ツイッター paper.li Vol.9

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。

Sweden’s first urban electric car launches crowdfunding campaign | @EAIndustry


Arctic House Design Saves Energy and Embraces Inuit Culture | @ArcticDeeply

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

U.S.A. アメリカ Vol.7(articles on US Presidential Election 2016 ー 米国大統領選挙 update)

Here are a part of articles concerning the presidential election. All the below links are in English.

You can check out the following website for policies: worldsolutions.work.

Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P. | @nytimes

Election Update: Women Are Defeating Donald Trump | @NateSilver538

US Election 2016: In Conversation with @EdwardGLuce (w Podcast) | @Jparakilas @ChathamHouse

Tracking the Dynamics of the 2016 Election | Catherine Allen-West, Stuart Soroka & Michael Traugott @umisrcps

@ASPI_org suggests | @AmeliaLong222 @davidmlang

Reports of Obamacare’s demise are greatly exaggerated | @crampell @washingtonpost

Putting the Populist Revolt in Its Place | @Joe_Nye @ProSyn

How Trump and Clinton Could Still Draw Undecideds off the Sidelines | @peterwgnd @Columbia_Biz

Trump and American Populism | @ForeignAffairs

How terrible simplicity leads to terrible complexity | @nfergus @BostonGlobe

Voter Opinions on the Candidates, the Issues, and the Parties | Michael Pollard & Joshua Mendelsohn‏ @RANDCorporation

HOW VOTER TURNOUT COULD PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE | Christine Gallagher MPhil student @Pembroke @OxPolBlog

‘Missing’ White Voters Could Elect Trump. But First They Need To Register. | @redistrict @fivethirtyeight

Does Donald Trump’s plan to drill more oil make sense? | @mattmegan5

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Invisible Guiding Hand’ | @ShaneGoldmacher @Politico

How bad is it for Donald Trump? Let’s do the math | @DrewLinzer @dailykos

Forecasting the Presidential Vote with Leading Economic Indicators and the Polls | @CUP_PoliSci

compilation of the winner of every county in every presidential race since 1836 | @kkondik

How social media is shaping the 2016 presidential election | @mattkapko @CIOonline

Why Donald Trump is a ‘click bait candidate’ and Hillary Clinton is too | @JTakiff @PhillyBusiness

Post-truth politics and the US election: why the narrative trumps the facts | @Reasondisabled @UQ_News @ConversationEDU

Podesta Leaks: The Obama-Clinton E-mails | @ANDREWCMCCARTHY @NRO

The lesson about email safety we can learn from Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell | Tara Golshan @voxdotcom

Trump Withheld Alimony From Marla Maples When She Threatened His Presidential Ambitions | @KFILE @BuzzFeed
– “Our purpose was to send a message that she was playing close to the fire. That should slow her down,” Trump’s lawyer said at the time.

Psychology suggests that power doesn’t make people bad—it just reveals their true natures | Michael W. Kraus @qz @StephaneCoteTO @katydec @RotmanSchool

Don’t skip the vice presidential debate: Column | @USATopinion

Read Hillary Clinton’s Historic Victory Speech as Presumptive Democratic Nominee (w Video) | @katiemacreilly @time

3 myths about first presidential TV debate between Kennedy, Nixon (w Video) | @mariemorelli @syracusedotcom

Tocqueville’s America Revisited, Part 1 (w Podcast) | Paul Kennedy & Nicola Luksic @cbc

U.S.A. アメリカ Vol.6(2nd US Presidential Debate 10/9/2016 ー 米国大統領選挙テレビ討論会)

Here are a part of articles concerning the 2nd presidential debate. All the below links are in English.


