I've long been convinced that industrial recruitment, that is a strategy that tried to grow our economy by convincing a factory to locate in an industrial park, is a losing strategy, generally speaking. There just aren't too many Toyota's lining up to locate here, and the companies within the United States, well, they're already American based and why should we use our tax dollars to steal them from another community? It just makes more sense to try to grow the economy overall than to fight the tide pulling these ventures south and east, to China and Mexico.
Soon, there may be yet another reason why industrial recruitment is a losing strategy: Carbon Cap and Trade. This will be a federally imposed tax on the production of CO2 emissions. Factories utilize large amounts of electricity generated by coal and other fossil fuels. Frequently, they burn their own fuels to make energy. In a day not too far into the future, the costs of doing this will increase. When it does, the costs of manufacturing will go up. Here's how CNBC's Larry Kudlow describes it: "[The coming] cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less."
At this point I think it will be impossible to stop the cap and trade steamroller. From my standpoint, as a practitioner of economic development, I have to take the laws as they are, not necessarily as I would want them- and I do have reservations about cap and trade. So too do communities.
This means local communities have one more reason to think beyond their industrial recruitment dogmas and realize that entrepreneurship and improving small business efficiency makes more sense than adding onto your inventory of assets for a future factory that just ain't coming.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Is Entrepreneurship on the Decline in America?
That's what one economist is saying at US News and World Report. Snips:
[T]he population of U.S. firms is not a measure of new business creation. It is a measure of the stock of businesses in existence at any point in time. The population of businesses goes up if the number of new businesses started each year exceeds the number of existing businesses that fail each year. So we need to look at a different set of SBA numbers to figure out what happened to entrepreneurial activity over the 1997-to-2006 period.
The SBA's primary number for estimating business formation is the count of new employer firms founded in a year. The SBA reports that in 1997, 590,644 new employer businesses were started. In 2006, the agency estimates, 640,800 new employer businesses were created. That's a 7.9 percent increase over the decade.
The Census Bureau reports that in 1997, there were 272,912,000 Americans. In 2006, it estimated that the population had increased to 298,363,000 people. That's a 9.3 percent increase. Over the 10 years, the U.S. population increased faster than the rate of new employer firm formation.
Below is a graph I created of the per capita rate of employer firm formation in the United States since 1990. The trend is not good for entrepreneurship in America. Although the rate bounces around from 1990 to 2007, the per capita rate of new employer firm formation was 10 percent lower in 2007 than it was in 1990.
This bleeds over into the Gazelles vs. Mom 'n Pops argument that consumes many in the economic development arena, but it's worth considering.
Full story: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/outside-voices-small-business/2009/02/23/sba-data-show-a-declining-rate-of-entrepreneurship-in-the-us.html
[T]he population of U.S. firms is not a measure of new business creation. It is a measure of the stock of businesses in existence at any point in time. The population of businesses goes up if the number of new businesses started each year exceeds the number of existing businesses that fail each year. So we need to look at a different set of SBA numbers to figure out what happened to entrepreneurial activity over the 1997-to-2006 period.
The SBA's primary number for estimating business formation is the count of new employer firms founded in a year. The SBA reports that in 1997, 590,644 new employer businesses were started. In 2006, the agency estimates, 640,800 new employer businesses were created. That's a 7.9 percent increase over the decade.
The Census Bureau reports that in 1997, there were 272,912,000 Americans. In 2006, it estimated that the population had increased to 298,363,000 people. That's a 9.3 percent increase. Over the 10 years, the U.S. population increased faster than the rate of new employer firm formation.
Below is a graph I created of the per capita rate of employer firm formation in the United States since 1990. The trend is not good for entrepreneurship in America. Although the rate bounces around from 1990 to 2007, the per capita rate of new employer firm formation was 10 percent lower in 2007 than it was in 1990.
This bleeds over into the Gazelles vs. Mom 'n Pops argument that consumes many in the economic development arena, but it's worth considering.
