All the below links are in English. Excerpts are on our own.

PROBLEMS UNSOLVED AND A NATION DIVIDED (PDF; September 2016) | @MichaelEPorter, Jan W. Rivkin, @desaimihira, with Manjari Raman – The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2016 Including findings from @HarvardHBS’s 2016 surveys on U.S. competitiveness

Key Findings(主な調査結果)
[Chapter 1] The U.S. economy in an era of political paralysis
• Addressing America’s economic challenges requires a common understanding of competitiveness and the true underpinnings of prosperity. We define competitiveness as follows: A nation is competitive to the extent that firms operating there can compete successfully in domestic and international markets while also lifting the living standards of the average citizen. Competitiveness must lead to shared prosperity, in which all Americans have the opportunity to advance economically.
• U.S. competitiveness has been eroding since well before the Great Recession. America’s economic challenges are structural, not cyclical. The weak recovery reflects the erosion of competitiveness, as well as the inability to take the steps necessary to address growing U.S. weaknesses.
• Our failure to make progress reflects an unrealistic and ineffective national discourse on the reality of the challenges facing the U.S. economy and the steps needed to restore shared prosperity. Business has too often failed to play its part in recent decades, and a flawed U.S. political system has led to an absence of progress in government, especially in Washington.

[Chapter 2] Faltering U.S. economic performance
• America’s economic performance peaked in the late 1990s, and erosion in crucial economic indicators such as the rate of economic growth, productivity growth, job growth, and investment began well before the Great Recession.
• Workforce participation, the proportion of Americans in the productive workforce, peaked in 1997. With fewer working-age men and women in the workforce, per-capita income for the U.S. is reduced.
• Median real household income has declined since 1999, with incomes stagnating across virtually all income levels. Despite a welcome jump in 2015, median household income remains below the peak attained in 1999, 17 years ago. Moreover, stagnating income and limited job prospects have disproportionately affected lower-income and lower-skilled Americans, leading inequality to rise.
• A similar divergence of performance has also occurred between large companies and small businesses. While large firms have been able to prosper, small companies are struggling, startups are lagging, and small business is no longer the leading job generator.
(… 大企業は繁盛することができたが、中小企業は苦労し、起業者は沈滞し、スモールビジネスはもはや雇用を産み出す牽引役ではなくなっている。)
• Overall prosperity is growing slowly, but the benefits are increasingly not flowing to middle- and lower-income Americans. This puts the American Dream, or the ability of any American to advance and prosper, at risk.

[Chapter 3] An eroding U.S. business environment
• The U.S. economy retains critical strengths. Business leaders (including HBS students) perceive strengths in areas such as higher education, entrepreneurship, communications infrastructure, innovation, capital markets, strong industry clusters, and sophisticated firm management. However, these strengths are being offset by weaknesses such as the corporate tax code, the K–12 education system, transportation infrastructure, the health care system, and the U.S. political system. Skills have also been eroding and becoming a weakness. Many of the greatest weaknesses are in areas driven by federal policy.
(アメリカ経済は決定的な強みを維持している。… しかし、…弱みに相殺されつつある。スキルも衰え弱みになってきた。多くの最大の弱みは、連邦政府の政策により運営されてきた分野のものである。)
• Alumni working in smaller firms have more negative views of the U.S. business environment than alumni working in larger firms. Members of the general public see the same U.S. competitive weaknesses as HBS alumni but, unlike alumni, perceive far fewer strengths.
• This pattern of strengths and weaknesses helps explain why the U.S. economy is no longer delivering shared prosperity. Large companies, the skilled individuals who run them, and those who invest in them benefit from America’s greatest strengths and are prospering. However, workers and small businesses are captives of the nation’s major weaknesses.
• Pessimism about the trajectory of U.S. competitiveness deepened in 2016, for the first time since we started surveying alumni in 2011. Fifty percent of the business leaders surveyed expect U.S. competitiveness to decline in the coming three years, while 30% foresee improvement and 20% see no change.
• Business leaders and the general public are particularly concerned about the future of American workers: respondents who expect lower pay and fewer employment opportunities for the average American in the future far outnumber those who expect improving worker outcomes.
• Inadequate investment in those parts of the business environment on which middle-class Americans depend (areas like K–12 education and skills), together with lack of policy improvement in areas on which small businesses depend (tax policy, regulations, infrastructure), have undermined overall productivity and shared prosperity.

[Chapter 4] The pressing need for a national economic strategy
• Given the significant challenges facing the American economy, the U.S. needs a national economic strategy more than at any other time in recent history. A strategy is an integrated set of priorities that builds on strengths while acknowledging and tackling weaknesses. It identifies the sequence of steps needed to best move ahead.
• The U.S. lacks an economic strategy, especially at the federal level. The implicit strategy has been to trust the Federal Reserve to solve our problems through monetary policy.
• A national economic strategy for the U.S. will require action by business, state and local governments, and the federal government. All three levels have a crucial role to play in restoring competitiveness.
• Taking leadership in improving U.S. competitiveness is a pressing imperative for business leaders. Many companies have failed to invest enough in improving the business environments in the regions in which they operate. Companies can have a major impact on restoring U.S. competitiveness through internal steps such as training and improving opportunities and compensation for lower-income employees. Companies must also step up their role to enhance the business environment in their communities by investing in workforce skills, supporting public education, restoring a local supplier base, and participating in collaborative economic development programs in their regions. We find growing evidence that company attitudes toward investing in competitiveness are improving and this is a welcome development. There are more and more innovative programs underway by business in skills, education, and other areas critical to competitiveness.
• State and local governments must also play a crucial role in improving the business environment, because many of the crucial drivers of competitiveness are local. States and cities need a clear strategy for competitiveness rather than isolated initiatives, and government leaders should foster cross-sector collaborations among local business leaders and other community stakeholders.
• At the state and local level, the Project has found many examples of innovative steps to enhance competitiveness. Mayors, governors, nonprofit leaders, educators, and businesses are working together in new ways to build workforce skills, invigorate the local education system, upgrade infrastructure, improve the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and develop regional economic strategies. Cities and states across America are moving forward toward competitiveness, but more can be done and best practices need to be shared.
(… 市長、知事、非営利団体リーダー、教育者、ビジネスは、労働力のスキルを創り上げ、地域の教育システムを活気付け、起業的なエコシステムを改善し地方の経済戦略を策定する新しい手法において協働している。…)

