In an increasingly international and interconnected economy, Seattle was global before global was cool.

The region’s competitive global assets include internationally competitive firms, strategically important ports and one of the nation’s largest foreign-born populations.

Still, today’s unique economic moment demands an extra measure of purposeful global engagement.

As cities and metropolitan areas begin to emerge from the Great Recession, leaders are realizing the need to restructure the economy — to move from one based on debt and consumption to one powered by production and innovation.

At the same time, most economic growth over the next decade will occur outside of America’s borders. As of 2009, the combined economies of Brazil, India and China eclipsed that of the United States and now account for more than one-fifth of the global economy. By 2018, their share is expected to surpass one-quarter.

The developing world, with a rapidly rising middle class, represents a huge market opportunity for American firms. China and India alone are expected to increase their urban populations by more than 500 million over the next 20 years, which naturally leads to a rise in their consumer classes. By 2050, Chinese and Indian consumers will account for more than half of all middle-class consumption worldwide, up from just 2 percent in 2000.

These growing metropolises will also require massive investments in infrastructure and face huge challenges as they expand, challenges that U.S. firms have the expertise to solve — in transportation and mobility, in sustainability and clean energy, in information technology and software.

America’s metropolitan areas are uniquely positioned to take advantage of this dual challenge through increased trade and investment. The top 100 metro areas not only produce three-quarters of our gross domestic product, they also concentrate our most innovative firms, our research institutions and universities, and the majority of our skilled workers.

So how does the central Puget Sound region stack up? Recently, I came to Seattle as part of the Global Cities Initiative, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase. This initiative aims to catalyze a shift in economic development priorities and practices that would result in more globally connected metropolitan areas and more sustainable economic growth.

The metro area has a strong platform for trade: firms such as Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon; world-class research assets including the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; and a strong legacy of globally oriented leadership, with a wide coalition, including public, private and civic leaders, actively promoting a regional strategy for global engagement.

The data bear this out: While Seattle is the 15th largest metro area in the United States, it has the sixth highest export total, sending more than $47 billion in goods and services abroad in 2012. These exports are overwhelmingly driven by globally competitive clusters in aerospace and information technology.

Partly due to this industry specialty, Seattle’s economy is also highly innovative and uniquely oriented toward science, technology, engineering and math: More than one-quarter of jobs in the metro are in STEM occupations, the fourth highest share of any metropolitan area in the country.

Still, in such a competitive and dynamic global economy, no metro area can afford complacency. In order to maintain its position in the global economy, Seattle needs to get serious about global engagement.

First, focus on global trade and investment. Continue the collaborative efforts of your public, private and civic leaders to focus economic development strategies on growth abroad. In Seattle earlier this month, regional leaders committed to expanding these efforts, joining the Global Cities Initiative’s Exchange, through which the metro area will develop a strategy to increase foreign direct investment in key industries.

Second, invest in what matters. To compete globally, metro areas must be strong at home. In Seattle, this means shoring up your workforce-development pipeline so that local residents have a path to good jobs in advanced industries. It also calls for a regional approach to financing and delivering transportation solutions that not only reduce congestion at home, but also improve your connections abroad.

Finally, metropolitan leaders must look beyond their own borders, identify their trading partners, and build relationships to increase both trade and investment. For example, as part of the Global Cities Initiative, Chicago and Mexico City entered into a first-of-its-kind economic partnership that builds on the extensive economic, social, cultural linkages between the two metros to make both more prosperous.

There are promising efforts under way in the region, as the King County Aerospace Alliance has started collaborating with Aéro Montréal so that the two aerospace clusters can be more competitive.

Simply put, in today’s economic landscape, every city is a global city. The success of regional economies hinges on their engagement throughout the global economy. Seattle has an enviable hand to play; but success is not inevitable.

This opinion piece originally appeared in the Seattle Times.

The Seattle city council voted to push up the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. If the wage hike is fully implemented, it will guarantee Seattle’s workers the nation’s highest minimum wage. The increase in the minimum wage will be phased in over a number of years. Big employers that do not provide their employees a health plan are the first that will face the $15 per hour minimum, a requirement that will be fully phased in around 2017. Large employers who offer health benefits will have to pay the $15 minimum starting in 2018. Small businesses with employees who receive tip income will have to pay the $15 per hour minimum a couple of years later, but the countable wage will include employees’ tips. By 2021 all employers in the city must offer a minimum wage of $15 an hour, regardless of the employer’s size.

The federal minimum wage is currently just $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009. If Congress does not raise the national minimum wage, Seattle’s minimum will be more than twice the federal minimum wage. Many states currently have a higher minimum wage than the federal one. As it happens, Washington has the nation’s highest state-level minimum wage, $9.32 per hour. Unlike the federal minimum wage law, Washington’s state law increases the state minimum wage every year in line with changes in the consumer price index. By the time Seattle’s $15 per hour minimum becomes effective for large employers in 2017, the Washington state minimum wage will be about $10 per hour, assuming consumer prices continue to rise 2% a year. Thus, large employers in Seattle will have to pay their minimum-wage employees 50% more than minimum-wage employees receive outside the Seattle city limits.

I strongly favor the Administration’s proposal to boost the U.S. minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It will boost the spendable incomes of millions of poorly paid workers and their families, and I expect it will have only a small adverse effect, if any, on low-wage workers’ job opportunities and work hours. However, I am more cautious about the wisdom of raising a single city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour when nearby jurisdictions leave their minimum wages unchanged.

One reason for my caution is that a big minimum-wage hike can place Seattle’s low-wage employers at a competitive disadvantage compared with employers engaged in the same line of business but located in a nearby suburb. If compensation costs for low-wage workers represent a big percentage of a Seattle employer’s costs, and if the employer faces competition from businesses on the other side of the city limits, companies located in Seattle can lose customers to competitors outside the city.

Consider a business that mainly sells low-cost, fast-food meals. If it must pay $15 an hour to its low-wage employees, while its competitors less than a mile away are only required to pay $10 an hour, the companies outside Seattle can charge lower prices to their customers for shakes, burgers, and fries, and yet still make a profit. The lower cost establishments can capture a larger percentage of the local fast-food trade, reducing fast-food sales inside Seattle’s city limits. The same is true of the goods and services sold by laundry and dry cleaning establishments, inexpensive motels, and other businesses that depend on low-wage workers to stay competitive. The labor cost disadvantage caused by a higher minimum wage can hurt low-wage employment in Seattle and possibly reduce the value of some of the city’s commercial real estate.

To the extent that consumers have the option of buying goods or services from companies that are not required to pay a higher minimum wage, some of the hoped-for gains from a higher minimum wage will be lost. When customers can conveniently buy products or services from firms that face lower labor costs, the new businesses that they patronize will grow and the old, high-cost businesses they abandon will shrink. Low-wage workers may earn higher wages inside the Seattle city limits, but their employment opportunities in Seattle may shrink.

Seattle is a prosperous city, and its mayor was elected in part because of a promise to boost the pay of its most poorly paid residents. If a $15 an hour minimum wage has a chance of working and enjoying broad political support, Seattle is a good place to test the idea. I will be interested to see whether low-wage Seattle businesses continue to prosper even after they are required to pay a minimum wage that is 50% higher than the one faced by competitors in nearby suburbs. The risk of a big minimum-wage hike at the city level is that the city’s low-wage employers will be harmed in their competition with out-of-town businesses that sell the same products or services. The risk of this kind of harm is vastly smaller when the minimum wage is increased at the state or national level. If the Administration can persuade Congress to boost the national minimum wage, all employers—inside and outside a city’s limits—will be required to raise the pay they offer to their most poorly paid workers.

