|  Competing for Failure or for Growth?
-
Cletus Olebune
courtesy of nel-mag.org
The essence of globalization is competition to develop, as countries create strategies and structures to raise their standard of living. To this end, it is the government that provides the structural environmental momentum advantageous for companies’ competition. Contending for market share in the global economy, countries have to develop structural strategies for economic political stability and economic growth in an effort to competing for growth. Countries that do not understand this will be competing internally (internal political, groups, and ethnic in-fights) for failure.
Global economic competition is putting countries on an alert mode. U.S. President, George W. Bush in his 2006 State of the Union Address stressed the importance of preparing U.S. to compete; saying, “preparing our nation to compete is a goal that all of us can share.” In April 2007 both houses of U.S. Congress passed bills designed to ensure that U.S. remains competitive in an increasingly global market by boosting funding for math and science research. The President’s American Competitiveness Initiative, which focuses on improving U.S. science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education and basic research is in line with the U.S. structural strategic plan for the U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. The U.S. House acted first by passing a pair of bills on April 24 that are part of the Democrat’s Innovation Agenda.
One of the bills (H.R. 362) specifically targets improving the quality of STEM teachers by providing in-service training and expanding programs to encourage students to teach in this area. The other bill (H.R. 363) directs NSF and the Department of Energy to support early-career researchers and establishes a presidential innovation award to stimulate scientific and engineering advances in areas of national interest. For its part, the U.S. Senate passed a bill (S. 761) on April 25 that would raise the budgets of key science-and math-related federal agencies such as NSF and DOE. The Senate bill would also increase support for STEM education programs. The U.S. Administration has voiced its general support of all three measures, but it has raised concerns about the cost and the priorities contained in the legislation.
No day goes by without the mention of China’s or India’s economic growth in the U.S. media. In a recent article in the New York Times of Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Thomas L Friedman’s column was entitled “Laughing and Crying.” He wrote about attending 2007 commencement at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and observing that an overwhelming number of Ph.D.s in physics went Chinese students. Friedman argued that instead of making it difficult for such students to remain in the U.S. after they graduate, as is now the case, we should be encouraging them to stay. “I think any foreign student who gets a Ph.D. in our country—in any subject—should be offered citizenship,” he wrote. “I want them. The idea that we actually make it difficult for them to stay is crazy.”
The situation in chemistry, biochemistry, and other science related subjects are no different from that in physics. Fewer American natives are receiving Ph.D.s in science subjects. America is losing highly trained science professionals who did their graduate work in the U.S. 10 or 15 years ago, stayed in the U.S., worked in drug discovery, put down roots, and often became U.S. citizens. They are going back to China, where they are helping advance drug discovery to world-class status and making their fortunes in the bargain. These Chinese are called “returnees.” As one Chinese entrepreneur in the drug discovery industry put it, “the sense of achievement, of pride, I have here at my company, I could never have had it in the U.S. I could never have had a chance to see the sky in the U.S. I can have so much more impact back here in China bringing my ability and knowledge of the West to my company.” The interesting part of the Chinese “returnees” is that most receive salaries about 60% less that they will be paid in U.S. but comfortable enough to maintain excellent standard of living in China. A Chinese business partner of mine is a typical example, Chen has never been happier in his life since I met him over six years ago. With a business plan, which we both developed, he was able to receive financing from Chinese investors for entrepreneurial idea we shared. The investor’s number one request is that the business be located in China, even if it plans to sell in the global market, specifically, the U.S.
The U.S. policy makers understand this situation, hence the proposed shift in their new immigration rule to use education as basis of new immigrant admission. As Yar’Adua assumed the mantle of Nigerian Presidency, he should not forget his first address—Scientist/Science Teacher. He is more in a position (I should think) to understand the role science, math, and engineering play in the economic growth of a nation. This understanding should be the knowledge he needs to fully support policies that boost science and math education. Those who subscribe to Nigerian Entrepreneurial Leadership newsletter quarterly print edition, you will have the opportunity to read my articles on the section “The Business of Science & Technology.” Topics include: Nuclear Energy, in the Spring 2007 issue; Technology Transfer, in the Summer 2007 issue; and Science Education—Supporting Science, in the upcoming Fall 2007 issue.
