Organised crime: the economic underbelly

The subject of numerous wildly successful films, books and television shows, organised crime has always been a fascination of the general public. Despite the bloody violence that distinguishes such tales, we have long held a strange interest in their unlikely heroes, so enthralled are we by stories of their egocentricity, ruthlessness and lavish lifestyles.

Of course, as with all art, inspiration comes from reality. Though there have been several successful crackdowns on organised crime syndicates over the years – those in Colombia immediately coming to mind – mafioso groups are still very much in play and at large.

While movies may have given us quasiromantic notions about such factions, the truth is organised crime groups cause mayhem, death and destruction. They threaten communities with violence and partake in appalling activities such as human trafficking and extortion. To survive, criminal organisations snare youths – particularly those living in areas with few employment opportunities – thus feeding into a continuous tide of criminality that lasts through the generations. Such criminality seeps into various industries and sectors, bringing forth economic repercussions of global proportions.

Loosely defined
The definition of organised crime is somewhat fluid, but pertains to a group of any number of individuals that is involved in any type of criminal activity. Anonymous syndicates can be based in one region, span an entire country, or can even be dispersed around the globe.

Organised crime groups have a hierarchical structure. They often appear to be legal, but are run in illegal ways

It is quite common for one group – or family, as they are sometimes called – to collaborate with another, particularly in exploits such as drug trafficking between continents. Through such partnerships, organised crime groups have become increasingly complex, and can generate billions of dollars each and every year.

As gangs are often engaged in selling narcotics and firearms, with many also involved in human trafficking, the social impact they have is immeasurable. Further, these organisations often participate in racketeering, money laundering, the sale of counterfeit goods and extortion, meaning they also have a direct effect on their respective economies, which inevitably spills over into the international system as well. This, however, is impossible to accurately quantify.

“It is hard to measure the economic impact of organised crime because it is very hard to collect data on their economic activities. When members of a criminal organisation are arrested, they are generally unwilling to cooperate”, said Nadia Campaniello, an economics lecturer at the University of Essex.

That said, there are methods to tackle this challenge. “One has to come up with clever ways to estimate such impact”, Campaniello told World Finance. “There is one paper by Paolo Pinotti that addresses the issue of the costs imposed in a region by the presence of the mafia. He uses two southern Italian regions, Apulia and Basilicata, as a case study and estimates that the presence of the local mafia has decreased GDP per capita by 16 percent over a period of 30 years. Moreover, he finds that resources have not been reallocated from the formal to the informal economy, but that private capital has been substituted by less productive public investment.”

organised-crime-fig-1Though it is difficult to calculate the global impact, there are bodies that attempt to do so – figures, however, are few and far between. In 2009, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated that transnational organised crime generates $870bn a year, which is close to around seven percent of the world’s merchandise exports.

Of all the illegal exploits conducted by criminal organisations, drug trafficking remains the most popular and lucrative. UNODC estimates this trade has an annual value of around $320bn, with the global cocaine market earning around $85bn of that sum alone and the estimated global production of opium having reached an all-time high in 2014 (see Fig 1).

Even harder to quantify are the vast sums made from human trafficking, the illegal movement of people for the purpose of sexual exploitation and/or forced labour. In 2014, the International Labour Organisation estimated around 21 million victims are trapped in modern-day slavery, earning the criminals involved roughly $150bn. Meanwhile, UNDOC estimates that, in Europe alone, the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation (see Fig 2) brings in around $3bn in revenue each year.

Local impact
Campaniello provided two scenarios when asked about the microeconomic impact organised crime can have. The first involved a local legal business for which a criminal organisation offers ‘services’. “What the mafia does is to offer the business a monopoly or oligopoly by restricting access to the market. Of course, the business has to pay for this kind of protection. This is [noted social scientist] Diego Gambetta’s view of what the mafia does – it offers ‘protection’… from competitors.”

The second involves a legal business that operates on a larger scale in a competitive market, and so cannot be restricted. “In this case, having to pay for protection will make the business’ life very difficult, because it has to pay a hidden tax that its competitors do not have to pay. From the point of view of the consumers, in both scenarios, prices are bound to go up. The consumer surplus drops. The economic welfare decreases”.

It has become increasingly difficult to identify businesses that are linked to mafia groups. This is largely due to the similarities criminal organisations share with legal businesses, including their configuration and the appearance they give to the world. “They have a hierarchical structure and, oftentimes, they appear to be legal, but they are run in illegal ways. They force legal companies to do business with them using the threat of violence”, Campaniello explained.

When violence subsides and feuds die down, it would seem to the outside world that such groups no longer exist – yet exist they do. “Probably the only way to track their activities is to follow the money. That was the famous investigative strategy of Borsellino and Falcone, the two judges who were killed after the maxi processo (maxi trial) against the mafia”, Campaniello continued. “Unfortunately [their] methodology cannot be easily replicated to study the economic impact of organised crime in other areas and for other criminal organisations, because to isolate the causal effect, [they exploited] some historical events and geographical characteristics that are unique and just characterised the areas [they had] investigated.”

Adaptive organisation

As the authorities become more experienced and skilled at tracking down members of organised crime groups, these members become better at eluding the law. “New technologies are an important driver of this increasing sophistication ”, said Campaniello. “In the last few years, we have seen the rising of new types of crime that are difficult to identify, prosecute and measure: cybercrimes, money laundering [and] sophisticated
white-collar crimes.”

$870bn

The estimated value of transnational organised crime

$320bn

The estimated value of the international drug trafficking trade

$85bn

The value of the global cocaine market

21m

people are currently victims of human trafficking

Technological developments have also aided the transnational nature of organised crime, which has become ever more active in recent years. Campaniello used the example of the Italian Mafia, which is known for pouring foreign investment into various countries.

“We also know that with the recent recession and with [the] stock market drop, the mafia has a great advantage because they use cash and they invest in legal businesses the money that they get from illegal activities for money laundering.”

Dealing in illegal waste is another lucrative business for criminal organisations, and it is one that is aided by today’s integrated global economy. Italian mafia group Camorra, for example, frequently wins contracts from governments around the world for toxic waste disposal by underbidding the competition. With the contract in hand, it then disposes of untreated waste illegally in the Italian region of Campania, causing dire environmental damage.

Finally, it would be remiss not to mention perhaps the newest criminal activity, which is being aided by new technology: cybercrime. Though our increasingly digitalised financial, social and political systems may offer us greater efficiency and convenience, they also offer criminals opportunities to engage in fraudulent activities with greater ease and bigger consequences than ever before.

Networks can be maintained and expanded to the furthest corners of the Earth with a click of a button, while financial institutions, individual bank accounts and client databases – no matter how big or small – can be hacked and compromised, earning criminals millions in a very short space of time.

Illegal firearms
The transportation of illegal firearms is rife among organised crime factions

Structural nuance
The principal differentiator between the biggest criminal organisations is their structures – which is also a major factor in their success. On one end of the spectrum there are highly centralised and structured organisations, the best example being Japan’s Yamaguchi-gumi, known commonly as the Yakuza. On the other, there are decentralised systems in which power is divided among various factions, such as Russia’s Solntsevskaya Bratva. Because of the vast differences between the two, both structures work in different ways to contribute to the success of their criminal enterprises.

The Yakuza owes much of its prosperity to a strict hierarchy that has come to define the group. Jake Adelstein, a writer and an expert on the Yakuza, explained: “This is why the Yamaguchi-gumi has been called Japan’s second largest private equity group by Robert Feldman, an economist at Morgan Stanley. The thugs at the bottom generate revenue, which goes up the franchise pyramid, and the elite invest it in legitimate and illegitimate companies… They are also a meritocracy, where non-Japanese can reach the very top: Korean-Japanese, Taiwanese-Japanese. This has allowed them to attract some very smart people.”

Being so structured, the Yakuza is actually out in the open, and the identities of its members are no secret. “Their headquarters are listed on the national police agency website. They have offices, business cards, fan magazines and comic books about them”, Adelstein told World Finance. The reason for this lack of secrecy is the fact that being a member of the Yamaguchi-gumi is not actually illegal: Japanese authorities believe that in regulating the group instead of banning it they ensure its activities are not driven further underground, which would only increase the level of violence, make the problem bigger, and thus harder to control.

Regulating criminal organisations instead of outright banning them has helped to alleviate the problems they cause socially

Power in the Solntsevskaya Bratva, on the other hand, is highly dispersed, aiding in the anonymity of its members. As such, this group operates in a far more clandestine manner, leaving a far greater trail of destruction wherever it goes.

Campaniello explained: “Whenever the syndicate is decentralised, there is more violence because different groups want to conquer as much ground as possible. This is what happened in the 1930s in the US, in Campania in the 1970s, and in Sicilia in the 1980s.” While bloodbaths are common for the Solntsevskaya Bratva and Camorra, in Japan murders committed by the Yakuza are very rare.

Although the leaders of centralised organisations have much greater control, decentralised systems are more prone to internal feuds and destruction from within. Order is thus better maintained within the Yakuza – in fact, the group operates similarly to a legal company, which also makes it easier to quantify its economic value. In contrast, groups such as Camorra and Solntsevskaya Bratva remain hidden in the shadows, making it incredibly difficult to identify the full extent of their activities and the effect they have both locally and internationally.

Understanding the economic impact of organised crime is imperative in order to tackle an increasingly complex issue that continues to plague the global economy. If international organisations and local governments hope to work together and stamp out transnational illegal activities, there must be greater understanding of how they operate. By understanding the stakes involved for these individuals and the true reasons for their membership, root issues can be identified and, eventually, resolved.

Though in recent years the US has been putting pressure on the Japanese authorities to take a harder stance on the Yakuza, there is something to be said for regulation. Regulating criminal organisations instead of outright banning them has helped to alleviate the problems they cause socially, while also turning the gang into an entity that can be dealt with in a way that is tangible. The Yakuza’s conspicuousness also helps to curb its violence. In stark contrast, the Russian and Italian mafias continue to cause death and destruction, making their influence on society both intimidating and inestimable.

As with any practice, knowledge is power. Keeping organised crime groups above ground may be the best way to tackle their impact, both socially and economically, until a long-term solution is found that will rid the global system of the illegal activities these groups conduct.

Donald Trump: the bull in the China shop

Donald Trump’s administration is bullish right out of the gate. He’s chosen a cabinet made up of oil business tycoons like former Exxon chairman Rex Tillerson, so the agenda is clear: boost US big business and jobs. It’s less clear, however, what Trump plans to do about the national debt – currently just shy of $20trn and 103 percent of GDP. The debt is a red flag challenge that has the bulls in the White House lowering their horns for battle.

