring China. Tarul-ed Nepal cannot afford to ignore the giants. We can be their investment platform for the big industries. They can be our markets and transits for the small industries. We have to differentiate between the big and the small, or we either end up foolishly competing against or sheepishly surrendering to them in everything.
Industrial policy is back up on the map. Now, how do we differentiate between industrial policies for the big and the small? Big will inevitably entail foreign investment even if the country metamorphoses into a maoist avatar. Foreign investment need not always bring about economic imperialism: nor does it always keep us safe from the perils of knowledge transfer treachery.
Take the blood diamonds of Sierra Leone on one hand and the tecno-savvy China on the other hand. FDI is good servant and bad master. We must play our cards of incentives, controls and technology transfers really well. Nepal has had a losing hand in the first round. There are those who have found the lessons; we just haven’t read them well as yet.
Small is Pandora’s box. Lets sort out our basic premise and lets take one bite at a time. Lets stop daydreaming of the impossible. Instead of trying to produce clothes cheaper than the Chinese, can’t we go for smarter clothes? The writing on the wall is clear: Quality and innovation. Here are the six biters: Brand economics: Standards, certification and harmonization: finance and financial instruments; collaboration economics among the flexible specialisers; the smoothening of the supply chains; oiling the nuts and bolts of business regulations. Please do stay tuned since we will tackle them one at a time.
US President George W Bush’s famous dichotomy either with us or against has well seeped into realms of Nepali philosophizing: Any attempt at reviving the middle ground between the extremes of khattam kancha theory and the rising Nepal theory is seen to be a sabotage against Nepalipan. I still choose to fight between the two_edged sword. I narrow my battleground to dry front of private sector development, and to try to articulate my position: the middle ground does exist and it has two components: big and small. Period. This is how the feeble and female fight back.
The big component includes an array of infrastructure, energy, banksand universities. Often, Nepali are not producers but the consumers here;and they need foreign investment and management to come to grip to these. Small is everything else where Nepali stand the chance of competitively producing and selling.
Let’s contextualize the big and small. The world afar is increasingly taking note of the shining India and roaring China. Tarul-ed Nepal cannot afford to ignore the giants. We can be their investment platform for the big industries. They can be our markets and transits for the small industries. We have to differentiate between the big and the small, or we either end up foolishly competing against or sheepishly surrendering to them in everything.
Industrial policy is back up on the map. Now, how do we differentiate between industrial policies for the big and the small? Big will inevitably entail foreign investment even if the country metamorphoses into a maoist avatar. Foreign investment need not always bring about economic imperialism: nor does it always keep us safe from the perils of knowledge transfer treachery.
Take the blood diamonds of Sierra Leone on one hand and the tecno-savvy China on the other hand. FDI is good servant and bad master. We must play our cards of incentives, controls and technology transfers really well. Nepal has had a losing hand in the first round. There are those who have found the lessons; we just haven’t read them well as yet.
Small is Pandora’s box. Lets sort out our basic premise and lets take one bite at a time. Lets stop daydreaming of the impossible. Instead of trying to produce clothes cheaper than the Chinese, can’t we go for smarter clothes? The writing on the wall is clear: Quality and innovation. Here are the six biters: Brand economics: Standards, certification and harmonization: finance and financial instruments; collaboration economics among the flexible specialisers; the smoothening of the supply chains; oiling the nuts and bolts of business regulations. Please do stay tuned since we will tackle them one at a time.
No comments:
Post a Comment