Trump Unpacks Three Decades of Clinton Baggage in Debate | @McCormickJohn,@mniquette @bpolitics

The 5 Most Off-The-Rail Moments In The St. Louis Debate | @TPM

The Best, Worst, and Most Uncomfortable Lines of the Second Presidential Debate | @Jacob_Brogan @slate

US presidential debate: Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton ‘would be in jail’ if he became president | @DavidLawler10,@barneyhenderson,@nickallen789,@Rsherlock @telegraph


FACT CHECK: Clinton And Trump Debate For The 2nd Time | @nprpolitics

Read Live Updates On The Second Presidential Debate | @paigelav @HuffPostPol


Donald Trump Goes Full Rage-Monster on Hillary and Bill Clinton | @woodruffbets,@timkmak @thedailybeast

Trump v Clinton: Who won the debate? | @awzurcher @bbc

People are mad about the debate’s unasked questions | @lachancenaomi @theintercept

Presidential candidates refuse to shake hands at second presidential debate. Awkward. | @itvnews

#TrumpTapes “represents exactly” who @realDonaldTrump is, @HillaryClinton says at debate | @BBCBreaking

The 31 Funniest Tweets About the Second Presidential Debate | @emmdib @ELLEmagazine

A memorable, riveting, nasty debate — but will it change the direction of the race? | @WSJ

The Disgraced and Little-Known Generals Backing Donald Trump | NANCY A. YOUSSEF @thedailybeast

It is perilously hard to criticise Donald Trump without seeming to insult his voters | @TheEconomist

Is Hillary Clinton right about Trump supporters? This is what the polling data says. | @JuddLegum @thinkprogress

Critic’s Notebook: A Flailing Trump Tries to Drag Clinton Down With Him in Second Presidential Debate | Frank Scheck @THR

Trump Hosts Women Who Accused Bill Clinton Of Misconduct | @christinawilkie @HuffPostPol

The Clintons’ Christian marriage: The staggering Evangelical hypocrisy over Hillary’s refusal to divorce Bill | @lyzl @Salon

UNPRECEDENTED: Going Into Tonight’s 2nd Debate, Trump’s Unfavorable Rating = 58%, Clinton 53% | @JimHarris

US election 2016: A-Z for what to look for in the second presidential debate | @BBC

After a draw in the second debate, will we see a knockout in the final one? | @JohnJHudak @BrookingsInst


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

U.K. イギリス Vol.9(Brexit Vol.8: Japan’s Message to UK & EU 日本要望書)

(The below two links are in English, and the last one in Japanese.)

さて、当サイトでも今後、随時、Brexit につき情報をアップして参ります。
本日は、@ChathamHouse 関係の記事 Japan Lays Out a Guide to Brexit (6 September 2016) | Sir David Warren @CHAsiaProg(’日本がイギリスEU離脱の手引きを示す’)本文と抄訳をご紹介します。

– Britain would do well to embrace Tokyo’s constructive criticism as it prepares for life outside the EU.(EU域外での生き方を準備している日本の建設的な批判を、イギリスは包み込んで受け容れてうまくやっていける)

The Japanese government paper on the implications of Brexit released on 2 September has been described in the UK media as an ‘unprecedented’ and ‘dire’ warning, a ‘stark’ threat, and dismissed as ‘doom-mongering’. In reality, it is a carefully-argued and very detailed analysis of the areas of Brexit-related concern to the thousands of Japanese companies in the UK, and those aspects of the current business environment that they want to preserve in the forthcoming negotiations. Setting out the Japanese stall in this way risks annoying British negotiators with the responsibility of finding their way through the minefield of agreeing the terms of Britain’s divorce from Europe. But the Japanese analysis, used constructively, is an important guide to what really matters in ensuring that a post-Brexit UK is not only ‘open for business’, but a country that the world’s major investors want to do business with.
(9月2日に公表されたイギリスEU離脱に係る日本政府の要望書(下記参考英文)は、’前代未聞’で’切迫した’警告であり’正真正銘’の脅しであるとイギリスのメディアでは伝えられており、’恐怖を利用した’と切り捨てられている。しかし、日本の要望書は、イギリスEU離脱に係るイギリス国内の千単位の日本企業にとっての懸念について、また、今後の離脱交渉において日本企業にとって維持されたい現在の企業活動環境について、注意深く議論されまた非常に詳細に分析したものである。… 建設的に使えば、離脱後のイギリスが’企業活動にとって動き易い’のみならず世界の主な投資者が企業活動をしたい国であることを確保するのに真に問題となる事柄についての重要な手引きである。)

