The Impact of Hi Tech in Latin America

Luis A. Moreno: At the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Panama City, business and government leaders will discuss the economic challenges facing the Western Hemisphere, especially how to support inclusive growth in the wake of the commodities bonanza that endured for the better part of the last decade. Any strategy will have to account for an inescapable global phenomenon: the so-called “Second Machine Age.”

The MIT economists Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, among others, identify the Second Machine Age with the rise of new automation technologies and artificial intelligence. While optimists predict that these innovations will usher in an era of unprecedented abundance, less sanguine analysts estimate that nearly half of all jobs currently performed by humans are vulnerable to replacement by robots and increasingly sophisticated software.

Advanced technologies are already making inroads into some of Latin America’s principal industries. For example, carmakers, which employ hundreds of thousands of people across the region, are rapidly deploying robots that are more efficient and precise than humans. I

Service industries, which already account for two-thirds of all jobs in Latin America, are particularly vulnerable. One Brazilian startup’s tax-management software, for example, can perform in seconds operations that would demand thousands of billable hours from an army of accountants.

Is Latin America ready for this epochal change?

Most notably, Latin American and Caribbean economies must address their productivity gap – the result of their failure, with few exceptions, to boost productivity significantly since the 1960s. As they adjust to lower prices for oil, metals, and grain – and the eventual upturn in global interest rates – they will have to pursue productivity-enhancing reforms. Ensuring that the region’s already-skewed income distribution does not worsen – and, indeed, improves – is also essential.

The good news is that Latin America’s agendas for technology, productivity, and inclusivity overlap; for example, improvements in education and the encouragement of formal employment advance all three objectives.

First, companies can boost their own human capital by providing on-the-job training – a proven tactic that remains rare in Latin America. Here, there has been some progress.

Second, Latin American companies should increase their investment in research and development.

Latin American businesses can change this by emulating their counterparts in the Brazilian state of São Paulo, which have research contracts with leading public universities. Such links, common throughout North America, have helped to lift São Paulo’s R&D spending to 1.6% of GDP – higher than that of Spain or Italy.

Third, Latin American companies can help to improve education – often much faster than the government can implement effective reforms. In Peru, one businessman took matters into his own hands, commissioning the creation of an entirely new education model. Four years later, Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor has established 23 Innova schools, serving 13,500 students, where teachers’ knowledge and skills are continuously updated. He hopes to build a 200-school network in the coming years.

Finally, Latin American business leaders should support budding entrepreneurs, who lack not only the capital, but also the support system needed to turn their ideas into viable ventures.

Von Ahn, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in the United States, has already sold one innovative company to Google. That company, reCAPTCHA, harnesses CAPTCHAs to have people decode a word from, say, a newspaper article that a computer scanner has been unable to recognize and digitize.

Latin America cannot afford to lose gifted innovators like von Ahn. It is in the interest of established business leaders to help mentor and finance these visionaries, enabling them to flourish at home so that they do not set up shop abroad.

Impact of Technology in Latin America

 

Renewable Energy Makes Economic Sense?

Klaus Topfer writes:  A silent revolution is under way. In November, Dubai announced the construction of a solar energy park that will produce electricity for less than $0.06 per kilowatt-hour – undercutting the cost of the alternative investment option, a gas or coal-fired power plant.

The plant – which is expected to be operational in 2017 – is yet another harbinger of a future in which renewable energy crowds out conventional fossil fuels. Indeed, hardly a week seems to pass without news of a major deal to construct a solar power plant. In February alone, there were announcements of new solar power projects in Nigeria (1,000 megawatts), Australia (2,000 MW), and India (10,000 MW).

There can be no doubting that these developments are good for the fight against climate change. But the major consideration driving them is profit, not the environment, as increased efficiency in energy distribution and, where necessary, storage, reduces the cost of producing renewable energy.

As efforts to improve the management of electricity from fluctuating sources yield further advances, the cost of solar power will continue to fall. Within ten years, it will be produced in many regions around the globe for 4-6 cents per kilowatt-hour.  By 2050, production costs will fall to 2-4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

We should not underestimate the tremendous potential the sun and wind have for building global wealth and fighting poverty. As solar power becomes increasingly cost-effective, countries located within the planet’s sun belt could develop entirely new business models as cheap, clean energy enables them to process their raw materials locally, adding value – and profit – prior to export.

Unlike large-scale conventional power plants, solar installations can be built in months; in addition to being cost-effective, they provide a quick means of responding to growing global demand.