Full story: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/outside-voices-small-business/2009/02/23/sba-data-show-a-declining-rate-of-entrepreneurship-in-the-us.html
Tweaking Friedman
This article dittos the underlying premise behind one of Tom Friedman's recent provocative ideas about technology, entrpreneurship and innovation. A snip:
Government funds for the VC industry is simply unnecessary. At $30 billion per year, there is no lack of VC capital being deployed in America. The bottleneck in the VC-entrepreneurship equation isn't in the inputs of capital, it's in the outputs. The lack of exits and the dearth of the IPO market is what needs to be fixed to open the floodgates of innovation.
But then I thought - let's not go overboard with our criticism by taking Friedman literally. The guy's a huge fan of global entrepreneurship (I loved it when he referred to the worthy work of the global non-profit, Endeavor, as the "best anti-poverty program of all"). His heart and priorities are in the right place.
So before folks get up in arms about "bailing out VCs," let's take Friedman's comments figuratively. He's dead on when he points out that entrepreneurship is what is going to get us out of this mess. The government shouldn't focus on silly notions of VC subsidies that nobody wants. Instead, the policy agenda to foster entrepreneurship and the flow of capital to entrepreneurs is very clear.
The article goes on to talk about specific policy needs for America's tech based economy. I'd tweak Friedman a little differently by saying he's right on the underlying anti-poverty idea of entrepreneurship. But we need a stronger pro-entrepreneurship in general in America, not just one focused on tech companies. And the problem is about more than the current recession, we need more entrepreneurs for entirety of the forseeable future.
It'll take entrepreneurs to replace the factories lost to globalization, to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint within the coming regulatory framework, to make coal cleaner, to find new ways to use the next wave of the web, etc. Entrepreneurship is just a new app to be used to solve a particular problem. It should be part of our DNA in America.
Government funds for the VC industry is simply unnecessary. At $30 billion per year, there is no lack of VC capital being deployed in America. The bottleneck in the VC-entrepreneurship equation isn't in the inputs of capital, it's in the outputs. The lack of exits and the dearth of the IPO market is what needs to be fixed to open the floodgates of innovation.
But then I thought - let's not go overboard with our criticism by taking Friedman literally. The guy's a huge fan of global entrepreneurship (I loved it when he referred to the worthy work of the global non-profit, Endeavor, as the "best anti-poverty program of all"). His heart and priorities are in the right place.
So before folks get up in arms about "bailing out VCs," let's take Friedman's comments figuratively. He's dead on when he points out that entrepreneurship is what is going to get us out of this mess. The government shouldn't focus on silly notions of VC subsidies that nobody wants. Instead, the policy agenda to foster entrepreneurship and the flow of capital to entrepreneurs is very clear.
The article goes on to talk about specific policy needs for America's tech based economy. I'd tweak Friedman a little differently by saying he's right on the underlying anti-poverty idea of entrepreneurship. But we need a stronger pro-entrepreneurship in general in America, not just one focused on tech companies. And the problem is about more than the current recession, we need more entrepreneurs for entirety of the forseeable future.
It'll take entrepreneurs to replace the factories lost to globalization, to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint within the coming regulatory framework, to make coal cleaner, to find new ways to use the next wave of the web, etc. Entrepreneurship is just a new app to be used to solve a particular problem. It should be part of our DNA in America.
Friday, February 6, 2009
What's Missing from the Stimulus Talks
Growth! Our economy has to grow again. How do we do it? By starting with entrepreneurial friendly policies that allow entrepreneurs freedom to hire people, tap markets, finance their companies, staff their teams, etc.
Don't take it from me. Here's Carl Schramm from the Kauffman Foundation:
We should be asking President Obama, his economic team, and Congressional leaders a basic question: How do you propose to help ensure that the United States maintains a long-term annual growth rate of 4 percent (or higher)?
We at the Kauffman Foundation have our own proposals, all of them centered on the core fact - borne out by our research - that entrepreneurship and innovation are the key growth drivers in our economy. Highly entrepreneurial companies like Google, eBay, Amazon create more than half the nation's new jobs.
Action in several areas can make America's economic ecosystem more conducive to entrepreneurial growth and should therefore be central to the country's growth agenda.
• Building a skilled workforce. Finding and attracting highly skilled, entrepreneurial workers is one of the more important challenges facing the U.S. economy. Major, entrepreneurially driven improvements are necessary throughout our educational system to help prepare skilled workers, especially in math, science, technology, and engineering - the fields that will be most relevant to generating future innovative breakthroughs.