[Chapter 5] An economic strategy for Washington
• Efforts by business and state and local government to restore competitiveness cannot deliver their full promise if the federal government does not act. Many of the major weaknesses facing the U.S. are in areas controlled by the federal government.
• In 2012, we put forward an Eight-Point Plan of federal policy priorities that would unlock U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. The Eight-Point Plan consists of the following policy recommendations: simplify the corporate tax code with lower statutory rates and no loopholes; move to a territorial tax system like all other leading nations’; ease the immigration of highly-skilled individuals; aggressively address distortions and abuses in the international trading system; improve logistics, communications, and energy infrastructure; simplify and streamline regulation; create a sustainable federal budget, including reform of entitlements; and responsibly develop America’s unconventional energy advantage.
• Each of these areas represents compelling U.S. weaknesses, primarily controlled by the federal government, that can have the most significant and near-term impact on the U.S. economy. There is also wide consensus on the policy change needed to make progress in each area. There are two other crucial U.S. weaknesses, public education and health care, but these are in fields controlled heavily at the state and local levels with no clear consensus yet on solutions.
• Progress on even some of these eight priorities would transform the trajectory of the U.S. economy and the economic prospects of all Americans.
• A strong majority of HBS alumni and HBS students support all eight priorities, with consensus across all political affiliations. When asked in open-ended questions about which priorities alumni felt were most important for federal economic policy, alumni identify virtually the same priorities as those in the Eight-Point Plan. Alumni also mention education, health care, and the political system.
• In the general public survey, there was net positive support for seven of the eight priorities, with a tie on territorial taxes. Public support tended to be somewhat weaker, reflecting the fact that many in the public could neither agree nor disagree, or did not know, whether the eight priorities were good or bad for the economy. Divisive political rhetoric and an uninformed national debate have confused the average American about what the country needs to do to restore the economy. This confusion is a serious obstacle to America’s ability to make progress.
• Despite strong bipartisan support in business and net public support for the Eight-Point Plan, Washington has made very little or no progress on any of these federal economic priorities for well over a decade. The current presidential election is showing no signs of advancing a coherent plan to address these areas.

[Chapter 6] Achieving tax reform
• We believe tax reform is the single area with the greatest potential for immediate impact on the economy and is long overdue given changes in the global economy. Corporate tax policy has become a key obstacle to U.S. competitiveness and economic growth, and reforming both corporate and personal taxation is essential to achieving a sustainable federal budget.
• Good tax policy should be guided by the goals of increasing economic efficiency, achieving greater equity, and reducing complexity. The forces of globalization have amplified the inefficiencies and complexities of the current tax system and demand that reform make the U.S. less of an outlier in key tax policy areas – particularly corporate tax policy. Efforts to reduce the negative effects of globalization should be focused on improving competitiveness, for instance, by upgrading the skills of workers threatened by offshoring, rather than on ill-targeted tax policies.
• The top corporate tax problems, according to the surveyed business leaders, are the high corporate tax rate and the taxation of international income. Business leaders report overwhelming and bipartisan support (over 95%) for corporate tax reform. Consensus corporate tax reforms include reducing the statutory rate by at least 10 percentage points, moving to a territorial tax regime, and limiting the tax-free treatment of pass-through entities for business income. The transition to a territorial regime should be complete, not half-hearted via the inclusion of an alternative minimum tax on foreign income. The feasibility of corporate tax reform is promising given the broad consensus on the nature of the problem and the required direction for reform.
• Comprehensive reform of personal taxes will be more challenging. There is less support for many types of personal tax reform. However, there is broad support for instituting a minimum tax on incomes above $1,000,000. Increasing the tax rate on savings; eliminating the deductibility of charitable giving, state and local taxes, and mortgage interest; and taxing employer-provided health insurance did not receive majority support. Respondents support limitations on deductions and exemptions in general but react strongly against them when specific examples are provided.
• Carbon, not consumption, taxes are the best step forward. Carbon taxes are remarkably popular both as a separate revenue raiser and as part of a structural, revenue-neutral reform. In contrast, consumption taxes are quite unpopular and elicit the most spirited commentary, positive and negative, from our alumni. Several recently-proposed new ideas also receive support, including taxing non-C corporation business income, raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, and allowing for the deductibility of dividends at the corporate level.
• HBS alumni also strongly support spending reductions as a means to fiscal stability. Nearly one-third chose not only reduced spending, but also reduced taxation. MBA students are much more accepting of tax increases and less supportive of spending cuts.
• To achieve the right kinds of tax reform, leaders must begin to speak more realistically about the fiscal realities America faces. In addition, simplistic, polarizing, and protectionist rhetoric must be avoided. The time for tax reform is long overdue.
• Tax reform can also contribute directly to shared prosperity. The earned income tax credit (EITC) is probably the single most important innovation on the personal tax side over the last two decades. Simplification and expansion of the EITC is a promising direction for reform.

[Chapter 7] A failing political system
• The U.S. political system was once the envy of many nations. Over the last two decades, however, it has become our greatest liability. Americans no longer trust their political leaders, and political polarization has increased dramatically. Americans are increasingly frustrated with the U.S. political system. Independents now account for 42% of Americans, a greater percentage than that of either major party.
• The political system is no longer delivering good results for the average American. Numerous indicators point to failure to compromise and deliver practical solutions to the nation’s problems. Political polarization has especially made it harder to build consensus on sensible economic policies that address key U.S. weaknesses. It is at the root of our inability to progress on the consensus Eight-Point Plan.
• A large majority of HBS alumni believe the political system is obstructing U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. Many alumni who self-identified as Democrat or Republican blame the other party, but a sizable proportion also hold their own party responsible.
• Among the general public, many believe that the political system is obstructing economic progress. However, many Americans are unsure, which we attribute to the divisive and partisan dialog on the economy which has confused the public on many issues.
• There is strong support for political reform among surveyed alumni. Of six common proposals for political system reform, a strong majority of HBS alumni support five. The most supported reforms are gerrymandering reform and campaign finance reform.
• Among the general public, the top two political reforms supported are term limits for the House and Senate and campaign finance reform. However, a large percentage of the general public are unsure about which reforms they favor.
• Overall, we believe that dysfunction in America’s political system is now the single most important challenge to U.S. economic progress. Many Americans are keenly aware that the system is broken, but are unsure why it is broken or how to fix it. While there is rising frustration with politics, there is, as yet, no framework for understanding the reasons for today’s poor performance and proposing effective solutions. Identifying such a framework, and the set of reforms that can change the trajectory of our political system, has become a crucial priority.
(… 政治システムが壊れている、と多くのアメリカ人が痛切に感じているが、何故壊れているかどうやって直せるかは分かっていない。政治への不満は高まっているが、今日の貧弱な成果の理由を理解し効果的な解決策を提案する仕組みは無い。…)

“The Creation and Destruction of Value” 価値の創造と破壊 Vol.11

(All the below links are in English.)

Vol.11 パワーポリティクスの重要性(第5章-1)


Neo-Liberal Small States and Economic Crisis: Lessons for Democratic Corporatism (PDF) | BALDUR THORHALLSSON @uni_iceland & RAINER KATTEL @rainerkattel @TallinnTech
The Political Economy of Social Pacts: ‘Competitive Corporatism’ and European Welfare Reform | MARTIN RHODES @OxUniPress

U.S.A. アメリカ Vol.4(US Vice Presidential Debate 10/4/2016 ー 副大統領候補テレビ討論会 et al.)

All the below links are in English. Excerpts are on our own.


US Presidential Election 2016 Vol.2 (Who won the vice presidential debate? | @CNNPolitics)

… Pence, unlike Trump, has always been a conservative hardliner, particularly on issues like abortion. The challenge that this creates is that most voters don’t share his views. Consider the following data from the 2012 American National Election Studies survey. While 45.7 percent of respondents said that women should always be able to attain an abortion as a matter of personal choice, only 11.5 percent said that abortion should never be permitted. …
… Political conflicts can be defined by “lines of cleavage,” Schattschneider wrote. If you want to win, draw the line of cleavage in a place that is beneficial to you, by placing as many people as possible on your side. If you oppose abortion for rape victims (as Pence does), don’t talk about it. …

POLL: Who Won the Vice-Presidential Debate? | @Olivia_Stacey @HeavySan

Mike Pence falls short…of an impossible task | @JohnJHudak
What Pence needed to do
What Tim Kaine needed to do
Don’t blame Mike Pence
Why tonight doesn’t matter
Why tonight’s debate might matter

Pence triumphs in VP debate. And then there was the night’s biggest loser… | @hooverwhalen @fxnopinion

6 things Trump definitely said that Pence claimed he didn’t | @henrycjjackson @politico

Mike Pence Defends Refugee Plan Blocked by Judges | @m_rhodan @TIME

VP debate: Tim Kaine calls Donald Trump ‘maniac’ who could cause nuclear war in tense showdown with Mike Pence | @DavidLawler10

Kaine and Pence to Square Off on Security as Trump Stirs Outrage With PTSD Comments | @MOLLYMOTOOLE‏ @ForeignPolicy

VP Debate: Coming Out of the Shadows | William Harbour @longwoodu @HuffPostBlog

Insiders: Trump will sink Pence in VP debate | @POLITICO_Steve @politico
– ‘Is it just me or are the two VP candidates infinitely more appealing than their running mates?’ said a Pennsylvania Republican.

Vice Presidential Debates Have Mattered Before. Here’s A Look Back | @NPRrelving @nprpolitics

The Fight with ISIS: One Year (and Counting) of Unauthorized War (w Video featuring Sen. Tim Kaine) | @CatoFP


COMMENTARY: Compare candidates on economy | @DeanBaker13 @cpsj @ceprdc
… This background is important since, in most areas, Clinton would continue and extend policies put in place by Obama, while Trump would reverse them. Starting with taxes, Obama restored the Bill Clinton-era tax rates on high income people. Hillary Clinton has proposed modest further increases in tax rates on the highest income households.
By contrast, Trump has proposed large tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the richest people in the country. He would go back to the Bush-era tax rates on the very wealthy. This would reduce the taxes on the richest 1 percent by an average of more than $120,000 a year and the richest 0.1 percent by more than $700,000 a year.
He would also eliminate the estate tax, a tax that affects less than 0.2 percent of estates. In addition, he would cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Trump’s tax cuts are projected to add $4 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Clinton wants to keep and extend the Affordable Care Act. She has indicated she wants to make the subsidies in the health care exchanges more generous and give people the option of joining a Medicare-type public plan. She also wants to reduce the cost of prescription drugs by allowing imported drugs and also for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.
Trump has said he wants to repeal the ACA as one of his first acts as president. He says that he will replace it, but has not given any specifics.
Trump has also made a big point of saying that he wants to increase U.S. oil, coal and gas production by reducing regulation. It is worth noting that domestic oil and gas production both increased by more than 20 percent under Obama. Coal production is down, but largely because it can’t compete with cheaper alternatives.
Trump has also been eager to claim that he doesn’t believe in global warming and will do nothing to stop it. Clinton accepts the scientific consensus that global warming is a serious threat and will attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump has also complained that the Federal Reserve Board is keeping interest rates too low, implying that he would appoint people who would raise rates and slow the economy. Clinton would presumably appoint people who are more committed to supporting growth and job creation. …

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and the Economy | @DeanBaker13 @InsideSourcesDC

History is clear—high tariffs and trade wars devastate countries | Fred McMahon @FraserInstitute

Clinton Estate Tax Plan Would Affect Many Families, Not Just the Very Rich | @PatrickTyrrell1 & Michael Arango @Heritage @DailySignal

Climate Change Can’t Get Traction In This Election, But Clean Energy Can | @JeffMcMahon_Chi @forbes

Compare the Candidates | @CFR_org
– See where the next Commander-in-Chief wants to steer the United States on the most pressing foreign policy issues.
– Who Are the Vice Presidential Candidates?

Clinton and Trump: Commanders-in-Half | Gary Schmitt & James Cunningham @AEI @RealClearNews

Donald Trump’s sycophant problem | @DLind @voxdotcom
– Presidents need to hear bad news. Donald Trump can’t handle it.

How Clinton’s or Trump’s Nominees Could Affect the Balance of the Supreme Court? | ADAM LIPTAK and ALICIA PARLAPIANO @nytimes

The US election is dangerous for Australia | Paul Dibb @ANU_SDSC @ASPI_org

Simplifiers v. complicators | @nfergus @BostonGlobe


日本のガラパゴス症候群 Vol.7(The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 - 国際競争力ランキング2016)

All the below links are in English. Excerpts, et al. are on our own. You can check out methodology as well.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 (w PDF) | @wef のPDFのうち、Europe、East Asia and Pacific、North Americaに係る掲載文の抜粋等です。一番最後の私見もご覧ください。

Faced with impending Brexit and geopolitical crises spilling over into the region, Europe finds itself in critical condition in many respects. Nevertheless, the region — which includes the EU28, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, the Balkans, and Turkey — still performs above the global average in terms of competitiveness (4.72 average score in Europe versus an average score of 4.11 among the rest of the world). This is driven by the performance of a group of regional champions, notably Switzerland, which leads the global rankings for the eighth consecutive year. The top 12 includes seven more European countries: the Netherlands (4th), Germany (5th), Sweden (6th), the United Kingdom (7th), Finland (10th), Norway (11th), and Denmark (12th).
… there is wide dispersion in regional performance on several pillars. The largest gap is in the macroeconomic environment pillar, a reflection of the fact that the region has been recovering unevenly from the global financial crisis. Europe’s median performance is weakest across the innovation indicators: Figure 8 shows that the region’s countries are clearly divided, with a significant gap between the innovation assessment for Northern and Western European countries versus Central, Eastern, and Southern European ones. Although this gap has been a persistent challenge, there are some recent encouraging signs of convergence in certain dimensions.
Accelerating innovation efforts will be crucial to maintain current levels of prosperity, and Europe can expect high returns from focusing its resources on nurturing its talent. … On attracting and retaining international talent, although one European country (Switzerland) achieves the top global scores, the average for the region as a whole is low; this does not bode well for the creation of a vibrant European knowledge economy. The United Kingdom is currently still the most attractive EU destination for talent, yet the Brexit vote has created significant uncertainty over the conditions under which workers from EU countries will be able to participate in the UK economy in the future. Moreover, university applications from the European Union could potentially drop amid uncertainty over prospective students’ status and subsequent access to the UK job market (see Box 5 on the potential implications of Brexit; note that data presented in the Report were collected before the Brexit vote). … some of the largest score drops for France compared to last year were registered for the “attract and retain talent” indicators.
… Yet good practice examples in this area exist on the continent, with countries such as Switzerland and Denmark striking a balance between high labor market flexibility and strong social safety nets. …