Solar power plants thus could play the same role for energy that mobile phones did for telecommunications: rapidly reaching large, underserved communities in sparsely populated regions, without the need to invest in the cables and accompanying infrastructure that once would have been necessary. In Africa, 66% of the population has gained access to electronic communications since 2000. There is no reason why solar power could not do likewise for access to electricity.

The time to invest in large-scale solar energy production is now. For starters, construction costs for solar power plants are finally low enough to produce electricity at a competitive, stable price for more than 25 years. The price of oil may have plunged for now, but it will rise again. Solar power plants provide insurance against fossil fuels’ inherent price volatility.

Even more important, the cost of capital currently is very low in many countries. This is a decisive factor for the economic viability of solar power plants, because they need very little maintenance but require relatively high upfront investment. The Fraunhofer study shows that differences in capital expenditure are as important for costs per kilowatt-hour as differences in sunlight. Solar power is currently cheaper in cloudy Germany than in sunny regions where the cost of borrowing is higher.

The amount of sunlight that shines on a country is impossible to change. But the cost of capital is something over which a country can maintain a certain amount of control.

Factors like these explain why international climate policies increasingly focus not only on solar power, but on other forms of renewable energy as well. Technological breakthroughs have boosted these energy sources’ competitiveness relative to fossil fuels. As a result, instruments that make their adoption more affordable are becoming some of the most important weapons we have in the fight against climate change.

What Kind of Bank Helps?

Kenneth Rogoff writes: With China set to lead a new $50 billion international financial institution, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), most of the debate has centered on the United States’ futile efforts to discourage other advanced economies from joining. Far too little attention has been devoted to understanding why multilateral development lending has so often failed, and what might be done to make it work better.

Multilateral development institutions have probably had their most consistent success when they serve as “knowledge” banks, helping to share experience, best practices, and technical knowledge across regions. By contrast, their greatest failures have come from funding grandiose projects that benefit the current elite, but do not properly balance environmental, social, and development priorities.

Dam construction is a leading historical example. In general, there is a tendency to overestimate the economic benefits of big infrastructure projects in countries riddled by poor governance and corruption, and to underestimate the long-run social costs of having to repay loans whether or not promised revenues materialize. Obviously, the AIIB runs this risk.    What Kind of Bank Helps and How

China and Infrastructure?

 

 

Are the Biggest Cities Losing Their Lure?

HSBC to Birmingham.  Are the biggest cities losing their lure?  The headquarters of the personal and business arm of HSBC will be moved from London to Birmingham.

HSBC said that Birmingham had the expertise and infrastructure to support the bank.  The bank is in “advanced negotiations” for a 250-year lease in the city centre enterprise zone.  Deutsche Bank has already said it was moving trading operations here.

Is Nuclear Power the Answer?

Keith Johnson writes:  Four years after the meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power station paralyzed the sector, nuclear energy is again gearing up globally for what appears to be a long-awaited renaissance.

But while nuclear power’s rebirth from China to Argentina is driven by the imperative of finding clean and reliable power, it must still overcome a host of obstacles, including lingering concerns over safety, lousy economics, and growing worries about the risks of nuclear proliferation. And all of that could strangle the latest nuclear rebound before it really gets started.  “Right now, the nuclear renaissance is happening, and it’s happening in East Asia,” said Geoffrey Rothwell, principal economist at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris. Asia alone could invest as much as three- quarters of a trillion dollars in new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years as the region seeks to meet growing energy demand while grappling with rising concerns about pollution.

Nuclear power’s development hit the pause button everywhere after the March 2011 accident at Fukushima, which led to the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and the idling of Japan’s entire nuclear fleet. Indeed, some countries, such as Germany, swore off nuclear power altogether after the accident. Others, such as Belgium, Sweden, and Switzerland, plan to phase out nuclear energy when their current reactor fleets retire.
But Japan is moving closer to restarting its first reactor since the accident, with plans to fire up the Sendai plant in the country’s southwest this summer; another 15 reactors await approval to restart.  Nuclear Power

Is Nuclear Power the Answer?

Should Nigeria Follow in Dubai’s Steps?

As Barakat Akinsiku writes: As Nigerians prepare for a presidential election amid a Boko Haran a nsurgency, the question remains: What about the economy? With falling oil prices, a depreciating foreign reserve and a plunge in the value of the naira, Nigeria econoimic future is uncertain.   Whoever emerges victorious from the polls on March 28 will have his work cut out for him.

