Wednesday, January 20, 2010

A Hand Up, Not A Hand Out

Adjusting international development policy to encourage entrepreneurship would go a long way toward helping the poorest countries pull themselves out of poverty. This was India's strategy--and it is paying off.

Forbes Magazine

Published: January 12, 2010

By: Phillip Vassiliou

President Obama recently nominated Dr. Rajiv Shah to lead the U.S. Agency for International Development. Dr. Shah's appointment will hopefully inject a fresh perspective into USAID. It will also give the international aid community an opportunity to rethink its approach to poverty reduction.

Over the past few decades, it's become evident that traditional "top-down" development, in which large amounts of aid are distributed to governments in the developing world, is ineffective. Africa, for instance, has taken in $568 billion in economic aid over the past 42 years. Yet per capita economic growth for the median African country has remained stagnant.

Meanwhile, once-poor nations receiving comparatively little aid, like India, have experienced immense growth. Since the mid-1990s, the Indian economy has grown over 7% almost every year, and its poverty rate has fallen dramatically. This year, India's economy is on track to grow by about 6%--an incredible figure given the global downturn. There is a great deal further to go with market liberalizations that will assist the millions of people in India living below the poverty line, but the foundations are being laid to provide for sustained economic and social development where people are given a "hand up" rather than simply a "handout."

Poverty statistics from the World Bank tell this story best. In 1981, 1.9 billion people lived on less than $1.25 per day. By 2005 that number had dropped to 1.4 billion. Most of that reduction, though, can be attributed to economic growth in East Asia. In 1981, 80% of East Asia's population lived below the poverty line. Today it's just 18%. In Africa the poverty level hasn't changed in 25 years.

Adjusting international development policy to encourage entrepreneurship would go a long way toward helping the poorest countries pull themselves out of poverty. This was India's strategy--and it is paying off.

Consider cellphone penetration in India. When the Indian government opened up its wireless spectrum in 1992, a handful of entrepreneurs jumped at the opportunity, even though conventional wisdom predicted that mobile service would never become a profitable enterprise in India. Today the nation is home to more than 200 million mobile users, and service has reached the most rural of villages thanks mainly to entrepreneurs who facilitated the use of prepaid charge cards. Recent studies have shown that increasing cellphone penetration by an extra 10 phones per 100 people can lead to as much as a 0.6% increase in a country's GDP.

The impact of cellphone penetration in India continues to grow thanks to innovators like Ravi Inukonda. Ravi saw India's rural cellphone subscribers as an untapped market. So he is developing mobile phone applications to help rural villagers keep up-to-date on water and power shutdowns, produce prices and weather forecasts. This is just one example of the innovation that markets inspire and how the profit motive increases prosperity for entrepreneurs, consumers and producers alike.

Africa as a whole can certainly take steps to encourage a business-led approach to achieving sustainable development.

Every year, the World Bank releases an "Ease of Doing Business" report, which ranks 183 countries by how conducive their regulatory environments are to the operation of business. In the most recent edition, just three African nations--Mauritius, South Africa and Botswana--made the top 50. Among the 25 countries at the bottom of the list, all but three are in Africa.

Some African nations have already started shifting from relying on handouts from Western countries to creating policy environments more conducive to business, entrepreneurship and long-term economic growth. Botswana is a good example. Forty-five years ago, it was one of the poorest nations in the world. Yet between 1966 and 1999, Botswana had the highest average economic growth rate on the planet. During that same period private-sector employment in Botswana rose by an average of 10% per year.

The case of Botswana reminds us that good business is good development. Relative to other African countries, Botswana enjoys strong property rights, economic freedom and a fair judicial system. The country's friendly economic environment has attracted foreign investment from companies such as Heinz and Hyundai. And the Botswanan government is the least corrupt in Africa, according to Transparency International.

For centuries, free markets and free people have proved to be the best remedy for poverty. Unfortunately, the Western world's development strategy has failed to properly consider this fact. There is no reason why that can't change. It makes sense, for instance, to apply the lessons learned in India's telecommunications sector to the developing world's need for clean water and electricity.

For many years, telecommunications services were run as centralized utilities. This is still the case in many African nations. To most people, this made sense--expanding telephone, mobile phone and Internet service to the developing world's rural areas was perceived as uneconomical.

Today, many entrepreneurs are looking to leverage groundbreaking advances in technology to deliver water and electricity to the world's poorest, given the enormous size of the opportunity and lack of any scalable and sustainable solutions. Indeed, light-emitting diodes and thin-film solar cells are already allowing entrepreneurs to provide low-cost power to people living on less than $2 per day. Compared to existing technologies like kerosene lamps and diesel generators, LEDs and solar cells are cleaner, safer and healthier. And often, they are cheaper.

At heart, entrepreneurs are problem solvers--they identify a need and meet it with a product or service. Nowhere are their problem-solving skills more desperately needed than in the developing world. Handouts from the foreign aid community have proved incapable of solving the development issues plaguing the world's poorest. A hand up to budding entrepreneurs may be the development tonic global leaders have been looking for.

Philip Vassiliou is a managing director of Legatum, an investment organization that allocates proprietary capital in the global markets and to programs that promote sustainable human development.

Fish Out of Water: Promoting Entrepreneurship

Policymakers are turning their minds to the tricky subject of promoting entrepreneurship.

The Economist

Published: October 29, 2009

UNEMPLOYMENT is creeping ever higher. In the United States it will soon exceed 10%. In parts of Europe it is closer to 20%. Around the world young people are finding it all but impossible to get a job.

So far policymakers have focused on rescuing the economy from free fall, boosting demand, however indiscriminately, and rescuing failing companies, however expensively (AIG received $180 billion-worth of government support). But policymakers are beginning to turn their minds to the potentially more rewarding question of creating tomorrow’s jobs, rather than trying to save yesterday’s. The buzzwords in government circles are entrepreneurship, innovation and venture capital.

This makes perfect sense, in theory. Innovative start-ups are efficient engines of job creation and long-term economic growth. In America start-ups have accounted for almost all the net job creation in the past couple of decades. In the developing world, new technologies are helping to break the cycle of poverty. An extra ten mobile phones per 100 people in a typical developing country boosts GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points, according to the World Bank, by helping small entrepreneurs flourish.

Governments have also played an important role in igniting entrepreneurship. As well as creating some of the vital infrastructure of innovation by investing in higher education, they have also had a direct hand in driving entrepreneurship itself. Governments helped bring into being the venture-capital industry: witness the work of American Research and Development (ARD) after the second world war or the Yozma Fund in Israel in the 1990s. They have also supercharged high-tech clusters: Silicon Valley was created as much by the Pentagon’s demand for new kit as by freewheeling entrepreneurs. Most of the world’s other great entrepreneurial hubs, from Bangalore to Guangdong, bear the stamp of government intervention.

But replicating these successes is difficult. The road to the entrepreneurial future is littered with failed government schemes. Malaysia’s massive BioValley complex, which opened in 2005 at a cost of $150m, is now known as the “Valley of the BioGhosts”. Dubai’s entrepreneurial hub is awash in a sea of red ink. Australia has little to show for its ambitious BITS (Building on Information Technology Strengths) programme. The European Union’s European Investment Fund, which was started in 2001 with an endowment of more than €2 billion ($1.8 billion at the time), has failed in its mission to burnish the sorry record of the European venture-capital industry.

How can governments do a better job? Two well-timed new books provide some clues: “Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed—and What to Do About it”, by Josh Lerner, and “Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle”, by Dan Senor and Saul Singer.

Mr Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School, outlines some common failures. Too many countries are seized by ambitions that bear no relation to their particular comparative advantages. Although Malaysia had few skilled biologists, its politicians decided to build BioValley on the ruins of Entertainment Village, an attempt to create a Malaysian Hollywood that failed for lack of media nous.

Too many politicians treat entrepreneurship as yet another gravy train. Norway squandered much of its oil wealth investing in new businesses that were founded by the relatives of politicians and bureaucrats. Policymakers are also lax when it comes to designing venture funds. They try to insulate them from risk or allow public investments to crowd out private ones. The Canadian government’s experiment with venture capital failed because the Canadian Labor Fund Program had so much money that it frightened off private venture capitalists, while earning mediocre returns itself. New Zealand’s government, in contrast, did much better because it invested public money in private funds.

Mr Lerner points out that two foolish tendencies are particularly hard to resist when politicians are struggling with high unemployment. The first is the temptation to spread the wealth around to every region and interest group. France’s attempt to transform Brittany from one of its more backward regions into a hive of high-tech activity failed dismally for an obvious reason: entrepreneurial firms cluster in particular places. The second is a suspicion of foreign investors. The Japanese government lavished money on start-ups in the 1990s but was reluctant to embrace foreign venture capitalists. Japan now has one of the rich world’s weakest venture-capital markets.

Levantine wiles

The country that has led the world in promoting entrepreneurship has also done the most to plug itself into global markets. The Israeli government’s venture-capital fund, which was founded in 1992 with $100m of public money, was designed to attract foreign venture capital and, just as importantly, expertise. The government let foreigners decide what to invest in, and then stumped up a hefty share of the money required. Foreign venture capital poured into the country, high-tech companies boomed, domestic venture capitalists learned from their foreign counterparts and the government felt able to sell off the fund after just five years.

Last year Israel, a country of just over 7m people, attracted as much venture capital as France and Germany combined. Israel has more start-ups per head than any other country (a total of 3,850, or one for every 1,844 Israelis), and more companies listed on the NASDAQ exchange, a hub for fledgling technology firms, than China and India combined. It may not have the same comforting ring as “the Swedish model” or “the polder model”, but when it comes to promoting entrepreneurship, “the Israeli model” is the one to emulate.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743944