Note: An edited version of this post appears on Fortune.com

In “Water Crimes: a Global Crisis on the Rise,” a lecture given on February 20, 2015 at Brookings Mountain West Lecture Series, Vanda Felbab-Brown explains that urbanization, population growth, environmental degradation, water pollution, climate change, and increased living standards are some of the main reasons for intense competition for water. As surface water depletes, there is increased pressure for ground water usage, which is more difficult to regulate for use, abuse, and theft. Water theft and smuggling are perpetrated by both the wealthy and those who are chronically deprived of water, says Felbab-Brown, as she provides examples from California, southern Europe, Nigeria, Kenya, the Middle East, and South Asia. In many parts of world, elaborate smuggling of water with complex network chains and water mafias has emerged. Smuggling modes vary and among others include the development of illegal pipelines, illegal truck deliveries as well as the cooptation of water regulators complicit in licensing fraud and broader government acquiescence to illegal water delivery. Illegally sourced and smuggled water is used for personal consumption, agriculture, industry, and sometimes for other other illegal activities, such as the production of illegal narcotics.

For many reasons, the illegal use and delivery of water is difficult to address, says Felbab-Brown. Large-scale agriculture and industry often exercise great influence over regulators and law enforcement. In slum areas, mostly unconnected to legal pipelines, the suppression of illegal water distribution can sever access to water and hence threaten the physical survival of the most marginalized and poor. Across the world, citizens tend to be vehemently opposed to increased water pricing. Yet without effective regulation, appropriate pricing, and suppression of water crimes, the sustainability, long-term viability, and inclusive and equitable use of water cannot easily be achieved.

Among the ways to improve water policy and suppress water smuggling, Felbab-Brown notes: (1) Recognizing the extent of water misuse, abuse, and crimes; (2) developing better inventories and water-level monitoring capacity, better regulation, including pricing, greater transparency, and a broadly-based external oversight of water authorities; (3) increasing stakeholder-participation of water regulation, including farmers, businesses, and the poor who are traditionally excluded; and (4) selectively licensing some currently illegal water distributors to areas without legal water distribution systems while cracking down on the most usury, unreliable, and abusive ones. Looking ahead, coping with scarcity will require not just more innovation, but particularly better conservation.

Dark clouds have gathered over Malaysia as a crisis deepens. Two weeks ago, the country witnessed a massive street protest - dubbed Bersih (lit: “clean”) - organized by a network of civil society groups agitating for electoral reform. This was in fact the fourth iteration of the Bersih protests (Bersih also mobilized in 2007, 2011, and 2012), and managed to draw tens of thousands of participants (the exact number varies depending on who you ask). On this occasion, the protest was a culmination of widespread popular indignation at a scandal involving 1MDB, a government-owned strategic investment firm that accrued losses amounting to approximately USD10 billion over a short period of time, and the controversial "donation" of USD700 million funneled to the ruling party through the personal bank accounts of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

All this is taking place against an inauspicious backdrop of sluggish economic growth, the depreciation of the Malaysian currency, and several exposes on the extravagant lifestyle of Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor.

How consequential was Bersih?

When Bersih first mobilized in 2007, it managed to harness a flood of dissatisfaction in opposition to the government of Abdullah Badawi, and contributed to major opposition political gains at the general election of 2008. The second and third protests have also been credited as contributing factors to further opposition inroads at the 2013 polls. Assessments of the latest iteration of Bersih however, have been more equivocal. On the one hand, Bersih 4.0 indicated that the movement can still draw huge crowds and give voice to popular discontent, which continues to grow. On the other hand, analysts have called attention in particular to the comparatively weak turnout of ethnic Malays at Bersih 4.0 compared to the previous protests. This is a crucial consideration that merits elaboration if Bersih is to be assessed as an instrument for change.

Given how Malaysian politics continues to set great store by ethnic identity, the support of the Malay majority demographic is integral for any social and political change to take place. By virtue of affirmative action, ethnic Malays are privileged recipients of scholarships and public sector jobs. Therein lies the problem for any social movement agitating for change. Years of conditioning through policy and propaganda have created a heavy reliance on the state, which in essence means UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), the dominant party in the ruling coalition which Prime Minister Najib helms as party president. While it is difficult to say conclusively that this explains the tepid reaction of ethnic Malays during the Bersih protests, it is not far-fetched to hypothesize that at least a contributing factor was the fear among recipients of scholarships and public sector employees that their benefits might be jeopardized (For example, I know that scholarship holders were sent letters "dissuading" them from participating in "political activities.").

Ultimately though, the most telling feature of the event may not have been the dearth of ethnic Malays but the presence of one particular Malay leader – Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s nonagenarian former prime minister and unlikely Bersih participant.

Hitherto a supporter of Prime Minister Najib, Mahathir has grown increasingly unhappy with the prime minister’s policies. According to Mahathir himself, attempts had been made to share his reservations with Najib in private, but they were rebuffed. Goes by this account, it is not surprising that Najib’s alleged snub prompted private reservations to crescendo into harsh public criticism. By the middle of 2014, Mahathir had assumed the role of Malaysia’s conscience to become one of the loudest critics of Najib. Asked to explain his criticisms, Mahathir reportedly responded: “I have no choice but to withdraw my support. This (referring to the act of privately reaching out to Najib) has not been effective so I have to criticize. Many policies, approaches, and actions taken by the government under Najib have destroyed interracial ties, the economy, and the country’s finances.”[1]

Today, it is Mahathir, Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister who was in office from 1981 to 2003, who is leading the charge to discredit Najib and have him removed from office for malfeasance. What explains Mahathir’s singleness of purpose to have Najib removed from power? Part of the answer may lie in Mahathir’s own record of political quarrels.

What lies beneath Mahathir’s attacks?

Mahathir is no stranger to bitter and bloody personal political battles. His interventions in Malaysian politics throughout his career in office are legion (and many Malaysians might also say, legendary). Longtime Malaysia watchers and critics have assailed Mahathir for his autocratic streak evident, for example, in how he emaciated the judiciary by contriving to have supreme court judges (and on one occasion, the Lord President himself) removed from office, incapacitated the institution of the monarchy by pushing legislation that further curtailed the already-limited powers of the constitutional monarch, and suppressed opposition parties and civil society by using internal security legislation against them.

Mahathir was no less ruthless within UMNO, where he brooked no opposition. The history of political contests in UMNO has his fingerprints all over it. In 1969, it was his provocations as a contumacious backbencher that precipitated the resignation of the respected founding prime minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman. In 1987, Mahathir weathered a challenge to his leadership of UMNO mounted by political rivals (the then deputy prime minister, Musa Hitam, and minister for international trade, Razaleigh Hamzah), turned the tables on them, and had them exiled into political wilderness. In 1998, Mahathir successfully fended off the ambitious Anwar Ibrahim by sacking him, and later having him arrested, charged, and eventually convicted for corruption and sodomy. Even when not directly involved, he was never content to be a bystander, choosing instead to either instigate or leverage power plays. In 1978, he played no small part in nudging Sulaiman Palestin to challenge then incumbent Hussein Onn for party presidency (a move that many Malaysian analysts agree signaled the beginning of the end for Hussein’s political career even though he managed to fend off Sulaiman’s challenge). In 1993, Mahathir did little to prop his then deputy, Ghafar Baba, who was crumbling under the challenge of a charismatic Malay nationalist and rising star by the name of Anwar Ibrahim. It was Mahathir's machinations in 2008 that forced Abdullah Badawi, his handpicked successor no less, to resign a year later.

All said, Mahathir had accomplished the signal feat of being involved in some way or other in almost every political crisis that has beset UMNO since 1969. Several observations can be drawn from this record to explain Mahathir’s present behavior. First, Mahathir has long been possessed of a drive to be at the center of power in UMNO and Malaysian politics. Second, he is also in possession of an acute survival instinct that has enabled the über-politician to see off a string of challengers and ensured his political survival at the helm for 22 years. Finally, one can also plausibly surmise that at the core of his recent interventions is the desire – not unlike others who have held any high office for 22 years - to protect his legacy. Therein lie the rub, for it is not difficult to imagine that Mahathir might have deemed his legacy challenged by Anwar in 1998, ignored by Abdullah Badawi in 2008, and now, disregarded by Najib.

Will Najib survive?

A crucial factor that plays in this unfolding drama between two of Malaysia’s political heaveyweights – and which cannot be over-emphasized – is the fact that power in Malaysia ultimately lies in UMNO itself, sclerotic though the party may have become. It is on this score that Najib remains formidable, even for the likes of Mahathir.

Unlike Anwar, who was only a deputy president when he launched his abortive attempt to challenge Mahathir in 1998 (for which he paid a heavy political and personal price), Najib enjoys the advantage of incumbency. Unlike Abdullah Badawi, who chose to remain quiescent when stridently attacked latterly by Mahathir, Najib has used the powers of incumbency adroitly to head off any potential challenge and tighten his grip on the party. He has done so by out-maneuvering pretenders (he removed his deputy prime minister), sidelining opponents, and co-opting potential dissenters into his Cabinet. These divide-and-rule measures closely approximate what Mahathir himself had used to devastating effect when he was in power. For good measure, Najib has lifted a few additional moves from Mahathir’s own playbook: he has neutralized legal institutions, hunted down whistle blowers, brought security agencies to heel, and shut down newspapers and periodicals that have criticized him. Najib’s consolidation of power has been aided by the fact that there is at present no alternative leader within UMNO around whom a sufficiently extensive patronage network has been created. It bears repeating that the arid reality of Malaysian politics is that power still lies within UMNO, so he who controls the party controls Malaysia. On that score, even if Najib’s credibility is eroding in the eyes of the Malaysian populace, within UMNO his position does not appear to have weakened, nor does he seem to be buckling under pressure.

There are no signs that the enmity between the current and former prime ministers of Malaysia will abate anytime soon. Given the stakes, the depths to which ill-will between both parties now run, and how far the boundaries have already been pushed, the rancor is likely to intensify. Mahathir still commands a following especially online where his studied blog musings on www.chedet.cc, a key vehicle for his unrelenting assaults on Najib’s credibility, remain popular grist for the ever-churning Malaysian rumor mill. In response, Najib has defiantly circled the wagons and tightened his grip on levers of power. While Mahathir is unlikely to relent, the reality is that the avenues available to him to ramp up pressure on Najib are disappearing fast. A recent UMNO Supreme Council meeting that was expected to witness a further culling of Najib’s detractors and Mahathir’s sympathizers turned out to be a non-event and an endorsement of the status quo. In the final analysis then, it is difficult to see Mahathir ultimately prevailing over Najib, let alone bend the sitting prime minister and party president to his will.

Bringing together the five counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania, the nonprofit Metropolitan Caucus, a new regional consortium there, is promoting a joint regional application for ARRA’s competitive Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant dollars. Its four-part proposal, which will add and refine partners and programs over time, draws on the collaboration of multiple regional institutions to establish and operate a loan fund for green building and retrofits; support clean energy technology deployment; assist local governments with energy efficiency plans; and measure the energy performance of public facilities.

The newly created Metropolitan Caucus of southeastern Pennsylvania is leading the bold new regional energy efficiency strategy targeting for the competitive Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Unprecedented for the region, the Metropolitan Caucus has brought together five area counties—Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia—to make the most of the stimulus opportunity by coordinating their plans, goals, and assets to achieve maximum regional benefit. Their proposed joint EECBG competitive application for roughly $35 million calls for financing construction and retrofits, supporting clean energy companies, measuring building energy performance, and assisting local governments in implementing various sustainability solutions. To carry out each of these activities, the caucus intends to engage in broad cross-sector collaboration to leverage the strengths and unique assets of regional educational institutions, key nonprofits, and planning agencies.

Downloads

• Download Snapshot

This week will bring a cornucopia of new data, an econo-nerd's dream. Unfortunately for some of us nerds, there won't be any releases on state and local government finances. (The Census Bureau generally has to wait for all states to report and, as you can imagine, some states are laggards.)

However, there will still be a lot in this week's numbers for those who follow state and local government finances, pay into state and local coffers, or consume predominantly state and local public services like education, roads, and health care. Here are a few trends worth watching:

First, Tuesday's March S&P/Case Shiller house price indexes will be important for states whose fortunes are tied to real estate, especially in the West and Southwest. Macroeconomic forecasters are predicting home prices will decline slightly compared to one year ago but continue to increase month-to-month, suggesting that perhaps the market has hit bottom.

That would be good news for the housing sector. However, research from Federal Reserve Board economists Byron Lutz, Raven Molloy, and Hui Shan suggests that any boon to state and local revenues would be minor. They calculate the housing bust per se generated only a $22 billion drop in taxes over three years, equivalent to roughly 3 percent of annual state and local revenues excluding federal funds.

Meanwhile, the latest Census data suggest that state taxes are growing, but at a pace that is slower than usual. More worrisome, the pace appears to be moderating. In recent weeks, California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have all reported taxes coming in below projections. Also, local property taxes are likely to remain in the doldrums for some time. They tend to respond to house price changes with a delay and thus just started showing the effects of the housing bust in late 2010. Property taxes recently turned positive again, but these gains are anemic by historical standards and likely caused by rate hikes in some jurisdictions rather than improving property values.

Next up this week are Bureau of Economic Analysis revisions to first quarter GDP. Macroeconomists will be attuned to how the revisions compare to advance estimates and what this portends for the recovery. They might also take note of whether these governments are detracting from growth - as they have done by an average of 0.2 percentage points in each quarter since 2008 - or contributing to it as usual. State and local watchers will be more focused on state and local spending, which unlike previous downturns, has declined in real per capita terms and not yet recovered.

That leads us to the biggest number to watch this week - Friday's jobs report. State and local employment is already down by 665,000 jobs or about 3.5 percent from its pre-recession peak. Recent trends suggest that cuts may be abating, but this total masks differences across subsectors - state education has been adding jobs while losses continue in all other subsectors, especially at the local level.

Ongoing state and local job losses also distinguish this recession from previous downturns in the modern era. This may be in keeping with the depths of this Great Recession. However, it's hard to imagine state and local residents aren't feeling the pinch of higher property tax burdens or lower services. To take one example, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed closing California's $16 billion budget gap by converting state employees to a four day work week and closing state parks. From a macro perspective, the fiscal tightening may be over. But that doesn't mean state and local governments aren't still a real drag.

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

Key messages and Policy Pointers

• Given the stalemate in U.N. climate negotiations, the best arena to strike a workable deal is among the members the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF).

• The 13 MEF members—including the EU-27 (but not double-counting the four EU countries that are also individual members of the MEF)—account for 81.3 percent of all global emissions.