• Welcoming high-skilled legal immigrants. One quarter of the science and technology start-ups launched in the United States between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Our economy needs more, not less, of such highly motivated entrepreneurs. One way to keep them is to grant a permanent work visa to any immigrant earns a degree in science, engineering or math.
• A lower-cost health care system that encourages entrepreneurship. Continued escalation of health care costs and uncertainties about future trends rank high on virtually every American's list of concerns. In addition, the fear of losing health care deters some employees from leaving their current jobs to launch new enterprises. Health care needs to be made both less expensive and more portable.
• Keeping U.S. capital markets competitive through appropriate regulation. Sarbanes-Oxley has turned out to be substantially more costly than was expected at the time. In addition, the SOX requirements may be discouraging successful entrepreneurial firms from going public and instead to sell to larger companies, an "exit" path that may reduce the entrepreneurial energy that drove the success of these firms in the first place. In its current form, SOX is a job killer in desperate need of reform. And, this current crisis, we should heed the lesson of SOX. Let's not ram a complex new regulatory scheme through Congress in a matter of days - only find out later that it has worsened the very problem it was intended to fix.
• Strengthening trade and global markets. Companies like Intel, Microsoft, eBay, and Google would not be the giants they are today without access to global markets in which to sell their products. In addition, firms of all sizes benefit from being able to purchase supplies and services from anywhere they can be competitively sourced. Free trade has a taken a political beating in recent years. It's time for our candidates to show some courage and stand up for this vital principle.
Don't take it from me. Here's Carl Schramm from the Kauffman Foundation:
We should be asking President Obama, his economic team, and Congressional leaders a basic question: How do you propose to help ensure that the United States maintains a long-term annual growth rate of 4 percent (or higher)?
We at the Kauffman Foundation have our own proposals, all of them centered on the core fact - borne out by our research - that entrepreneurship and innovation are the key growth drivers in our economy. Highly entrepreneurial companies like Google, eBay, Amazon create more than half the nation's new jobs.
Action in several areas can make America's economic ecosystem more conducive to entrepreneurial growth and should therefore be central to the country's growth agenda.
• Building a skilled workforce. Finding and attracting highly skilled, entrepreneurial workers is one of the more important challenges facing the U.S. economy. Major, entrepreneurially driven improvements are necessary throughout our educational system to help prepare skilled workers, especially in math, science, technology, and engineering - the fields that will be most relevant to generating future innovative breakthroughs.
• Welcoming high-skilled legal immigrants. One quarter of the science and technology start-ups launched in the United States between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Our economy needs more, not less, of such highly motivated entrepreneurs. One way to keep them is to grant a permanent work visa to any immigrant earns a degree in science, engineering or math.
• A lower-cost health care system that encourages entrepreneurship. Continued escalation of health care costs and uncertainties about future trends rank high on virtually every American's list of concerns. In addition, the fear of losing health care deters some employees from leaving their current jobs to launch new enterprises. Health care needs to be made both less expensive and more portable.
• Keeping U.S. capital markets competitive through appropriate regulation. Sarbanes-Oxley has turned out to be substantially more costly than was expected at the time. In addition, the SOX requirements may be discouraging successful entrepreneurial firms from going public and instead to sell to larger companies, an "exit" path that may reduce the entrepreneurial energy that drove the success of these firms in the first place. In its current form, SOX is a job killer in desperate need of reform. And, this current crisis, we should heed the lesson of SOX. Let's not ram a complex new regulatory scheme through Congress in a matter of days - only find out later that it has worsened the very problem it was intended to fix.
• Strengthening trade and global markets. Companies like Intel, Microsoft, eBay, and Google would not be the giants they are today without access to global markets in which to sell their products. In addition, firms of all sizes benefit from being able to purchase supplies and services from anywhere they can be competitively sourced. Free trade has a taken a political beating in recent years. It's time for our candidates to show some courage and stand up for this vital principle.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/whats_missing_from_the_economi.html
New Growth Theory and Entrepreneurship
Interesting theory... how would entrepreneurship play into this:
New Growth Theory emphasizes that economic growth results from the increasing returns associated with new knowledge. Knowledge has different properties than other economic goods (being non-rival, and partly excludable). The ability to grow the economy by increasing knowledge rather than labor or capital creates opportunities for nearly boundless growth.