East Asia and Pacific
East Asia and Pacific is characterized by great diversity. The region’s 18 economies covered in the GCI 2016–2017 span a large part of the development ladder, from Cambodia to Singapore, and include three of the world’s 10 largest economies: China, Japan, and Indonesia. The region’s emerging economies, led by China, have been supporting the modest global recovery since the global financial crisis. These economies accounted for almost two-fifths of global growth last year, more than twice the combined contribution of all other emerging regions. Today, global economic prospects look less favorable as a result of China’s slowdown, anemic growth in Japan and other advanced economies, and persistently low commodity prices undermining the growth and public finances of several economies in the region — notably Indonesia and Mongolia.
The GCI results reveal contrasts in the region. Its advanced economies continue to perform strongly. Led by Singapore, 2nd overall behind Switzerland for the sixth consecutive year, these economies all feature in the top 30 of the GCI rankings. Losing ground since last year, Japan ranks 8th (down two) and Hong Kong SAR ranks 9th (down two). New Zealand advances three positions to 13th, while Chinese Taipei is up one notch to 14th. Further down, Australia (22nd) and the Republic of Korea (26th) both improve their scores but their positions are unchanged.
Among emerging economies, Malaysia (25th) continues to lead the region, despite losing some ground this year following six years of improvement. China remains steady at 28th for the third year in a row.
Reflected in the evolution of the GCI score since the 2007–2008 edition, the overall competitiveness trends for the region are overwhelmingly positive: 13 of the region’s 15 economies covered since 2007 achieve a higher score today, with Cambodia, China, and the Philippines posting the largest gains (see Figure 11). The only exceptions are Korea and Thailand, though for the latter the loss has been small and from a high base. …
The region’s advanced economies need to further develop their innovation capacity. Japan and Singapore are the only economies in the region among the world’s top 10 innovators, ranking respectively 8th and 9th in the innovation pillar. Japan, Korea (which has dropped from 8th to 20th in the pillar since 2007), and to a lesser extent Chinese Taipei (11th), have experienced a steady erosion of their innovation edge since 2007. Meanwhile New Zealand (23rd), although it has improved significantly since 2007, Australia (26th), and Hong Kong (27th) remain far behind the world’s innovation powerhouses.
Since 2007, most emerging economies have improved on the basic drivers of competitiveness (i.e., on the first four pillars of the GCI) — often markedly, though also often from a low base. With the exception of Malaysia and Thailand, these economies have made major strides in improving governance, including in tackling corruption. All of them except Thailand have also made significant progress in terms of transport infrastructure… A similar generalized upward trend is seen in health and basic education. … On the macroeconomic front, the situation has also improved almost everywhere, with inflation at a 10-year low in most economies. The fiscal situation is also relatively sound, with most economies posting deficits lower than 3 percent. The notable exception is Mongolia, where the macroeconomic situation remains worryingly volatile. …

North America
The United States ranks 3rd for the third consecutive year, while Canada ranks 15th. However, the evolution of how the two countries rank on various pillars sheds light on the forces shaping competitiveness among advanced economies at the forefront of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Both the United States and Canada outperform the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country average overall and on most pillars, although the OECD average beats the United States in areas such as macroeconomic performance and health and primary education (Figure 16). The United States lags behind Canada in the quality of institutions, macroeconomic environment, and health and primary education. Canada’s largest disparities with OECD countries are in business sophistication and innovation. The large domestic market in the United States represents a major source of competitiveness advantage over other advanced economies.
Since 2007, the United States has been falling behind both in absolute and relative terms in infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, and goods market efficiency. It has improved, however, on health and primary education, higher education and training, and especially technological readiness, one of the most essential pillars for taking advantage of new technologies.
Canada, on the other hand, has improved marginally in all efficiency enhancers, with markets for goods, labor, capital, and human capital remaining among the best-ranked of the OECD countries. However, Canada lags behind on innovation and business sophistication, which are especially central for advanced economies.
In the United States, innovation and business sophistication have improved; in Canada, they have deteriorated and could be slowing down productivity improvements. However, the business community in the United States is increasingly concerned about basic determinants of competitiveness such as infrastructure.

私見:ランク自体に一喜一憂するのは無意味ですが、ご指摘のとおりという面もあると感じます。日本の課題は、1st pillar: Institutions(ランク16位、スコア5.4)、3rd pillar: Macroeconomic environment(104位、4.1)、5th pillar: Higher education and training(23位、5.4)、6th pillar: Goods market efficiency(16位、5.2)、7th pillar: Labor market efficiency(19位、4.8)、8th pillar: Financial market development(17位、4.9)、9th pillar: Technological readiness(19位、5.8)に共通して、技術の発展、国内外の経済の連動性、資本主義・民主主義下での経済活動の積み重ねなどにより表れる時代背景に合わない、無駄な作業の多さ、効率の悪さ、機会の不平等、形式主義などを社会慣行・固定観念として引きずってしまっていることではないかと感じています。『日本のガラパゴス症候群』と若干激しいタイトルを付けたのも、この感触に基づきます。公債残高はすぐにはどうしようもないので 3rd pillar は今後も低迷し続け総合ランクにも負の影響を与え続けますが、efficiency や fundamental human rights さらには public welfare を総合考量的に尊重する方向に行けば、各pillarのスコアは上がり日本企業は強くなり日本国民の満足度は増して行くと考えます。ここ何年か同じ顔ぶれの、スイス(総合ランク1位)、シンガポール(2位)、アメリカ(3位)などが参考になるはずです。

U.S.A. アメリカ Vol.3(1st US Presidential Debate 9/26/2016 ー 米国大統領選挙テレビ討論会)

All the below links are in English. Excerpts are on our own.

1960年(参考:1st Kennedy-Nixon debate (YouTube))や1980年には選挙の帰趨を決したとも言われるのが、 Presidential Debate です。標記第1回(於:@HofstraU)の内容に関する記事の抜粋等を取り急ぎ以下貼っておきます。

Trump And Clinton Sounded As If They Were Talking About Two Different Countries | @bencasselman @fivethirtyeight
… U.S. manufacturing employment has been hit by automation as much as by globalization, and most economists think trade with China has had a much bigger impact on the economy than NAFTA. …
… But in recent years, research has found that the negative effects of trade — lost jobs, lower wages — last longer than previously believed. Economists once thought that Rust Belt communities, or at least their residents, would rebound quickly from the loss of factory jobs; that hasn’t happened. …
… On Monday, however, Trump largely abandoned his populist rhetoric on taxes and instead embraced more traditional Republican talking points: Cutting taxes, including on the rich, he argued, will lead them to invest more in companies and create jobs, while lowering and restructuring corporate taxes will encourage businesses to bring back money stashed overseas. Many economists agree that, all else equal, lowering taxes will tend to boost economic growth. But few believe Trump’s plan would deliver as much of an economic boost as he claims. … 
Crime and policing
… The candidates offered different policy approaches: Trump called for more aggressive policing, singling out New York’s abandoning of its “stop-and-frisk” policy under Mayor Bill de Blasio. Trump said the controversial policy worked; Clinton said it discriminated against minority residents. (Holt pointed out that the policy had been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge; Trump said the ruling would have been reversed if it had been appealed.) Clinton instead called for gun restrictions, including universal background checks (which research has suggested could help reduce gun killings) and broader criminal justice reform, including abandoning mandatory-minimum sentences, which she said “have put too many people away for too long, for doing too little.” …

Presidential fireworks: The verdict | David Ribar @MelbInstUOM, @LaurenRosewarne @unimelb, James Cahill @Government_UoM; @electionwatch_, Election Watch USA
… It was also a surprisingly effective policy battle – though fought using completely different tactics by the two candidates.
Viewers who wanted policy details got heaps of information from Clinton, who offered a comprehensive list of initiatives to grow the American economy, improve outcomes for the country’s middle class, strengthen policing, heal race relations, address the problems of America’s inner cities, counter cyber vulnerabilities, and fight ISIS.

