2024年3月29日星期五
 
專家論市
Martin Hennecke
Sam Porteous
A noted risk management specialist based in Shanghai sporteous@navigantconsulting.com
"From Hong Kong to Washington, banks, retirees, automakers and investors, the very rich and the very poor are all clamoring for their piece of the bailout pie."

Duty to rescue
23/02/2009


From Hong Kong to Washington, banks, retirees, automakers and investors, the very rich and the very poor are all clamoring for their piece of the bailout pie.

As a result, governments around the world are struggling with a fundamental question !X who to rescue and why? Or more precisely given limited resources !X who do they have a duty to rescue?

The deceptively simple answer is their citizens; both corporate and individual. However, while the answer may appear simple the implications of these massive bailouts and the potential resurgence in the value of citizenship they entail, both corporate and individual, have yet to be fully thought out.

In an era of ever increasing globalization it is unclear whether this burst of government activism and associated bailouts represent a resurgence in the value of citizenship in the Western democracies or its last gasp.

The response to the question above will inevitably vary from country to country and ultimately be determined by how ably and equitably each government is judged to have dealt with the problem.

This was certainly not the way things were supposed to turn out. The standard wisdom was the governments of the Western democracies were becoming less important as world economies became more integrated, fading governments got smaller and corporations got global.

In the not too distant past the question "who is my neighbor?" and thus entitled to my assistance, moved from a question of clan and proximity to common citizenship. The implication was that individuals have an obligation to assist their fellow countrymen.

However, in recennt years the side effects of globalization including increasing income disparities within Western countries strained these beliefs.

The almost explicit understanding that existed in the Western democracies emerging from the shared sacrifice of World War II that holding citizenship in these countries "guaranteed" a certain shared standard of living and quality of life began to unravel.

The ongoing debate over executive compensation and the emotion it evokes is just one element of this.

As Western governments declined in power and influence, they were able to offer less and less to those who number among their "members" or citizens.

The fraying at the edges of the concept of citizenship and its entitlements could be seen in places like California where the pressures of illegal migration on the near bankrupt state government brought calls for new immigration laws.

These proposed laws would deny US citizenship to children born of illegals and drastically reduce their access to government services such as medical care.

American states are not unique in facing these pressures. Around the world a growing tidal wave of refugees seeking a better future is building.

In this environment, necessity is formulating a harsh equation - either individual citizenship comes with few entitlements and is available to many or it comes with substantial entitlements and is available to a few. (Just ask any refugee about the meager entitlements accruing to a "citizen of the world.")

So for individuals, even today, citizenship does matter and many are willing to risk their lives to change theirs.

And it is not just individuals who need to be concerned about the quality of the citizenship they carry and the balance of entitlements, rights, responsibilities and duties it confers.

These days corporate citizens can make claims for government support and "rescues" but they must in turn open themselves up to scrutiny regarding just how good a corporate citizen of their home country they are in terms of local job creation and investment.

In just one example, executives of the Big Three US automakers seeking their part of the bailout are now being forced to answer questions about investments overseas and whether their corporate interests are really aligned with those of American citizens.

It may not be good economics but it is good politics and just a taste of what is to come as more and more multinationals dust off their good citizenship medals and line up before home governments seeking aid.

The same nervous economic nationalism that fuels this behavior also encourages those who support "buy America" policies and similar local procurement initiatives designed to limit the benefits of stimulus programs, to the extent possible, to the economies generating the stimulus. In the current environment governments are wary of being seen to play too good a Samaritan to the waylaid global economy.

All this, however, may only amount to a temporary surge in the significance of both personal and corporate citizenship in the Western democracies.

Particularly, if the much desired loans and bailouts are simply being funded by money borrowed from citizens and governments to come.

Unless these vast sums are invested with an eye to building a base for recovery and growth the ultimate result will simply further devalue the currency of citizenship in the Western democracies saddling future generations with a level of debt that will render the value of shared citizenship in these countries a burden rather than an asset and a privilege.

One hopes Western governments invest wisely. Failed banks are much easier to salvage than failed states.

 


其他文章:
>> Duty to rescue - 23/02/2009
Brain trust of Dalian - 17/09/2007
In-house actions - 13/08/2007
Potent mix - 30/07/2007
Protecting brand China - 09/07/2007
Coming out clean - 18/06/2007
End of a honeymoon - 14/05/2007
Wheat from the chaff - 16/04/2007
Smartening up - 26/03/2007
Tycoon tales - 05/03/2007

其他專家
 
登入名稱
密碼
新用戶注冊   忘記密碼
進階搜尋
© 2024 The Standard, The Standard Newspapers Publishing Ltd.
Home | Business | Metro | Focus | Opinion | Markets | World | Sports | Entertainment | Monday Money | Property | Macau | Weekend