• This proposal devises a fair compromise to break the impasse to develop a science-based approach for fairly sharing the carbon budget in order to have a 75 percent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

• To increase the likelihood of a future climate agreement, carbon accounting must shift from pro­duction-based inventories to consumption-based ones.

• The shares of a carbon budget to stay below 2 °C through 2050 are calculated by cumulative emis­sions since 1990, i.e. according to a short-horizon polluter pays principle, and national capability (income), and allocated to MEF members through emission rights. This proposed fair compromise addresses key concerns of major emitters.

• According to this accounting, no countries have negative carbon budgets, there is substantial time for greening major developing economies, and some developed countries need to institute very rapid reductions in emissions.

• To provide a ‘green ladder’ to developing countries and to ensure a fair global deal, it will be crucial to agree how to extend sufficient and predictable financial support and the rapid transfer of technology.

The most urgent and complicated ethical issue in addressing climate change is how human society will share the work of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. Looking ahead to 2015 when a new international treaty on climate change should be agreed upon, we fear we are headed towards a train wreck.

Key developed countries have made it clear they will not accept any regime excluding emerging economies such as China and Brazil, and the U.S. and other ‘umbrella’ countries are calling for only voluntary, bottom-up com­mitments. Yet the major developing countries have made equity the sine qua non for any kind of agreement: they will not take on mandatory emission reduction targets with perceived implications for their economic growth and social development, unless the wealthier countries commit to deep emissions cuts and act first.

These entrenched positions between the different blocs have led to the current impasse, but as Nobel laureate economist and philosopher, Amaryta Sen pointed out, the perfect agreement that never happens is more unjust than an imperfect one that is obtainable.

What is a fair and feasible way to break the impasse, given that all efforts are faltering? The most difficult task is determining a country’s fair share of the required emissions reductions in a way that is politically feasible. After 20 years of negotiations and gridlock, it is clear that many conflicting principles of equity are brought to the table, so a solution will have to be based on some kind of ‘negotiated justice,’ or a ‘fair compromise,’ which will not be one preferred by just one group of countries.

A few basic requirements must be met. A feasible, fair and effective climate agreement must involve the largest emitters from both the developed and developing countries. Such an agreement must find a way to engage the latter without penalizing them or the former countries too much. In order to secure progress, above all it must be acceptable to the two world superpowers and top carbon emitters, China and the U.S.; with this leadership, in fact, other emitters will likely follow. This agreement could be forged in a ‘plurilateral’ setting where a limited number of countries come together first, and then be brought into the formal U.N. negotiations as the basis for a future deal, perhaps by 2015.

How can future negotiations on emissions reductions overcome such political inertia? We suggest that taking three manageable steps to a fair compromise will unlock progress.

First, negotiate a core agreement between the 13 members in the MEF (including the EU-27), which accounts for 81.3 percent of all global emissions. This makes the negotiations feasible, where deals can be struck that would be impossible in the vast U.N. forum.

Second, use consumption-based emissions accounting, which is much fairer than the cur­rent production/territorial-based accounting that all past agreements and negotiations have been based upon. These are relatively new numbers developed by the Norwegian research center CICERO, and have been vetted by the top scientific journals and increasingly utilized by policymakers.

Third, forge a fair compromise to allocate emissions rights. We propose a compromise based on a short-horizon ‘polluter pays principle’ and an indicator of national capability (income).

This third step in particular is a genuine compromise for both developed and developing countries, but it is re­quired to break the current gridlock. Each MEF member gives and takes something from this simple, workable framework and all gain a liveable planet in the future.

Throughout the paper we first explain why counting carbon emissions by consumption is far better and the im­plications of doing so, and we then introduce the MEF and why it is a promising arena for forging a bold compro­mise like the one so badly needed before 2015. We then calculate what the numbers actually mean for that group of countries and develop a proposal for a fair compromise that embodies a feasible but fair operationalization of the central equity principles of the U.N. climate treaty, i.e. action by countries according to their responsibility and capability. We conclude with a discussion of how a start in the MEF could lead to a new framework being brought into those broader negotiations.

Downloads

• Download the paper

The Girls’ Education Imperative

In 1948, the world’s nations came together and agreed that “everyone has a right to education,” boys and girls and rich and poor alike. This vision set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been reinforced over the decades and today the girls who still fight to be educated are not cases for charity but actively pursuing what is rightfully theirs. In recent years, girls’ education has also received attention because, in the words of the United Nations, “education is not only a right but a passport to human development.” Evidence has been mounting on the pivotal role that educating a girl or a woman plays in improving health, social, and economic outcomes, not only for herself but her children, family, and community. Educating girls helps improve health: one study published in The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, found that increasing girls’ education was responsible for more than half of the reduction in child mortality between 1970 and 2009. The economic benefits are clear: former chief economist at the World Bank and United States Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers concluded that girls’ education “may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world” due to the benefits women, their families and societies reap. And because women make up a large share of the world’s farmers, improvements in girls’ education also lead to increased agricultural output and productivity.

Progress in Girls’ Education

Given the importance of girls’ education, for girls’ own dignity and rights and for a broad sweep of development outcomes, it is no surprise that global agendas have focused heavily on it. For more than two decades, girls’ education has been recognized as a global priority and incorporated into development targets, which has rallied governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), foundations and international organizations. From the 1990 Education for All (EFA) Goals to the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and to the 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), girls’ education has been a priority, particularly in international development communities. Perhaps the most influential of these has been the MDGs, which reinforce parts of the EFA goals by focusing two of their eight goals on education, namely on achieving universal primary education and achieving gender parity in both primary and secondary school.

Progress in enrolling children, especially girls, into primary school is seen by many as a development success story. Indeed there is much to celebrate. Since 1990, the number of girls in low-income countries enrolling in primary school has increased two-and-a-half times, from 23.6 million to nearly 63 million in 2012. This has translated into a large increase in the girl-boy ratio in low-income countries, from 82 to 95 girls per 100 boys in primary school. For low- and lower-middle-income countries combined, the number of girls enrolled reached over 200 million girls in 2012, an almost 80 percent increase, and globally two-thirds of countries have near-equal numbers of boys and girls enrolled at the primary level. 

In 1990, in South and West Asia, there were only 74 girls enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys, but by 2012 the region had achieved equal numbers of boys and girls in school.

This progress was largely made by the leadership of developing country governments that prioritized expansion of primary schooling opportunities and by the global community’s support of governments focused on reaching the MDGs. Some of the biggest gains have been in regions struggling the most. In 1990, in South and West Asia, there were only 74 girls enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys, but by 2012 the region had achieved equal numbers of boys and girls in school. Similarly, sub-Saharan Africa, which had the lowest levels of girls in school in 1990, has experienced marked improvement, with the girl-boy ratio increasing from 83 to 92 girls per 100 boys in primary school.

The focus on getting girls into school has helped close gender gaps in relation to other factors too, such as wealth and location of residence. The fact that family income and urban or rural locality are now the most likely indicators of school enrollment is a big victory for girls’ education. The World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE) shows that in India, for example, 38 percent of girls and 25 percent of boys of primary school age were not in school in 1992. By 2005, that gap had narrowed to 24 percent of girls and 22 percent of boys. However, today the gap between the richest and poorest children’s attendance is much starker—37 percent of children from the poorest 20 percent of families versus just 11 percent of the richest 20 percent are out of school. And in many areas, girls actually outpace boys, especially at higher levels of education. In one third of countries, there are now more girls than boys enrolled in secondary school. Also, girls often do better once in school, with boys making up 75 percent of grade-repeaters in primary school.