… Trump’s strategy, however, wasn’t to offer policy specifics but rather to discredit Clinton’s and thereby discredit her. In this regard, Trump’s responses were nothing to sniff about – though sniff and sniffle he did. In every segment of the debate Trump emphasised the country’s problems – job losses, rising murder rates, and increasing threats at home and abroad.
Trump followed this litany of woe with effective criticisms of the failure of politicians generally, and of President Barack Obama and Clinton specifically, to address these problems. He repeatedly asked Clinton why she didn’t fix these problems during her long years of service. Trump clearly played to his strengths as an outsider. …
For the first couple of moments, Trump’s tone was under control. Clinton’s was shaky, her sentences over-rehearsed. Initially he accomplished a natural, off-the-cuff persona. She was stiff and awkward. …
… He went so far as to pat himself on the back for not saying “something extremely rough to Hillary”, all the while being unable to resist the siren’s call of fat-shaming ­– apparently the cyber attack on the Democratic National Committee could have been “someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” and, hilariously, the tried and true ‘you-love-it-so-much-why-don’t-you-marry-it’ schoolyard zinger of “the Iran deal that you’re so in love with”. …
… Forced to answer, I’d say Clinton, but this was no knockout. Her performance will likely help her make some progress with her intended audiences – moderate Republicans uncomfortable with Trump and wavering young Democrats. Trump largely stuck to his standard message and it would be unlikely if he won over many voters not already in his camp. …
… Strategically, I don’t think this debate will help Trump move beyond his apparent polling ceiling of roughly 43-44%. The part of the Republican voting coalition that is most resistant to Trump’s candidacy are college-educated, white, married women. Over-reliance on his well-known material and repeatedly interrupting Clinton are not likely to change the minds of many of these voters. …

Damned by Faint Trump | @KoriSchake @ForeignPolicy
– Last night’s debate was nothing to crow about on either side, but Hillary Clinton definitely got the better of her rival.
… But it wasn’t horrible — it had substantive moments — and that’s noteworthy this election cycle. Hillary Clinton lived up to her Saturday Night Live impersonation of shrewdness, came locked and loaded with oppo research on Donald Trump’s taxes, business practices, the name of a woman he demeaned, policy citations … and gave Trump all the rope he demanded to explain himself at length. She did some A+ trolling, chipping his vanity and counting on his inability to restrain himself. It was a successful strategy. Trump landed several solid blows but simply lacked the discipline to drive home the points (for example, on her emails). His insistence on his “temperament” as his best quality was refuted by his performance. …
… I thought she missed the chance to bash Trump about his Russian connections. Her policy recommendations are also pretty weak: declaring we won’t permit states to target our private or government information, and that we have tools we could use and will defend our citizens. She seems innocent of the hostility most tech firms have toward Washington, breezily counting on working with them. …
Trump repeated much nonsense… claiming Iran was “ready to fall” before the nuclear agreement propped the government up, falsely claimed he convinced NATO to start looking at terrorism, weirdly claimed that “all of the things she is talking about could have been taken care of in the past 10 years when she had immense power.”
He revisited his standard complaints about America’s unaffordable alliance relationships, giving Clinton her best moment of the night as she spoke to reassure America’s allies that our country will honor our mutual defense treaties and can be trusted to keep its word. It pretty well defanged his claim that “she’s got experience, but it’s bad experience. And this country can’t afford to have another four years of that kind of experience.” …

Trump, Clinton debate fact-checks (a running collection) | @YLindaQiu @PolitiFact
Here are 33 claims from Clinton and Trump, fact-checked. …(17 claims as below)
Clinton: Trump’s tax plan would deliver “the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country.”
Clinton: “He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father.”
Trump: “My father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world.”
Clinton: “In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.’ Well, it did collapse.”
Clinton: “Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion.”
Trump: The Obama administration “has doubled” the national debt in eight years.
Trump: “You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacturing is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent.”
Trump: “Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression.”
Trump: “You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the Federal Election Commission” to see the financial disclosure form than by looking at tax returns.
Clinton: “You’ve taken business bankruptcy six times.”
Clinton: “You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.”
Trump: “In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings.”
Clinton: “Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.”
Trump: “I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt.”
Clinton: “I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable.”
Clinton: “He actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time.”
Clinton: “John Kerry and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot.”

Clinton Prevails in Downer of a Debate | @amyewalter @CookPolitical

Producing “The Choice” – Frontline’s Documentary on the 2016 Presidential Candidates (Soundcloud) | @DukeSanford

Many Young Voters Remain On The Fence After First Debate (w radio) | @asmamk @NPR

Poll: Clinton Leads Trump Ahead of First Debate | @mmurraypolitics(9/21)

Debating the debates | @cpazzanese @Harvard Gazette(9/22)
– Harvard analysts ponder the upcoming presidential clashes, how viewers may react, and how the candidates might snare their votes

Polls: Clinton Running the Table in Key Battlegrounds | @mmurraypolitics(8/12)

New September Electoral College Ratings | @amyewalter @CookPolitical(9/23)

The Race Tightens But the Math Heavily Favors Clinton | @CharlieCookDC @CookPolitical(9/20)

ツイッター paper.li Vol.8

All the below links are in English.

弊社ツイッターアカウントの一つ @WSjp_insight のRTによる paper.li 掲載記事4件を貼っておきます。

National raw materials agreement to foster circular economy by 2050 | @MinInfraEnvirNL

Rising Irish property prices threaten stability, @OECD warns | @IrishTimes @BRegsBlog

3 Unexpected Fish Species Found in the Inland Bays | @DEInlandBays

Sen. President Sweeney calls Christie’s tax deal nix with Pa. ‘horrible’ | @Trentonian

日本のガラパゴス症候群 Vol.6(TimesHigherEducation World University Rankings 2016-2017 -THE世界大学ランキング2016)

The below three links (1.~3.) are in English.



1.  World University Rankings 2016-2017: results announced (September 21, 2016) | @elliebothwell @THEworldunirank @timeshighered

… Overall, 289 Asian universities from 24 countries make the overall list of 980 institutions and an elite group of 19 are in the top 200, up from 15 last year.

When analysing which countries achieve the highest average scores, Singapore comes top on all five of the pillars underlying the ranking – teaching, research, citations, industry income and international outlook. Hong Kong is second for teaching, third for research and fourth for citations.

