Services: Performance of the Future

Services have outperformed the economic leverage of manufacturing. The growth not only changes the structure and composition of economic activities in both the United States and the world but also leads to a more integrated future. Both legislators and negotiators must pay more attention to the service components of international exchanges if they are to achieve long-term change.

Worldwide, services contributed more than 60 percent of total value added in most major economies in 2017. China and India were the exceptions. For world trade, the value of services exports grew 5.1 percent per year between 2006 and 2016 with a rising tendency. 

U.S. services now account for over two-thirds of GDP. The U.S. companies achieved more than $2.2 trillion in recorded international services sales In trade, services deliver a large surplus. Four out of five new private-sector jobs in the U.S. are created by services. In 2015, the Peterson Institute estimated that the elimination of global barriers to trade in services would increase the U.S. service exports by $300 billion and create 3 million jobs when fully implemented.

There is more to services than meets the eye. Services come in different categories and at different, often opaque international levels. Examples are varied performances in fields such as telecommunications, financial services, computer services, retail distribution, environmental services, education and express delivery.

Manufacturing strength increasingly comes from strong and tailor-made services which enable manufacturing to be more effective and competitive. Current cars are service driven and updated with sophisticated navigation systems. TVs have to connect to streams in order to be smart. iPhone sales rely on Apple’s support services, including troubleshooting and retailing. Even a traditional aerospace exporter like Boeing uses cloud services to manage inventory, optimize maintenance, and minimize the costs of system malfunctions.

Service performance at high has typically been greatly underestimated due to insufficient measurement insight. For example, if a person travels abroad for medical tourism, such value generating activity is hardly recorded. A local session of advice with a financial expert may create high value. However, poor valuation and insufficient recordation lead to only little understanding of current account impact.

Services and manufacturing are not at opposite ends of a scale. Rather, services strengthen the performance of manufacturing and are enhanced by the application of technology. Through its investment in the services sector, China has greatly improved the capabilities of its logistics, transport and infrastructure conditions. China can now demonstrably use its newly generated logistics expertise to outperform its competitors. For example, due to its service investments, the transport time of persons and goods via the new Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has diminished from 4 hours to 30 minutes since the end of 2018. What a time wharp, yielding clear insights into shifting capabilities. Many will be the companies and countries which sign up to exchange raw materials for infrastructure. 

The integration between services and manufacturing will relegate entire supply chain conditions, which have been laboriously created, to a mere blur. Today, most apparel manufacturers own retail stores. Many store brands like Target build up their own manufacturing, controls, and retail distribution. Apple manufactures its own chips, fingerprint sensors, and other custom components. Concurrently, its retail stores flourish and allow it to control its direct distribution and sale to customers.

Services growth promotes new types of manufacturing. Printing technology gives new meaning to scale economies. Services, combined with flexibility and adjustment bring opportunity and vitality to the global economy. In terms of innovation and employment, strong services are no less important for a country than a strong manufacturing sector. U.S. legislators and negotiators must place growing emphasis on services and their links, both direct and indirect, with manufacturing. A more integrated economy will provide all with a significant payoff.

Professor Czinkota (czinkotm@georgetown.edu) teaches international marketing and trade at Georgetown University and the University of Kent in Canterbury. His latest book is ‘In Search for the Soul of International Business’ 2019, Businessexpertpress.com

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. 

