How U.S. State Governments Can Help Small and Mid-sized Firms Become Exporters

This is co-authored with Jessica Lee, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and highlights our new report.

Out of all the companies in the United States, only 4 percent are exporters.

This statistic is surprising given the outsized role that exports played in helping the United States recover from the Great Recession. During the initial recovery period, nearly 40 percent of U.S. GDP growth came from exports.

Today, almost 80 percent of global purchasing power resides outside the United States. Rising global demand—especially in emerging markets, with their expanding middle-class consumer bases—has heightened U.S. firms’ interest in exporting.

Becoming an exporter requires investments of time and money. International marketing and sales, order fulfillment and distribution, and trade compliance all add up. Harder still can be securing longer-term loans and equity finance to fuel a company’s international growth. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—those employing fewer than 500 workers—the cost of entering new markets poses a sizable challenge. Without access to capital, many of these smaller firms forego lucrative export opportunities that would enable them to grow and create jobs in the United States.

SMEs typically have a harder time securing export financing than large firms do. Their smaller size and limited assets, along with elevated loan processing costs, make banks less interested in working with them. Meanwhile, most SMEs are unaware of the export financing programs offered by the Export-Import Bank, the Small Business Administration, and other institutions.

There is an opportunity for state governments to take steps to improve SMEs’ access to export financing. By incorporating export support into their broader economic development strategies, states can increase the number of exporters, which in turn will boost job creation and strengthen their metropolitan areas’ economies.

Our new brief—“Bridging Trade Finance Gaps: State-Led Innovations to Bolster Exports by Small and Medium-Sized Firms”—offers three complementary approaches that states can adopt in their efforts to address the SME export financing shortfall.

First, states can work to raise awareness among SMEs and financial institutions about existing federal and private instruments and sources of export financing. This action will encourage greater numbers of firms and banks to take advantage of proven solutions to the export finance challenge.

Second, states can offer additional financial instruments to help reduce SMEs’ barriers to exporting. Direct loans and loan guarantees, royalty-based financing, and accounts receivable financing, among other interventions, make it easier for potential SME exporters to expand into new markets. And in addition to compared to banks, Sstates can work with a broader set of actors—such as with factoring companies and equity funds—to meet theSME’s diverse export finance needs.

Third, states can set up new finance entities that provide direct export finance support exclusively targeted to SMEs. A state-level export-import bank—perhaps akin to the California Export Finance Office (CEFO), which offered a variety of guarantees for smaller export-related loans from its inception in 1985 until 2003, when state budget problems forced its closure— could be able to offer flexible, tailored solutions to the needs challenges facing these smaller firms.

State-level efforts are no replacement for federal programs like the Export-Import Bank, which plays a critical role in helping U.S. companies compete in the global marketplace. But state strategies can provide a much needed supplement to federal export finance programs by bridging the gaps in the current system. By implementing innovation solutions to the challenges facing potential and current SME exporters, states can help SMEs expand into new markets and bolster economic growth in the process.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Globalization Be Obama’s Greatest Foreign Policy Legacy?

This article appeared in Zocalo on 29 December 2014: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2014/12/29/will-globalization-be-obamas-greatest-foreign-policy-legacy/ideas/nexus

A President Who Came Into Office a Free Trade Skeptic Is Now on the Brink of Brokering Two Big Deals

Battered by crises and maligned by critics, globalization is regaining momentum. And this is good news for America’s global leadership. Negotiations for an ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal involving a dozen countries from Asia and the Americas are quietly nearing the finishing line. Another historic agreement, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, also shows signs of becoming a reality.

Not long ago, the idea that two landmark U.S.-centered trade deals could be the pillars of President Obama’s foreign policy legacy would have seemed laughable. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was a trade skeptic, painting deals like NAFTA as job-killers, which played well with unions weary of import surges from China. Once in office, however, Obama warmed to trade expansion as presidents tend to do, given the dependence of the American economy and jobs on exports and global supply chains. In 2010, Obama issued a call to double U.S. exports, with trade deals forming part of the package–only now they were described as “partnerships” that would open new markets to American businesses big and small, rather than “free trade agreements” associated, even if falsely, in the public’s mind with offshoring and job losses.