In the 10 years since the real estate sub-prime and financial crises, US debt has more than doubled. The $700bn it cost to bail out the crippled financial sector in 2008 was just the beginning. A costly – but necessary – quantitative easing (QE) programme supported US treasuries throughout the recession and recovery. QE combined with low interest rates helped to restore investor confidence. The Federal Reserve’s cautious monetary policy nursed the economy through the worst period. But government debt overheated dramatically, going from $9trn in 2007 to nearly $20trn in 2017.

It’s likely that the national
debt will skyrocket under
Trump’s presidency

National debt
It’s likely that the national debt will skyrocket under Trump’s presidency. Trump swears he will “Make America Great Again” through a number of aggressive fiscal policies. He has pledged to accelerate growth and create jobs, wasting no time in rallying his network of mega business owners. During his pre-inauguration conference, Donald Trump said he was proud that Ford had decided to expand its factory in Michigan instead of building one in Mexico. Meanwhile, he is pressing General Motors to build its factories in the US instead of abroad. The president-elect promised that Big Pharma would be pressured into bidding for government contracts, believing this would save billions of dollars over time. In short, Trump wants to run the federal government like a business, and make it more efficient. Trump wants to be the ‘greatest job creator’ ever seen.

The president-elect’s rhetoric is all very well, but common sense says that money – especially debt – speaks louder. Even with savings on government contracts, at some point in the near future, taxes on business and households will have to be increased so the Treasury can service, and even reduce, US debt. This is unlikely to appeal to the Republican agenda of low taxes and less red tape ­– which is why Trump wants to raise import taxes instead.

The alternative to reducing the national debt is even less appealing. There is a risk of the US losing investor confidence in its bonds. This could lead to a huge rise in the cost of financing the massive debt and the threat of default. The end result: another prolonged recession. This scenario is highly likely if Trump goes ahead with high tariffs on imports from China. There are an increasing number of risks linked to alienating China and the other emerging countries that play a big role in lending to the US.

International trade
As it stands, import tariffs slapped on top of a strong dollar will have a cost of their own. The increasing strength of the dollar and higher interest rates will start pricing US products out of the export markets; meaning lower export revenues. Higher import costs due to increased taxes will increase inflation. This would make goods less affordable for consumers, and reduce importers’ overall revenues. Higher import taxes might bring in money for the US Treasury. But at the same time, reduced demand for exports would mean lower tax revenues from domestic exporters. Nonetheless, it can’t be denied that there is an upside to protectionism for domestic energy companies. If there are increased taxes on imported commodities like crude oil, it would increase local demand and revenues for US suppliers. In that case, US companies, like Exxon, would theoretically be able to boost the number of jobs on their payroll.

The increasing strength of the dollar and higher interest rates will start pricing US products out of the export markets

On the market’s side, Trump’s rhetoric has a motivating effect, with Wall Street picking up the bullish tone. Everyone wants to see a return to a strong economy and a move away from the pain of the recent recession. But a return to pre-2007 economic conditions may still be a long way off, especially if Trump’s gamble on protectionism backfires.

The bottom line for investors is that dollar crosses, US share prices and commodity prices still face a period of uncertainty. Gold is likely to remain an attractive hedge, and a great deal depends on GDP performance in the US. The outlook isn’t particularly optimistic. The World Bank forecasts a modest US economic growth of 2.2 percent in 2017. Equally modest is its global growth forecast of 2.8 percent in 2017. This is accompanied by downside risks in emerging and mature economies. Clearly, both local and global supply and demand are still not as bullish as Donald Trump’s rhetoric.

The bulls in the White House are ready to do the kind of mega business that made America great, that much is clear. But calibrating an entire economy is a challenge on a much larger scale – especially one that’s only just back on the road to growth. Until Trump deals with the question of the national debt, investors will have to see it as a significant risk to their portfolios.

Spanish inflation reaches three-year high

According to data released by Spain’s Office of National Statistics on January 13, Spanish inflation jumped to a three-year high in December 2016. The annual change in the consumer price index reached 1.6 percent in December, up 0.9 percent from the previous month. Meanwhile, the annual change in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices hit 1.4 percent – a substantial boost on the below zero figures posted in the last two years.

[Spain] has continued to struggle with high unemployment levels since the Global Financial Recession

The nation has continued to struggle with high unemployment levels since the Global Financial Recession, with rates currently around 19 percent. While wage pressures remain low, inflation has seen a boost as a result of rises in the cost of travel and housing.

The European Central Bank’s (ECB) recent decision to maintain a loose monetary policy and extend its stimulus programme is likely to be a key factor in supporting inflation across the eurozone – which is currently at a three-year high of 1.1 percent. However, the ECB’s target of just under 2 percent remains distant.

When ECB President, Mario Draghi, announced the policy in December, he signalled the stimulus programme could be extended ­– in either size or duration – should the outlook turn “less favourable”. However, the prospect of Spain or the wider eurozone being hit by high inflation is unlikely. When asked whether the ECB might reduce the size of the programme should developments fair better than expected, Draghi all but dismissed this possibility: “We haven’t discussed that at all today. We seem to be fairly far away from any such high-class problem.”

Governing Council member, Francois Villeroy de Galhau, reaffirmed this view on January 12, telling Bloomberg: “Some people seem to be worried about a return of inflation… that’s greatly exaggerated.”

A marked man: Carney’s BoE departure

 “Assessing and reporting major risks does not mean becoming involved in politics; rather, it would be political to suppress important judgments”

Mark Carney

Mark Carney’s departure from the Bank of England looks to be a much less celebratory affair than his initial appointment to the role. When it was announced he would take over the position in 2012, he was lauded as “the outstanding central banker of his generation” by then-Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. Since then, many have come to view him much less favourably.

Carney’s fall from grace appears to be yet another consequence of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. While the timeline for the withdrawal process remains elusive – if even guaranteed – the vote in June last year has already claimed its fair share of political causalities. Former Prime Minister David Cameron resigned immediately after the vote, while key figures of his cabinet were soon culled from office by his replacement, Theresa May.

Carney is another victim of the vote, albeit delayed. While not forced out by Brexit itself, the referendum and the politics surrounding it changed the feeling towards him and the style of administration he represents. Carney has now confirmed he will be leaving his post as the Governor of the Bank of England in June 2019.

Before the bank
Born in the Northwest Territories of Canada in 1965, Carney carved out a long career in the world of economics and finance. Although he attended high school in his native Canada, he pursued his higher education south of the border, in the US. In 1988, he graduated with honours from Harvard University, having majored in economics, before crossing the Atlantic to attend another elite, English-speaking university: Oxford. Through the early 1990s he pursued first a master’s degree and then a doctorate, both in economics, from St Peter’s College, Oxford.

With the conclusion of his studies, he first pursued a career in the private sector, working for Goldman Sachs. His 13 years at the firm took him all over the world, working in Tokyo, London and Toronto. His various roles saw him involved in the process of bringing post-apartheid South Africa to the international bond market, as well as guiding post-Soviet Russia through its 1998 financial crisis.

Many celebrated his appointment… yet, after Carney dared to wade into the divisive politics of 2016, his popularity soon waned

Carney, however, soon departed from the world of private finance. In 2003, he became the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, and between November 2004 and October 2007 he served as Senior Associate Deputy Minister and G7 Deputy at the Canadian Department of Finance. In 2008, he went on to serve as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, before leaving the role in 2012 and assuming his current position as Governor of the Bank of England.

Many celebrated his appointment at the time – yet, after Carney dared to wade into the divisive politics of 2016, his popularity soon waned. Over the space of a year, he went from someone generally viewed inoffensively, to the subject of mounting political attack. Leaving the EU, he claimed, would result in the UK seeing two consecutive quarters of negative growth. According to James Bartholomew, writing in The Spectator: “He appeared to be going beyond any formal Bank of England forecast. Effectively he was supporting the Remain campaign by backing ‘project fear’. He gave up the political neutrality expected of governors.”

Brexit bother
Carney has always maintained he had not broken central bank independence, claiming his warnings on the potential outcome of a British withdrawal from the European Union were just a part of his job; he had a duty to inform the public of the likely results of such a momentous decision. Yet, if a Bank of England governor were to offer up his prognosis of a political party manifesto in an election, it would be classed as a serious offense and breach of central bank independence. Surely, some argued, Carney’s actions were no different.

Carney defended himself by saying the UK’s EU referendum was different from a general election; it was a “single binary decision”. He argued: “As with the Scottish [independence] referendum, we will communicate as much as is prudent about those plans in advance of any risk materialising and as comprehensively as possible once risks have dissipated.” Speaking to a House of Lords committee before the EU referendum, he noted: “Assessing and reporting major risks does not mean becoming involved in politics; rather, it would be political to suppress important judgments.”

Yet for many, Carney’s foray into politics cast a dark shadow over the Bank of England. Most vocal in his condemnation was the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg. In a Treasury Committee meeting soon after the referendum, Rees-Mogg – a well-known Eurosceptic – suggested Carney had damaged the reputation of the Bank of England by making forecasts concerning the economic consequences of Brexit: “Did the Bank of England consider whether it was in the public interest to risk its reputation for impartiality?” Carney attempted to brush off the attack by noting that those who had criticised his handling of Bank of England policy before the referendum should “consider their own motivations and their judgements”.

[Mark Carney’s] departure will come at the same time as the UK’s departure from the EU… the date is, in many ways, symbolic

Yet Carney’s foray into this divisive political question cannot be named the single cause of his being cast out of favour. The politics that is often seen as having driven the Leave campaign is at odds with Carney’s views: a through-and-through technocrat, his expert-style managerialism and post-national ethos is out of step with the new political environment in which the UK finds itself.

Central bankers are supposed to be independent; free from politics, adhering only to a strict doctrine of technocratic management. Many have often dismissed this as fantasy, but of late the very foundations of central bank independence appear to be cracking.

Independence no more
Since 1997, the Bank of England has officially enjoyed political independence. Indeed, this independence is a part of the reason a non-national such as Carney was able to hold the role without controversy. But now, both in the UK and beyond, this doctrine is coming under fire. Central bank independence is increasingly questioned, and, as a result, the very sort of central banker Carney was once lauded as may no longer be the ‘ideal type’. If Carney really is the outstanding central banker of his generation, as Osborne proclaimed upon his appointment, then his generation’s understanding and practice of central banking comes under question, and so too will Carney’s
own reputation.