The paper is couched in terms of cooperation and partnership. Japanese inward investment into the UK has been one of the major industrial success stories of the last 40 years, with the 1984 decision of Nissan to build its car plant at Sunderland the turning point. The Japanese government and Japanese companies want to preserve this post-Brexit. But that means keeping radical changes to the current environment that might emerge from the Brexit talks to a minimum. Specifically, the Japanese want, among other things, to maintain current tariff rates and customs procedures, access to skills (including from within the EU), the current provision of financial services (50 per cent of the value of British manufactured goods is accounted for by services), the current arrangements for information protection and data exchange, unified intellectual property protection, harmonized standards and regulations, and access to the EU R&D budget and joint programmes. These requests are aimed at EU negotiators as well as at the UK. A 10-page annex goes into even more detail, sector by sector.
(… とりわけ日本が望むのは、関税率、税関手続き、EU域内も含めた人材へのアクセス、金融サービス条項、情報保護及び… →下記参考(日本語PDF3頁等)をご覧ください

The context of these requests is not just concern about Brexit. The paper makes clear that leading the free-trade system remains a responsibility shared by Japan, the UK and the EU. The Japanese government are nervously watching the US presidential election, with Donald Trump openly adopting a protectionist line and Hillary Clinton now opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal; they will also have been concerned at suggestions from European politicians that the US−EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) may fail. Hence their statement – echoed by President Obama at the G20 in Hangzhou in his remarks on TTIP – that the priority must be to finalize the EU−Japan Economic Partnership Agreement this year. A post-Brexit UK−EU relationship that erects protectionist walls would, in Japan’s view, be a disaster for everyone.  The arguments in the paper are about preserving the health of the global economy.

And Japan calls for early clarity and transparency on the difficult issues.  The paper argues that uncertainty causes volatility, and warns against the negotiating process producing ‘unpleasant surprises’. This advice may be unwelcome to UK politicians and negotiators who have to work out how to trade off being part of the single market with the need to restrict freedom of movement.   This is a political dilemma that needs to be unravelled slowly; Britain’s economic partners’ need for early clarity runs directly counter to the politics which Prime Minister Theresa May and her cabinet have to manage over the coming months.

The paper observes that ‘Japan respects the will of the British people as demonstrated in the referendum’ and express confidence that ‘the UK and the EU will overcome . . . difficulties and lay the foundations for the creation of a new Europe’. Nonetheless, the menu of requests is challenging and almost certainly impossible to fulfil in its entirety, if, as the prime minister has said, ‘Brexit means Brexit’. But it is a guide to what foreign businesses, attracted to the UK by successive governments with the promise of being inside the single market in an EU member state committed to further trade liberalization, want from the new arrangements. 
(要望書では、’日本はイギリス国民の投票の意思を尊重する’と述べられ、また … にもかかわらず … しかし、これは、外国企業がイギリスの今後の交渉過程において整えてもらいたいことに係る手引きなのである。…)

In that sense, it should also lift the level of current discussion on trade and investment relations away from the zero-sum political arguments during the referendum campaign – ‘being part of Europe’ versus ‘free trade agreements with the rest of the world’.  Japan is saying, very clearly, that it is not an either/or choice. If the UK is to remain one of the world’s largest and most powerful economies – which, however much it is talked down in Britain, it still is – it is going to have to have a relationship with the EU that attracts foreign investors. After all, as the paper also makes clear, they have a choice where to invest. It does not have to be the UK.

Japan’s Message to the United Kingdom and the European Union (PDF)