With 174 million people, Nigeria has one of the worst poverty levels in the world, At least 61% of the population survive on less than a dollar a day, and this was during a period of economic boom when crude oil averaged about $120 a barrel, far beyond the country’s budget benchmark.

While the gains of the oil boom were reportedly stashed in Nigeria’s foreign reserve and Excess Crude Account, most of the funds have since been frittered away. Electricity is almost non-existent, with a measly 4,500 megawatts generated for the population; refined crude is still being imported in a nation that is a major exporter of crude oil. Unemployment is at an all-time high, and virtually nothing works. Nigeria is about to feel the full brunt of a recession.

Other countries have experienced economic challenges like Nigeria’s.  As one of the seven emirates making up the UAE, Dubai has been through its own economic boom and bust. It is now a world destination for tourism, a center of commerce and a model for major oil exporters seeking to diversify their economy.

Like Nigeria, Dubai wasn’t always so savvy in economic principles. In the 1900s, the main stay of the Dubai economy was pearl trading and pearl diving. However, following the emergence of artificial pearls from Japan in the late 1920s and the Great Depression of 1929, Dubai’s economy took a downward spiral.

A parallel can be drawn here with the current situation in Nigeria. Not only has the country lost a major customer for its crude oil in the United States, but Nigeria also has to face stiff competition and price wars from the Arabian Peninsula in the battle for market share. While the robust economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council allow them to offer discounts to Asian buyers even in the face of dwindling oil prices, such tactics do not come easily for Nigeria. As it stands, Nigeria faces problems financing its 2015 budget, while the naira is losing value.

Just like pearl divers in Dubai learned to cast their nets for fish rather than jump in for pearls, Nigeria would be wise to seek other sources of revenue while the oil market gains some form of stability.

What makes the emirate worthy of emulation is that despite being in a region bedeviled with crises and an arid landscape, Dubai has gone from being a desert to a world-class state, dazzling and ambitious in development.

Nigeria’s biggest problem is corruption.  Nigerians have remained poor while oil wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

The absence of constant electricity has been a major impeding factor to an industrial revolution in Nigeria, and successive governments seem to have no idea how to change the trend. When oil was discovered in 1966, Dubai’s leaders chose to quickly use the receipts from oil rent to finance mass infrastructure, building large ports and 5-star hotels that would one day make the emirate a major trading hub and tourist destination.

So, as harsh economic realities beckon, it is time for Nigeria to overhaul its corrupt institutions, revamp its educational system, invest in critical infrastructure and perhaps revisit the cocoa plantations and groundnut pyramids the country was once known for.

 Corruption in Nigeria

 

Are Long Term Bonds the Answer to Necessary Investments?

Barry Ritholtz writes:  Every once in a while, there is a way to resolve a host of problems that is so obvious it gets overlooked.

With that in mind, let’s have a look at four big problems: crumbling U.S. infrastructure; federal budget deficits;  normalizing U.S. monetary policy; and the shortage of investment-grade debt.

There is a single solution to all of them: Issue more long bonds, preferably 30- to 50- year securities.

Any rational, intelligent and prudent person would of course take advantage of prevailing ultralow rates to refinance this financial obligation. It’s fiscally conservative, it will save trillions of dollars, and it will allow the U.S. deficit to get paid down that much faster.

The main obstacle is the U.S. Congress, a collection of preening peacocks who really don’t care about the deficit.

How do we know this? Have a quick look at their past votes. Look at how they voted for unfunded tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Tally their votes for an expensive war of choice in Iraq. Look at how they cast their votes for unfunded entitlements such as Medicare Part D. These votes reveal that most of the people currently complaining about the deficit have no interest in reducing it. They are merely using the deficit as a tool to pursue their partisan ideology.

You can do this with any issue — from Barack Obama’s stimulus plan in 2009 to George W. Bush’s Medicare Part D.

Placing political party over country is standard operating procedure; it is unacceptable.

There is a widespread belief that the Fed can achieve the same result by simply selling the $4.18 billion  fixed-income securities on its balance sheet. But that would be potentially disruptive, possibly causing an economy-crushing spike in rates. The more prudent approach is to simply let those holdings — with an average duration of about seven-years — run off as they mature. That would be the least disruptive method for the Fed to unwind the bond purchases stemming from its program of quantitative easing.Hence, we see that a variety of serious issues can be resolved by simply refinancing the country’s debt, issuing more paper and maintaining and rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure.