The Ignorant Wise Man

American companies were assured that because of its size and the diversity of its resources, the American economy could satisfy consumer wants and national needs with a minimal reliance on foreign trade. The availability of a large U.S. domestic consumption power and the relative distance to foreign markets resulted in many U.S. manufacturers simply not feeling a compelling need to seek business beyond national borders. Subsequently, the perception emerged within the private sector that exporting and international marketing were simply too risky, complicated, and not worth it. 
This perception also resulted in increasing gaps in international marketing knowledge between managers in the U.S. and those abroad. This gap shaped different incentives to innovation. The Late-developing Advantage Theory can illustrate those differences, not only at a national, but also at a firm specific level. A less favorable position can always be an opportunity and motivation. While business executives who deal with small market sizes are willing to learn about cultural sensitivity and market differences, many U.S. managers remain blissfully ignorant of the global economy. Given such lack of global interest, inadequacy of information, ignorance of where and how to market internationally, unfamiliarity with foreign market conditions, and complicated trade regulations, the U.S. private sector became uninterested and fearful of conducting international business activities. 
However, conditions have changed. Traditional education institutions are becoming more attuned to the international dimension. Universities and particularly business programs are emphasizing responsibilities and obligations at the international level both in theory and in practice. Meanwhile, some government agencies are paying closer attention to the international needs of the U.S. business community. The U.S. Department of State offers training and instruction in business-government relations to domestic firms.
Newly emerging economies also accelerate the process of rising public attention. For instance, electronic commerce has made it more feasible to reach out to the global business community, whether a firm is large or small. International events can lend a new focus to business. In 2018, Alibaba generated US$30.69 billion in sales on Double Eleven or November 11th, which is known as a day of special promotions, and now includes a large share of international sales. Related industries and supply chains, such as transportation and logistics, are prospering with the growing volume of international trade as well.
In effect, U.S. corporate interests given to international markets both as an opportunity find both customers and suppliers to be growing. How can the U.S. maintain a sustainable competitive position? How can the managers further learn from what used to be former students? The need and demand for international marketing expertise can be expected to rise substantially. Overall, avoiding ignorance is the first step to becoming wiser.
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 Shiying Wang (sw1115@georgetown.edu) of McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University contributed to this commentary.

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2019/01/the-ignorant-wise-man.html

Package from China: Who pays the freight?

Michael R. Czinkota


Running a small business which ships low weight merchandise, say 10 T-shirts or small hardware from China to the United States, made logistics cost easy. The U.S. provided for a large shipping discount of 40% to 70%.


Such generosity came from U.S. membership in the Universal Postal Union (UPU). Founded in 1874, the UPU is the international postal organization in Switzerland, committed to a smoothly running international postal system.

In 1969, the UPU’s developed country members implemented discounts for poor nations when shipping small parcels. China then was isolated with few outward shipments. In consequence, consumers in Washington, the shipping cost of a face cream was more affordable from China than from Los Angeles. Today, however, China delivers more than one billion small packages a year to the U.S. and the special discount treatment continued.

Then there came change. The Trump administration announced U.S. withdrawal from the UPU as of October 17, 2018. The objective was to arrive at competitive and fair global shipping rates. This move showed the Trump Administration’s willingness to leave quit multilateral agreements judged unfavorable to U.S. interests. Although the UPU withdrawal process takes one year, U.S. deep discounts for Chinese packages ended immediately.
Now China Post has introduced a new Express Mail Service. It raised the price of packages to the U.S. from $ 30 to $34 for the first 0.5kilogram shipped. Who pays, who benefits?
The United States Postal Service (USPS) can use higher payments from China. But transshipments through other nations and competition will lead to reduced shipping volume.

The price advantage of many Chinese e-commerce vendors declines. Higher cost of shipping reduces this advantage even further. Most endangered are eBay type international vendors. Sellers who compete on price alone face higher cost and more competition. To survive it will become new practice to find alternatives for product and service delivery both for processes as well as markets.

Adjusting the rules for new conditions makes sense. Few parameters conditions have remained static for 144 years. The UPU should get ready for a significant restructuring. What applies to China, the U.S., and other relationships, applies to other nations as well. One should expect further exploration of antiquated subsidies which have been bypassed by new market conditions. Such tracking can identify new opportunities for change and innovation.

De-subsidization will create market alternatives based on new forms of delivery. Such adjustments will be cost analyzed and competitively compared to achieve higher efficiency. Legislators and internationally active framers of distance trade, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization can use this opportunity to pinpoint, develop and scale up models which reflect transport cost sensitive sectors and practices. In addition to greater accuracy and fairness, the President’s initiative for higher prices can lead to higher capabilities, more efficiencies and better services. A good start!

Professor Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University and the University of Kent. His latest book is ‘In Search For The Soul Of International Business (Businessexpertpress.com) 2018

Visit From Mr.Barry Rhoads

It was a great pleasure to have Mr. Barry Rhoads, the Chairman of Cassidy & Associates – the largest lobbying firm in Washington — return to my seminar. He gave an overview of US trade and the exposure of importers under the trade policy of the Trump administration. As to be expected – an excellent and in-depth analysis, accompanied by forecasts of the 2018 midterm elections.