Tag: Business_Finance

Can Bangalore Become the Innovation Hub of Asia?

A couple of years ago, the city of Bangalore made global headlines thanks to President Obama. In May 2009, when, in a bid to boost the U.S. job market, Obama removed some tax incentives for U.S. companies that offshored work rather than creating domestic jobs, his rallying call was “Buffalo [New York] before Bangalore.” Obama was reflecting popular public perception when he chose to highlight Bangalore. A few years prior to his speech, the term “Bangalored” — meaning to be laid off due to outsourcing — entered the lexicon.

Indeed, over the past few decades, Bangalore has been seeing a steady makeover. Riding on the success of its booming information technology and business process outsourcing (BPO) industry, the city has become the “IT capital of India” and has even been called the “back-office to the world.”

Bangalore now has another aspiration: to become the innovation hub of Asia. This was the theme of the recently-held India Innovation Summit 2011 organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in the city. Various speakers at the event pointed out that this goal is grounded in current realities. Bangalore is already home to a large number of technology professionals, both from within the country and many who have relocated there from across the world, and some of the world’s leading edge technology work is being done from there. For many of the multinational companies, be it GE, Cisco, Intel, Yahoo, 3M and others, their research and development centers in Bangalore are among the largest in their network. With India being one of the fastest-growing economies of the world and with a huge market, many global innovations by multinationals are now happening in the country.

According to Praveen Vishakantaiah, president of Intel Technology India, “the research and innovation capability is present in the DNA of Bangalore. Over the past decade, the development work from there has ramped up significantly. It is now time to push the research element.” But Ajay Nanavati, managing director of 3M India, pointed out that, for innovation to grow, there needs to be a lot more interaction between the different companies. “What we have at present is a very silo-ed mindset,” he said. “Everyone is working in their own little universe.” Stronger industry-academia interactions, well-defined IP protection policies and a wider and deeper talent pool are other aspects that need to be explored, he added.

But that’s not all that Bangalore needs if it wants to don the mantle of Asia’s innovation hub. The city’s infrastructure — its roads, power supply and transportation system — all need a massive and urgent overhaul. For example, take the city’s power supply constraints. Vivek Mansingh, president of the collaboration and communication group at Cisco Systems, noted that “we have thousands of square feet of lab space, but we don’t have enough power to bring in more work here.” In terms of transportation gridlock, Bangalore ranked sixth in IBM’s most recent global Commuter Pain Index, which was conducted across 20 cities.

Sridhar Mitta, IT industry veteran and founder of NextWealth Entrepreneurs, said that in 2000, researchers from Stanford University concluded that “what distinguishes the Silicon Valley is not its scientific advances or technological breakthroughs, but the overall habitat or environment that is tuned up to turn ideas into products and take them rapidly to market by creating start-ups.”

So what does the government have to say? Addressing the audience at the CII conference, D.V. Sadananda Gowda, chief minister of Karnataka (Bangalore is the capital of the state of Karnataka) was categorical that, “The government is committed to supporting all initiatives needed to foster innovation.”

Now it remains to be seen if the government and other stakeholders will walk the talk.

Posted in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Stave Off Arab Spring Revolts, Saudi Arabia and Fellow Gulf Countries Spend $150 Billion

Possessing 20% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, Saudi Arabia has long played the expected role of benefactor among its fellow Arab and Muslim countries. With a total aid budget of $3.1 billion in 2009, Saudi Arabia keeps one of the largest humanitarian aid funds in the world.

Much of that aid went to hardship-struck Muslim nations, including Pakistan, Somalia and the Palestinians. But since the Arab Spring took root this year, Saudi Arabia has spread its largesse among its own citizens and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors — a large part of $150 billion worth of social welfare spending in the region since the unrest began, according to a new report by Merrill Lynch Bank of America.

Only days following the collapse of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s regime in February, for instance, Saudi Arabia announced a social welfare package for its citizens worth $10.7 billion, featuring pay raises for government employees, new jobs and loan forgiveness schemes. By the end of the month, the handouts totaled $37 billion. In March, the trend continued, as Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah heralded an additional $93 billion in social spending.

Such generosity was no coincidence, noted the Merrill Lynch Bank of America report’s authors. “The initial response of GCC policymakers [to the Arab revolt] has been to sharply increase current spending to accommodate social pressures and to pledge intra-regional fiscal transfers to less endowed members,” wrote Jean-Michel Saliba, Middle East and North Africa economist for the firm.

In addition to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) capital of Abu Dhabi put forward plans to spend nearly $2 billion to provide housing loans to Emiratis, while Qatar announced this month an $8 billion payout in wage, salary and benefits increases for all state and military personnel. Oman and Bahrain have also indicated they would increase social spending by the billions this year.