Downloads

• Download the paper (PDF)

The United Nations will convene a major international conference on Financing for Development (FfD) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from July 13 to 16, 2015, to discuss financing for the post-2015 agenda on sustainable development. This conference, the third of its kind, will hope to replicate the success of the Monterrey conference in 2002 that has been credited with providing the glue to bind countries to the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The analogy is pertinent but should not be taken too far. The most visible part of the Monterrey Consensus was the commitment by rich countries to “make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 percent of gross national product” as official development assistance (ODA). This was anchored in a clear premise that “each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development,” which includes support for market-oriented policies that encourage the private sector. While not all of the Monterrey targets have been met, there has been a considerable increase in resources flowing to developing countries, as a central plank of efforts to achieve the MDGs.

Today, aid issues remain pivotal for a significant number of countries, but they are less relevant for an even larger number of countries. The core principles of Monterrey need to be reaffirmed again in 2015, but if the world is to follow-through on a universal sustainable development agenda, it must address the multi-layered financing priorities spanning all countries. A simple “30-30-130” mnemonic helps to illustrate the point. There are 193 U.N. member states. Of these, only around 30 are still low-income countries (33 at the latest count). These are the economies that are, and will continue to be, the most heavily dependent on aid as the world looks to how it should implement the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Conversely, there are only around 30 “donor” countries (including 28 members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, or DAC) that have made international commitments to provide more aid. For the remaining 130 or so emerging middle-income economies that have achieved higher levels of average prosperity, aid discussions risk forming a sideshow to the real issues that constrain their pursuit of sustainable development. The bottom line is that for most countries, the Financing for Development conference should unlock finance from many different sources, including but not exclusively aid, to implement the SDGs.

Addis will take place in the context of sluggish global growth, an upsurge in conflict, considerable strains in multilateral 2 political cooperation, and challenging ODA prospects in many countries.

There are other differences between Addis and Monterrey. Monterrey took place after agreement had been reached on the MDGs, while Addis will precede formal agreement on the SDGs by a few months. Monterrey was focused on a government-to-government agreement, while Addis should be relevant to a far larger number of stakeholders—including businesses, academics, civil society, scientists, and local authorities. Monterrey was held against a backdrop of general optimism about the global economy and widespread desire for intensified international collaboration following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Meanwhile, Addis will take place in the context of sluggish global growth, an upsurge in conflict, considerable strains in multilateral political cooperation, and challenging ODA prospects in many countries. In addition, regulators are working to reduce risk-taking by large financial institutions, increasing the costs of providing long-term capital to developing countries.

Against this backdrop, an Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Finance (ICESDF) crafted a report for the United Nations on financing options for sustainable development. The report provides an excellent overview of issues and the current state of global financing, and presents over 100 recommendations. But it falls short on prescribing the most important priorities and action steps on which leaders should focus at Addis.

This paper seeks to identify such a priority list of actions, with emphasis on the near-term deliverables that could instigate critical changes in trajectories towards 2030. At the same time, the paper does not aim to describe the full range of outcomes that need to be in place by roughly 2025 in order to achieve the SDGs by their likely deadline of 2030. Addis will be a critical forum to provide political momentum to a few of the many useful efforts already underway on improving global development finance. Time is short, so there is limited ability to introduce new topics or ideas or to build consensus where none already exists.

We identify three criteria for identifying top priorities for agreement in Addis:

• Priorities should draw from, and build on, on-going work—including the ICESDF report and the outputs „„of several other international workstreams on finance that are underway.
• Agreements should have significant consequences for successful implementation of the SDGs at the coun„„try, regional or global level.
• Recommendations should be clearly actionable, with next steps in implementation that are easy to under„„stand and easy to confirm when completed.

It is not necessary (or desirable) that every important topic be resolved in Addis. In practical terms, negotiators face two groups of issues. First are those on which solutions can be negotiated in time for the July conference. Second are those for which the problems are too complex to be solved by July, but which are still crucial to be resolved over the coming year or two if the SDGs are to be achieved. For this second group of issues, the intergovernmental agreement can set specific timetables for resolving each problem at hand. There is some precedent for this, including in the 2005 U.N. World Summit, which included timetables for some commitments. What is most critical is that the moment be used to anchor and advance processes that will shift toward creating a global financing system for achieving sustainable development across all countries. Committing to timetables for action and building on reforms already undertaken could be important ways of enhancing the credibility of new agreements.

In this paper, we lay out nine areas where we believe important progress can be made. In each area, we start from identifying a gap or issue that could present an obstacle to the successful implementation of the SDGs if left unattended. In some cases the gaps will affect all countries, in other cases only a subset of countries. But we believe that the package of actions, taken as a whole, reflects a balance of opportunities, responsibilities and benefits for all countries. We also believe that by making the discussion issue-focused, the needs for financing can be balanced with policy actions that will be required to make sure financing is effectively and efficiently deployed.

In addition to the nine areas listed below, there are other commitments already made which have not yet been met. We urge renewed efforts to meet these commitments, but also recognize that political and financial realities must be managed to make progress. Such commitments include meeting the Monterrey Consensus target to provide 0.7 percent of GNI in official development assistance (ODA), the May 2005 agreement of all EC-15 countries to reach that target by 2015, and bringing the Doha Development Round of trade talks to a successful conclusion. These remain important and relevant, but in this paper we choose to focus on new areas and fresh ideas so as to avoid treading over well-worn territory again.

Strong Growth and Changing Composition 

External financial flows to sub-Saharan Africa (defined as the sum of gross private capital flows, official development assistance (ODA), and remittances to the region) have not only grown rapidly since 1990, but their composition has also changed significantly. The volume of external flows to the region increased from $20 billion in 1990 to above $120 billion in 2012. Most of this increase in external flows to sub-Saharan Africa can be attributed to the increase in private capital flows and the growth of remittances, especially since 2005 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Sub-Saharan Africa: External Flows (1990-2012, in USD billions)

As also displayed in Figure 1, in 1990 the composition of external flows to sub-Saharan Africa was about 62 percent ODA, 31 percent gross inflows from the private sector, and about 7 percent remittances. However, by 2012, ODA accounted for about 22 percent of external flows to Africa, a share comparable to that of remittances (24 percent) and less than half the share of gross private capital flows (54 percent). Also notably, in 1990, FDI flows were greater than ODA flows in only two countries (Liberia and Nigeria) in sub-Saharan Africa excluding South Africa, but 22 years later, 17 countries received more FDI than ODA in 2012—suggesting that sub-Saharan African countries are increasingly becoming less aid dependent (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Sub-Saharan Africa: Number of Countries Where FDI is Greater than ODA (1990-2012)

But to what extent have these changes in the scale and composition of external flows to sub-Saharan Africa equally benefited countries in the region? Did the rising tide lift all boats? Is aid really dying? Are all countries attracting private capital flows and benefiting from remittances to the same degree? Finally, how does external finance compare with domestic finance? 

The False Demise of ODA

A closer look at the data indicates that, clearly, ODA is not dead, though its role is changing. For instance, middle-income countries (MICs) are experiencing the sharpest decline in ODA as a share of total external flows to the region, while aid flows account for more than half of external flows in fragile as well as low-income countries (LICs) and resource-poor landlocked countries (see Figure 3 and Appendix).

Download the full paper »

The Central African Republic (CAR), a landlocked country roughly the size of Texas, has endured a nearly constant state of political crisis since its independence from France in 1960. In fact, in the post-colonial era, the CAR has experienced only 10 years of rule under a democratically elected leader, Ange-Félix Patassé, from 1993 to 2003. Four of the CAR’s past five presidents have been removed from power through unconstitutional means, and each of these transitions has been marred by political instability and violence. Fragile attempts to build democratic political institutions and establish the rule of law have been undermined by coups, mutinies, and further lawlessness, making cycles of violence tragically the norm in the CAR.

The country’s current crisis (2012–present) stems from political tensions and competition for power between the predominantly Muslim Séléka rebel coalition and the government of President Francois Bozizé, as well as unresolved grievances from the CAR’s last conflict (2006–2007). Since the Séléka’s overthrow of the government in March 2013 and concurrent occupation of large areas of the country, the conflict has evolved to encompass an ethno-religious dimension: So-called Christian defense militias named the anti-balaka emerged to counter the Séléka alliance, but in effect sought revenge against the CAR’s Muslim minority (about 15 percent of the population), including civilians. During a March 2014 trip to the Central African Republic, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay remarked that “the inter-communal hatred remains at a terrifying level,” as reports of atrocities and pre-genocidal indicators continued to surface. Even today, horrific crimes against civilians are still being committed at a frightening frequency in one of the poorest countries in the world: The CAR has a per capita GNI of $588 and a ranking of 185 out of 187 on 2013’s United Nations Human Development Index.

Amid the escalating insecurity in 2013, African Union (AU), French, and European forces were deployed under the auspices of the African-led International Support Mission in Central Africa (MISCA) to disarm militant groups and protect civilians at a critical juncture in December, and their efforts contributed to the relative stabilization of the capital in early 2014. Meanwhile, in January 2014, Séléka leaders relinquished power to a transitional government led by former mayor of Bangui, Catherine Samba-Panza, who was then tasked with preparing for national elections and establishing security throughout the country. In September 2014, the United Nations incorporated the MISCA forces into the larger Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and then in 2015 extended and reinforced its presence through 2016, in response to the ongoing violence. Despite the international military intervention and efforts of the transitional authorities to address the pervasive insecurity, reprisal killings continue and mobile armed groups still freely attack particularly remote, rural areas in the central and western regions of the country. The unguarded, porous borders have also allowed rebel forces and criminal elements to flee into distant areas of neighboring countries, including Chad and South Sudan, in order to prepare their attacks and return to the CAR.

This paper will explore the origins of the complex emergency affecting the CAR, with a particular focus on the economic causes and potential economic strategies for its resolution. It will begin by providing an overview of the core issues at stake and enumerating the driving and sustaining factors perpetuating the violence. Then it will discuss the consequences of the conflict on the humanitarian, security, political, and economic landscape of the CAR. Finally, it will highlight strategies for addressing the underlying issues and persisting tensions in the CAR to begin building a durable peace, arguing that the national authorities and international partners adopt a holistic approach to peace building that prioritizes inclusive economic recovery given the economic roots of the crisis.

Download the full paper »

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

The eighth and final Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) of the Obama administration will take place in Beijing next week. On the economic side, it will be difficult this year to make progress on specific outcomes; but it’s an important year for having a frank conversation about macroeconomic and financial policies.

One reason that it will be hard to get specific outcomes is that the Chinese leadership has shown that economic reform doesn’t rank very high on its list of priorities. After laying out an ambitious reform agenda in its Third Plenum resolution in 2013, implementation of reform has been slow, except in some aspects of financial reform. Recent speeches have emphasized the need to close zombie firms and clean up non-performing loans in the banking system, but specific plans have been modest. 

In terms of the agenda between China and the United States, the most important issue is negotiating a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). Many important sectors are still closed to inward direct investment in China. It would help China’s transition to a new growth model to open up these sectors to competition and to private investment, and a BIT is a smart way to commit to these reforms. However, China has been slow to produce a credible offer on the BIT because enterprises and ministries with vested interests have opposed opening up and the leadership is apparently not willing to take them on.

Another factor affecting this S&ED is that it is the last for the Obama administration. I would argue that this is a good time for China and the United States to demonstrate that regular, high-level exchange produces results, increasing the likelihood that whatever administration comes next will want to maintain something similar. However, it is more likely that Chinese leaders will want to wait and see what administration they will be dealing with and to save deliverables for those future negotiations.

S&ED is an opportunity for the top economic officials in the two countries to frankly discuss their policy choices and to avoid mistakes that can come from miscommunication.

My experience with the first four S&EDs was that the conversation was more important than the deliverables, which have often been modest, incremental steps. This year, China will be very interested in hearing what the Federal Reserve thinks. May labor market data will be published on June 3, just in advance of the S&ED, so there may be more clarity about when the Fed is likely to raise interest rates. Regardless of when the Fed moves, both China and the United States have an interest in seeing a relatively stable exchange rate for the yuan. China’s central bank officials have emphasized that the country still has a large current account surplus, so depreciation of the trade-weighted exchange rate is not warranted. Depreciation would exacerbate imbalances and would work against the transformation of China’s growth model because it favors industry at the expense of services. 

But if the Fed continues to normalize interest rates and the dollar rises against other major currencies, China does not want to follow the dollar up. Hence, its emphasis on stable value of the currency relative to a basket. S&ED is an opportunity for the top economic officials in the two countries to frankly discuss their policy choices and to avoid mistakes that can come from miscommunication. The most important outcome of the S&ED may well be avoidance of policy mistakes, a subtle outcome that will not be reflected in headlines. 

China’s approach to Europe is a contrasting mix of economic opportunism and strategic vision.

A continent gripped by economic weakness and debt is crying out for Chinese investment, and Chinese state enterprises and funds are eagerly participating in the sale of the century, buying up ports, prime real estate and technology firms from Greece to the U.K.

At the same time, Beijing views Europe as the terminus for its massively ambitious “One Belt, One Road” project – a string of ports, logistics hubs and other trading infrastructure stretching all the way from Southeast Asia to the north of England.

Yet a populist backlash against China is building in Europe: recent street demonstrations by European workers over Chinese steel dumping have highlighted the risks of a relationship that increasingly looks troubled.

In their book “China’s Offensive in Europe,” Philippe Le Corre, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Alain Sepulchre, a senior adviser with BCG in Hong Kong, analyze China’s rapidly expanding footprint on the continent — and what it means in global terms. They set out some of their thinking in a written Q&A with China Real Time:

You title your book “China’s Offensive in Europe.” This sounds somewhat alarming. Should we be worried?

It may have sounded slightly alarming a few years ago, but China’s economic intentions toward Europe are not just about creating jobs and value: they are about spreading influence on a weakened and somewhat divided continent (the U.K. being perhaps the most obvious example) that is also far away from the U.S., the country seen by China as the ultimate competitor. Europe is part of “the West” where China is willing to leave more than footprints.

Overall, how do you assess the relationship between the EU and China? What are the opportunities and the risks?

On one hand, China has offered to take part in major EU projects such as the European Strategic Investment Fund, launched by the European Commission to relaunch European infrastructure. It will probably become the biggest non-European stakeholder in the ESIF. But on the other hand, there is an attempt by China to divide the EU at various levels. A typical example is the “16+1” group created by China and sixteen Eastern and Central European countries in 2011. Once a year, leaders of these countries meet with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. Last year in Suzhou, they also met with President Xi Jinjping. Seven countries signed memorandums of understanding with China on “one-belt, one-road.” Three of them hosted Mr. Xi recently, and were offered substantial Chinese investment promises. China has also tried to establish similar platforms with Southern Europe and Nordic countries, so far without success, but there is a risk that a large number of smaller countries (some of them non-EU members, a good example being Serbia which is getting a Chinese-made high-speed railway) will take a separate approach from the rest of Europe when dealing with China. This is not what Europe needs now.

How coordinated is Chinese investment in Europe? Is there a master plan in Beijing?

There is no “master plan” to take over Europe. First, Europe was part of the “China goes out” [investment] policy in the late 1990s. It then started accelerating with opportunities in 2008-2009 during the euro-debt crisis (and thanks to a favorable exchange rate), when China bought eurobonds and started buying into European infrastructure such as Athens’ Piraeus Harbor (which it now controls). Now, Chinese investment is taking a different dimension through the cultivation of individual European countries via the “one belt, one road” initiative as was demonstrated by Mr. Xi’s visits to the Czech Republic in May, and to Poland and Serbia more recently. Although many aspects of OBOR remain unclear, Europe is definitely a final destination for this project.

Would “Brexit” make the U.K. a less attractive destination for Chinese capital?

As a financial center, London would remain attractive to Chinese investors who would still use it as an renminbi trading hub – but they would also use Frankfurt, Paris and Luxembourg, where they have started trading, too. As for the British market, it would be treated as a medium-sized economy with some prospects but a much less important group than the 450-million consumer common market. For all its flaws, the EU is a powerful trade block with clear interlocutors on issues of importance to China, such as the Market Economy Status. Finally, it is not clear if the U.K. would remain a top destination for Chinese investments. Real estate is one thing, but projects such as the “Northern Power House,” a massive development plan in the north of England, have little chance to receive Chinese financial support if the U.K. votes to exit the EU on Thursday.

Chinese companies are on a buying spree in Europe. This is good news for job creation, yet it also creates anxiety, particularly in Germany, about the loss of key technologies. How do you see this playing out?

Overall, the mood within European elites is about welcoming Chinese investments providing they play the European way. So far Chinese investors have been targeting primarily nonsensitive sectors or companies in financial trouble. The case of [German robot maker Kuka being acquired by Chinese home appliance giant Midea] is quite unique as it involves some specific high-tech content in a sector which is of huge potential. The fact that the Chinese acquirer is perceived as low-tech and very aggressive in its domestic and international expansion strengthens the anti-China Inc. feeling.

Is there a danger of a real populist backlash in Europe against perceived unfair Chinese trading practices, including steel dumping?

It is already happening with the recent (nonbinding, but overwhelming) vote on May 12 by the European Parliament against granting market economy status to China by the end of 2016. Members of the European Parliament are directly elected by the European people, and they reflect the continent’s worries over unfair trade practices from China. These are sensitive times in Europe, and China’s message is obviously not popular with European grassroots where people worry about jobs and the future of the continent’s economy.

What is behind the debate on giving China market economy status?

It is a complicated issue for Europeans as the EU itself is based on the rule of law. In this case, the law is the 2001 World Trade Organization agreement that says that China should receive MES by December 2016. Economics and politics are two other factors European leaders cannot avoid: both France and Germany are facing general elections in 2017 and populism is on the rise everywhere. It would be suicidal to grant the status to China now, as almost none of the criteria to be a market economy have been met – except perhaps the upcoming deadline. A compromise will be needed with mitigating measures at the very least, and in the current political context, it will obviously take time.

Europe complains that while its markets are wide open to Chinese investment, China is closing up. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for greater reciprocity. How can China be persuaded to level the playing field?

European cumulative overseas direct investment into China is far bigger than what China has been investing so far into Europe. China is still considered an emerging market, typically showing some kind of protectionism. At the same time, China is often not sympathetic to reciprocity be it in politics or business. Two ways could be considered to pressure China. One way – as we have just heard from Chancellor Merkel – is to be offensive by blocking some Chinese investments in deemed sensitive areas (similarly to what is taking place in the US through the CFIUS mechanism) and by finding alternative suitors to firms like Kuka that China wants to acquire. Another way would be to use the pan-European card. In many cases, European businesses and / or political bodies have been battling each other for Chinese investments. This has been going on for years, and it is time for Europeans to partner vis-a-vis China.

On her recent visits to China, Ms. Merkel has spoken out strongly on issues from human rights to the South China Sea. This compares quite markedly with the approach to China adopted by Britain, which tends to avoid sensitive issues. What accounts for Ms. Merkel’s frankness?

There is still a Chinese fascination for Germany’s economic and technological model, which has no equivalent in Europe. Although the German trade surplus with China is shrinking, many German industrial brands are recognized and vastly respected in China (Audi, Siemens, BMW, BASF…). German technology and brands give Germany an incentive. In addition, Ms. Merkel, who has been in power for almost 11 years, is seen by Beijing as Europe’s clear leader. David Cameron is only considered as his country’s prime minister, with little influence on decisions taken within the EU. The fact Ms. Merkel has spoken frankly and repeatedly about sensitive issues has not weakened her – it is the opposite. A good lesson for others, perhaps?

What is the experience so far of European companies bought by Chinese firms?

The experience so far has been a mixed bag. On the workforce front, most companies have been expanding rather than the opposite, but some have been downsizing their labor force at least initially. A typical challenge lies more at the top management / governance level: Chinese owners tend to over-manage or under-manage dispatching too many or too few skilled managers, governing too tightly or too loosely. The right balance has not been found yet. The most ‘non value-added’ factor is probably on the transfer of technology side. In many instances, Chinese investors have not been able to fully leverage the European technology content into their domestic operations. 

This interview originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal. 

Brexit has little direct effect on the Chinese economy though it does increase the risk of financial volatility. In the long run it is hard to see it as anything but a plus for China as the West continues to decline and China continues to rise.

In the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, stock markets all over the world tanked. The interesting exception was China: The Shanghai market fell 1 percent on Friday and then more than recovered it on Monday. In the short run, Brexit is a modest negative as Europe’s gross domestic product (GDP) and trade are likely to grow less rapidly, and the EU is China’s largest trading partner. But the Chinese economy is simply not that export-oriented anymore. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the contribution of net exports to China’s GDP growth has averaged around zero. China initially made up for lost external demand with a massive stimulus program aimed at investment. This has now led to excessive capacity in real estate, manufacturing, and infrastructure. As a result, investment growth is slowing (see figure below). But China’s GDP growth has held up well because consumption is now the main source of demand. It consistently delivers more than 4 percentage points of GDP growth and its contribution has been on an upward trend.

China has developed a virtuous circle in which wages are rising at a healthy rate (more than 10 percent over the past year), consumption is growing, consumption is mostly services so the service sectors expand, and they are more labor-intensive than industry so sufficient jobs are created to keep the labor market tight. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, but maintaining consumption is the big challenge for China, not the external sector.

Another feature of China’s new growth pattern is that there is a steady outflow of capital as investment opportunities at home diminish. The U.K. had been one of the favored destinations for China’s outward investment, seen as a welcoming location that could be used as a jumping off point for the rest of Europe. Chinese firms will now need to rethink that strategy but this should not be too difficult an adjustment. The United States has been the destination for the largest share of China’s overseas investment and it is likely that that trend will strengthen in the wake of Brexit.

Brexit does complicate China’s currency policy. The dollar and the yen have strengthened while the pound and euro decline. In past global crises, China has been a source of stability but the yuan fixing on Monday suggests that the central bank does not want to follow the dollar up if it is going to keep rising. Ideally they would like relative stability against a basket. There continues to be a risk that this policy will excite accelerating capital outflows so in that sense financial risks have increased somewhat. But probably the central bank will be able to manage the capital outflows so that the trade-weighted exchange rate is stable.

A U.K. no longer in the European Union will presumably be anxious to strengthen its ties with China so it may well be willing to make compromises on market-economy status and investment deals that a unified Europe would not have made.

Finally, from a larger geostrategic perspective, it would seem that China is the big winner from Brexit. Europe is likely to be a less influential player on the world stage and will be absorbed with internal issues of negotiating the British exit, controlling immigration, and keeping the periphery inside the eurozone. The United States is also likely to be distracted by these European challenges. This gives China more scope to pursue its reclamation activities in the South China Sea and to play divide and conquer with European states on various issues. For example, China would like to be recognized as a market economy, which is both symbolic and a practical matter for adjudicating anti-dumping cases. It is also negotiating investment treaties with both the United States and the EU, though so far China’s offers have not been very attractive in the sense that they exempt many important sectors from open investment. A U.K. no longer in the European Union will presumably be anxious to strengthen its ties with China so it may well be willing to make compromises on market-economy status and investment deals that a unified Europe would not have made. Brexit itself may not be that important but it may prove to be a good signal of the decline of Europe and the rise of China.

Event Information

China’s economy has achieved astonishing growth over the past three decades, but it may be undergoing its most serious test of the reform era. In his newly published book, “China’s Guaranteed Bubble,” Ning Zhu argues that implicit Chinese government guarantees, which have helped drive economic investment and expansion, are also largely responsible for the challenges the country now faces. As growth slows, corporate earnings decline, and lending tightens for small and medium-sized businesses, the leverage ratios of China’s government and its corporations and households all have increased in recent years. How desperate is China’s debt situation, and what can be done to avert a major crisis?

On July 11, the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings hosted Ning Zhu, deputy dean and professor of finance at the Shanghai Advanced Institute of Finance, Shanghai Jiaotong University. Zhu presented key findings from his research into Chinese sovereign, corporate, and household debt, and also introduced potential remedies to return China to the path of long-term sustainable growth. Following the presentation, Senior Fellow David Dollar moderated a discussion with Zhu before taking questions from the audience.

 Follow @BrookingsChina to join the conversation.

Video

• China’s economic bubble: Government guarantees and growing risks

Audio

• China’s economic bubble: Government guarantees and growing risks

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• China guaranteed bubble
• 20160711_china_economic_bubble_transcript

China has provided foreign assistance since the 1950s, and is now the largest developing country to provide aid outside of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC), a forum of the world’s major donor countries under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Like its foreign policy more broadly, Chinese foreign assistance has adhered to the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” and emphasized the virtue of national self-reliance. At the same time, it has served a strategic purpose alongside other foreign policy priorities.

A slow start but a steady increase

Compared to top DAC donor countries, the scale of China’s foreign assistance is still relatively small. According to some estimates and OECD International Development Statistics, China’s gross foreign aid in 2001 was extremely limited, amounting to only about 1.8 percent of the total contribution by DAC donors. However, since launching its “Go Global” strategy in 2005, China has deepened its financial engagement with the world, and its foreign aid totals have grown at an average rate of 21.8 percent annually. In 2013, China contributed about 3.9 percent to total global development assistance, which is 6.6 percent of the total contribution by DAC countries and over 26 percent of total U.S. foreign aid. 

Millions of USD (Current)

Gross foreign aid provided by China versus major DAC donors

And the lion’s share goes to: Africa

Africa is one of China’s most emphasized areas of strategic engagement. Particularly since the establishment of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in 2000, the relationship between China and Africa has gotten closer and closer. In 2009, African countries received 47 percent of China’s total foreign assistance. Between 2000 and 2012, China funded 1,666 official assistance projects in 51 African countries (the four countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with China—Gambia, Swaziland, Burkina Faso, and São Tomé and Príncipe—were left out), which accounted for 69 percent of all Chinese public and private projects. Among the 1,666 official projects, 1,110 qualified as Official Development Assistance (ODA)—defined by the OECD as flows of concessional, official financing administered to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries. The remaining 556 projects could be categorized, also according to the OECD, as Other Official Flow (OOF)—transactions by the state sector that are not “development-motivated” or concessional (such as export credits, official sector equity and portfolio investment, and debt reorganization). (Note: in terms of dollar amounts, not included in the statistics here, most Chinese lending to Africa and other parts of the developing world is not concessional and is therefore not foreign aid.)

Zeroing in on infrastructure

About 61 percent of Chinese concessional loans to Africa are used for infrastructure construction, and 16 percent are for industrial development. The three areas that receive the largest allocations of Chinese concessional loans are transport and storage; energy generation and supply; and industry, mining, and construction. A small portion of the remaining allocations go to health, general budget support, and education. 

Some have interpreted these trends to mean that China is making an effort to export domestic excess capacity in manufacturing and infrastructure, especially considering the uncertainties of China’s economic transition. But the motivations are broader than that. China’s “Africa Policy”—issued in December 2015, in Johannesburg—clearly expresses the Chinese government’s belief that infrastructure construction is a crucial channel for African development. This notion could be connected to the domestic Chinese experience of having benefited from the technological diffusion of foreign aid and foreign direct investment in the construction sector. Moreover, in practice, China’s more than 20 years of experience in implementing international contract projects, as well as advanced engineering technologies and relatively low labor costs, have proved to be a comparative advantage in Chinese foreign assistance. In addition, by prioritizing the principles of non-interference and mutual benefit, China is more comfortable providing infrastructure packages (e.g., turn-key projects) than many other countries. 

Doing assistance better

Legitimate concerns have been raised about China’s tendency to facilitate authoritarianism and corruption, as well that its assistance does not always trickle down to the poor. As such, the state-to-state Chinese approach to providing assistance should be reformed. Globalization scholar Faranak Miraftab indicates that on-the-ground partnerships between communities and the private sector—mediated by the public sector—could achieve synergies to overcome certain shortcomings, creating a win-win situation. With deeper involvement by domestic assistance providers, Chinese foreign assistance could touch more people’s lives by tackling both the short- and long-term needs of the most under-resourced parts of civil society. Domestic assistance providers should exploring public-private partnerships, which among other benefits could yield increased foreign assistance services. By focusing on its comparative advantage in contributing to infrastructure projects that benefit the general public while also facilitating participation from civil society, Chinese foreign assistance could bring more concrete benefits to more individuals. 

China has already begun tackling these and other weaknesses. Although infrastructure and industry still account for the largest share of total official projects in Africa, China has intentionally strengthened its official development finance efforts in areas related to civil society. Projects have surged in the areas of social infrastructure and services, developmental food aid and food security, support to non-governmental organizations, and women in development, to name a few. Moreover, following President Xi Jinping’s promise at the United Nations summit in September 2015, an initial $2 billion has been committed as a down payment toward the China South-South Cooperation and Assistance Fund. The funding is primarily designed to improve the livelihoods of residents of recipient countries and diversify domestic aid providers (e.g., NGOs) qualified to participate or initiate assistance projects in the least-developed countries. 

In order to achieve positive results, it is critical for the Chinese government to carry out detailed management initiatives to engage civil society: for example, establishing a complete system for information reporting and disclosure (actions have already been taken in several ministries and bureaus), publishing guidelines for the private sector to develop assistance services overseas, and improving coordination and accountability among ministries and within the Ministry of Commerce. Although challenges still remain, Chinese foreign assistance is moving in a positive direction without abandoning its defining characteristics.