As an economist who has for years worked to advance free trade in both the public and private sector, I could not be more elated by the prospect that these major deals now look achievable. For more than a decade, ambitious global efforts to liberalize cross-border trade and investment had stalled. The promise of the Uruguay Round of negotiations, which in 1994 produced the crown jewel of the global trading system, the World Trade Organization, appeared to have been lost. The Doha Round–the multilateral talks that were supposed to expand on the Uruguay Round’s gains–have been going on for 13 years, with few tangible results because of disagreements between emerging markets such as Brazil and India (who resist opening their markets to foreign manufactured products and services) and the U.S. and Europe, which are reluctant to free their agricultural markets.

With any one of the WTO’s 160 member nations able to scuttle any global agreement, countries have turned to regional trade agreements or country-to-country pacts as alternatives. Since the United States, Canada, and Mexico launched the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) two decades ago, no fewer than 400 trade deals have been concluded or are under negotiation, coupling such players as Chile and China, Japan and Mexico, and the United States and Singapore, to name a few. Such deals are easier to get done than a universal WTO deal. They also tend to go deeper than WTO efforts, pioneering in the regulation of such matters as e-commerce, intellectual property, and state-owned enterprises. But for globalizing companies, they also create tremendous new complexity–a patchwork of rules and standards that differ from one market to the next.

The two trans-oceanic pacts that would link us to Asia and Europe, though, would resurrect the momentum for a more comprehensive global agreement. They would also deliver considerable economic benefits. The Trans-Pacific deal (TPP) will boost U.S. annual gains by $77 billion, and Japan’s by $104 billion. The TTIP deal, by integrating markets in the U.S. and the EU, would generate $130 billion annually in economic gains for the United States, and $162 billion for Europe. As such, it is estimated that TTIP will boost U.S. household incomes by $865 annually and create 750,000 new U.S. jobs, while TPP would generate about $1,230 per household by 2025–a great boost without a dime of deficit spending, and a strong bonus on top of the $10,000 annual income gains American households havealready scored due to post-war trade opening.

These trade deals, by locking in deeper access for American interests in overseas markets, could give U.S. companies the confidence needed to unlock their considerable cash holdings and invest in the production of more export goods and the hiring of more U.S. workers. While big business spearheads the trade lobby, “Main Street” small businesses stand to gain from greater access to foreign markets and the harmonizing of product standards and regulations across borders.

These new trans-oceanic deals, if achieved, would also make it costlier for nations who have opposed lowering barriers to stay their obstructionist course. The most cantankerous player in the global trading system, India, risks being left out. Ever pragmatic, China has become interested in joining TPP, in part as a means of counteracting the country’s economic slowdown and driving reforms of inefficient state-owned enterprises.

In our hemisphere, Brazil has not been interested in joining trade agreements, seeking leadership instead of its own dysfunctional Mercosur alternative. Its strategy stands in stark contrast to that of Mexico, which has forged free trade deals with partners covering some 90 percent of its trade, such as North America, the EU, and Japan. As a result, Mexico has emerged as a global manufacturing hub and anchor of Latin America’s Pacific Alliance bloc, which includes the more market-oriented nations of Colombia, Peru, and Chile. Brazil’s industrial lobbies, once champions of protectionist policies, now worry about the effect of high tariffs and about being left out of global supply chains, and have broken with the government to call for a reset of the nation’s trade policy

With the Ukraine crisis, the Israeli-Palestine imbroglio, and our messy departure from Iraq and Afghanistan all stunting Obama’s foreign policy achievements, the once stalemated issue of trade expansion now looks far more doable and desirable on the Obama administration’s menu of possible legacy options. To be sure, the White House is facing complicated talks with Congress over the trade promotion authority (TPA) needed to successfully negotiate a trade deal and get it through Congress. Such a legislative license to jumpstart globalization will likely be opposed, much like the recent budget agreement was in Washington, by both the left wing of the Democratic Party and the Tea Party right within the Republican Party. This may be yet another reason that a trade legacy looks appealing to President Obama: It will take a purple coalition to do the right thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Boost U.S. Small Business Lending? Look to the UK

The following piece by me ran today in Ideas Lab: http://www.ideaslaboratory.com/post/104665004574/boosting-small-business-lending-look-to-the-u-k

After a recent public consultation with the business community and financial services industry, the U.K. government has decided to enact a law that requires large lenders to share information with alternative and smaller lenders about small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs) whose credit applications have been rejected. The sharing of such information — which, in addition to loans, would cover factoring, asset-based lending and trade finance — would occur via online referral portals that help match the rejected SMEs to alternative lenders.

The legislation hits a market failure between the eyes: good, credit-worthy companies unable to access capital due to lack of information about best-fit alternative lenders. It matters: the largest four U.K. banks (Lloyds Banking Group, the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays) account for more 80 percent of U.K. SMEs’ main banking relationships. In the wake of the financial crisis, banks have typically tightened their underwriting criteria — yet most U.K. SMEs only approach their main bank for finance. An estimated 37 percent give up completely if they are turned down, and only 28 percent approached different providers — and 12 percent used an existing form of borrowing, such as credit cards.

Meanwhile, the U.K., just like the United States, has seen the rise of alternative lenders, such as peer-to-peer lending and crowdfunding platforms. The U.K. government reasons that when one door closes, another one opens; SMEs now only need to be handheld from the former to the latter.

The United States needs to follow suit. Pressed by regulatory heat, U.S. banks too are less interested in small business loans, and will be even more reticent as Basel III capital requirements go into effect in 2015. When asked to name the most severe obstacles to growth in a May 2013 survey by the Federal Reserve Board of New York, 49 percent of 670 surveyed SMEs listed access to capital as the leading challenge.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How Digital Protectionism Threatens to Derail 21st Century Businesses

The below piece appeared in Marsh & MacLennan’s BRINK on 3 December 2014: http://www.brinknews.com/how-digital-protectionism-threatens-to-derail-21st-century-businesses/

A decade ago, Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat popularized globalization as a process where Apple, Dell, IBM, and other giant corporations offshored manufacturing to low-cost economies, and outsourced parts and components from suppliers around the globe. China became the world’s factory, mass-producing computers, clothes, and gadgets for U.S. consumers. Southeast Asia prospered as China’s parts warehouse.

The flat world lens, however, is no longer prescient.

Disruptive digital technologies—the cloud and digitization, ecommerce, 3D printing, big data, holograms, Internet of Everything, and virtual currencies—are revolutionizing the economics of global trade and production. They are empowering corporations to dramatically cut costs and encouraging even the smallest of businesses to engage in trade. But the emerging global digital economy is at risk: It lacks the liberalizing policies of the Flat World. Rather, digital protectionism is on the rise. How to tackle it? Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Aid for eTrade – Accelerating the Global eCommerce Revolution

Some days ago I presented at CSIS a new paper, Aid for eTrade – Accelerating the Global eCommerce Revolution, that I wrote as CSIS Adjunct Fellow with the support of eBay.

The paper argues that a quiet revolution is taking place in international trade without government policy direction or much public fanfare: the rise of cross-border online trade as individuals and businesses of all sizes engage in trade by selling goods and services online. Lowering the costs for companies to trade across borders, ecommerce holds extraordinary potential for expanding global trade, promoting small business exports and entrepreneurship in the United States and around the world, and boosting export diversification and international development. Yet much of the world and most businesses are still not connected to the web. In addition, several of the countries that have relatively good information and communications technology (ICT) capabilities and Internet usage rates struggle to translate their connectedness into exports and economic gains. What is more, numerous new policy barriers to ecommerce and the global digital economy are cropping up, such as data protectionism.

The working paper proposes forward-looking policies and programs to overcome these challenges and accelerate developing nations’ transition to the digital era and ecommerce. Such policies and programs can be grouped under a coherent framework and initiative, “Aid for eTrade.” Aid for eTrade as proposed here is a close cousin of the global Aid for Trade initiative, which has over the past decade channeled more than $200 billion in bilateral and multilateral trade-related assistance to developing nations. Aid for eTrade has two main legs: (1) $100 billion in public and private investments in 2015-2020 in information technologies, computerization, e-training, and ecommerce-related logistics and capacity-building in developing countries; and (2) robust technical assistance for governments around the world to establish policies and regulatory frameworks conducive to unfettered cross-border ecommerce. While Aid for eTrade would most immediate benefit developing nations, it can also be a powerful catalyst of U.S. small business exports.

Link to event site is here; you can watch event video here:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

New Face of Globalization: Online Shoppers and Sellers

As the world economy digitizes, patterns and players in trade are changing. According to U.S. Census Bureau, the total online transactions in the U.S. grew from $3 trillion in 2006 to $5.4 trillion in 2012, to about a third of U.S. GDP. Increasingly, these transactions are cross-border. By 2017, a third of U.S. business-to-consumer (B2C) and consumer-to-consumer (C2C) ecommerce transactions will be with foreign counterparts, up from 16 percent today.

One driver of these trends are the previously marginal participants in trade – American small businesses, entrepreneurs, and consumers that transact with foreign sellers and consumers online. Ecommerce is propitious for these players: it drastically lowers the costs for buyers and sellers located far apart to gain visibility and transact with each other. But ecommerce is also driven by large companies that leverage ecommerce just like small companies do – as the key and even as the only means to access a foreign buyer. For example, Wal-mart has no stores in India, but does have an e-commerce presence shipping in goods from other countries to Indian customers.

Online trade enhances U.S. productivity and lowers international trade costs, accelerating economic growth and job-creation. In a conservative estimate by the U.S. International Trade Commission, domestic commerce and international trade conducted via the Internet – increased U.S. GDP by 3.4–4.8 percent in 2011, and U.S. real wages by 4.5-5 percent, and created up to 2.4 million new full-time jobs.

As hundreds of millions of individual consumers around the world leverage their laptops, tablets, and phones to buy goods and services online, U.S. companies of all sizes are more likely to be discovered by foreign buyers – and turned into exporters. Given the popularity of U.S. ecommerce sites, the rise in global online trade is likely poised to boost U.S. exports. A 2013 survey of individual cross-border online shoppers in the United States, Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, and UK showed that U.S. ecommerce sites were the most popular destination, cited by 45 percent of the online shoppers. And as businesses abroad develop online stores, U.S. online shoppers have access to an ever-larger variety of products, making themselves importers. Everyone will be better off. The challenge is that old structures, such as customs procedures, are not keeping up with the evolution of the patterns and players in trade.

Exporters and Importers Today…

So far, only a select few U.S. companies engage in trade, and it is the very largest companies that make up the bulk of U.S. trade flows. According to the latest Census data, in 2012, 304,867 companies engaged in exports. This is only 1 percent of all U.S. businesses, and 5 percent of employment-providing businesses (figure 1). There were even fewer importers, or 185,729, in 2012 (figure 2). Some 80,000 companies were two-way traders – exporters that also import. 

Figure 1 – U.S. Exporters’ Number and Share of Total Exporters and Imports, by Number of Employees

Picture ecomm
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Figure 2 – U.S. Importers’ Number and Share of Total Exporters and Imports, by Number of Employees

Picture2 ecomm

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

…and Tomorrow

Online buyers and sellers are different from offline sellers in many ways. Of course, they are technology-savvy and intrepid in using online tools to market, sell and purchase products. But they are also very different from traditional players in their engagement in international trade:

  • Online sellers are highly likely to export. On average, 97 percent of American micro and small businesses that sell on eBay also export – in stark contrast to the 1 percent of U.S. small businesses that export in the traditional “offline” way (figure 3). This drastic difference between off- and online sellers occurs in other advanced nations as well as in developing countries. Online platforms dramatically expand buyers’ visibility of sellers even far away: sellers’ products are clearly visible and easy to explore across oceans. Online platforms’ star ratings systems, customer reviews, and payment tools such as Paypal gives the buyer a sense of trust, the lubricant of trade that in the offline economy takes several transactions between buyer and seller to build.
  • In online trade, tools and visibility are similar for all companies, irrespective of their size. As such, small and large online sellers are almost equally likely to export and export as much: even the smallest 10 percent of commercial eBay sellers overwhelmingly engage in exports (94 percent) (figure 4). For small sellers on eBay, exports make up 14 percent of all sales – not very different from the levels of the largest shippers for whom exports make up 18 percent of all sales. What’s more, similar concentration of exports in a few larger companies does not occur in the online economy: small exporters on online platforms make up a much larger share of online exports than they do in the offline world.
  • As opposed to the more than 50 percent of U.S. offline exporters that export to 1-2 countries, 81 percent of online exporters export to 5 or more countries (figure 5). The diversification is very substantial: the smallest 10 percent of U.S. regular online exporters on eBay serve 28 markets on average, and the largest 10 percent sell to 66 different markets (figure 6). This means these companies face multiple distinct trade compliance regimes, a maze for a small business to manage.
  • Online exporters and importers are typically smaller than “offline” exporters and importers: even the largest online exporters on eBay pale before those of the largest corporate exporters. Online importers and exports also tend to be quite new to import and export, and have irregular, sporadic shipments.

Figure 3 – Share of Sellers Exporting on eBay vs. Offline

Picture 3 ecmm

Source: eBay (2013). “Enabling Traders to Enter and Grow on the Global Stage.”

Figure 4 – Share of Sellers Exporting and Share of Value Exported, by Deciles

Picture 4 ecomm

Source: eBay (2013). “Enabling Traders to Enter and Grow on the Global Stage.”

Figure 5 – Number of Export Destinations – Small vs. Large eBay Exporters (sellers with > $10,000 in exports)

Picture 5 ecomm

Source: eBay (2013). “Enabling Traders to Enter and Grow on the Global Stage.”

Figure 6 – Number of Export Destinations, eBay Sellers with > $10,000 Exports, by Deciles of Sales Value

Picture 6 ecomm

Source: eBay (2013). “Enabling Traders to Enter and Grow on the Global Stage.”

According to U.S. International Trade Commission estimates, firms in digitally intensive industries exported a total of $223 billion in products and services ordered online in 2012. The top two sectors for exports of products and services ordered online were manufacturing ($87 billion or 39 percent) and digital communications ($59 billion or 26 percent). Large firms made up 92 percent of exports of products and services ordered online. The top destinations for both digitally and physically delivered U.S. exports that were ordered online were North America (primarily Canada), the European Union (primarily the UK), and the Asia-Pacific region (Australia and China) (figure 7).

The value of imports ordered online by U.S. companies in digitally intensive industries was $106 billion, with 94 percent delivered physically rather than digitally to U.S. buyers. Firms in manufacturing ($51 billion), digital communications ($23 billion), and retail trade ($18 billion) had the largest shares of digitally and physically delivered imports that had been ordered online in 2012 (figure 8).

Figure 7 – Top Regions for Exports of Products and Services Ordered Online, by Percentage of Firms, 2012

Picture 7 ecomm

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 2014. “Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 2.”

Figure 8 – Imports of Products and Services Online by Sector and Delivery Mode, 2012 (billions $)

Picture 8 ecomm

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 2014. “Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 2.”

Emerging Challenges to Online Trade

Online trade is the trade of the 21st century. It has outstanding potential for expanding U.S. exports and entrepreneurship, and boosting welfare around the world. Already, some 2.6 billion people, or 38 percent of the world’s population, use the Internet, and another 2-3 billion are forecast to access to web, typically through smart phones, by 2020, particularly in China, India, and Africa, but also in Brazil and across South America. That more consumers get online should augment B2C and C2C transactions in particular, and open opportunities to U.S. businesses and individuals to sell and buy goods and services around the world. Globally, B2C transactions are expected to soar to $2.4 trillion in 2017 from $1.5 trillion in 2014, with China leading the way.

However, trade compliance is poised to emerge as a challenge.

So far, customs security regimes around the world have been tailored to the patterns of “traditional” trade: large trade volumes shipped by large and mid-size companies staffed to meet trade compliance requirements. Customs regimes are not optimally designed for trade between small enterprises and consumers, where countless of small shipments are sent and/or received by parties with limited trade compliance capabilities.

In online trade, the importer of record is typically an individual consumer, and the exporter is frequently a small business. These players have much more limited know-how to deal with customs regulations than large corporations do. Meeting complex regulations can defeat the purpose of trade: the fixed costs involved with trade compliance, along with shipping and other factors can thus more easily usurp profits of small businesses.

At the same time, governments have legitimate concerns related to small business trade that could accentuate the need for trade compliance: the mushrooming B2C and C2C trade of millions of small parcels criss-crossing the globe makes the risk of contraband, IP infringements, weapons smuggling, and terrorism in international trade appear more fragmented and amorphous. One reason is that the new participants in trade – small businesses and individuals – are just that, new, and thus often lack a robust paper trail and consistent track record in trading across borders that governments could use for risk-targeting.

What is needed are regulatory frameworks and procedures that secure trade without sacrificing the opportunity for small businesses to engage in trade and reach overseas customers in a timely and cost-effective fashion. Stay tuned for next blogs on new ideas to streamline and facilitate this hugely promising part of world trade.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Digitization and the Future of Jobs: Rise of the Re-Invention Economy

Today I published a piece in GE’s Ideas Lab on why automation and artificial intelligence will create more jobs than they will destroy: http://www.ideaslaboratory.com/post/102950967429/rise-of-the-re-invention-economy

As automation and computerization expand, anxiety about jobs is at a fever pitch.

Some say computers will displace a vast array of human work.Many others argue it polarizes the labor market: in a widely cited paper, David Autor and David Dorn argue that automation has forced middle-class workers easily replaced by machines into low-skilled jobs such as cooking, cleaning and healthcare; high-skilled workers capable of abstract thinking unmatched by computers are also surviving. In another paper with Gordon Hanson, Autor and Dorn show how globalization — import penetration from China — has further hollowed out the middle, or blue-collar U.S. manufacturing jobs.

But as technology and globalization expand, the ends of the barbell economy are feared to be at risk. Is the gloom warranted?

Labor market angst is nothing new. The 1990s kick-started blue collar blues — fears that U.S. manufacturers would either offshore or be demolished by Chinese imports. In the 2000s rose white collar worries — that call centers, data processing, financial analysis, web design and hip surgeries would be outsourced from in India, placing a quarter of U.S. jobs at risk. While not unwarranted, these fears proved much overblown. A more forceful cause of job losses has been technology, as immortalized in Kodak moments, falls of giant corporations and workers unprepared for the digital era.

High-skilled knowledge workers and low-skilled service workers have seemed immune to the twin forces of technology and globalization. But now smart machines are doing what high-skilled do — aptly crafting sales presentations, choosing medical treatments and routinely making the millions of decisions needed to manage complex supply chains. Knowledge work can now be done from anywhere, and not only on the back of the cloud and Skype. Soon executives — as well as financial advisors, accountants, data analysts, coders, etc. — could appear as holographic 3D avatars projected onto venues around the planet right from their home offices. By 2025, hypersonic flights could take an executive from Shanghai to New York in two hours — a doable commute even twice a week.

