About Michael Czinkota

Professor of International Marketing, Business and Trade at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, U.S. and University of Kent, Canterbury, UK - http://www.faculty.msb.edu/index.htm http://www.twitter.com/#!/michaelczinkota http://www.facebook.com/169628456631


Scholars typically spend their summers at interesting and learn-worthy organizations. For my summer this year such destination will be the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. There I will participate in several events. I will be help coordinate a university-wide international business seminar: Global Business in a Dynamic Environment.

The Global Business in a Dynamic Environment course (details found here) provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of international business and the institutions involved in the process. Although there is an underlying universality to the basic principles of business administration, it is in the application of these principles that people in international business encounter unique problems. Theory will be emphasized for a normative understanding; practical aspects are designed to show the relation of theory to practice. We will teach each other and learn from each other by the use of analogies, parables, and examples – which will help us understand and remember, which, in an era of the British Exit from the European Union has taken on major significance.

I encourage interested students and scholars to attend those events. It will allow to make lasting connections with students from around the world, studying a range of subjects but sharing personal enthusiasm. Guided by leading professors from around the world such as a large team from the University of Kent, German, and the United States, Mark Casson England, Johannes Harl, Germany, Thomas Cooke, Michael Czinkota, Gary Knight and Charles Skuba of the United States, will enable participants to gain a deeper understanding of other cultures, develop new network, make lifelong friends from a wide variety of backgrounds and benefit from globally-renowned academic excellence. Stay tuned for more information!

The teaching team members are

Prof. Martin Meyer, Kent
Prof. Michael Czinkota , Kent and Georgetown
Prof.Gary Knight, Williamette
Prof. Zaheer Khan, Kent
Prof. Rudiger Kaufmann, Mannheim
Prof. Valbona Zeneli, Marshall Center
Mr. Adam Smith, Kent

The Course schedule

So that’s my summer. How about yours? If you want to join me and a group of distinguished colleagues please contact Floortje Hoette at f.hoette@kent.ac.uk to sign up for the course/seminar or request more detailed information about the summer events.

International Business Seminar at the University of Kent in Canterbury, Sign Up Now.

Summer School, sign up now


The Kent Business Summer School is part of the University of Kent Summer School programme. It will allow you to make lasting connections with students from around the world, studying a range of subjects but sharing your own enthusiasm. International study will enable you to gain a deeper understanding of another culture, make lifelong friends from a wide variety of backgrounds and benefit from globally-renowned academic excellence.

Find out what our students think of the Summer Schools on our Summer School Blog.

For additional reasons to join us, visit our Canterbury Summer Schools overview.

visit from Prof.Gary Knight

I had the pleasure to welcome, Mr.Gary Knight, Professor of Global Management and the Helen Jackson Chair in International Management at Willamette University in Salem and Portland, Oregon, USA to my Marketing Across Border class. Students had the opportunity to hear from this veteran in International Marketing about how to seek the opportunity in International Market.  Moreover, students will learn how to use the data to estimate the potential International Market. Thank you, Professor Gary Knight! 

The International Dream

This article is based on the contributions of Georgetown University’s McDonough Business School graduating class of 2019.

As the largest importer in the world, the United States obtains about 13% of global goods and services from other countries – diverse as China, Canada and Mexico. The United States tends to buy more than it sells. Americans have access to worldwide products and none has to go overseas to get it. But does this mean they have access to everything? And if not, what new inventions and innovations is the United States missing out on?

While everyone talks about exports, we focus on the so often maligned imports.  Exports make imports possible, which enhances selection, competition, and competitiveness. With already a shining city on the hill, how can things get even better?

Our team of hands-on experts, exposed to products from around the globe. They are a group of seniors the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. We asked them to give us a closer look into what the US should import more of. Students explore new motivations for US imports to include goods and services from a wide array of industries ranging from fine foods to health and technology.

Technology has effectively become the center of our lives. Students believe that the US should dedicate its import efforts on innovative products that will enhance tech performance and connectivity. The United States currently can only support 4G services to telephones. Korea, on the other hand, has been using 5G recently, which has provided them the opportunity to grow faster and be more flexible than the U.S. There now is a lucrative market for portable chargers. As they are cheaper to import than to produce, the US is more likely better off importing battery pack rentals from China.

The need for tech innovation is not limited to mobile phones, but includes automobiles and health. With rising auto tariffs, the United States will have decreasing access to advanced automotive engineering technologies. Specifically, foreign markets sell sleek pickup trucks, which are not available in the United States and penetrate Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Access to such advanced forms of auto engineering will benefit US consumers.

Innovation will also support health sector advances. There was demand for robotic goods. Japan was credited with very advanced medical robotics. The Kibo Experiment Module allowed fixing problems on the International Space Station without having to send a human into space. Similarly, robots are used in Japan right now in order to have a more precise and efficient way of significantly treating cancer patients. There are also bionic arms for upper-limb amputees, customizable for each wearer. Children can update their arms as their bodies grow. Such technologies should be brought to the US, where many individuals have received damage to their limbs.

There also is demand for simple technologies and ideas that effectively improve the wellness and wellbeing of individuals. Asian facemasks mitigate pollution-related health risks. The Water-Leech – a tank that absorbs and retains water runoff from a shower, bath or sink – was found to be a product worth importing from Australia. This tank allows consumers to save water instead of wasting it down the drain.

Other ideas included public spaces where communities can be given the chance to exercise and socialize in order to become more active and engage with others. Colombia’s Ciclovias, where some of the main roads in Bogota are closed off for cars and open to pedestrians who want to bike, walk or simply chill, inspired such leisure spaces well worth importing.

Discussed was leisure time at work: 2 – 3 hours for a mid-day nap, otherwise known as siestas. The Spanish’s rendition of the traditional American lunch break could potentially attract more millennials into the workplace, and add massive value for employees, particularly those who work in innovative, creative industries.

Cultural innovation was not limited to the workplace. In this increasingly globalized world, it was important to understand different cultures. How do different backgrounds and upbringings result in contrasting approaches to the same situation? Students observed a need for educational exchange programs that remove students from their comfort zones in order to truly experience a variety of different cultures. New exchange programs will completely immerse students into the culture. Most relevant is the opportunity to explore underdeveloped and remote areas of the world, which will eventually be part of all’s underbelly.

While the US has access to a range of premium goods and services, imports can be crucial in providing the finer things in life. Students called on the need for luxury, fine foods to task Americans’ taste buds. There was strong appeal of wines from France, Italy and Spain, particularly when paired with refined, imported cheese. Australian marinated goat cheese for $12 per 11oz jar will perhaps be the next luxurious brand of food.

Perceptions of luxury was not limited to goods, but extended also to services. Specifically, in Switzerland, the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic offers unparalleled medical services that, in a perfect world, would be available in the United States as well. Paracelsus Recovery, founded in 2012, offers a unique “luxury treatment program” for clients struggling with addiction, including substance abuse and mental disorders. Patients live in a luxury residence with a team of international doctors that specialize in their condition. Attention of approximately 15 doctors is solely focused on the patient and their needs. Yet, the cost structure is expensive. At present, the recovery group charges $80,000 Swiss Francs a week, or the equivalent of USD $81,300.80.

Imports are good, but need to be fair. Our students understand and support such restraints, yet know that selection and diverseness is a strong pivot enriching lives.

Professor Czinkota (czinkotm@georgetown.edu) teaches international marketing and trade at the University of Kent in Canterbury and Georgetown University. His latest book is “In Search For The Soul of International Business”, (businessexpertpress.com) 2019.

Dina El-Saharty (de242@georgetown.edu) is a second-year Communication, Culture, and Technology (CCT) graduate student at Georgetown University, specializing in visual communication design and persuasive communication. 

Let Us Organize World Trade

There is broad historic agreement that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been one the most successful international institutions; its membership accounts for more than 98 percent of world trade. However, today’s global economic landscape is changing rapidly, coupled with retrenchment and distancing from multilateral agreements. Combined, these factors impact the discernible value and role of the WTO going forward.

Changed Patterns of Trade and Investment

The expansion and development of IT infrastructure, telecommunications, and computing made the global revolution of the last few decades possible. New technologies, nonexistent when the WTO was established in 1995, have become crucial for growth and development in this decade. The outsourcing revolution has affected the developing world in a major way: global manufacturing and new services have dramatically changed supply chains; corporate espionage and intellectual property infringements supported many corporate changes in developing countries; and WTO negotiations and augmented enforcement procedures have not been able to slow that trend.

Moreover, one of the most critical issues in global trade is the aspect of unprecedented imbalances. Today, China is the new top global merchandise exporter with a total of $2.263 trillion, or 16.25 percent of world exports, according to WTO reports. It is the largest global exporter of goods, 17 percent of world exports, and the third largest importer, 12 percent of global imports.

The United States is the main goods importer with 13.4 percent of the global imports, totaling $2.4 trillion. In 1994, the United States was running an annual merchandise trade deficit of about $120 billion; by 2017, the U.S. annual trade deficit with China alone has ballooned to over $375 billion.

Stalemate at the WTO: Too Big to Be Effective?

The last successful WTO negotiation — the Uruguay Round — was a result of a strengthened, single market in Europe, the creation of NAFTA, and several plurilateral agreements, such as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).