Markets fail to produce enough knowledge because innovators cannot capture all of the gains associated with creating new knowledge. And because knowledge can be infinitely reused at zero marginal cost, firms who use knowledge in production can earn quasi-monopoly profits. All forms of knowledge, from big science to better ways to sew a shirt exhibit these properties and contribute to growth. Economies with widespread increasing returns are unlikely to develop along a unique equilibrium path. Development may be a process of creative destruction, with a succession of monopolistically competitive technologies and firms. Markets alone may not converge on a single most efficient solution, and technological and regional development will tend to exhibit path dependence.
History, institutions and geography all shape the development of knowledge-based economies. History matters because increasing returns generate positive feedbacks that tend to cause economies to “lock in” to particular technologies and locations. Development is in part chaotic because small events at critical times can have persistent, long term impacts on patterns of economic activity. Institutions matter because they shape the environment for the production and employment of new knowledge. Societies that generate and tolerate new ideas, and that continuously adapt to changing economic and technological circumstances are a precondition to sustained economic growth. Geography matters because knowledge doesn’t move frictionlessly among economic actors. Important parts of knowledge are tacit, and embedded in the routines of individuals and organizations in different places.
New Growth Theory, and the increasing returns associated with knowledge have many implications for economic development policy. New Growth Theory underscores the importance of investing in new knowledge creation to sustain growth. Policy makers will need to pay careful attention to all of the factors that provide incentives for knowledge creation (research and development, the education system, entrepreneurship and the tolerance for diversity, macroeconomic expectations, openness to trade). Because it undermines the notion of a single, optimal general equilibrium, New Growth Theory implies that economics will be less capable of predicting future outcomes. (emphasis added)
Excerpted from New Growth Theory, Technology and Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. By Joseph CortrightImpresa, Inc
New Growth Theory emphasizes that economic growth results from the increasing returns associated with new knowledge. Knowledge has different properties than other economic goods (being non-rival, and partly excludable). The ability to grow the economy by increasing knowledge rather than labor or capital creates opportunities for nearly boundless growth.
Markets fail to produce enough knowledge because innovators cannot capture all of the gains associated with creating new knowledge. And because knowledge can be infinitely reused at zero marginal cost, firms who use knowledge in production can earn quasi-monopoly profits. All forms of knowledge, from big science to better ways to sew a shirt exhibit these properties and contribute to growth. Economies with widespread increasing returns are unlikely to develop along a unique equilibrium path. Development may be a process of creative destruction, with a succession of monopolistically competitive technologies and firms. Markets alone may not converge on a single most efficient solution, and technological and regional development will tend to exhibit path dependence.
History, institutions and geography all shape the development of knowledge-based economies. History matters because increasing returns generate positive feedbacks that tend to cause economies to “lock in” to particular technologies and locations. Development is in part chaotic because small events at critical times can have persistent, long term impacts on patterns of economic activity. Institutions matter because they shape the environment for the production and employment of new knowledge. Societies that generate and tolerate new ideas, and that continuously adapt to changing economic and technological circumstances are a precondition to sustained economic growth. Geography matters because knowledge doesn’t move frictionlessly among economic actors. Important parts of knowledge are tacit, and embedded in the routines of individuals and organizations in different places.
New Growth Theory, and the increasing returns associated with knowledge have many implications for economic development policy. New Growth Theory underscores the importance of investing in new knowledge creation to sustain growth. Policy makers will need to pay careful attention to all of the factors that provide incentives for knowledge creation (research and development, the education system, entrepreneurship and the tolerance for diversity, macroeconomic expectations, openness to trade). Because it undermines the notion of a single, optimal general equilibrium, New Growth Theory implies that economics will be less capable of predicting future outcomes. (emphasis added)
Excerpted from New Growth Theory, Technology and Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. By Joseph CortrightImpresa, Inc
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Entrepreneurship in West Virginia
Interesting article about a WV guitar maker's support for entrepreneurship in the mountain state:
http://wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=51410
http://wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=51410
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)