In the case of the UK, the clearest example of central bank independence being undermined has been carried out by Prime Minster Theresa May. Speaking at the Conservative Party’s annual conference, the newly crowned prime minister decried low interest rates as working in the benefit of already-wealthy asset owners, driving inequality. With Carney’s Bank of England a steadfast defender of loose monetary policy, it could only be interpreted as a dig at him and his role as the bank’s governor. In the same speech, May also criticised the arrogance of the supposed “international elite”. The post-national idea of being a ‘global citizen’ was ridiculed: “If you believe are a citizen of everywhere, you are a citizen of nowhere.”

In a world where citizenship and national loyalty once again matter, questions have been raised over the viability of a non-national acting in such an important national role. However, as long as the idea of central bank independence is adhered to or believed in – and while it is accepted a governor is just a technocratic manager, making his or her decision on a purely objective basis – nationality should not matter.

Changing winds
Writing in The Telegraph, William Hague, the one-time Conservative Party leader and former Foreign Secretary, argued: “Central bankers have collectively lost the plot. They must raise interest rates, or face their doom.” Even the architect of the UK’s central banking independence is reviewing the issue: Ed Balls, the erstwhile advisor to Gordon Brown and former Shadow Chancellor, has, alongside Anna Stansbury and James Howat of Harvard University, argued the Bank of England needs greater political oversight to ensure it does not fall victim to groupthink.

Mark Carney in numbers:

2012

The year Carney was appointed Governor of the Bank of England

1st

non-Briton to take the position in the bank’s history

$900,000

Carney’s estimated annual salary

$5m

Carney’s estimated net worth

They claimed: “After the centralisation of prudential regulation – both of the micro and macro variety – and systemic risk monitoring inside the Bank of England, there is a danger that the UK money-credit constitution is too concentrated in the central bank, leading to the possibility of groupthink, a lack of oversight and ultimately risks to central bank independence.”

Internationally, too, the trend is for politicians to either question or outright ignore the doctrine of central bank independence. In September, the German Parliament heavily criticised the European Central Bank’s (ECB) Mario Draghi over the wisdom of his bank’s negative interest rate policy. Even the German finance minister questioned the central banker’s decisions. Bloomberg noted at the time: “Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, the most prominent member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to question ECB policies, has criticised the impact of low rates and suggested that Draghi shares the blame for the rise of the populist Alternative for Germany Party. Schaeuble told lawmakers in the lower house, or Bundestag, to push Draghi to defend the ECB’s policies.”

During the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump also attacked the US central bank’s independence. He regularly chastised the chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, for keeping interest rates low. At one point he said she should be ashamed for the Fed’s low interest rate policy, accusing her of creating a false economy. Going one step further by questioning not only the doctrine of central bank independence but its very practice, Trump at one point accused Yellen of working with President Barack Obama in some sort of conspiracy.

The future for Carney
While Theresa May’s jibe over international citizenship was not explicitly directed at Carney, the Canadian governor must have felt its impact – and adding insult to injury was the fact his very policy was also attacked in the same speech. In what must have felt like a general loss of confidence in his ability to function in a post-Brexit world, it was rumoured Carney had seriously toyed with the decision to step down. Indeed, many media outlets urged him to do just that.

Although he has not bowed to pressure to leave his post early, his departure will come at the same time as (according to UK Government’s ambiguous plans) the UK’s departure from the EU in the first half of 2019. While having a practical reason (Carney stressed the importance of maintaining continuity during the exit negotiations), the date is, in many ways, symbolic.

Carney is now operating in a world that is increasingly turning against the values he represents and holds: a technocrat who disavows ideology; a transnational figure who feels citizenship in one state doesn’t preclude service to another; an expert who imagines himself to be engaged in science, not politics; an appointed official who feels he should be insulated from the passions of public opinion. As a Davos man in a world where the values of Davos are increasingly sneered at or attacked by electorates, Mark Carney is now set to have his own personal Brexit.


Curriculum Vitae

Born: 1965, Fort Smith, Canada | Education: Harvard University

1965
Carney was born in Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, Canada. He attended high school in Alberta before moving to the US to study economics at Harvard University.

2004
Following 13 years working at Goldman Sachs, Carney served as Senior Associate Deputy Minister and G7 Deputy at the Canadian Department of Finance from 2004 to 2007.

2008
After working as an advisor to the retiring Governor of the Bank of Canada for several months, Carney took up the position himself in February 2008, serving in the midst of the financial crisis.

2011
Carney took up the part-time role of Chairman of the Financial Stability Board. He credited his appointment at the international body to “the strong reputation of Canada’s financial system”.

2012
In November, George Osborne announced Carney would be the next Governor of the Bank of England; Carney would be the first non-Briton to hold the post.

2016
After being accused of making pro-Remain remarks during the UK’s Brexit campaign, Carney announced he would be stepping down from his position at the Bank of England in 2019.

Shared mortgages ensure the house always wins

In the 21st century, the US housing market has both been one of the key drivers of economic growth and one of the major causes of the economic misery of millions. High household prices fuelled a construction boom and a lending boom gave the 2000s strong growth and prosperity, while the post-2007 collapse has led to a stagnant 2010s. The collapse of the housing market resulted in a nationwide wave of housing foreclosure, while creating a knock-on effect for the rest of the economy.

Great Recession
The sources of the pain caused during the 2007-08 financial crisis are many. Those on the left lambast financial market deregulation, while those on the right aim fire at Alan Greenspan’s loose credit policies. Some blame the moral failings of banks, while others see institutional faults. There are an untold number of explanations for the cause and source of the crisis.

[The shared responsibility mortgage] would protect against the sharp downturn in aggregate demand that follow falls in the housing market

However, the central role played by the collapse of the housing market, and its ability to tank the rest of the economy, has many raising questions over the nature of the mortgage industry and how it can be reformed. Rather than repeat well-worn desires for more regulation or less, depending on one’s position on the political spectrum, many are now proposing the creation of a new type of mortgage: the shared responsibility mortgage (SRM).

Weak architecture
According to the Princeton economist Atif Mian in his testimony to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in 2013: “The key weakness of our financial architecture today is the inability of standard mortgage contracts to adjust to a changing macro environment.” It is this issue, it is hoped, the SRM model might remedy. As Mian noted, this could be achieved with “two relatively minor adjustments to the standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage”.

To illustrate the matter, Mian gave the example of a homeowner who purchases a $100,000 home using a $80,000 mortgage. In times of a dip in the housing market, the price of the house could fall to $80,000, “but the interest payments on the mortgage and the mortgage balance remain the same”. In the worst cases, this can lead to homeowners finding themselves in negative equity. Ultimately, due to a fall in household wealth, such homeowners end up spending less, and this results in a fall in aggregate demand, sending “the economy into a tailspin”.

Share the load
The alternative, Mian and co-author Amir Sufi argued in an article for the Washington Centre for Equitable Growth, is the SRM. “In this mortgage, the principal balance of the mortgage and the interest payments are linked to a local house price index that measures the average value of houses in the zip code of the purchased home.” Therefore, if house prices in the neighbourhood fall, “the principal balance and interest payments automatically adjust downward”. This would provide relief to homeowners’ mortgage payments exactly at the time when it is needed most.

This, the authors contended, would protect against the sharp downturn in aggregate demand that follow falls in the housing market. While a crash in the housing market will have other knock-on effects, such as reduced employment in the construction industry and ancillary industries, SRMs will go some way to alleviating these effects, whereas standard mortgages tend to aggravate them. “Had such mortgages been in place when house prices collapsed, the Great Recession in the US would not have been ‘great’ at all”, Mian and Sufi argued. “It would have been a garden variety downturn with many fewer jobs lost.” At least that’s what the proponents of SRM argue. Whether or not it will work as well in practice is yet to be seen.

Global growth set to accelerate following post-crisis low in 2016

A World Bank report has branded 2016 as the worst year for global growth since the Global Financial Crisis, with growth estimated at just 2.3 percent. While the forecast for 2017 is slightly more optimistic – at 2.7 percent – the World Bank warns many uncertainties remain and political risks have the potential to undermine recovery.

The report suggests a US fiscal stimulus package could help to accelerate the global growth rate, with the US economy large enough to significantly influence global trends: “Economic policy initiatives in the United States can have sizable ripple effects around the world – a testament to the US’ size and global integration.”

More specifically, a one percent increase in US growth would prompt a boost of 0.8 percent to advanced economies, as well as a 0.6 percent rise in emerging markets and developing economies after only a year. Such spillover effects ensure growth prospects in the US are a global concern.

Such spillover effects ensure growth prospects in the US are a global concern

The report notes if president-elect Donald Trump’s fiscal proposals are implemented in full, US growth could be substantially higher than current estimates, boosting global growth as a result of improved export markets. However, the strength of these spillover effects also increases the potential fallout of any problems arising from the political uncertainty in the US.

The report cites increasing protectionism and potential financial market disruptions as key risk factors. Furthermore, such uncertainty has been heightened as a result of key electoral decisions, namely the election of Donald Trump and the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Worryingly, the World Bank says the risks “continue to be tilted to the downside”, with a higher probability of growth dropping one percent below projections than rising one percent above them.

Outside the US, a rise in the price of oil is expected to see growth rebound in a number of commodity-driven economies. Brazil, Russia and Nigeria are expected to recover from recession and thus provide a boost to global growth.

Word Bank Group President, Jim Yong Kim, said: “After years of disappointing global growth, we are encouraged to see stronger economic prospects on the horizon

“Now is the time to take advantage of this momentum and increase investments in infrastructure and people. This is vital to accelerating the sustainable and inclusive economic growth required to end extreme poverty.”

Driving progress in Myanmar

As one of the world’s fastest growing economies, Myanmar’s digital revolution has presented an exciting window of opportunity in a very promising marketplace. Following years of economic stagnation, Myanmar’s fiscal development continued to lag behind that of its south-east Asian neighbours. The country’s low per capita GDP – largely a result of its low level of labour productivity – has remained around 70 percent less than the average of seven other Asian economies. However, with a vast reserve of natural resources, a young population, an excellent geographical location and an impressive level of digitalisation, Myanmar has the intrinsic assets and highly supportive external environment from which it can build.

Resource-rich
According to the McKinsey Global Institute, Myanmar currently ranks 46th in the world in terms of proven gas reserves; and with 12.25 million hectares, it possesses the 25th largest endowment of arable land in the world. In addition to its wealth of land, Myanmar has access to great volumes of natural gas and oil, and houses 10 times the water endowment per capita of both China and India. Well regarded as the global leader in the production of rubies and sapphires, Myanmar also boasts 90 percent of the world’s jade production.

Myanmar has the potential to more than quadruple the size of its economy by 2030

Yet, by diversifying its set of sectors through a combination of compelling growth plans and effective implementation – 85 percent of Myanmar’s economic output currently comes from agriculture, manufacturing, infrastructure, energy and mining alone – Myanmar has the potential to more than quadruple the size of its economy by 2030, to more than $200bn.

However, a failure to do so would rapidly dispel the goodwill and cautious optimism currently surrounding the nation.

In order to achieve its economic potential, Myanmar must maintain political stability, resolve ethnic conflicts and sustain the current momentum surrounding its political and economic reform – all the while easing the practice of business. Ultimately, the country must sustain credibility, with the government’s ability to manage change fundamental. As well as maintaining the speed and course of change, the government must quickly develop a cadre of skilled and talented officials who can navigate the country. The triple transformation on which Myanmar has embarked – towards democracy, peace and a market economy – is as demanding a reform agenda as a country can aspire to implement.

In general terms, Myanmar is likely to follow in the footsteps of other resource-rich frontier markets – such as Mongolia and Kazakhstan – channelling its investments into commodity extraction and infrastructure in order for commercialisation. This certainly presents numerous green-field opportunities across the entire infrastructure spectrum: from constructing road networks, railways, ports and airports to oil, gas pipelines and power plants, too. One such example is Dawei Special Industrial Zone, which is expected to develop around $8.6bn worth of infrastructure projects in the coming years – including a deep-sea port, a coal-based power plant and a number of rail and pipeline links. With Myanmar aspiring to maintain its status as a commodities-driven market, oil and gas will feature prominently as productive capacity moves up the value chain into processing and refining.

While Myanmar’s potential is widely recognised, business operations in transitional countries are often challenging. Growth and investments are needed in order to contribute to the country’s economic development, and in order to attract investors, both the country and the businesses themselves must project an air of stability. Myanmar – in connection to its Buddhist roots – has a rich culture of established private and corporate philanthropy, with donations often made to Buddhist institutions and charitable causes. While socially very rewarding, this practice often hinders a company’s ability to remain competitive, and in turn diminishes its economic stability. It is therefore important to ensure growth is in the interest of all parties, acting in both a responsible and inclusive way. In light of this, Myanmar has initiated a number of comprehensive reforms – including the process of democratisation – in order to restore political and economic stability after decades of military oppression.

Inclusive growth
With an eye on Myanmar’s future, Max Myanmar seeks a better way of doing business – achieving market leadership through exceeding the expectations of its employees, customers and local communities. Be it internal business processes, customer service or community relations, Max Myanmar’s proactive approach is a critical factor towards ensuring growth for everyone. Since the company’s inception in 1993, the Max Myanmar Group has greatly diversified its offering – with energy, hospitality, construction, manufacturing, agriculture and highway maintenance now at the heart of the business. With an ambitious and a vibrant restructuring programme in place, Max Myanmar strives to transform into a group of companies that operate internationally, while upholding only the best business practices.

Through its continual restructuring, the Max Myanmar Group has become a leading institution with transparency, responsibility and good corporate governance at its core. At Max Myanmar, we ensure all our contractors, subcontractors and partners adopt our group policies on human rights, child labour and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS).

Myanmar in numbers:

12.25m

Hectares of arable land

10x

more water per capita than India and China

90%

of the world’s jade production

Max Myanmar also prides itself on its engagement within the community; offering structured career development to all employees, creating local job opportunities, and offering support to younger generations through the implementation of part-time job programmes. Moreover, Max Myanmar often invites local communities to participate in some of its training programmes – such as firefighting and OHS.

In a bid to prioritise not only people, but the environment as well, Max Myanmar follows all relevant environmental legislation and regulations, striving to minimise – and ultimately prevent – the pollution of land, air and sea. Max Myanmar also actively participates in workshop programmes relating to environment engagement, as well as reforestation projects throughout the country.

Max Myanmar therefore strives to be an environmentally responsible organisation that ensures the future growth and development of any community it interacts with. With a staunch commitment to our consumers, the community and the environment, we operate our business in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner. As part of this aim, Max Myanmar plans to adopt the ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management System within its sustainable policy in the near future.

In keeping with our mission, the Max Myanmar Group has remained as committed to corporate social responsibilities (CSR) today, as it was when first established in 1993. The company has carried out CSR activities across the education, health, sports, youth development and disaster management sectors for over 20 years, and is determined to continue well into the future. The Ayeyarwady Foundation – founded in 2010 – was formed in order to oversee this very objective. In addition to its responsible business practices, Max Myanmar endeavours to participate in a number of philanthropic activities, all geared towards improving the well being of the Myanmar people. As a result, the Ayeyarwady Foundation has donated over MMK 59bn ($45.46m) in order to aid the development of a number of sectors throughout the country.

Under the guidance of Chairman U Zaw Zaw, AYA Bank has engaged with the Ayeyarwady Foundation to front all of its CSR activities since 2010. As the first bank in Myanmar to become part of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), AYA Bank redesigned its corporate policies in order to incorporate all 10 UNGC principles into its business operations.

Changing climate
In an economy as dynamic as Myanmar’s, there are a number of variables to consider when investing in a responsible, inclusive and sustainable business strategy. Despite all the challenges faced by a country in transition, it is possible to operate responsibly – so long as social and environmental policies are implemented in a way that engages stakeholders and ensures any development is ultimately in the interest of all people.

Max Myanmar has fully committed to corporate sustainability and corporate governance throughout its years of growth in various industries. Our businesses have proudly participated in UNGC since 2012, and also act as active contributors to the UNGC Myanmar Network. Max Myanmar has proactively conducted sustainability assessments in coordination with international experts and organised sustainability seminars with its stakeholders.

Max Myanmar continues to participate in the country’s reform process under the auspices of the new democratic government, its business partners and other local organisations. Despite already being regarded as a pioneer in Myanmar, Max Myanmar hopes its strong corporate identity will establish the group as the business of choice for years to come.

Recession-proof Australia

In September, Australia passed an economic milestone not many countries can claim to have matched: the country reported its GDP was up 3.3 percent, making it the 100th consecutive quarter without a recession (see Fig 1). This 25-year growth streak is the second longest in the world’s history, only behind the Netherlands’ 26-year run from 1982 to 2008, which was driven by the Nordic Seas oil boom.

australia-fig-1What has made Australia’s run all the more remarkable is it was able to avoid a recession during the 2008 global financial crisis. A mix of strong partnerships with international markets and gutsy policy decisions added up to help the country navigate an international economic climate in which a recession seemed inevitable.

However, runs like Australia’s are destined to come to an end eventually. Its streak was supported by a once-in-a-century expansion from a major trading partner, and the country now looks to be on the edge of what is, at best, far more subdued economic prospects. As international markets are continuing to re-establish themselves after the financial crisis, the future for Australia looks more in line with that of the rest of the world – although, as proved in the past, Australia’s leaders have learned the right decisions made quickly can save an economy that looks certain for disaster.

Ploughing ahead
Australia’s capital has historically been tied to agriculture (see Fig 2). After the establishment of the country as a penal colony by the British, Australia’s economy was initially driven by pardoned convicts establishing farms on the seemingly endless swathes of land that stretched towards the country’s centre. The gold rushes that began in 1851 then spurred significant immigration and generated a swift increase in the nation’s population. Even so, agriculture remained an important commodity for some time, with wool remaining Australia’s primary commodity export from the 1870s all the way through to the 1960s.

In the last century or so, Australia faced two major economic downturns. Its first was in the 1890s, when a mixture of drought, a slowing of international demand for wool, and striking workers demanding better conditions combined to weaken the country’s economy. Along with many other nations around the same time, a recession set in. Australia was also not spared the Great Depression between 1929 and 1932, and suffered due to falling exports, a decrease in overseas loans and a drop in residential construction.

australia-fig-2Professor Jeff Borland is an economist at the University of Melbourne and studies Australian economic history. He said Australia’s small, open economy has traditionally proved susceptible to downturns due to international and domestic imbalances. When these combine, Australia enters its worst declines. Sharp stops in international capital flow have also proved particularly damaging.

“In the 1890s, you had the Baring crisis in Argentina, and European investors really worried about investing money in the newer, smaller economies, so there’s a relatively sudden stop of capital flow that has an adverse effect”, Borland told World Finance, explaining how the same thing then happened again in the 1930s. “That’s a better-known episode where the British bond market started refusing to roll over loans to Australia and [demanded] repayments; that had a bad effect.”

There is a decent chance Australia would have fallen into the same trap during the 2008 financial crisis. However, although unknown to policymakers in the 1990s, a number of lessons learned from these past crises had put Australia in a good position to weather the 2008 storm.

The recession we had to have
By definition, any streak of recession avoidance must have started with one. In the early 1990s, Australia fell victim to the wave of recessions that swept the globe. The country was in a precarious economic situation at the time, and the shock of the international downturn left the country reeling. At the announcement of the grim economic results, the Australian Treasurer at the time, Paul Keating, famously announced it was a “recession that Australia had to have”. The economic effect was disastrous.

“The recession started in the September quarter of 1990 and lasted until the September quarter of 1991”, said the former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia Ken Henry in a 2006 lecture broadcast on ABC Radio. “During the recession, GDP fell by 1.7 percent, employment by 3.4 percent and the unemployment rate rose to 10.8 percent. Like all recessions, it was a period of disruption and economic distress. It was particularly deep in Victoria, where a disproportionate share of the financial failure occurred. Victorian employment fell by 8.5 percent compared with a fall of 2.1 percent for the rest of Australia.”

The biggest contributing factor to the early-90s recession – Australia’s worst since the Great Depression – is still up for debate. Borland said disagreement exists as to whether it was down to poor policy decisions or just fallout from the rest of the international slowdown.

The first half of the equation is Australia’s domestic market. “During the 1980s, we deregulated financial markets, and that had led to sort of a credit boom, which led to asset price inflation, and probably to some extent a bubble in commercial real estate prices”, Borland said. This resulted in a readjustment of overvalued assets leading into the 1990s, breaking a lot of confidences.

Strong partnerships with international markets helped Australia navigate an international economic climate in which a recession seemed inevitable

Borland explained Australia’s banks were also partly to blame: “Essentially in the 1980s, with the deregulation of banking markets, the banks were really aiming for market share. They were able to expand, so they worried a lot more about getting market share than they probably did about lending standards.”

Inflation was also a contributing factor, according to Borland: “Most countries around the world, to try and get rid of the inflation that had been created in the 1970s, ended up following the approach of tighter monetary policy, and that ended up causing some degree of downturn. In Australia, that downturn was made even bigger, I think, but the fact is that the government misjudged the lags with which monetary policy would operate.”

Australia’s reserve rate was regularly driven up in the years before the recession, and efforts to correct it simply didn’t come fast enough.
Australia’s economic situation was by no means isolated, with the US also struggling with a weak economy. This transfer of slower economic growth no doubt dogged Australia as well, and as in the past, the country’s local and international economies were simultaneously hammered.

Going for growth
The end of the 1990s recession, which marks the beginning of Australia’s current streak, happened with a bang. A period of booming growth immediately after a recession can often be expected as an economy catches up to previous expectations, assuming any sort of major economic shock doesn’t occur. In the case of Australia, it managed to set up its recovery as it shed its economic deadweight. The nation’s bad loans worked their way out of the system, and the government applied fiscal stimulus measures. However, Borland said that, while this effectively engineered a recovery, it is nowhere near enough to explain the full extent of the last 25 years.

Perhaps the major economic driver behind Australia’s fiscal success was not on its own shores, but a little over 4,500 miles north; at the same time, China entered a phase of remarkable economic development, as a manufacturing boom created an insatiable demand for iron ore and coal. Australia had the benefit of being both abundant in these resources and geographically quite close.

Borland said this development largely came as a surprise to Australian policymakers: “I guess if you were a real China expert in the early 90s, you would have seen the Chinese economy growing for about 15 years and you might have forecast that it was about to move into a real phase where it would be heavily reliant on iron and steel, the production of infrastructure, and that Australia would benefit from that. Though I think even people who said they foresaw that would say they were surprised by the scale of the benefits Australia derived.”

With China’s economy transitioning away from infrastructure and construction, demand for Australia’s raw materials
has slowed

The appetite for these resources prompted a mining boom the likes of which will probably never be seen again. Mining companies rushed to invest in the construction and operation of new sites, creating a multitude of job opportunities in rural Australia. While this explosion of economic activity created the foundation for growth, smart decision-making was ultimately what allowed Australia to avoid the worst of the 2008 financial crisis.

Support to households
At a time when much of the rest of the world fell into the economic doldrums, Australia walked away from the global financial crisis comparatively unscathed; while not a time of booming growth, a mixture of savvy policy and strong foundations let Australia avoid the worst. Borland said there were three main reasons Australia avoided a recession in the late 2000s: China, banks and stimulus.

The Chinese Government, fearing a recession of its own, poured what was the biggest fiscal stimulus ever into its economy to accelerate construction. This meant demand for Australia’s minerals remained high, and the softening of international markets was not felt as much as it could have been.

The second reason was Australia’s banking sector. Still scarred from the 1990s recession, the industry had been extremely cautious with its lending up until 2008. Many had suffered severely under that recession, with Westpac in particular teetering on the edge of insolvency. Determined to not let this happen again, Australian banks had avoided the risky lending practices that ultimately crippled the US market, and focused instead on their retail divisions.

Australia statistics:

100

Quarters without a recession

5.6%

Unemployment rate, October 2016

$56,327

GDP per capita, 2015

One of the biggest factors, however, was the Australian Government’s quick decision on various stimulus measures to keep Australia’s economy ticking along: Kevin Rudd’s Labour Government and Treasurer Wayne Swan committed Australia to becoming a guarantor for any loans made to Australian banks from international lenders. This was unlike the situation in the US, where banks became cautious of one another’s solvency and so stopped lending to each other. “That basically meant that we never experienced any dry up of liquidity or any issues about the inability of Australian banks to keep financing their operations”, said Borland.

The other factor was the quick adoption of efforts to sure up spending by giving away money. In total, AUD 42bn ($31.3bn) was handed out to families in the form of AUD 900 ($670) cheques to those earning less than AUD 100,000 ($74,430) per year, and AUD 950 ($710) to families with school-age children. The cash came with no strings attached, except for the encouragement that it should be spent at the time, rather than saved. The Labour Party and Henry, then the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, championed the aggressive measure.

The injection of cash had its intended effect, with families pumping the money back into the economy almost immediately. The construction industry, which usually suffers particularly badly during a recession, was also supported with $14.7bn in cash grants available to schools for the construction of performance halls.

The packages worked so well because of how quickly they were implemented. While it may have been tempting to make construction projects a major focus of stimulus measures, by the time the economic benefits would have been felt, Australia probably would have already slipped back into recession. With the no-strings handouts of cash happening at the same time, consumer spending picked up immediately.

It was a lesson learned from the last recession. In an interview with ABC’s current affairs programme 7:30, Henry said he saw the effects of the 1990s recession first-hand, and was determined to act with the speed needed to avoid what seemed like an unavoidable recession: “That experience was seared on my brain, I think I’d say, and I was very keen that we not have a repeat performance of that. In fact, my recollection of that period of the early 1990s recession is that treasury stood on the side lines, and as Secretary of the Treasury I was not going to stand on the side lines.”

Henry coined the phrase “go hard, go early, go to households” as a philosophy for the spending, and pushed to get the rapid injection of cash to move ahead of infrastructure projects so the effects could be felt before recession set in.

Running out of luck
But while Australia has so far continued its recession-free streak, the economic climate for the country is now looking substantially more fragile. With China’s economy transitioning away from infrastructure and construction, demand for Australia’s raw materials has slowed.

The impact of this slump is perhaps most noticeable in Western Australia. Australia’s largest state in terms of size and home to many mines, Western Australia was riding high during the boom years. Since then, the region’s unemployment rate has risen to 6.5 percent (see Fig 3) and real estate prices have slid 8.3 percent from a 2014 peak. Some commentators have concluded that, on its own, Western Australia is already in a recession.

Despite this, Australia’s eastern states have so far proven more resilient. According to figures from the Australia Bureau of Statistics, the economies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland are all still growing.

Borland said that, as well as the end of the mining boom, there are a few other challenges in Australia’s immediate future. One is reducing the budget deficit that was generated during the global financial crisis. Another is the changing nature of the international energy market, which could potentially erode Australia’s dominance in the area.

“Another issue for Australia is making the adjustment from being a world leader in energy economics, in the sense of mining lots of coal, to trying to be a world leader in energy economics in new technologies. That’s going to be a big challenge for Australia as well; maintaining the competitive advantage in being a source of energy supply.”

Certain of uncertainty
Commentators have long been predicting the end of Australia’s growth streak, but while the country no doubt has challenges to face, speculating as to the state of its future is always difficult.

According to Borland, making any sort of definitive prediction is unwise, but at least currently the country appears to be posting steady – albeit very slow – growth: “I can’t see prospects of a major downturn, but the problem is that the big bad episodes are the ones you don’t see. If things keep going along the way that they are, it may not be the period of most rapid growth, but I guess the point is there is nothing definite you could say at the moment is sort of the cause of a major recession.”

In his 1964 book The Lucky Country, social critic Donald Horne attributed Australia’s success (as the title suggests) to luck, rather than any sort of competent decision-making from the country’s leaders. While some critics might attribute Australia’s financial prowess to the same good fortune, luck just isn’t enough to prompt a streak of this length.

“There’s that thing historians talk about called hindsight bias”, Borland said. “When you look back, it makes sense that things happened, but that doesn’t mean that it was inevitable that it would happen. I think it is clear that it was not inevitable that Australia would have
had growth for 25 years.”

Australia, while no doubt having been fortunate, also made the right decisions at the right time to avoid recession for 25 years. While it is now no longer in as comfortable a position as it was during its mining boom – and while the streak clearly cannot go on forever – Australia has learned from its past mistakes, and should be able to manage more modest prospects.

‘Ban the Box’ campaign reduces black employment in the US

Despite their good intentions, government policies in the labour market often lead to unintended, and sometimes harmful, consequences. Minimum wages can price certain people out of the labour market while workplace regulations can push firms abroad. Policies seeking to protect employees from unfair dismissal can lead to a freeze in hiring, while unemployment benefit can disincentivise work. Governments must be careful when interfering in the labour market. Any intervention must be carefully designed to guard against adverse outcomes without stifling the intended benefits. Governments must perform a careful balancing act.

Ban the Box has inadvertently led employers to make assumptions based on the colour of someone’s skin

Banning the box
The latest government intervention has been the ‘Ban the Box’ initiative in the US. The initiative – which has been going in Hawaii since the 1990s – aims to ban employers from asking prospective employees about their criminal records on employment applications. Since its inception, the campaign’s popularity has continued to grow across state borders, gaining particular traction in the wake of the 2008-9 recession and benefiting from revived concerns over the US prison system. The movement seeks to prevent ex-offenders from becoming re-offenders – with recidivism often linked to a lack of employment. For those with convictions – no matter how minor the crime – re-entering the labour force is often a struggle, and without gainful employment they often commit further offences.

However, many employers remain reluctant to hire people with a criminal background; assuming these individuals to be less trustworthy and disciplined than their perceived-to-be law-abiding counterparts. By banning the box, the campaign hopes to eradicate employer prejudice, instead allowing candidates to be judged on visible merit. The box has been banned in at least 52 municipalities in the US, while some large employers – such as Target Corporation – have instigated their own initiatives. The campaign has also picked up steam internationally, with the UK-based charity Business in the Community launching its own Ban the Box campaign in 2013.

Ban the Box effects on probability of US black male employment:

7.4%

reduction in the northeast

7.5%

reduction in the midwest

8.8%

reduction in the west

Adverse results
Yet, as the latest research has shown, the initiative is doing more harm than good. As with many government interventions in the labour market, it has produced adverse results that were initially unforeseen. Chiefly, according to the latest research published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), where Ban the Box has been trialled, it has actually resulted in greater discrimination in the job market. Jennifer L Doleac and Benjamin Hansen, the researchers behind the paper, wrote: “Advocates for these policies seem to think that in the absence of information, employers will assume the best about all job applicants… this is often not the case.”

Unfortunately, without being able to discern former felons through the usual medium, employers appear to have discriminated against groups perceived more likely to have a criminal record, principally young, uneducated men from ethnic minorities. As the NBER noted in its newsletter: “[Ban the Box] reduced black men’s probabilities [of getting a job] by 7.4 percent in the northeast, 7.5 percent in the midwest, and 8.8 percent in the west; similar, albeit lesser, effects were seen for Hispanic men in the northeast, midwest, and south.”

In an attempt to prevent employers making prejudiced assumptions about those with a criminal record, Ban the Box has inadvertently led employers to make assumptions based on the colour of someone’s skin. Ultimately, the employers making these discriminatory assumptions are to blame, but policies that lead employers to make such decisions – however unjustified – must be questioned and perhaps discarded. With black and minority youth employment already crushingly high in many regions across the US, the move to ban the box has the potential to seriously harm this already economically disadvantaged group.

Creating an environment for success

A recent survey of more than 155,000 employees worldwide revealed almost half believe their office environment prevents them from working effectively. The survey by London-based workplace research firm Leesman found that 45 percent of office workers feel this way. For businesses, this does not only highlight a major productivity deficit, it also suggests that swathes of office workers are deeply unsatisfied with their workplace.

In the era of the so-called ‘War on Talent’, offering anything less than an office where people love to work is a risk few companies can afford to take. Moreover, unhappy staff members can have a direct, negative impact on a firm’s bottom line. So, when commissioning future workplace designs and deciding on office locations, it is essential businesses find a formula that fosters staff wellbeing and productivity.

War on Talent
The battle to recruit and retain the best talent is a global phenomenon; never has it been so intense. KPMG’s 2016 Global CEO Outlook study polled 1,300 bosses across 11 industries in 10 countries, and found 99 percent are taking action to develop existing or future talent. In addition, more than half reported skill gaps in key business functions, while some 96 percent of chief executives plan to increase their headcount over the next three years – a figure up from 78 percent in the previous year.

As attracting and retaining skilled people is a business imperative, companies need to understand what staff members want from their jobs, as do the developers building their workplaces. Much has been written about how to lure in tomorrow’s leaders, the so-called Millennials. But it also is worth remembering that retirement ages are rising, and the world’s population is aging. As a result, the workforce will continue to include a great many people who did not grow up with a smartphone attached to them like an extra limb. Employers, therefore, need to think about how they can please all the generations that make up their workforce.

Location, location, location
Studies such as KPMG’s, which research exactly what keeps people in a job, are highlighting the emergence of the workplace itself as being just as important as other, more predictable factors, such as job role and salary – or, in some cases, even more so. For example, a survey conducted by OnePoll last year revealed location is the top factor keeping British workers in their current roles, ahead of both wages and job security: some 57 percent of respondents said they stay in their job because of its location.

So, what makes an ideal office location? Transport connectivity is the first essential, as employees must navigate through increasingly congested cities. It also matters a lot more in business culture, where the prevalence of electronic communications has placed a unique significance on face-to-face meetings, especially in a world where international travel has become faster and cheaper.

The transformation of London’s King’s Cross, once a rather unloved part of town, into one of the capital’s most sought-after business locations is in no small part thanks to the area’s rail and underground hub, from which you can access all corners of London, or even travel straight into the heart of Paris.

HB Reavis therefore sees transport connectivity as critical to new office developments. The Gdañski Business Centre in Poland, our commercial office scheme in Warsaw’s fast-developing city centre fringe, is considered one of the best-connected schemes in the area. The scheme offers around 100,000sq m of modern offices and other amenities, and is located just 50 metres from a subway station. We have also financed a stairway to further improve the station’s accessibility.

A great working environment leads to engaged staff members, as well as a more effective business overall

A train station is located opposite Gdañski Business Centre, and several buses and tramlines stop just 100 metres from the complex. A nearby bridge connects the site to the opposite bank of the Vistula River – a large residential provision – and a number of bicycle routes lead to the complex.

Being located in a primarily residential neighbourhood is also an effective way of ensuring people commuting into the development on weekday mornings are moving in the opposite direction to the heavier flows of transport heading out of the area.

Today’s employees aspire to work in an office based in an attractive neighbourhood – or an office that functions as its own attractive ‘neighbourhood’. Hence, smart employers are choosing to base their operations in districts where staff can enjoy great restaurants at lunchtime and cool leisure venues after work – the latter being a particular draw for those all-important Millennials.

When developing an office in an area that does not already have these assets, the alternative is to implement a ‘placemaking’ strategy, which involves creating the required amenities in or around the new office development. Curating the mix thoughtfully will create an interesting place where people want to be.

Our Twin City development in the Slovakian capital, Bratislava, demonstrates the power of placemaking. Currently the largest regeneration scheme in Central Europe, the scheme will bring back to life a former industrial zone, thus creating an expansive and lively new city district. It will comprise of Twin City offices on one side of the street and a shopping centre, Stanica Nivy, with a completely rebuilt coach station on the opposite side.

The retail offering will bring life and character to the district, both at street level and higher up, with a fresh foods market, complete with an entire floor devoted to speciality foods, and a multi-functional ‘green roof’ featuring a greenery and an outdoor gym.
Capitalising on our international experience, we strive to bring the latest trends and solutions to the development while making sure that the area will be ‘alive’ and serve the entire local community.

Internal wellbeing
This brings us to what happens inside the office. There is now overwhelming evidence to suggest the quality of a workplace affects not only the happiness of its inhabitants, but also their productivity, capacity for collaboration and ability to innovate. With staff on average accounting for 90 percent of any business’s operating costs, it is essential employees are as productive as possible. Productivity includes very basic ideals, such as decreased absenteeism and more efficient use of time. However, organisations are now aiming for more: their goal is improved talent management, more engaged employees and faster innovation.

Engagement is particularly interesting: training consultancy Dale Carnegie has noted that organisations with highly engaged employees outperform those with low engagement by 202 percent, a fact that translates directly into the bottom line. Modern workplaces therefore must work to engage employees.

To an extent, how an engaging workplace looks depends on the nature of the work and the demographic segments employed, as mentioned previously. The ping pong ball and bean bag-strewn workplaces pioneered by the media tech sector, which are often held up as the best model for businesses universally (especially for those seeking to recruit Millennials), are not right for every company. But plenty of workplace principles currently in vogue can be widely applied in order to improve how people experience their workplace, such as maximising natural light, ensuring good ventilation and offering a variety of settings for working to suit various tastes, moods and tasks.

Our own headquarters in Warsaw – Post˛epu 14, where 34,500sq m of Grade A office space also houses AstraZeneca, Samsung and Ikano Bank – are designed to ensure the wellbeing and effectiveness of the HB Reavis team. A variety of breakout spaces support different tasks and ways of collaborating. There are also social spaces, such as a games room featuring a football table and an elevated area with beanbags. In addition, board members sit in an open plan area and the CEO’s desk is located in a commonly used ‘corridor’, which fosters interaction between the leadership team and the rest of the staff.

Our London office development, 33 Central, is due for completion in 2017 and was recently sold to the third largest US bank by assets, Wells Fargo. The building is a light-filled island site featuring a quarter-acre roof top garden that offers panoramic views of London’s most famous landmarks. Another of our London office schemes, 20 Farringdon, will provide six external terraces and 142 bicycle parking spaces upon completion. It also promotes a ‘ditch the lift’ mentality: the interior stairs are double width for ease of access and are visible from reception, drawing people towards them. The 12-floor building is also a stone’s throw from Farringdon train station, through which Crossrail – London’s major new east-to-west transport link – is set to run from December 2018.

The winning formula
Going forward, the best offices in the world will harness digital technology and data to produce an environment that better meets the needs of their occupiers. By knowing who is in the building, where they are, and their preferred lighting and temperature conditions, technology can improve the workplace experience for all staff members – and potentially reduce the employer’s heating bill as well.

The winning formula for an office that promotes staff wellbeing and productivity is comprised of multiple elements. These may range from the macro – such as the building’s proximity to an airport or train station – to the micro – for instance, whether the building has bicycle parking spaces and potted plants.

The formula will be different for each business, according to the nature of the work and staff demographics – but get the equation right, and the result will be an aspirational and truly occupier-responsive workplace.

Driving banking’s digital revolution

From blockchain to Apple Pay, technology is rapidly transforming the banking sector. For many consumers, mobile banking has become the new norm, allowing them to quickly make payments with ease.

The convenience of such on-the-go banking is dramatically shaping consumer demands, with customers now expecting fast responses and 24/7 support as standard. This sudden rise of remote banking has in turn seen customers shift away from traditional bank branches, putting banks under significant pressure to adapt to their client’s evolving tastes.

The sudden rise of remote banking has seen customers shift away from traditional bank branches

According to a 2014 survey by consulting firm Accenture, four in 10 people aged between 18 and 34 would even prefer to switch to a bank without a physical branch. In response to this new reality, banks around the world are focusing on refining their digital strategies and optimising their mobile services.

As the banking sector undergoes a technological transformation, Santiago-based Banco de Chile is fast establishing itself as a leader in online financial services. Besides offering traditional mobile banking options, the Chilean bank has also developed a range of innovative, multi-channel apps to help customers manage their different financial needs. “Our objective is clear”, Rodrigo Tonda, Marketing and Digital Banking Division Manager at Banco de Chile, told World Finance. “We are looking to continuously innovate with different products, services and channels in order to respond to and meet our customers’ new needs quickly and easily.”

Everything online
As customers opt for mobile banking over taking a trip to their local branch, Banco de Chile is rapidly expanding its digital channels. With more than 93 percent of its customers making use of its online options, the bank provides a 24-hour service, 365 days a year. Recently, Banco de Chile launched its new online banking portal, which along with being easier to navigate, boasts a host of new features including the option to authorise bank transfers from a mobile device. However, this focus on mobile innovation won’t see the bank compromise on safety. “All of our new transactions take place without neglecting security”, said Tonda. “Banco de Chile has long been at the industry forefront in protecting customers from fraud, and continues to implement a variety of security protocols and software.”

In addition to its revamped website, the bank also offers a wide rage of easy-to-use, fast and secure mobile apps to suit customers’ different needs. With the main Mi Banco app, customers can manage all of their transactions and banking-related enquiries in one convenient place. Mi Pass is the sister app to Mi Banco, enabling users to authorise transfers and transactions from the main application. As the bank works to optimise Mi Pass, customers will also be able to complete online transactions through the app.

In order to speed up tedious bill payments, the bank has created the innovative Mi Cuenta app, which allows customers to easily pay their bills at the touch of a button. The application will even send customers automatic alerts when a bill is due, thus helping users avoid frustrating late payment charges. Furthermore, when it comes to micropayments between individuals – such as splitting a restaurant bill or buying a gift among several people – the bank has developed the Mi Pago app, which lets customers securely collect or make payments to other Banco de Chile customers.

A new generation
As part of its new digital strategy, the bank has also launched two one-of-a-kind apps in Chile. Mi Seguro focuses on making insurance assistance accessible for customers, allowing users to remotely submit insurance claims from the site of an accident or quickly purchase travel insurance through their mobile phones. The bank’s second unique app, Mi Plata, enables customers to manage their children’s allowances by creating debit accounts online.

“With this collection of apps, we want to make mobile banking as safe and convenient as possible”, said Tonda. “We understand our customers have busy lives and limited free time, and we are constantly working to create a banking system that evolves with consumer needs.”