US Infrastructure

 

 

India’s Infrastructure

Shahi Tharoo writes: In the days of the British Raj, when the railway budget rivaled that of the rest of the Indian government, the Parliament listened rapt to railway detials. Railway revenues today, at $23 billion, no longer dwarf the country’s budget, which now stands at some $268 billion. But India’s railways still produce other mind-boggling figures: 23 million passengers are transported daily (over eight billion per year, more than the world’s entire population) on 12,617 trains connecting 7,172 stations across a 65,000-kilometer (40,000-mile) network. And, with 1.31 million employees, the railways are the country’s biggest enterprise.

India’s trains carry four times the number of passengers as China’s, despite covering only half as many kilometers, but still lose about $7 billion annually.  A succession of railway ministers, viewing the trains as poor people’s only affordable means of transport, have refused to raise passenger fares, squeezing freight instead. This has proved popular with voters but disastrous for the country.

Though freight transport still accounts for 67% of railway revenues, with 2.65 million tons carried every day, the higher fares needed to subsidize passengers have deterred shippers. As a result, the share of freight carried across India by rail has declined from 89% in 1950-1951 to 31% today.

Instead, an increasing volume of goods is shipped by road, choking India’s narrow highways and spewing toxic pollutants into the country’s increasingly unbreathable air.

Making matters worse, politicians have continued to add trains to please various constituencies – but without adding track. Indeed, owing to land constraints, India has laid only 12,000 kilometers of rail track since independence in 1947, adding to the 53,000 left behind by the British. As a result, several lines are operating beyond their capacity, creating long delays.

But perhaps the biggest problem is how dangerous the railways are. Aging rails, tired coaches, old-fashioned signals, and level crossings dating back to the nineteenth century combine with human error to take dozens of lives every year.

Yet the railway ministers continue to insist on their populist approach. With the government losing $4.5 billion every year by subsidizing passenger fares, it has little money to spend on upgrading infrastructure, improving safety standards, or speeding up the trains. As a result, the railways run out of money before running out of plans. In the last 30 years, only 317 of 676 projects sanctioned by Parliament have been completed, and it is difficult to imagine how the railways will acquire the estimated $30 billion needed to complete the remaining 359 projects.

A technocratic new railway minister, Suresh Prabhu, has once again left passenger fares untouched and raised freight rates. Though, unlike his predecessors, he has resisted the temptation to announce any new trains, his plans for India’s railways remain inadequate.

Prabhu’s most impressive promise – to raise $140 billion from market lenders – is also his most problematic, as he has failed to clarify how exactly the railways would repay the loans. Given how high interest rates would have to be to attract investors, this will be no easy feat.

It is far from clear how Prabhu’s grand vision of a safer, cleaner, and speedier Indian railway system will be achieved in practice. The railway minister has created a dream budget –though “pipe dream” might be a more accurate description.

India's Railways

A New Asset Class for Infrastructure? Buy and Hold Equity

Justin Lin, Kevin Lu, and Clean Mandri-Perrott write: Infrastructure projects can be among the most productive investments a society can make, with clear links to a country’s economic growth.  Infrastructure projects can offer reliable – if lower-than-average – returns. But existing asset classes all too often fail to provide the structure needed for these projects to compete with traditional equity or debt.

Exactly, how can the world harness the potential of private money for infrastructure?

The size of the pie is huge, and so are the opportunities for private investors. The pipeline for infrastructure projects in emerging markets is estimated to have surpassed $1 trillion – $150 billion of which is expected to be raised from private sources. In mature markets, infrastructure investment is projected to reach $4 trillion by 2017.

Our analysis of investment deals over the past 18 months shows that public-private partnerships increasingly rely on capital markets to source funds, even as banks rein in lending in order to comply with the regulatory provisions of the Third Basel Accord. Liquidity remains limited in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the legacy of which includes a regulatory regime that is not conducive to long-term investment. Though financing for public infrastructure has returned to 2008 levels, little of it is being funneled into new projects. Most funds have targeted existing infrastructure – investments that are considered relatively safe, because they entail little or no construction risk and have demonstrated their potential to generate stable cash revenues.

In order to overcome the obstacles to investment, we propose the creation of an asset class that we call “buy-and-hold equity” (BHE). This asset class would sit between traditional equity and debt, with investors able to hold it for 15 years or longer. It would offer returns close to those yielded by equity investments, but with some of the risk offset by its long-term nature.

Risk would be further mitigated through the participation of large, influential investors, including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and possibly international financial institutions. Public contributions, likely backstopped by multilateral lenders, would provide projects with something close to sovereign risk profiles. Finally, the regulated nature of cash flows would allow for better pre-defined return structures than traditional private or public equity can offer.

The development of BHE would require a new private-sector investment platform, structured to provide bespoke returns for its different participants. The private sector would bring in infrastructure investment expertise, while sovereign funds and international financial institutions would provide the bulk of the capital and stability. Naturally, the platform would focus on projects with defined cash flows and contractual terms guaranteed for 20-30 years.

Not all infrastructure projects will be appropriate for this new asset class. Those best suited will be physical assets that are irreplaceable or core to a country’s economy.

Ideally, the investment platform would create a sustained project pipeline by establishing a private-sector-funded structure that does not solely rely on governments or international financial institutions to bring ventures to the market. The platform would act not only as an investment vehicle, but also as a project initiator, mining opportunities around the world and identifying and classifying them according to a systematic approach. Both greenfield and brownfield developments would be considered.

The platform would provide its own capital, as well as any technical, operational, and managerial expertise required to classify projects according to risk, thereby enabling the creation of indices that investors could monitor and study. For projects judged to be secure, the platform could act as a catalyst for long-term investments typical of institutional investors and pension funds.

Designed properly, a new BHE asset class for private and public infrastructure could unleash the power of the market in the interest of the public good. Given fiscal and other constraints on governments’ capacity, it is an asset well worth having.

Infrastructure Financing

A Case Against Austerity in the EU

Kemal Dervis writes: Over the last five years, the eurozone has, without explicit popular consent, maintained a strict policy focus on fiscal austerity and structural reforms – despite serious social repercussions, not only in the Mediterranean periphery and Ireland, but even in a “core” European Union country like France. Unless eurozone leaders rethink their approach, the radical Syriza party’s success in Greece’s recent general election could turn out to be just one more step toward a future of social fragmentation and political instability in Europe. Or it could mark the beginning of a realistic and beneficial re-orientation of Europe’s economic strategy.

Of course, fiscal sustainability is vital to prevent a disruptive debt refinancing and inspire confidence among investors and consumers. But there is no denying that it is much easier to support fiscal austerity when one is wealthy enough not to rely on public services or be at serious risk of becoming mired in long-term unemployment.

For the millions of workers – and especially young people – with no job prospects, fiscal sustainability simply cannot be the only priority. Austerity-induced suffering is particularly extreme in Greece. Severe pension cuts are preventing the elderly from living out their lives with dignity. A large burden has been placed on those who actually pay their taxes, while many – often the wealthiest, who long ago stashed their money abroad – continue to evade their obligations. Health care has lapsed, with many cancer patients losing access to life-saving treatment. Suicides are on the rise.

Yet Greece’s creditors have continued to ignore these developments. This is clearly not sustainable – a point that former Director of the International Monetary Fund’s Europe Department Reza Moghadam recognized when he recently called for writing off half of Greece’s debt, provided an agreement can be reached on credible growth-enhancing structural reforms.

Social sustainability is essential for long-term economic success. Regardless of what today’s corporate profit reports and stock indices may show, a country cannot achieve inclusive, sustainable success – in economic or human terms – if these fundamental social issues are not adequately addressed. Of course, fiscal caution cannot be abandoned; after all, if governments or the private sector were to spend borrowed or newly minted money freely, the result would simply be more crises, which would hurt the poor most. But social sustainability must be an integral part of a country’s economic program, not an afterthought.

The persistent tendency to pay lip service to social sustainability, while implementing economic programs focused on unrelenting austerity, is a leading cause of political instability in Europe. Though reform programs aimed at building viable macroeconomic frameworks remain essential, they must include strong provisions for countercyclical policies to offset the “paradox of thrift” (the tendency to save more during a recession, undermining economic growth). When aggregate demand falls short of aggregate supply, governments must increase public spending.

The European Commission and the IMF have admitted their errors – not only the inaccurate macroeconomic forecasts on which the Greek program was based, but also the decision not to account for social sustainability – and have acknowledged that the program has not produced the expected results. Yet, for some reason, Greece’s creditors refuse to negotiate with the new government (which enjoys strong domestic support) to develop a new program that incorporates debt relief, a lower fiscal surplus, and structural reforms that support growth and promote social cohesion. This must not continue.
The last five years have underscored the challenge of achieving financial stability. But political and social stability have proved to be even more elusive. Policymakers must direct just as much effort and resources toward realizing social sustainability as they do toward getting the Basel III financial reforms right. Europe’s future prosperity – and its global role – depends on it.

Austerity in the EU