Aside from raises for state employees, the spending in these Gulf states will go toward infrastructure and social amenities, such as roads, schools and hospitals, and further subsidies on food, water and power consumption for citizens.

Saliba and his colleagues cautioned that the outsized spending did not address the long-term nature of the problems presented by the Arab Spring, such as high unemployment. “This [social spending] has averted potential disquiet over governance in most countries, though, over a longer-term horizon, economic reforms will be needed to buoy private sector growth and job creation.”

Saudi Arabia’s generosity has been criticized as a means for the Arab world’s most populous country to make political gains and spread influence. The Merrill Lynch report also does not take into account the cost incurred by Saudi Arabia to send its troops into neighboring Bahrain to help quell a Shiite uprising there — another action to prevent revolt from reaching its own borders.

But in a recent analysis of the Arab Spring for Arabic Knowledge@Wharton, Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Stuart Diamond said the spending by the Saudis demonstrated their understanding of negotiation. “They understood that for many people, it was about Maslow’s [hierarchy of] needs triangle: that is, basic life necessities such as food, shelter and health mattered most. So the stipends that the Saudi government gave helped to quell disturbances,” he noted.

Diamond added that Saudi spending bought not only continued loyalty from its citizens. “What they have mostly bought was time. For now, the populace will be satisfied with their recent bonuses. But that does not amount to structural and sustainable change, the kind that would significantly improve everyone’s quality of life on a continuing basis. The Saudi government should take this opportunity to include more people in decision-making and develop new industries that give more people a chance at a better life over the long term.”

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Law and Public Policy | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Toy Story with a Twist

India’s toy market is no longer child’s play — though small, the industry is on a high growth track. Sunil Nanda, senior vice president of the Toy Association of India (TAI), estimates that the retail turnover of the country’s toy market is around $1.4 billion and growing at a rate of 20% to 30%. A recent report in business daily The Economic Times cited a study by market research firm Euromonitor showing that “spending on toys and games in India is expected to grow at 157% between 2009 and 2014, much faster than other Asian countries such as China (84%), Taiwan (35%), South Korea (33%) and Singapore (17.2%).”

According to the “Global Toy Market Estimates: 2011 Edition” by research firm NPD Group, in 2010 global toy sales stood at $83.3 billion with the United States being the largest market at $22 billion, followed by Japan, China, the United Kingdom and France. The NPD report says that while the global growth rate was 4.7%, Asian markets grew at 9.2% and emerging markets like Brazil, Russia, China and India grew at 13%.

India’s toy story comes with a twist, however. The key factors driving the growth in the country are a population with increasing disposable incomes and access to inexpensive toys. But the biggest business beneficiaries of this growth are not the domestic players — that distinction belongs to Chinese toy manufacturers. “Chinese toys, which are priced very competitively and offer a huge variety, account for two-thirds of the country’s retail market,” says Nanda, who is also the director at manufacturer Tripple Ess Toys.

According to Nanda, the Indian toy industry is very fragmented. “The players suffer from a lack of funding and scale and are therefore not able to invest adequately in technology, development and design, and marketing,” he says. “China, on the other hand, is the supplier of toys to the world. Chinese manufacturers produce for some of the best known brands, they have the economies of scale and are able to invest in developing a variety of new products.”

Brand strategy consultant Harish Bijoor says China “has learned the quality game in the toys market by the stringent quality norms set by importers in the U.S. and all across Europe.” Commenting on the lack of strong toy brands in India, Bijoor adds: “India has not invested in robust story-building. [Instead,] it has depended on the efforts of the cottage industry. Western brands, however, have depended on marketing, branding, advertising and allure-building at large as a basic tool.”

Santosh Desai, managing director and CEO of consulting firm Future Brands offers another view. He points out that strong ecosystems around categories and brands, such as Barbie or Lego, are built over generations. “In India, most of today’s generation that is buying toys for their kids did not have easy access to toys and so don’t have any strong preferences. They make scattered purchases.”

Desai goes on to say that along with strong brands, much of the toy market is also led by novelty and curiosity. Drawing parallels with China’s success in the low-cost mobile phone sector, Desai notes that the toy market caters to the strengths of the Chinese players. “It is not just about cost. It is a combination of new, attractive, glitzy products with novel features.”

But with the Indian toy market on the upswing, are domestic firms likely to catch up to their Chinese counterparts? “Unlikely,” says Bijoor. ”India is just not competitive in this space. China with its cheap labor is way ahead. Add to that the fact that China is a third-generation toymaker for the best brands across the world.” According to Desai, the only way to compete is by building strong brands and categories. “But there is nothing happening in the Indian toy market to suggest that we are working towards that.”

Posted in Marketing | Also tagged , , , , | Leave a comment