At the lower end, jobs for greeters, telemarketers, retail workers, waiters, accountants, even carers of the elderly could be offered virtual assistants that work 24 hours a day, seven days a week — and never ask for a raise.

This leads one to believe that those not automated out will be outcompeted by globally footloose virtual and hypersonic workers. Yet five factors paint a much brighter future.

First, as Autor has recently pointed out, knowledge workers are still much less likely to get outsmarted by machines than to use machines to do their jobs better and faster. Excellence (and survival) at work is increasingly about demonstrable abilities to problem-solve, intuit, think creatively and exercise common sense, areas where computers — excelling at optimization, logic, statistics and so on — are still human pre-schooler equivalents. And it is unlikely that everyone would love to be hosted or cared by a virtual avatar if a real human is available for a moderate premium.

Second, smart technologies make the labor markets more adaptive. Predictive analytics will enable workers to anticipate better what jobs are on the rise. With advances in metrics and analytics of employees’ ever-important soft skills and attributes, labor markets can become much more differentiated, with artificial intelligence applications matching workers to jobs much faster globally. The web has already reduced joblessness — in a recent U.S. International Trade Commission study, U.S. unemployment rate was 0.3 percentage points lower in 2012 than it would have been at 2006 Internet usage level. Where the Web is newer, it has squashed unemployment even more — in Russia, by 2 percentage points; in China, by 2.5 points; in Brazil, by 1 point.

Third, makeovers will be easier. Hiring is increasingly for discrete tasks rather than occupations, such as crowdcasting, corporate-sponsored calls for problem-solving among a curated group of people. In a task-based labor market, terminal degrees weigh less than retooling in real time — continued education powered by massive online courses and digital on-the-job learning. Career moves can be less daunting than going from the factory floor to a computerized office — for example, coding, programming and web design are increasingly accessible even to lower-skilled workers.

Fourth, there will be more companies hiring. It is fashionable to argue that digital economy superstars will be skimpy employers. For example, at the same market valuation of $25 billion, the 1990s star multinational Dell employs 111,300 people, while the newer digital superstar Twitter employs just 2,700. But the math is too simple. Technologies from 3D printing to ecommerce and Big Data are making it much easier for small businesses — the backbone of U.S. jobs — to launch, scale and compete globally. If future companies staff fewer people, there will also be far more of them, each offering a differentiated product or service to a global customer base. New companies can also spawn entrepreneurial ecosystems around the planet, not unlike Apple has done for app developers or Uber for drivers.

Fifth, technology unlocks latent economic growth that spurs hiring. Digitization of products cuts the costs of moving goods across borders, a key driver of trade-led growth. Technology can overhaul healthcare and education, sectors with stagnant productivity making up a fifth of the U.S. economy. Strokes of the old-fashioned pen are needed, as well: cutting red tape and boosting regulatory certainty would recharge the U.S. and several major economies, such as France, India and Brazil.

The giant question mark in tomorrow’s economy is the adaptability of workers. Not everyone will thrive on the churn and change and self-reinvent. Existing tools, such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance that has helped retrain more than 230,000 workers impacted by trade over the past decade, are not made for the digital economy — where competition is ubiquitous and amorphous, not only about offshoring or import penetration.

Of course, governments can shut down the virtual highways where tomorrow’s commuters beeline — such as by making overseas nationals more complicated. A better answer would be a public-private partnership between the government and the resented “tech elite” companies such as Facebook to deploy corporate PR and social responsibility dollars to fuel the retooling and rehiring of digital era workers, in exchange for cuts in income and payroll taxes. With some imagination, technology and good policy can be job-creators also in the global digital economy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment