(Economy) Size Does Matter


The few Israelis from the workplace that I’ve interacted with were all very proud of their country’s technical prowess and their start-up culture that is second only to Silicon Valley. Yet, for all the great relationship that US and Israel enjoy as nations, most of those very same Israelis would curse the US for buying their start-ups and thus ending up taking the credit for those ideas. Because till the Israelis own it, it’s a local player; but once Google or Apple buys it, the whole world knows of that company!

Turns out this feeling runs quite deep in Israel beyond just the handful I interacted with: Israelis used to admire Nokia a lot during its peak. Why? A small country built a global technology giant. If the Finns could do it, why can’t we, they asked?

But, as this article points out, maybe the Israelis are better off not having a Nokia of their own. Here’s why. While Apple, the world’s most valuable company, is worth only 0.5% of the US GDP, Nokia was worth 20% of Finland’s GDP at its peak. Ok, so why is that a bad thing? Because, if Apple goes down someday, it won’t take down the US economy with it; but when Nokia went down, it had a huge impact on Finland’s economy. And so, says the article:
“Economies are likewise more stable and robust when comprised of a wide and diverse set of companies. An economy that relies on a few giants, let alone a single one, is fragile. When such a giant collapses, it has a profound impact on the entire economy. Israel, being a small economy, would become more fragile if a real tech giant were to emerge, and, hence, is better off with a more diverse ecosystem without any giants.”

The article continues to point out the above just means it’s a good thing for Israel (the country) that they don’t have tech giants. But surely individual Israeli companies would want to become giants: why don’t they? Apparently, founders don’t have the patience to grow the company; nor do they hire professional managers to run the company once it reaches a certain size.

So it looks like the size of the economy of a country does matter. Even in the era of globalization. Because start-ups start local and only then do they become global.

Comments

  1. Commerce and economics were forever my bugbears! I never make much sense out of them. But things like how Nokia can impact its country (of origin and HQ) Finland is understandable. I can understand Israelis grudge too: one puts in the best brain power and develop something that serves well - presto, a big country's dollar-rich company buys the whole thing outright. While that too is understandable, at least there is consolation: the fellows who developed got paid after all. Name and fame are more a notional thing; one can get over the hurt.
    ----

    Going beyond the bounds of the blog's points, I sometimes wonder about the following too; actually they bewilder me.

    If Citibank goes down in the USA for example, the US government comes to the rescue and pumps dollars from taxpayers money. Huge banks cannot to allowed quick collapse, I am told - they have national repercussions. In India, we go much farther, if my understanding is right. Air India can go on making huge losses for example, and yet the netas would go on pouring taxpayers money into the organizations and keep it going. Forget Govt. undertaking companies - I am told that Indian government would chip in if a huge private bank collapses.

    PNB and many public sector banks have gone the scam way, making losses amounting to several thousand crores of rupees. Indian government has no option but go all out to keep all such banks afloat. Nothing comes to nation's rescue like tax payers' money, once again. Beyond considering some minor possibilities of regulatory measures, no actions of sterner kind is contemplated by the government. "Don't rock any political boat" is the policy of all law makers here. Whether BJP rules or Congress rules or some temporary coalition leader had the bargaining power to rule at the Center, I generally find that economic policies do not undergo drastic variation. If we do find real policy change, we can conclude that no neta ever visioned them - our politicians abide in the inevitability of (1) international pressure or (2) Indian business houses putting their foot down or (3) people cannot take it any more procrastination (thus tell it in the elections effectively). To a large extent leadership is a very difficult thing in India, since far too much compromises are in demand. Modi is acknowledged as a great leader in India and abroad, but even he cannot influence our ways to make a marked difference; nor can he wield power beyond a limit. Our social mindset comes in the way of governance.

    Thus, how we continue to be a stable nation, with such bondage principles becoming national policies, is a mystery to me. But then, unlike Israel or Finland, I suppose we are too huge to be sunk easily. :-) Maybe we are too big having a powerful momentum which retards us too, from aiming higher and faster. :-(

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch