[LINK] Offshoring Australia vs India

[Tim O'Leary]

At 12:36 PM Friday 30/01/2004 +1100, Roger Clarke wrote:
>"Chirgwin, Richard" <Richard.Chirgwin at informa.com.au>
>>Random thoughts, Linkers...
>>...
>>Australia, however, is not a developer but a consumer of IT. We get >only< a
>>short term, use-once benefit; and we do so at the cost of cutting our own
>>capability; and we don't get the payoff of stimulating our market...
>
>Porter wrote a book on 'International Competitive Advantage', which is on 
>my shelf, so I should have another look at it.
>
>He did it from a Harvard Business School, and therefore 'corporate 
>America' perspective.  It's quite interesting, as I recall.
>
>But has anyone ever seen a decent book on the topic, written from *other* 
>perspectives?


Michael Porter's book 'The Competitive Advantage of Nations' uses his 
frameworks developed for the firm (companies) within nations to look at 
competition and success in international trade. I would hold that it is 
possible to agree (largely) with Porter's analysis yet be opposed to many 
(most?) of the USA attempts at trade negotiations.  Most of my objections 
to the current USA vs Australia round of negotiations can be sustained by 
an economic argument. I'm not in favour of isolationist, mercantilist, 
protectionist etc stances against free trade.

The Nobel prize winning Economist Amartya K. Sen is one who offers an 
"economics of welfare or third world" plus a useful take on collectivism. I 
find his books and writings inspiring especially ones such as "Poverty and 
Famine: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation" and the more recent one on 
Globalisation / trade / development and the third world. (I forget its 
title). More about Sen ..http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sen.htm

Don't forget John Kenneth Galbraith. Having once been an Ambassador to 
India as well as an important economist hes not without some insights.

As I said before my main objections to USA trade negotiations are based on 
the fact the USA is not a *genuine* free trade supporter but mostly a 
supporter of concessions for USA. Sugar is a case in point - due to 
subsidies USA home grown sugar is about twice the price of landed Oz sugar. 
(also subsidised).

I think its SEN who makes the point that if USA allowed imports (of I think 
it is rice)  from Nigeria the benefit to Nigeria would exceed the value of 
ALL USA aid to Nigeria by a factor of 2 and without the market distorting, 
inefficient and corrupting effects of aid. (I might have my facts slightly 
wrong as I'm doing this of the top  of my head but its in SEN's book somewhere)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TIM O'LEARY
oleary at strategos.com.au
www.strategos.com.au