Clearly, for developed nations, there is economic unity in diversity for growth, and global competitiveness, while in most developing or underdeveloped nations, internal political/ethnic competition/rivalry is creating disunity in diversity for economic failure. Successful global competition can be achieved only in unity in diversity, with the understanding that NO society in homogenous—societies comprises of people of unlike minds.
Unity in diversity is the key to collective success in the global economic competition.
As Nigerians welcome the new administration of Yar’Adua, every effort must be made to strengthen those institutions such as NEEDS (National Economic Empowerment & Development Strategy) for Nigeria’s global competition. While NEEDS is an umbrella strategy, new strategies for economic development should be initiated, explicitly—carefully formulated, or implicitly—loosely collected goals and policies. Just as it is true with for companies, strategies without organizational structure to implement those strategies are useless. And, I am yet to see a successful structural economic strategy in an environment that lacks political structure—democratic, autocratic, or Communist. In the same thinking, I have not seen companies that developed one department while neglecting other departments, and claim to be generally successful. Also of critical importance are the institutional structures—the banking, court systems, police and military, and the rule of law—property rights.
Now, for Nigeria, it is either we are competing for growth or for failure. The understanding that Nigeria is not a homogenous society will go a long way in building a new vision for the New Nigeria. We can’t succeed if we continue to operate as if we belong to a different club. But you know what? This is the challenge for all Nigerians (home or abroad). We need a model to reconcile our differences and conflicts. If we are going to be faithful in our efforts to find unity in diversity and effectively compete successfully in the global economy, each Nigerian needs to be a leader to step forward and make his or her very best contribution because this is a new day for Nigeria (democratic political structure). As long as we are moving from one democratic administration to the next, with new ideas and solutions in economic policies, we will get to be able to compete using all the competitive advantages (human & natural resources) that we posses. But if we operate in isolations, non-inclusiveness, as if we belong to a different club, then we may be economic failures together—north, south, east, or west.
In my own humble understanding, every nation’s economic vision remains the same—raising standard of living; strategies and structures may differ, depending on what works best for the environment. But, all in all, it comes down to developing strategy, structure resources, and the efficient usage of these resources in an effort to creating a competitive advantage through proper policy adoptions. We need to revisit our economic vision. Look at our past strategies and successes, take stock of what is going well and decide what needs to go forward. But the beginning is to celebrate what we have accomplished, and work for unity in diversity to compete for economic growth. Anything short of this mindset is a welcome for economic failure.
Cletus E. Olebunne
Executive Director
NEL.
June
2007
Please visit nel-m.org to learn more about Nigerian Entrepreneurial Leadership, and its activities. Every month we’ll send out our e-mail newsletter with a note from Cletus, the latest updates from the organization, and profiles of other NEL leaders. If at anytime you’d like us to remove you from our mailing list, simply send us an email with the subject: Remove. Also, those who made financial contributions to nel-m.org will receive a quarterly financial updates
Together we can build a nation where its economic strength is comparable to its individual citizen's capabilities. A 2020 Nigeria economy where manufacturing is the driving force. We are always glad to hear from you.
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR:
Cletus E. Olebunne, Is the Executive Director of Nigerian Entrepreneurial Leadership (www.nel-m.org ) An accomplished scientist, and entrepreneur in the global healthcare product distribution. He is the founder of Eastern Pharmaceuticals (www.easternpharmaceuticals.com), a global distributor of healthcare products based in New Jersey. An active member of Regulatory Affairs Professional Society (RAPS), the global pharmaceutical regulatory body, the American Chemical Society, and the American Management Association (AMA).
The NEL organization seeks to:
1 Support and promote a community of entrepreneurs
2 Promote public understanding of manufacturing entrepreneurship
3 Promote and enhance the role models that reflect the ideals of manufacturing entrepreneurship
4 Be the source for information about best practices in business leadership.
|
|
|