The Doha Round of negotiations, beginning in November 2001, aimed to achieve major reforms in the international trading system, with an explicit focus on developing nations. Nevertheless, this premise failed; disagreements concerning the agricultural sector, free trade of services, and intellectual property rights have stalled negotiations.

Twenty years ago, the principal WTO concerns were pollution, global warming, disease, and structural unemployment — none of these agenda items, arguably, have been addressed effectively, much less solved.

Size is also an issue. The WTO is comprised of 164 members, with widely diverse perspectives, levels of development, linkages, and ambitions. The WTO system has become unwieldy because of the unanimity requirement of its voting process. The result: progress with new agreements is at a standstill. Case in point is the reduction of trade tariffs, which, at a global 3 percent of Most Favored Nations status, is at the same level as in 2000.

China: A “Rule Shaker” or a “Rule Maker”?

The West’s open invitation for China to join the WTO in 2001 paved the way for its rise to a global economic power. Since then, the balance of power at the WTO has changed dramatically. Chinese outward investment in the global economy has increased thirtyfold, from $7 billion (making up only one percent of the global FDI) to almost $200 billion (13 percent of the global FDI).

China entered the WTO as a “rule taker,” evolved into a “rule shaker,” and now aims to become a “rule maker.”

In fact, economic relations between China, the United States, and the EU define many of the agreements and disputes at the WTO. Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” of national rejuvenation could be seen as a way to reshape the international economic system, putting China at the center.

China has not been an easy partner for the West. Initial optimism that China would turn toward a free market economy has yet to come to fruition. Moreover, with its “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” the country has taken the main benefits of the open trade system by creating major distortions and causing disputes that the WTO lacked the capacity to handle. Controversial issues include intellectual property rights (IPR), free market revisions through government subsidies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), unequal conditions for market access with major restrictions to market entry in China, and unfair technology transfer. Foreign firms operating in China struggle against restrictive regulations — the government often requires them to hand over their intellectual property as a condition of market access. Asymmetrical market access and lack of reciprocity are magnified further at political levels.

With the existing WTO rule book, it is difficult to hold China accountable. Implications of Chinese “market distortion” and “unfair competitive conditions” consume global trade relations rhetoric; these opinions, voiced loudly by the current U.S. administration, are also shared broadly by other players, such as the EU and Japan. Due to high trade deficits, the United States is pushing for WTO reforms, increasing tariffs, and blocking the nominations of seats on the WTO’s appellate body (where the U.S. is a major player in the dispute resolution process) as leverage. Desired reforms aim to regulate market distortions caused by government interventions, simplifying the process of gathering information on unfair trade and investment practices, broadening the scope of banned subsidies, and setting boundaries to proportionate retaliations. But, at the end of the day, why would China agree on reforms that jeopardize its state-run economic model?

The WTO as a Reflection of a “New World”

The WTO does not operate in isolation from changes and new developments impacting trade. In the last two decades, the world’s macroeconomic environment was shaken by at least two significant events: the spread of terrorism, and the financial crisis of 2008. Terrorism has enhanced the inward focus of the political and economic aspects of national security; the global recession has caused an inward retraction of production and services. International economic issues were largely ignored as attention shifted to domestic job creation, the security and protection of domestic credit markets, and enhancing liquidity. Further, financial and political conflicts seem to foster greater polarization among legislators in many countries around the world.

As a result of continued stalemates and disagreements at the WTO, external actors are adopting a new “do-it-yourself” approach defined by preferential plurilateral trade negotiations — handmade for and benefitting only a limited number of players.

In addition, there is the issue of China’s growth in influence. In September 2018, the United States together with  the EU and Japan signed a brief statement voicing shared concerns regarding the future of the WTO, questioning its validity as a primary platform for multilateral trade. As an immediate result of difficult trade relations between the United States and China, and tremendous  pressure applied by the current U.S. administration, China afforded European companies access to some sectors, while pledging to cooperate with the EU on WTO reforms — a decision taken in July 2018 during the EU-China Summit.

Since the appearance of President Xi Jinping at the World Economic Forum two years ago, Beijing has been signaling that it is willing and prepared to assume the role of a new custodian of globalization. However, it seems obvious that China would not accept any reforms at the WTO, or any level, that would jeopardize its own economic model and welfare. At the same time, China wants to preserve the existing global trade order, as the outside world is more crucial than ever for its economic development.

Today’s global economic realities are not only introducing a new set of concerns and means of doing business, they are also challenging the very effectiveness of the WTO’s historical role as an arbiter of world trade.

Valbona Zeneli is the Chair of the Strategic Initiatives Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. The views presented are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent views and opinions of the Department of Defense or the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. 

Michael R. Czinkota is a professor at the University of Kent in Canterbury and at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, He is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the United States Department of Commerce.