一个月前，艾哈迈德．伊兹（Ahmed Ezz）是埃及最有权势的商人之一。他控制埃及约40％的钢铁生产、在执政党扮演主要角色，而最重要的是──他还是总统穆巴拉克（Hosni Mubarak）的儿子暨继位者贾迈勒（Gamal）的好友。 - l' b K9 f9 I# I3 @9 J c9 n+ a w, [0 u, p# F V* m- |
然而，今天他已经成为过气的昨日黄花。示威者视他为妖魔并烧毁他的公司总部。他正被调查中，他的资产被冻结，旅行的权利也被限制。扶植伊兹的西方公司浪费了他们的时间及金钱。所以《经济学人》杂志在2月11日发表了一篇名为〈经济之外，商人需要深思政治风险〉的文章，提醒商业界政治风险的问题。. i" `) ]# ^# a8 R
. F; p6 G) M$ n9 p0 b' c
新兴市场的风险" w1 h6 }2 |$ j6 Z) H/ s' S8 n
2 v6 {- j: f3 f1 d" Y3 r人们曾经一度认为全球化会使得政治的影响力减少。哈佛大学商学院的思想家莱维特（Theodore Levitt）就认为：“地球是圆的，但为了大多数的用途，容易把它视为平的。”日本的商业领袖大前研一也发表了《无国界世界》（The Borderless World）和《民族国家的终结》（The End of the Nation State）等书。像IBM及福特这种大公司，在努力创造全球化之际，就轻看了当地的经理人的重要性。) |4 ?9 D: M- {* B% R* K: I
, \1 k$ c. R( S! R2 d. X
埃及的事件提醒我们这种无国界的说法是多么的愚蠢。美国前副总统钱尼（Dick Cheney）曾说：“上帝并不是只将石油和天然气存放在对美国友好的民主政权地区。”这句话可能需要加上：“上帝并不是让想拥有经济成长的国家都能获得经济成长。”2 ?6 t. |3 g) {, |% V# G# E& ~
8 F, I3 C+ j; m+ `9 d
正当企业界为新兴市场混乱无序的经济成长而手足舞蹈之际，千万别忘了这些市场也充斥着政治风险──薄弱的法律体系、随时变易的管理机构、不稳定的城市和脆弱的政权。 5 @0 z7 r7 ?5 Z. ?9 z% R+ m' P7 e
经济成为国家的政治工具 ( X- @9 i! y4 L6 q2 c+ o7 u+ x0 W6 I8 Z4 ?
越来越多的国家使用商业作为国家权力的工具，尤其是中国、苏俄及波斯湾国家。而且基于政治及经济的考量，有些世界最大的公司都是国营事业，其中包括大部分的大型石油公司。 4 G2 L5 O- r9 t, r; ]* z5 w, s# D U0 J" r$ T. _+ {
中国更是个中翘楚，它使用国营公司获取世界的自然资源，且其份额越来越多。它也使用其国营企业以达到政治目地。当谷歌拒绝审查搜寻结果时，它被迫在香港重新设置其伺服器。四个力拓矿业集团（Rio Tinto）的业务主管，在可疑的情况下被囚禁。( N# L% h! d' S8 z+ k g7 s. D
2 S i; v: _6 M* ?5 \Businesspeople need to think harder about political risk Feb 10th 20115 i! F8 a+ D. c# W2 K% D) I9 V
2 _- l# v/ O. R& N
A MONTH ago Ahmed Ezz was one of the most powerful businesspeople in Egypt. He controlled about 40% of the country’s steel production, played a leading role in the ruling party and, most important of all, was a bosom buddy of Hosni Mubarak’s son and heir apparent, Gamal. 7 j2 G$ i7 ?& X2 [: z, ~8 G ' D& I1 z8 r6 N) X$ s: JToday he is a has-been. Protesters have demonised him and torched his company headquarters. The old guard has dumped him as a liability. He is under investigation, his assets have been frozen and his right to travel has been restricted. Western companies that cultivated Mr Ezz wasted their time and money.& d& ^9 m4 A: Z! f( o# S
1 g* J, U6 k$ F1 K8 W
It was once regarded as axiomatic that globalisation would marginalise politics. Theodore Levitt, one of Harvard Business School’s leading thinkers, argued that “the Earth is round but, for most purposes, it’s sensible to treat it as flat”. Kenichi Ohmae, a Japanese business guru, published “The Borderless World” and “The End of the Nation State”. Giant companies such as IBM and Ford played down the importance of country managers in their efforts to create globally integrated behemoths.( p& |4 i" i. f4 s
$ V! q1 f' ~; w9 ?& s2 `) e% T- i
The events in Egypt are a reminder of how foolish such “borderless” thinking can be. Dick Cheney once remarked, “The Good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States.” It might be added that the Good Lord did not see fit to put economic growth in equally desirable places. The corporate world is rightly excited by the pell-mell growth in emerging markets, but these are rife with political risks—weak legal systems, makeshift institutions, volatile cities and fragile regimes.; x$ L. X) n. ^3 D3 Q8 E
( C4 r9 g0 m( |! Q' @2 t+ a5 V) P9 iA growing number of countries, most notably China but also Russia and the Gulf states, are using business as an instrument of state power. And some of the world’s biggest companies, including most of the largest oil firms, are state-run, driven by political as much as economic considerations. 7 ?, b" p8 F- x) O4 V. Y$ }; J$ h+ @+ Y, m4 b
China is the leading offender, using state companies to snap up a growing share of the world’s natural resources. It is also using its state-industrial complex to pursue political goals. Google was forced to re-route its servers when it refused to censor e-mails. Four Rio Tinto executives were imprisoned in dubious circumstances. China is not alone: BP’s new partnership with Rosneft, Russia’s state-controlled oil giant, to develop Russia’s Arctic region is complicated by murky political considerations. , X1 H; V) a8 F- y* M% Q1 c2 Y( c: q1 Y4 f
Political risks can also bite Western companies at home, where governments are increasingly vigilant about corruption. The Obama administration is enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with an evangelical zeal—and employing techniques once reserved for fighting organised crime. The British government is introducing tough anti-bribery measures. Executives who adopt what they regard as “local” rules in Thailand or Indonesia can find themselves facing prison sentences back home. 9 w0 G" ?. `% l" d$ e / l4 _" g1 Y" D+ q8 THow do companies cope? There are no simple rules. Countries that are cavalierly lumped together as emerging markets have very different political regimes. In Brazil you need to understand Congress’s multi-party alliances; in China the power dynamics of the Communist Party; in Saudi Arabia the internal relations of the ruling family. Local politics add yet more complexity.$ e( U) h0 j# M s1 C+ Q, ^
, b4 g3 Y, S# a u; b8 HThe most important advice is to take politics seriously. Oil and mining companies have always done this. Royal Dutch Shell has run a profitable business in Nigeria for more than 50 years despite a dangerous and volatile environment. “New economy” companies have tended to be much more naive. The Egyptian crisis demonstrates that they cannot avoid being caught up in political battles which are now fought over the internet. A Google executive in the region, Wael Ghonim, also doubled as a leading political activist.+ l! T" w0 I, V/ e
7 h, W! R8 u* G1 t5 O" M5 ? m+ JA bit of help - P+ _" Q: ~) {. u6 A2 m5 y( ~5 \ : H5 `$ W3 _/ V0 [Companies can buy advice from political-risk consultancies such as Control Risks, a British outfit, or Eurasia Group, an American one, or various niche consultancies set up by political bigwigs, from Henry Kissinger on down, and ex-ambassadors. (Full disclosure: the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister organisation of The Economist, also offers advice on political risk.) Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group and a rising guru in the area, has written some provocative books on the subject.# Y4 N4 S4 J7 ?5 X
3 Q4 d5 F! ?9 B+ D! L* ^; M5 yBut companies need to go further than just buying advice. They need to put more emphasis on local knowledge: many globalisation-obsessed companies may come to regret the fashion for downgrading country managers. They also need to be less impressed by the appearance of stability. The rapid collapse of Egypt’s autocracy should be food for thought for companies that have bet big on China (with its appearance of order) rather than India (with its messy democracy).3 \! }$ y3 _" ]; ~1 m
( ?1 I7 M" Z2 }# z
Some techniques have proved particularly successful. One is diversifying operations. Chrysler escaped a wave of nationalisation in Peru because its local factory manufactured only half the components needed to assemble a car. Another is putting down deep local roots. Over the years Shell has trained and employed many of the people who regulate Nigeria’s oil industry. A third is sharing risks. A growing number of companies form complex alliances with other firms, NGOs and government bodies. % b# @+ T, U( [: b% p' n7 E3 n5 N# j& E
Yet all these techniques come with a sting in the tail. Creating global operations may spread risks rather than isolating them when a vital factory is closed. Cuddling up to the local regime may turn you into an object of hatred, as Shell has discovered in Nigeria. Weaving alliances with local people you cannot fully control may expose you to charges of corruption. It turns out that political economy is a much more complicated subject than its trendy modern offspring, economics. ) Z1 |- v# ?2 b
图片附件: Beyond economics.jpg (2011-3-23 19:56, 27.4 KB) / 下载次数 138