Rajika Bhandari, deputy vice-president of research and evaluation at the Institute of International Education and co-editor of the book Asia: The Next Higher Education Superpower?, said that the “sharp rise” of Asia’s universities is due to three main factors: rapidly growing populations and demand for higher education in the region; governments making “significant investments” in universities; and improvements by individual institutions.

On advances at university level, she said that many Asian scholars who studied at Western universities are now academics in their home countries and have “really begun to transform their own higher education sectors”.

They have “brought back to [their] home campuses some of the teaching values of critical thinking and liberal education, as well as the idea of promotion based on merit and research outputs”, she said.

She predicted that there will be continued expansion of cross-degree and campus partnerships among institutions in Asia and the West, as well as a “huge push towards intra-regional higher education partnerships and mobility within the Asia-Pacific region”.

However, Richard Robison, emeritus professor in the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University (@MurdochUni), said while there are a “small number” of Asian universities “making international strides”, many are much further behind.

When asked whether he envisioned some Asian universities competing with the likes of Oxbridge and the Ivy League, he said: “I can’t see them becoming giant intellectual hubs that some big Western universities have become over a couple of hundred years because they have a different idea about education and a different way of going about it.”

He said that Asian universities create a “very pressured environment”, have “a lot of learning by rote” and there is “not a lot of discussion in classes”.

I don’t know if that would translate globally, except in some of the narrow scientific and technical areas,” he said.

2.  World University Rankings 2016-2017: Standing still is not an option (September 21, 2016) | @phil_baty @THEworldunirank @timeshighered

… In 2004, our ability to support the higher education community advanced when we became one of the world’s first organisations to publish a global university ranking. …

In 2010, our world rankings were dramatically enhanced when, after almost a year of open consultation with the global community, we delivered a much more comprehensive version of the THE World University Rankings. We employed for the first time our current balanced range of 13 performance indicators, introducing new metrics for teaching and knowledge transfer in addition to research excellence. …

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2016-17 – our 13th annual publication – lists 980 institutions from 79 countries. Last year, we ranked 801 universities from 70 countries, up from only 400 universities in 2014. This year, we were able to draw on a database with tens of thousands of data points on 1,313 of the world’s leading research-intensive universities, compared with the previous year’s total of 1,128 institutions.

This year, we can draw on more than 20,000 responses to our annual academic reputation surveys – 10,323 responses, from 133 countries, to the 2016 survey combined with the 10,507 from last year. This year, through our partner Elsevier (@ElsevierNews), we are also able to examine 56 million citations to 11.9 million publications published over the five years to 2015. Last year, we examined 51 million citations from 11.3 million publications.

Although the overall rankings methodology is the same as last year – we have further enhanced the analysis this time by including books among the research outputs we evaluate, in addition to journal articles, reviews and conference proceedings. Some 528,000 books and book chapters are included for the first time, giving a richer picture of the global research environment.

This year, in another pioneering move, our calculations have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers (@PwC_LLP). …

3.  World University Rankings 2016-2017 methodology (September 5, 2016) | @THEworldunirank @timeshighered

… The performance indicators are grouped into five areas:

  • Teaching (the learning environment)
  • Research (volume, income and reputation)
  • Citations (research influence)
  • International outlook (staff, students and research)
  • Industry income (knowledge transfer)

Data collection
Institutions provide and sign off their institutional data for use in the rankings. On the rare occasions when a particular data point is not provided we enter a low estimate between the average value of the indicators and the lowest value reported: the 25th percentile of the other indicators. By doing this, we avoid penalising an institution too harshly with a “zero” value for data that it overlooks or does not provide, but we do not reward it for withholding them.

Getting to the final result
… For all indicators except for the Academic Reputation Survey we calculate the cumulative probability function using a version of Z-scoring. The distribution of the data in the Academic Reputation Survey requires us to add an exponential component.

Teaching (the learning environment): 30%

  • Reputation survey: 15%
  • Staff-to-student ratio: 4.5%
  • Doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio: 2.25%
  • Doctorates-awarded- to-academic-staff ratio: 6%
  • Institutional income: 2.25%

Research (volume, income and reputation): 30%

  • Reputation survey: 18%
  • Research income: 6%
  • Research productivity: 6%

Citations (research influence): 30%

Our research influence indicator looks at universities’ role in spreading new knowledge and ideas.

We examine research influence by capturing the number of times a university’s published work is cited by scholars globally. This year, our bibliometric data supplier Elsevier examined more than 56 million citations to 11.9 million journal articles, conference proceedings and books and book chapters published over five years. The data include the 23,000 academic journals indexed by Elsevier’s Scopus database and all indexed publications between 2011 and 2015. Citations to these publications made in the six years from 2011 to 2016 are also collected. …

International outlook (staff, students, research): 7.5%

  • International-to-domestic-student ratio: 2.5%
  • International-to-domestic-staff ratio: 2.5%
  • International collaboration: 2.5%

Industry income (knowledge transfer): 2.5%

A university’s ability to help industry with innovations, inventions and consultancy has become a core mission of the contemporary global academy. This category seeks to capture such knowledge-transfer activity by looking at how much research income an institution earns from industry (adjusted for PPP), scaled against the number of academic staff it employs. …

4.  THE世界大学ランキング2016 (2016年9月22日) | @ReseMom (Japanese)


Canada カナダ Vol.4

(All the below links are in English.)

Household Indebtedness and Financial Vulnerability (PDF, 19 January 2016) | @PBO_DPB 国民家計の負債と金銭的脆弱性 | カナダ連邦議会予算官(Parliamentary Budget Officer)本文抜粋・一部抄訳です。

Executive Summary 〔抜粋excerpts〕

The indebtedness of Canadian households continues to trend higher. In the third quarter of 2015, total household debt (i.e., credit market debt plus trade payables) reached 171 per cent of disposable income. In other words, for every $100 of disposable income, households had debt obligations of $171. This is the highest level recorded since 1990.
• Among G7 countries, Canada has experienced the largest increase in household debt relative to income since 2000. Households in Canada have become more indebted than any other G7 country over recent history.
• Measured relative to household assets, household debt has moderated in recent years. In the third quarter of 2015, household debt accounted for 17.0 per cent of household assets. But this was still above the average of 15.4 per cent prior to the global financial crisis.
• Analysis conducted at the Bank of Canada suggests that low interest rates, higher house prices and financial innovation have contributed to the increase in household indebtedness.
…  see Summary Figure 1 (Household debt service ratios)
Based on PBO’s November 2015 Economic and Fiscal Outlook, we project that household debt will continue to rise, reaching 174 per cent of disposable income in late 2016, before returning close to current levels by the end of 2020.
Household debt-servicing capacity will become stretched further as interest rates rise to “normal” levels over the next five years. By the end of 2020, the total household DSR, that is principal plus interest, is projected to increase from 14.1 per cent of disposable income in the third quarter of 2015 to 15.9 per cent.
(家計負債は増え続け、2016年の終盤には可処分所得の174%に達し、2020年末までに今のレベルに近付くであろうというのが、2015年経済金融概観に基づく議会予算官の予測である。次の5年に亘って金利が”通常”のものになるにつれ、金利支払い(service)も引っ張られて伸びるだろう。2020年末には家計のDSR(debt service ratio: see 本文4.)は2015年第3四半期の対可処分所得比14.1%から15.9%に増える見通しである。)

Based on PBO’s projection, the financial vulnerability of the average household would rise to levels beyond historical experience.
• The projected increase in the total DSR to 15.9 per cent would be 3.1 percentage points above the long-term historical average of 12.8 per cent (from 1990Q1 to 2015Q3). It would also be almost one full percentage point above its highest level over the past 25 years, 14.9 per cent, which was reached in 2007Q4.

1. Introduction
Section 2 examines trends in household indebtedness since the early 1990s. Section 3 incorporates household assets into the analysis and examines the evolution of household debt relative to assets. Section 4 presents and discusses trends in household debt-servicing capacity. The concluding Section 5 presents a medium-term outlook for household debt and debt-servicing capacity based on PBO’s November 2015 Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

2. Household Debt
Statistics Canada identifies four major sources of household debt:
1. mortgages,
2. consumer credit,
3. non-mortgage loans and
4. trade accounts payable.
Mortgages are loans for the purchase of homes. Consumer credit includes loans for the purchase of consumer goods and other personal services, for example, a car loan or credit card debt. Non-mortgage loans are loans not intended for the purchase of consumer goods or personal services, for example, a loan to purchase securities. Finally, trade payables are short-term credit received in the ordinary course of business by suppliers of business goods and services.
Since 1991, household debt has increased each quarter, on average, by almost 7 per cent on a year-over-year basis, with the sharpest acceleration occurring over 2002 to 2008 (Figure 2-1: The evolution of household debt). In the third quarter of 2015, household debt amounted to $1.9 trillion.
Over the past 25 years, the proportional breakdown of debt has remained broadly stable. On average, mortgages have represented about 63 per cent of households’ total financial obligations; consumer credit, 29 per cent; and non-mortgage loans and trade accounts payable, 8 per cent.

Over the past 25 years, total household debt obligations relative to disposable income have almost doubled (Figure 2-2: Household debt relative to disposable income).

As interest rates have fallen, the demand for mortgage credit has increased, stimulating both house prices and household debt. The effective household borrowing rate has declined from 6.7 per cent in January 1999 to 3.1 per cent in December 2015 (Figure 2-3: Household borrowing rate).
Despite the increase in house prices during this period, historically-low interest rates and growth in household incomes have helped to maintain the overall affordability of mortgages close to the average level observed prior to global financial crisis (Figure 2-4: Bank of Canada index of housing affordability). Crawford and Faruqui (2012) suggested that changes to the affordability of mortgages have been a significant driver of the rise in mortgage credit since the 1990s.
Crawford and Faruqui (2012) noted that rising house prices increased total household debt levels in two ways:
1. By increasing the mortgages required for home buyers, and
2. By providing some households with more collateral for personal lines of credit (PLCs), encouraging higher consumer credit.


The upward trend in household indebtedness is reflected in the debt-to-income ratio in other G7 countries, based on statistics compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Figure 2-5: Household debt-to-income ratios in G7 countries).

3. Household assets

Total assets are divided almost evenly between financial and non-financial assets. They increased from $2.2 trillion in 1990 to $11.3 trillion (measured at market value) by the end of the third quarter of 2015 (Figure 3-1: Financial and non-financial assets of households).


Household financial assets consist of the following four broad categories:
1. life insurance and pensions,
2. equity and investment fund shares,
3. currency and deposits, and
4. other financial assets

Non-financial assets of households consist of the following four broad categories:
1. residential structures
2. land
3. consumer durables, and
4. other non-financial assets.

As a share of non-financial assets, the proportion of land and residential structures has increased since 1990 (Figure 3-2: Composition of household assets).

An increase in the debt-to-asset ratio indicates that households are becoming more leveraged. Figure 3-3 (Household debt relative to household assets) shows the evolution of the debt-to-asset ratio over time. Since 1990, this measure has fluctuated between 14 per cent and 19 per cent.

4. Debt-Servicing Capacity
Households that are required to devote a substantial portion of their disposable income to service their debts are vulnerable to negative income and interest rate shocks, and are more likely to be delinquent in their debt payments. Financial vulnerability is typically assessed by examining a household’s debt service ratio (DSR). Debt service ratio = Obligated debt payments / Disposable income

While the interest-only DSR has trended downward since 1990, the total DSR remained relatively stable over 1990 to 2004 but then increased sharply through 2007 (Figure 4-1: Household debt service ratios).

5. Medium-Term Outlook
In PBO’s November 2015 outlook, the target for the overnight rate was projected to increase from its current level of 0.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent by the end of 2020; similarly the 10-year benchmark bond rate was projected to increase from 1.5 percent to 4.5 per cent over the same period (Figure 5-1: Interest rates).

Although Statistics Canada does not provide series for the remaining amortization periods, we can use the above relationship to calculate an implicit estimate that is consistent with the observed total DSR, the historical
effective interest rate and the debt-to-income ratio data (Figure 5-2: Implicit remaining amortization periods).

Based on PBO’s November 2015 outlook, household debt is projected to increase from 171 per cent of disposable income in the third quarter of 2015 to a high of 174 per cent in the third quarter of 2016 (Figure 5-3: Household debt relative to disposable income). The projected increase reflects continued gains in real house prices.
However, as the Bank of Canada raises its target for the overnight rate, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016, short- and long-term interest rates rise steadily. At the same time, real house price gains are projected to moderate. As a consequence, household debt relative to income is projected to decline gradually, falling to just below its current level; in 2020, it would average 169 per cent.

PBO projects that household debt-servicing capacity will be stretched further over the medium term as interest rates return to more normal levels. The total household DSR is projected to increase from 14.1 per cent to 15.9 per cent (Figure 5-4: Household debt service ratios = same as Summary Figure 1).
Unlike the benchmarks used by financial institutions for assessing an individual household’s financial vulnerability, a threshold for the economy-wide debt service ratio does not exist. However, to gauge the vulnerability at the aggregate level, it can be informative to compare the projected results for the total DSR to historical experience.


A dash of data: Spotlight on Canadian households | #OECDInsights (カナダ国民の家計 | OECD)

National balance sheet and financial flow accounts, first quarter 2016(w PDF, June 14, 2016) | @StatCan_eng (2016年第1四半期の国家貸借対照表及び国家ファイナンシャルフロー計算書 | カナダ連邦統計局)

World Vol.2(Troubled waters – the South China Sea)

Julian Lorkin’s interview with Shanghai-born Vic Edwards, a visiting fellow in the school of banking and finance at UNSW Business School and a part-time professorial visiting fellow at China Youth University of Political Studies in Beijing.

Troubled waters: Vic Edwards on the dispute in the South China Sea (w Video; August 17, 2016) | @JLorkin @UNSWbusiness

BusinessThink (@JLorkin): The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling at The Hague in July has been rather coolly received, at least in China. It deals with thorny issues [of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements] in the South China Sea, through which much of the world’s trade passes.
The question is, should Australia be worried and should China be concerned, particularly as the Chinese economy starts to cool? Let’s start with what China is calling the nine-dash line. What is the historical basis for their claims?
Vic Edwards: … So the US switched their allegiances to Japan and managed to persuade Japan to come on the side of the US, even though they were deadly enemies before that. And that was on the basis that they would save the life of the emperor, Hirohito, who was a godlike character in Japan. So by offering that as an olive branch, so to speak, Japan came onside with the US and with Great Britain in 1952.
(… 殺し合う敵だったのにアメリカが日本を同盟国に引き入れることができたのは、日本で神格化されていた天皇ヒロヒトをアメリカが救ったからだ。…)
​Over quite a long period there hasn’t been a great deal of difficulty and I think the position that China took was when you had the Permanent Court of Arbitration say that it wanted to arbitrate on the matter, China saw clearly that the international law of the sea, which they had interpreted as accepting their position of having the South China Sea, was therefore up for arbitration and dispute. Consequently, they decided not to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the UN and the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Now, that might have been their weak point because the court would have said that they were in fact subject to the jurisdiction of The Hague, whereas they had decided to withdraw from it because they felt that their position had been misrepresented. It’s not that they’re without support. They do have about half a dozen to a dozen countries that would give them some support on the matter.
(… 中国の立場が反映されていないと感じているので取り下げようと決めたのに、ハーグの常設仲裁裁判所が本件の中国は裁判管轄権下にあると言いそうだった点が中国の弱点だったかもしれない。中国を支持する国は5、6から12くらいある。)
And they are asking Australia to be very careful about drawing any conclusions or trying to make a judgment about what China should do. So we have already had one or two statements from Australia that China should comply with international law and they have responded by saying Australia ought to be careful because while we do have an international agreement for trade, that can very easily be dismantled.

BusinessThink: It sounds as if Australia could be in a position of trying to calm down the situation. Indeed, Australia could actually just pour a little bit of oil on those very troubled waters?
Edwards: … So I think that that’s a very positive thing between Australia and China, but by the same token Australia also has a very strong allegiance to the US. So consequently, I think one of the problems that Australia has is that it may be doing the beckoning of the US.

I think one of the problems that Australia has is that it may be doing the beckoning of the US.

The US, you might notice, has not actually come out strongly and criticised China on this matter, not directly. There are a few minor officials that have done so but you haven’t found Barack Obama coming out. And I think one of the reasons is that America itself does not comply with the international law of the sea and in fact it has not submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the UN here so it would be quite hypocritical if they were to criticise China in that position.
(お気付きかもしれないが、アメリカは実際本件について強く出たり中国を批判したりしていない。… アメリカ自体が国際海洋法条約を批准していないことがその理由の一つであると思う。アメリカは海洋について国連の裁判管轄権下にない。だから、アメリカが中国を批判すると、かなり偽善的となろう。)

BusinessThink: It’s a dangerous game to be playing, particularly as so much of the world’s trade goes through those areas. And we’ve seen, since the judgment, that a lot of people are quite concerned about what the possible outcomes could be. What would be the implications if, say, world trade was disrupted?
Edwards: … They’re saying that they’re not going to stop trade, they’re not going to stop fishing, they’re not going to stop peaceful planes from flying over the South China Sea. That will be continued just as it has been since 1948.

BusinessThink: Also in the area we’ve got Japan which has previously been – let’s call them neutral for the sake of a better word – for many, many years since World War II. But now, of course, we’ve got the rise of a much more dominant Japan. Could that throw a spanner in the works?
Edwards: Well, that would be something that could be an undesirable eventuality. Japan has been peaceful because part of the 1952 agreement with the US and the UK was that Japan would not under any circumstances have any armaments, would not have an army, navy or air force. Now, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has recently suggested that Japan needs to go back to a more defensive footing. Part of his excuse is China’s perceived aggression – and he may have some argument there.
(… 日本が平和的であったのは、1952年の米英との合意により、日本は非武装で陸軍海軍空軍いずれも持たないこととされたからだ。安倍晋三首相は、最近、日本はもっと国防に力を入れる軸足に立ち戻らねばならないと示唆している。その言い訳の一つは、認識されている中国の武力侵略である。…)
However, he has just recently got a majority in the Upper House – I think he’s even got his two-thirds majority – so he can in fact form an army, navy and air force. And he has said that he would like to form at least the army and perhaps the navy before 2018, which is the end of his term. So we won’t know what will happen then, but I would hope that nothing would happen in terms of having armaments, having any sort of warfare, having any sort of skirmishes. I don’t think that would be helpful to anyone and I really think it would be a lose/lose situation all round.

BusinessThink: All this controversy is happening just as the Chinese economy is slowing. What’s happening there?
Edwards: Well, I think we’ve had the global financial crisis; that’s one of the main factors that’s occurring. And also China is trying to transition from being an export-oriented economy to a consumption economy. Those two factors were always felt to slow down China and China had planned on transitioning from about 11.5% growth rate to about 7.5 % growth rate. But currently it’s running at around about 6.7%, so it’s a little bit under what it has planned for.
I think we should see it in perspective. That 6.7% is about twice as much as any other economy in the world and of course China is the big growth factor in the world.

Without China, the whole world would probably slump into another recession.

So what China feels should be done is that countries such as the US and the EU should try to pick up their demand for things. And as recently as two weeks ago, the G20 countries agreed that they would try to improve demand. But they didn’t have any specific targets to meet so I’m not sure whether they will do very much.
(… G20は具体的な達成目標を示さなかったので、成果があったかどうか分からない。)
The US also is at present concerned about its trade with China, about the outsourcing of jobs to China, and particularly with Donald Trump [saying] he would like to not have any outsourcing and he would like to have local employment, etc, in the US. So the outlook is not great. China is still saying that it will meet its 6.5% to 7% target and it is endeavouring to do so, but I think that they will have a little bit of difficulty, but they will still be well above the world’s norm of around about 3.5%.
(… ドナルド・トランプは中国に雇用をアウトソーシングさせず、アメリカ国内のローカルな雇用を生むようにしたがっている。そうすると、中国経済の見通しは良くない。中国は引き続き6.5%から7%という目標を達成すべく努力するが、少々難しく、それでも世界平均を充分上回る3.5%程度の成長に落ち着くと見ている。)
So Australia can still see that it will do well. In fact, in such things as coal, minerals, iron ore and agricultural produce, demand from China has picked up. But of course the prices are lower, so we don’t get quite the same bang that we used to.

ツイッター paper.li Vol.7

All the below links are in English.

弊社ツイッターアカウントの一つ @WSjp_insight のRTによる paper.li 掲載記事6件を貼っておきます。

Seattle’s Icicle Seafoods to be sold to Canadian aquaculture giant | @seattletimes

WSjp Australia Vol.4: @RBAInfo Bulletin June Quarter 2016 – Household Wealth, Manufacturing

Australia has moved 1.5 metres in 20 years and GPS can’t keep up | @keithbreene @wef

Melbourne researchers say they’ve developed a method of growing & implanting cornea cells | @abcnewsMelb

Why London won’t lose its crown as Europe’s financial capital | @CapX

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the United States | @SelectUSA