With its impressive portfolio of apps, Banco de Chile is hoping to appeal to a new wave of younger, tech-savvy customers. Indeed, the bank is also looking to take on younger hires as part of its growing team, as it aims to position itself as the top choice for first-time banking customers.

“Digital services are especially important for younger generations”, said Tonda. “Over the coming years, we will continue to work on our technological innovation, ensuring that our customers can meet their financial needs safely, comfortably and quickly.”

The benefits of an alternative citizenship

Imagine you want to take your partner out for a shopping weekend in Paris. If you are an EU or US citizen, no problem. If you are a Russian, UAE or Chinese citizen, however, you face a challenge: you need a visa. You could also have the same issue in the case of an urgent international business meeting.

Delays in issuing visas often force people to cancel flights and accommodation bookings, so the luxury of a global lifestyle and world travel – which is ‘normal’ for Europeans and Americans – is often associated with difficult visa requirements. However, there is an alternative available.

Some countries not only offer the common routes to citizenship, such as jus sanguinis and jus soli – they go one step further and offer their citizenship through an investment, similar to the residence-by-investment practice many countries currently have in place.

Citizenship-by-investment programmes offer investors and wealthy individuals easier ways to attain citizenship through economic investments. Citizenship-by-investment programmes are nowadays viewed as perfectly reputable, thanks to their having a proper legal framework in place and providing the certainty an applicant needs. With a rise in economic and political instability around the world, an alternative citizenship gives people threatened by political, religious or ethnic persecution independence and freedom. Should the situation arise, a second passport is the best preparation to be able to immediately leave one’s home country and relocate anywhere within the EU. Furthermore, diplomatic protection abroad is also available to legitimate passport holders.

Alternative citizenship gives people threatened by political, religious or ethnic persecution independence and freedom

In certain situations, an additional citizenship can simplify or make a person’s tax situation clearer; naturally, this should always be discussed in detail with a tax expert. Usually, tax lawyers refer clients to Citizen Lane for different reasons, including tax optimisation in regards to income tax and inheritance tax.

A second passport may be a particularly useful asset for French and German citizens, as both countries’ politicians are seeking to force the payment of income tax on international income irrespective of the tax residence. Much like in the US, renouncing citizenship may be necessary to avoid double taxation. The practice of renouncing citizenship has been on the increase in the US. According to publications by IRS, instances of US citizens renouncing their citizenship increased by more than 460 percent between 2005 and 2015.

In the right lane
Citizenship-by-investment programmes do not automatically enable someone who has the funds to ‘buy’ their citizenship; beyond sufficient financial resources, it is essential to have a clean criminal background and a good reputation in order to qualify.

These citizenship programmes maintain tough application procedures, and applicants are subject to far deeper checks than anyone else applying for residence or citizenship in a country. Thorough background checks on applicants ensure that together the client and host country’s government create a mutually beneficial, strong and trustworthy partnership. These conscientious background checks are also essential for third-party countries, to which the second passport grants visa-free travel. The countries offering citizenship-by-investment programmes are absolutely aware they would risk their foreign relations and visa waiver agreements if they were to grant citizenship and issue passports without such thorough background checks.

Impunity is essential, which is why at Citizen Lane we internally use the same background checking tools as Swiss banks, while the due diligence checks of the governments are even more profound. A criminal background will rule out an applicant straight away. Some governments, including those in Cyprus, Malta, Vanuatu, St Kitts and Nevis, and Antigua and Barbuda engage private investigation firms, such as IPSA International, BDO and others, to check the history of applicants. There are also checks against international wanted lists. Even negative media reports about an applicant can prompt the authorities to reject an application.

In short, any citizenship application by a person who might be considered as a potential risk to a country’s reputation will be denied. Here I will outline three possible options for those eligible for citizenship.

The European citizenship solution
The Cypriot citizenship programme is currently one of the most attractive options. It is a very popular scheme, since Cyprus is a well-established western country with a relatively large economy. Furthermore, processing times are just three to four months on average, making it one of the most efficient citizenship programmes in the world. Acquiring Cypriot citizenship has relatively low related costs as the majority of expenses can be considered an investment. The minimum investment amount needed is €2m ($2.1m), which could take the form of government bonds, real estate or a company.

Cyprus’ corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the world at 12.5 percent, which is another huge advantage. Foreign investors are also attracted to the island as it has signed a number of agreements to avoid double taxation. Cyprus is a member of the EU and currently has agreements in place for visa-free travel with 157 countries. It also grants citizens the rights to seek residence and work, and do business in every EU country and Switzerland.

Between 2010 and 2015, the average growth of tourists visiting Cyprus was almost four percent per year. This influx of visitors has created an increase in lodging requirements and higher property values, which has in turn created the opportunity for property holders to rent out their properties during key parts of the year.
Property prices in Cyprus dropped following the financial crisis, but they have been steadily recovering during the last couple of years. We have a broad network in Cyprus and know the real estate market very well. We see this growth trend continuing. Needless to say, all investments carry risks – but this is exactly the reason clients prefer to talk to us for independent advice.

The secure hideaway option
The Vanuatu Economic Rehabilitation Programme (VERP) – Vanuatu’s citizenship programme – was introduced in 2015 to raise money for the reconstruction of infrastructure destroyed by Cyclone Pam. According to our sources, the VERP will be terminated very soon, but is expected to be replaced by another citizenship programme. The short processing time of just one to two months makes the programme probably the most efficient in the world. Currently, the required investment amount for a family of four is $230,000.

citizen-lane-fig-1Vanuatu is well known as an offshore jurisdiction, which of course offers lots of possibilities. Investors in Vanuatu appreciate the fact they have no income tax, no capital gains tax, no wealth tax and no inheritance tax. Nevertheless, one of the main drivers for the Vanuatu citizenship programme is that most citizenship investors deem it to be a secure destination in our uncertain times, far away from terrorism and warfare.

In the past, Vanuatu has been criticised for not being à jour with anti-corruption compliance, but it has recently made great strides in catching up. In September 2016, in a meeting with the ambassador of Vanuatu in Brussels, HE Roy Mickey Joy, we extensively discussed the topic of anti-corruption compliance. As with many other countries, Vanuatu has realised anti-corruption efforts are essential for a prospering economy and has an unwavering commitment to keeping the country’s reputation for integrity spotless: in 2015, there were several trials during which more than a dozen high-ranking Vanuatu officials received lengthy prison sentences. This commitment to integrity safeguards the best economic interests of Vanuatu and its citizens, while countering financial crime both within the country and elsewhere.

The real estate opportunity
The twin islands of St Kitts and Nevis are currently developing well in regards to both their tourism industry and real estate market. According to an IMF report published in July last year, tourism earnings in the country increased between one and 9.9 percent – with an average of six percent – between 2010 and 2015, while GDP grew by 99 percent between 2004 and 2015. The real estate market has also experienced continuous growth, with some huge investment projects during the last years.

Following the financial crisis and as a consequence of the competition from other citizenship-by-investment programmes that have emerged in recent years, the real estate market is currently consolidating and shows a decline in investment amounts to a healthy level. As an additional security, the law specifies that real estate investments of least $400,000 qualify for a citizenship application, which indirectly guarantees a minimum price level. The investment is secure if there is no drop in prices. The fact that the property can be sold after five years assures that an artificial investment bubble will not be created. The minimum investment amount of $400,000, which is set by law, guarantees a lower threshold, so if the investor purchases a property close to this threshold, it is very unlikely that he or she will lose the investment.

From this perspective, the least expensive and most secure citizenship option comes with a real estate investment in St Kitts and Nevis. Some of the government-approved developments are very attractive investments. Furthermore, just last year the Caribbean’s new superyacht marina opened, so undoubtedly St Kitts and Nevis is developing into a prudent jet-set destination. Besides the property investment, the sum of additional related expenses would only total around $100,000 for a single applicant.

Alternatively, investors can choose to donate to the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation, which subsidises government projects in sectors that promote prosperity in healthcare, education, culture, environmental protection, infrastructure and others. If one chose the donation option, total costs of about $290,000 would arise for a single applicant.

The GMO debate: sowing the seeds of controversy

Having been voted “the most evil corporation” in the world by readers of the NaturalNew website in 2013, there’s no denying Monsanto has had some reputation problems. That said, the poll result could be seen as quite an achievement – given the company itself is not consumer-facing.

Monsanto may be one of the biggest producers and sellers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the world (see Fig 1), but by no means does it have the lion’s share of the global market. It has, however, struggled to always manage its public relations as best it might and has a controversial track record of suing farmers, both of which factors have made it a target for critics of GMOs.

monsanto-fig-1GMOs are plants or animals that have had their DNA adapted by transferring individual genes from a source organism to a target organism. In doing so, breeders are able to produce crops and livestock with certain beneficial traits, such as pesticide resistance or enhanced nutritional value. Glenn Davis Stone, Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at Washington University, said: “Herbicide tolerance is by far the most widely planted GM trait. Its advantage is not in yield – it actually tends to have a yield drag – but because it makes the use of cheap herbicide convenient.”

Though at first glance it may seem genetically modifying plants and animals is a logical step in modern agriculture, numerous multinationals have come under fire for ‘messing with nature’, with critics claiming such tampering could have unintended and damaging consequences. Monsanto has been at the centre of this debate, having been the biggest target of anti-GMO groups and campaigners since the 1990s.

Monsanto’s controversial history
To understand why the company has attracted so much ire, it is necessary to go back to the very beginning. Monsanto was established in 1901 as a chemical company deep in the American Midwest (in St Louis, Missouri to be precise). Things moved quickly for the group once it expanded into drug manufacturing and by the 1920s Monsanto had become the world’s largest producer of aspirin.

It was during this time that Monsanto introduced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to its portfolio. At the time, PCBs were considered to be a wonder chemical for hydraulic fluid and lubricants, prized as an oil that didn’t burn or degrade. Once again, Monsanto had reached the pinnacle of market success, becoming the globe’s biggest manufacturer of PCBs. Despite the seeming benefits at the time, it would later prove a very controversial move.

Monsanto has been the biggest target of anti-GMO groups since the 1990s

Things didn’t get much better when, in the 1960s, Monsanto became one of the few companies to produce the biochemical weapon Agent Orange. The company’s dealings got even more complicated in the 1970s, when the US and numerous other countries banned the production and use of PCBs, which had been linked to birth defects, immune system disorders, cancer and fatalities. In fact, Illinois – where Monsanto’s first PCB factory was based – had one of the highest rates of birth defects in the US at the time. According to the University of California, even three decades after their ban, PCBs could still be detected in the bloodstreams of pregnant women living in the state.

Also prohibited during the same decade was DDT, a chemical commonly used in pesticides, which Monsanto had been manufacturing for years. DDT was linked to cancer, miscarriages, male infertility, developmental delay, liver and nervous system damage, adding further damage to Monsanto’s reputation.

Delving into agribusiness
Perhaps because so many of the company’s products had been banned, the executives at Monsanto decided an overhaul was needed; by the 1980s, the group had let go of both its chemical and plastic departments. Monsanto then headed in a new direction as it began buying up seed companies while also investing in biogenetic research.

With approval from the US Department of Agriculture in the bag, in 1994 farmers began growing soybeans with Monsanto’s GM seeds, making their crops immune to the most commonly used weed killer in the industry (another Monsanto product: Round-Up). The firm has been profiting handsomely from products of this nature ever since (see Fig 2).

monsanto-fig-2Monsanto also developed a way to ensure crops could not produce viable seeds: sterile seed technology prevented second-generation crops, prompting the nickname ‘terminator seeds’. According to Monsanto’s website, the company has never commercialised this technology, and in 1999 made a decision never to do so. Despite this, backlash from anti-GM activists resulted all the same, with many accusing Monsanto of preventing farmers from using their best seeds – a practice that has been in place for centuries.

While terminator seeds may not be in general circulation, it is true Monsanto does not allow its customers to reuse seeds for a second season. Despite criticism, the company maintains banning second-generation crops is necessary in order to prevent the spread of glyphosate resistance among crops. Nonetheless, over the years, many have argued this rule is simply a clever sales tactic.

Public outcry
Despite the company’s chequered history, the general public was largely unaware Monsanto even existed for many years. That all changed in 1996, however, when Monsanto attempted to sell its first products in Europe. With the UK still reeling from an epidemic of mad cow disease, the tide of public opinion at the time was very much against modern farming techniques. And so, despite regulatory approval from the EU, consumers in the UK rebelled against Round-Up Ready seeds, leading supermarkets to boycott GM foods and tabloids to coin the term ‘frankenfoods’.

Monsanto was caught off guard, dubbing the British the “sad sacks of Europe” for querying the use of GMOs – hardly a masterstroke of public relations. Modern Farmer reported that, in an anonymous interview, a former employee of Monsanto had said the company’s attitude at the time was “if they try to block it, we’ll sue them” – a tactic the company would be accused of pursuing a number of times in the years to come. A subsequent and ill-advised campaign (which read, “Food biotechnology is a matter of opinions – Monsanto believes you should hear all of them” and included the phone number of Greenpeace) ran into trouble with both environmental activists and industry watchdogs; the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority found Monsanto had presented “as accepted fact” what were merely its own opinions and that some of its scientific claims were “wrong” and “unproven”.

Environmental organisations encouraged the fallout with a series of high-profile campaigns against the company and GMOs in general. To name but a few examples, in the mid-1990s the Organic Consumers Association founded the Millions Against Monsanto campaign in a bid to “fight back against Monsanto and other biotech bullies”. In 1999, Friends of the Earth introduced a campaign entitled: “How safe is the food you eat?” It concluded that “the scary answer is, no one really knows”, playing on public fears.

Such a debate is not constructive, it’s not informative and it definitely doesn’t really mean much

“NGO opposition originally crystallised around two primary issues: the social and ethical aspects of designing life, and the potential impacts on seed diversity and control”, Stone explained to World Finance. “A secondary set of issues concerned safety and the integrity of systems for evaluating safety.”

Further criticism was levelled at Monsanto’s interactions with farmers. Vanity Fair reported that in 2008 Missouri shop owner Gary Rinehart had recalled how six years earlier, anonymous men in suits had turned up at his convenience store, accusing him of planting Monsanto soybeans without consent. They reportedly advised him to “come clean and settle with Monsanto… or face the consequences”. The article described a fear among farmers of the company’s alleged behaviour towards those it believed had infringed its copyright. “Farmers call them the ‘seed police’”, wrote Donald L Barlett and James B Steele, “and use words such as ‘Gestapo’ and ‘Mafia’ to describe their tactics”.

The most prominent of such cases was that of Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto in 1998 for refusing to pay a licensing fee for Round-Up Ready Canola. Schmeiser argued the seeds had blown onto his farm, and so growing the crop had been unintentional. The story blew up when it was made into a documentary called David vs Monsanto, reinforcing in the public imagination the idea of the company as a Goliath using its deep pockets to prosecute poor farmers.

For its own part, Monsanto has never denied investigating those it believes to have unlawfully used its seeds. In a series of articles published on its website, the company described the process by which it goes about investigating possible cases of “farmer seed patent infringement”; the company says its investigators are polite and open about who they are and who they work for, that they only collect samples with farmers’ permission, and that lawsuits, though possible, are not probable. “There’s nothing good about seeing a farmer or a family upset”, the site quotes investigator Larry McDowell as saying.

A lot of the bad press about GMOs lacks scientific evidence and makes nonsensical comparisons

Whatever the truth of such cases, arguably Monsanto’s biggest mistake has been its failure to understand the cultural significance of farming, or that many people feel strongly about the idea of ‘patenting nature’. In an attempt to squash this notion, Monsanto has often compared its GM seeds to software, stating the technology is proprietary and belongs to the creators.

Stone described the resultant nature of the debate as “self-amplifying”, a phenomenon known as ‘schismogenesis’: “I take an extreme position in reaction to your extreme position, leading you to take a more extreme position, and so on… The polarisation feeds on itself as nuanced differences become disagreement, then disapproval, exasperation and eventually hatred. For example, GMO promoters accuse GMO sceptics of crimes against humanity, in part because the sceptics make the same claim [of them].”

You can’t mess with science
It has taken some years, but the evidence in favour of GMOs is beginning to take hold in the public consciousness. “The National Academy [of Sciences] in the US has done a really thorough study that once again shows that there is no evidence of harm for human health or for the health of the environment, so these studies have been pretty exhaustive over the last 20 to 30 years”, said Dr Sarah Davidson Evanega, Director at Cornell Alliance for Science, an organisation that supports “evidence-based decision-making in agriculture”.

She continued: “We’ve had a lot of studies that have suggested there’s no reason to think that the nature of how these plants are bred would pose any danger to human health and the environment, and that of course is based on the crops we have today.”

220

The number of acres covered by Monsanto’s primary research campus in Chesterfield, Missouri

$46.5bn

The value of Monsanto’s failed bid for Syngenta in 2015

$66bn

The amount Bayer paid for Monsanto in 2016

436

The number of cities that took part in the March Against Monsanto in May 2013

In response, the media is beginning to change its tune. “Increasingly, the coverage of tech by reputable media outlets is very much based in science – and people don’t want to get on the wrong side of science”, Evanega told World Finance. “There is a scientific consensus around climate change, and there’s a scientific consensus around safety of GM crops, and you can’t deny one scientific consensus and embrace the other; you’re either on the side of science, or you’re not.”

Indeed, a lot of the bad press about GMOs lacks scientific evidence and makes nonsensical comparisons. Take the American chestnut tree, for example: in an attempt to bring the tree back from near-extinction, it has been engineered using a gene from wheat, which protects it from a fungal disease known as ‘chestnut blight’.

“[This is] a blight that has basically killed every nut-bearing American chestnut tree on the planet over the last 100 years”, Evanega explained. “If we think about the efforts that have been made to repopulate the forests of the eastern US with what is now a nearly extinct species, that’s very different than Round-Up Ready corn, so how can we compare those two products?”

Evanega also raised the question of whether we should even be having such a global debate at all: “It’s not really useful for us in the global north to be debating about whether or not a banana farmer in Uganda should have access to choose whether or not she wants to grow a genetically engineered crop – that should be a decision that is left to the Government of Uganda and the farmers of Uganda. So, to engage in a global GMO debate over this huge amorphous bucket of aggregated things called GMOs is not constructive, it’s not informative and it definitely doesn’t really mean much.”

More and more people now seem to understand the distinction between different GM products. Through a gradual shift in the media, the public is also increasingly aware that genetic modification is a tool used by farmers in order to develop new, healthy crops, with the aim of optimising their quality.

“I do know they [Monsanto] have spent billions on public relations and have surely made some progress by enlisting academics and other scientists, who appear to be objective, to praise GMOs”, Stone added.

Necessary progress
Underpinning much of the GMO debate is the role of technology in agriculture, which is something many people are instinctively afraid of. With numerous campaigns and media outlets telling us we are consuming poisonous chemicals and feeding them to our children, it is no wonder many worry about what they eat each day. A lot of this, however, is hyperbole, and in many cases simply fallacious.

The truth is, science helps to bridge the widening gap between the escalating demand for food and its production. With a global population that has reached 7.4 billion – and is expected to reach 11.2 billion by the end of the century – more and more pressure is being placed on agricultural systems to feed the planet. Worryingly, our current infrastructure and farming methods are buckling under that pressure. A trust in science is therefore desperately needed if solutions are to be found and implemented – solutions that work with limited space and resources, and do not spoil our landscapes any more than is necessary.

monsanto-fig-3
And science has an answer: genetically modifying crops can help alleviate some of the stress we have placed on our planet, while also feeding billions (see Fig 3). Although products such as Round-Up Ready do not directly increase yield for farmers, GM crops generally require fewer herbicides and pesticides, thereby reducing the exposure our food and environment have to them. By making crops more resilient, we create a more sustainable system for farming, which in turn can help to enhance food security across the planet.

Throughout the centuries, society has always had a strong affection for farmers and profound respect for their practices – it speaks to most of us on a number of levels. Food is deeply personal; it provides a vehicle for communication, community, celebration and comfort. While western civilisation has become somewhat detached from the source of its food, most of us are still aware of how much work is required to produce it. Unsurprisingly, therefore, we disdain those who we believe take advantage of farmers and threaten their livelihoods.

It is perhaps this that lies at the core of derision for Monsanto: the company is, in the minds of its critics, the big bad guy that picks on hardworking farmers, squeezing pennies out of them and suing them.

Yet Monsanto’s reputation for bad spin control and tendency to sue, together with some questionable decisions in its earlier years, should not muddy the reputation of GMOs in general. For there is something to be said for the good GMOs can bring: science can help us grow crops that are less prone to disease and more likely to thrive, while scientific evidence suggests they do not in fact cause any harm to humans or the environment. Finally, the media is beginning to realise the benefits of GMOs, and as a result, more people are becoming aware of the fact that the battle against genetic modification is not one we should be waging at all.