Category Archives: Globalization

Greenspan Eggs On World War IV: China Versus US

Posted on by

Some more blows in the ongoing World War IV, known as the War on Terror to the masses. WW IV was always about the perception of the US (and the Anglosphere in general) that the growing economies of China, and to a lesser extent India, posed a threat to access to world resources. The War on Terror was simply a pretext to establish bases from which WW IV could proceed at a more comfortable pace.

Thus Alan Greenspan’s recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, blaming Asia, especially China, for the US housing bubble:

“The result was a surge in growth in China and a large number of other emerging market economies that led to an excess of global intended savings relative to intended capital investment. That ex ante excess of savings propelled global long-term interest rates progressively lower between early 2000 and 2005. That decline in long-term interest rates across a wide spectrum of countries statistically explains, and is the most likely major cause of, real-estate capitalization rates that declined and converged across the globe, resulting in the global housing price bubble…”

Read this along with remarks by Tim Geithner in the Obama administration that China was manipulating the yuan to help its exports ( a sentiment also voiced by Obama during the elections).

That’s the perspective from which the little fracas (actually it’s the biggest fracas between China and the US since 2001) in the South China Sea should be seen. The USNS Impeccable – a civilian ship under Navy control – was apparently conducting surveillance in what it claims was international waters (where US doctrine insists on international freedom to move) but within the 200 mile zone in which Chinese economic control obtains. Chinese vessels came within 25 feet of the US ship which sprayed them with water, and then left.

This  week China will also be unveiling plans for an increase of 15% in its defense spending, including expansion of its naval capacity.

Climate Czars’ Ultimatum: Clean Energy Or World War

Posted on by

“Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years — a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.

In the face of such threats, “the rich countries have to give us a helping hand,” the African minister said.

But it was Stern, former chief World Bank economist, who on Saturday laid out a case to his stranded companions in sobering PowerPoint detail.

If the world’s nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve “zero-carbon” electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 — by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other “clean” energy.

Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.

But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be “disastrous.”

It would “transform where people can live,” Stern said. “People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases” — 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, “because there’s no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place.”

Melting ice, rising seas, dwindling lakes and war — the stranded ministers had a lot to consider. But many worried, too, that the current global economic crisis will keep governments from transforming carbon-dependent economies just now. For them, Stern offered a vision of working today on energy-efficient economies that would be more “sustainable” in the future.

“The unemployed builders of Europe should be insulating all the houses of Europe,” he said.”

 Charles Hanley for AP.

Global Games: GM Crops Post Severe Risks In Poorer Countries

Posted on by

 Countering the misleading spin put out by agribusinesses, an interview with a leading activist against genetically modified food:

“Q: What are the health risks posed by genetically engineered (GE) foods?

A: GMOs are linked to toxic and allergic reactions in people, the deaths of thousands of sick, sterile livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 per cent in the UK soon after GM soy was introduced. A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy.

In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000 to 10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production. The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly supplement might never have been identified or removed.

If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all.

Q: Has there been a perceptible impact of GE crops on India’s farming community?

A: Hundreds or thousands of Indian farm workers who pick Bt cotton by hand are developing allergic-type reactions. The cotton is engineered with a gene from a soil bacterium called Bt (bacillus thuringiensis), which produces a natural insecticide. The reason it is in our crops is that the industry and government say the Bt toxin is completely safe for humans. In its natural state, it’s used in organic agriculture and forestry. They, therefore, claim that Bt toxin has a history of safe use, and doesn’t even interact with mammals; that it’s destroyed in the digestive tract.

But this assumption ignores the evidence. About 500 people in the US and Canada developed allergic-type reactions when they were sprayed with natural Bt discharged from airplanes. When they fed natural Bt to mice, the mice developed a powerful immune response and damaged intestines. But the Bt engineered into crops is thousands of times more concentrated than the natural form and is designed to be more toxic.

When I reviewed the symptoms from the Indian cotton workers, they turned out to be the same symptoms that were described by the 500 people in North America who were sprayed with Bt. The Indian Bt cotton farmers allow sheep to graze on the cotton plants after harvest. According to several shepherds, within five to seven days, one out of every four sheep dies. Thousands of sheep have died in the Andhra Pradesh region, and more will be added to those numbers the next year. There are also widespread reports of disease and death among buffalo, who either grazed on the Bt cotton plants or consumed Bt cottonseed or oil cakes.

When I visited Andhra Pradesh, I spoke to a group of women and asked if any of them experienced any reaction to BT cotton crop. After some hesitation, two women stood up and one of them revealed that she suffered from itching. I was also told that women cotton workers are embarrassed to discuss the details of their symptoms, so they don’t come forward.

Q. A chapter in your book says that the risks posed by GE crops/GM foods are greater for women and children.

A: Pregnant women should most definitely avoid GMOs. A Russian study found that more than half of the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to only a 10 per cent death rate for babies whose mothers ate non-GM soy. The offspring from the GM group were also smaller and could not conceive.

Q. In your opinion, does India really require GM foods?

A: The US spends three to five billion dollars per year to subsidise the GM crops that no one else wants. They are trying to force other countries to take GMOs to solve their own problems. The US department of Agriculture confirms that GMOs do not increase yields or farmer income, and in many cases reduce both.

In developing countries, GM crops are clearly disadvantageous. A study by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluded that GMOs are not appropriate, and that industrial farming practices in general force small farmers and landless peasants off the land. Analysis of Bt cotton in India consistently reveals that it provides far less income compared to farmers growing organic or NPM (non-pesticidal management) cotton. But these more appropriate and healthy systems don’t have corporate champions to promote them.

Q. What would be the best strategy to regulate the introduction of GM food?
A: The best regulation would be to demand a ban of current GM crops and all outdoor field trials. Then India can invest in proper independent studies, which I am sure will confirm our conclusions that the current generation of GM crops is unsafe for humans, animals, and the environment.

From an interview with Professor Jeffrey Smith, author of “Seeds of Deception.”

Here is a link to a piece I did a while back for Counterpunch, on the scientific evidence about the risks of genetic modification:  “Of Mice, Men and GM Peas.”

And here is a piece on the impact of globalization on local communities in India,  “The Globalized Village” (the piece was edited atrociously).

In “Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets” (Bonner & Rajiva, 2007),  I have this to say:

“Leading Columbia U. economist, Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, thinks the agreements on safety in agricultural trade contained in what’s called the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) must be grounded in scientific evidence. In his book, In Defense of Globalization, he gives the example of the European Union initiative to ban the sale of hormone fed beef. Since the EU couldn’t muster enough scientific proof for the ban, the World Trade Organization was bound to find the EU in violation of WTO rules.

Dr. Bhagwati objects to the EU’s moratorium on the sale of Genetically Modified seeds and foods for the same reason. There simply isn’t enough scientific evidence to warrant it, he claims. The anti-globalization crew, on the other hand, thinks that scientific proof is not essential. They think the principle of precaution should be enough, while Dr. Bhagwati sides with “respectable scientists,” who consider the ban fear-mongering.1

One can only be pleased to be on the opposite side of respectable science. One vastly prefers disrespectful, unrespectable science – the kind of science that blows wind up the skirts of pompous blowhards. Respectable scientists are consensus mongers, organization men……only with higher IQs. The tools with which they arrive at proofs sufficient to pass peer review are so fine we fear we can hardly see them. And, like the mills of god, they grind exceeding slow. It might take them 20 years to definitely prove that genetically modified beef plays Chinese checkers with your immune system. When the worst case scenario is as awful as an international plague, then the reasonable position actually becomes the most unreasonable. The unexpected, low risk event may be just what should occupy center stage in people’s consciousness.

This doesn’t mean one is in favor of government regulation of food. We are neither prescribing policy nor proscribing it…. we are merely grumbling that we liked the old genetically unmodified world better. We have no desire to eat strawberries armed against frostbite with herring genes or cauliflower with an IQ higher than ours.

We would like the state to stop telling us what to do…whether it is in airports, in our schools, or in our bedrooms…but we dig in our heels equally at efforts by global corporations to improve our water or our vittles at the expense of our health and with subsidies from our tax dollars…..”

“Playing the Global Trade Game,” Endervidualism, February 2007, copyright Lila Rajiva (reused in the book).

Global Games: The Shine Is Off the Shining

Posted on by

“The British economy will shrink by 2.8 per cent this year, says the IMF, with dire implications for jobs, house prices and the public finances. As recently as November, the IMF forecast a relatively mild downturn of 1.3 per cent in the UK.

In its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF now sees economic activity contracting by around 1.5 per cent in the US, 2 per cent in the eurozone, and 2.5 per cent in Japan. Two of the brightest stars in the economic firmament, China and India, have seen their growth forecasts slashed, to 6.75 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. The global economy as a whole is perilously near to shrinking, with a mere 0.5 per cent growth predicted – the lowest since the 1940s. “We now expect the global economy to come to a virtual halt,” said Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economist.

The International Labour Organisation said global unemployment and poverty are set for a “dramatic increase” in the coming year. The UN agency added that in a worst-case scenario, recorded unemployment could rise by more than 50 million from the 2007 level to a total of 230 million, or 7.1 per cent of the world’s labour force, by the end of 2009.

The scale of economic decline forecast for Britain by the IMF suggests that the jobless figure would exceed three million within a year, surpassing peaks last experienced in the 1980s.

Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said Britain faces a £20bn-a-year “double whammy” of tax rises and spending cuts to restore public finances to order – it will take until 2029 for government debt to recede to levels seen before the credit crunch. It warned taxes would rise and spending would be cut whoever wins the next election….”

And very significantly:

“The IMF says tax cuts and public spending and borrowing boosts all over the world will be useless unless the financial system is rebooted.

Its managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warned: “If there’s not a restructuring of the banking system, all the money you can put into [monetary and fiscal] stimulus will just go into a black hole.”

More at The Independent.

Comment:

So, think about the dollar’s future prospects this way: sure it’s on the road to hell. But it’s not a one-way road. Not when the euro and the pound are in such bad shape. As for those figures from China and India, after the Satyam fiasco (in which one of India’s most touted and best regarded companies confessed it had been running an Enron type scheme with faked cash flow —  I blogged earlier) do you really think the shine in “Indian Shining” is all that shiny?

Global Games: Great Apes’ Lives Threatened By Palm Oil Production

Posted on by

“Hoping to unravel the mysteries of human origin, anthropologist Louis Leakey sent three young women to Africa and Asia to study our closest relatives: It was chimpanzees for Jane Goodall, mountain gorillas for Dian Fossey and the elusive, solitary orangutans for Birute Mary Galdikas.

Nearly four decades later, 62-year-old Galdikas, the least famous of his “angels,” is the only one still at it. And the red apes she studies in Indonesia are on the verge of extinction because forests are being clear-cut and burned to make”There are only an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 orangutans left in the wild, 90 percent of them in Indonesia, said Serge Wich, a scientist at the Great Ape Trust of Iowa. Most live in small, scattered populations that cannot take the onslaught on the forests much longer.

Trees are being cut at a rate of 300 football fields every hour. And massive land-clearing fires have turned the country into one of the top emitters of carbon.

Tanjung Puting, which has 1,600 square miles, clings precariously to the southern tip of Borneo island. Its 6,000 orangutans — one of the two largest populations on the planet, together with the nearby Sebangau National Park — are less vulnerable to diseases and fires.

That has allowed them, to a degree, to live and evolve as they have for millions of years……..”I am not an alarmist,” says Galdikas, speaking calmly but deliberately, her brow slightly furrowed. “But I would say, if nothing is done, orangutan populations outside of national parks have less than 10 years left.”

More from  from AP here.

Comments:

Having often had to face families of aggressive, prowling monkeys on the way home from school, I’m firmly on the side of man when he goes mano a chimpo for survival. But there’s no reason to despoil the sacred heritage of nature when survival is not the issue. Land usage – part of the commons – is something that can be subject to government intervention, in my opinion.

I know this sounds anti-libertarian. It isn’t really, because dogmatic libertarianism in these areas ends up destroying its own foundation.

When land is ravaged by massive unrestricted development and speculation-driven usage (think of the vast over-cultivation of soy in Argentina that’s led to the depletion of its soil), that has to encroach on the liberty…indeed survival… of everyone on the planet.

Again, the problem is size. Libertarianism simply doesn’t work for a one-world society.

The answer to that is not to go collectivist. It’s to get rid of the idea of  a  one-world society. We want as many worlds as possible.

The socialists like to say, a different world is possible.

I like to say, a different world is impossible.

Because there’s no such thing as a world. Once you start thinking of a world you want to change, you’ll end up with the same problems  – only somewhere else.

India’s 4th Largest Outsourcer, Satyam Computer Services, Admits to Major Fraud

Posted on by

NEW DELHI — Satyam Computer Services, a leading Indian outsourcing company that serves more than a third of the Fortune 500 companies, significantly inflated its earnings and assets for years, the chairman and co-founder said Wednesday, roiling Indian stock markets and throwing the industry into turmoil.

The chairman, Ramalinga Raju, resigned after revealing that he had systematically falsified accounts as the company expanded from a handful of employees into a back-office giant with a work force of 53,000 and operations in 66 countries.

Mr. Raju said Wednesday that 50.4 billion rupees, or $1.04 billion, of the 53.6 billion rupees in cash and bank loans the company listed as assets for its second quarter, which ended in September, were nonexistent.

Revenue for the quarter was 20 percent lower than the 27 billion rupees reported, and the company’s operating margin was a fraction of what it declared, he said Wednesday in a letter to directors that was distributed by the Bombay Stock Exchange.

Satyam serves as the back office for some of the largest banks, manufacturers, health care and media companies in the world, handling everything from computer systems to customer service. Clients have included General Electric, General Motors, Nestlé and the United States government. In some cases, Satyam is even responsible for clients’ finances and accounting.

The revelations could cause a major shake-up in India’s enormous outsourcing industry, analysts said, and may force many large companies to investigate and perhaps revamp their back offices.

More at the New York Times.

Developing Countries Subsidise Health Care in Developed Countries

Posted on by

An article on foreign doctors in the US at Talking Points Memo Cafe from last year caught my eye. 

“TPM Cafe contributor Dean Baker has argued, on more than occasion, that “increased competition from foreign professionals could lead to dramatic reductions in the salaries of workers in the highly paid professions.”

 

In a 2003 study Baker, who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimates that by adding roughly 100,000 physicians to our current pool of about 760,000, we could pull doctors’ salaries down from an average of $203,000 to somewhere between $74,000 and $126,000. For the average middle-class American family of four he reckons that would lead to savings of $2,200 to $3,700 per year

What he ignores is that, by and large, foreign doctors who work in the U.S. practice in a separate market. Indeed, an analysis of where these doctors work shows they are likely to be found in geographic areas where the physician-patient ratio is low and the rate of infant mortalities is high. Typically, they are found in rural areas where their visas have sent them and in inner cities where they treat the Medicaid patients that many American doctors refuse to see because Medicaid reimbursements are so very low. The fees Medicaid pays vary state by state, but Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt gives an example of just how parsimonious the government can be: “federal and state legislators may be willing to pay pediatricians $10 to see a poor child covered by Medicaid, but to pay the same pediatrician $50 or more to see these legislators’ own children in the commercial corner of the market.”

As we noted recently on The Century Foundation’s healthcare blog, Health Beat, even when foreign and American doctors practice in the same area, “medical apartheid” is the rule (see the relevant posts here and here.)

In New York City, for example, well-insured white patients see one set of doctors, while minority and poor patients see another group, many of them foreign-born. Typically those doctors charge less (or are paid less by their employers.) In the late 1990s, when it seemed we had a surplus of physicians in this country, the AMA fretted that doctors emigrating from other countries might pull down physicians’ salaries. Not to worry. While Medicare has put a brake on some doctors’ incomes in recent years, foreign doctors have had little effect. What they charge low-income patients ultimately has no influence on what the market will bear at the high end—and that’s the end that feeds health care inflation.

Moreover, even if a flotilla of foreign docs could bring down medical fees—is it fair to poach physicians from countries where tens of thousands of children are dying of treatable conditions? To put it as bluntly as possible, how many children are we willing to let die each year so that the average middle-class American family can save $2,000 to $3,700?

Baker recognizes and addresses the ethical problem. His solution is to pay for the doctors we are taking: “it would be reasonable to expect that developing countries would want to recoup the costs of educating professionals who have left the country,” he writes, “and it would be reasonable to expect that a rich nation like the United States would be willing to share some of the economic gains that it receives as a result of an increased supply of highly educated workers from poor nations…”

Apparent Suicide of Madoff Fund Manager, De La Villehuchet

Posted on by

In ABC’s report on the apparent suicide of La Villehuchet,  I find this:

“European fund managers who knew de La Villehuchet described him to ABCNews.com as a man who inspired “a lot of respect, honour, humanity, kindness and generosity.” They said Villehuchet had a strong belief in Madoff and had not only committed his own money to Madoff, but did so with 150 percent leverage — in effect, his potential losses were greater than his actual wealth.

Access International’s LUXALPHA SICAV-American Selection fund invested solely with Madoff, and is one of several large funds that has been the subject of the ongoing federal investigation into what prompted them to place large amounts of client money with Madoff despite red flags that had been raised for well over a year by some inside the hedge fund community. The fund had at least $1.4 billion and perhaps closer to $2 billion in money under management, placing it in the top tier of funds that appear to have lost most if not all of their investment in the scandal. …”

Comment:

The most interesting parts of this to me are:

1. 150% leverage as late as this year.

2. De La Villehuchet took over Lux-Alpha, the fund invested in Madoff, only recently.

3. Lux Alpha had been set up by banking giant UBS.

4. UBS has been the hardest hit European bank on subprime, and was under investigation.

There are many more dots connecting in my mind that I’d prefer not to put up on my website now.

I was among the first to note that Madoff couldn’t have been alone.

I will now go on record and say that what I’ve read so far indicates a very extensive web of associates, some at the highest levels of finance and government.

And as a bonus Christmas present, I will add that there is likely some connection to money laundering……

Madoff Fraud Hits Everyone..

Posted on by

“NEW YORK – The list of investors who say they were duped in one of Wall Street‘s biggest Ponzi schemes is growing, snaring some of the world’s biggest banking institutions and hedge funds, the super rich and the famous, pensioners and charities.

The alleged victims who sunk cash into veteran Wall Street money manager Bernard Madoff’s investment pool include real estate magnate Mortimer Zuckerman, the foundation of Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, and a charity of movie director Steven Spielberg, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Among the world’s biggest banking institutions, Britain’s HSBC Holdings PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Man Group PLC, Spain’s Grupo Santander SA, France‘s BNP Paribas and Japan’s Nomura Holdings all reported that they had fallen victim to Madoff’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

The 70-year-old Madoff (MAY-doff), well respected in the investment community after serving as chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market, was arrested Thursday in what prosecutors say was a $50 billion scheme to defraud investors. Some investors claim they’ve been wiped out, while others are still likely to come forward….”

More at AP.

Comment:

I have been watching the unfolding of the Madoff story keenly. A fund manager in a European country confided in me recently that he feared his own extremely conservative fund might have unwittingly been exposed to Madoff’s fund. He thought he might have taken a big hit and being a conscientious guy was agonizing over how to repay his clients.

This is why I’ve avoided saying that any country’s banks are free of exposure (even India’s). No one knows for sure where a lot of the debt passed around the globe actually is – slicing and bundling risk separates it out.

Here are some pointers:

1. Be suspicious if you have had exceptionally high rates of interest. High returns usually mean risky investments.

2. Be suspicious if the product is marketed aggressively.

3. Be suspicious if the rate of return has been exceptionally stable, even if it isn’t very high. In the kind of volatile market we’ve had in the past few years, no one can be that good on a regular basis. (That’s what tipped me off about Goldman Sachs two years ago. I figured they couldn’t be doing all that well. Well, they weren’t.)
4. Be suspicious of alternative investments you don’t understand.

5. Be suspicious of traditional “safe” investments you do understand. Take a look at their fee structure. Many “safe” investments like mutual funds have horrendous fee structures that prevent you from making anything, after taxes.

6. Be suspicious of funds touted heavily by the mainstream financial press. They are in bed (some financially, some politically) with the financial establishment, or they are ignorant, or careless, or too much in awe of Wall Street, or overworked, or brainwashed, …..or all of the above.

7. Be suspicious of funds touted heavily by the alternative financial press. Just because they are right about the big crooks on Wall Street, it doesn’t mean they aren’t crooks too….who would be doing the same if they could get away with it.

8. Be suspicious of people who tell you they made huge killings on this or that and want to let you in on it. If they made that much money on it already, chances are there’s nothing left for you….

9. Be suspicious of very quick returns. Easy come, easy go. What goes up that fast can go down twice as fast.

10. Be suspicious of very slow returns. Locking up your investments forever guarantees that any mistake you make in picking the investment will last a life time.

Bottom line? BE SUSPICIOUS.

Women Business Leaders in India: Some Notes

Posted on by

Here are some notes I made recently that turned into a full-fledged article. I thought people interested in the Indian business scene might find it interesting:

Women Business Leaders in India – Are Things Any Better Today?

Women in India do better in business today than they did about 35-40 years ago, but it’s fair to say there’s still a lot more they could do. In the professions and at lower levels things might have gotten better, but at the higher levels, you still don’t see the number of women you’d expect, given the available labor pool (in 2001 women were 48% percent of the population).

There are lots of reasons why Indian women at the top still have problems:

How women do is influenced strongly by how well educated they are. So, the more women have access to schooling, the better they perform economically. That’s why there’s been progress, especially at lower levels. But at the upper level, the situation is different. In the 1970s, you could say the main difficulties were the absence of role models and the shortage of financing and opportunities, which to some extent, still persist. But the overwhelming problem today in upper management remains culture: notions of what women should and should not do in the work place.

Traditional gender roles make female bosses unacceptable to a lot of Indian men. Tradition also places the bulk of family responsibilities on the shoulders of women. (This is strictly a generalization, and in particular cases, just the opposite can be true). Culture demands that women stay at home. That make it harder for them to develop networks and mentoring of the kind that men use to launch business careers.

Then there are problems of perception. Women are often seen as needing more time to balance work and family commitments, even when this isn’t really the case. Many male colleagues see them as opting for (and better at) the “soft-focus” areas of a business rather than its hard core. Women tend to get shunted into roles that provide support, communication, and coordination rather than profit and loss evaluation, or expansion and acquisition. That means that while women account for a good part of the ordinary work-force and mid-level positions, they aren’t so visible in the very highest positions. Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, CEO of Biocon, says there’s a credibility hurdle that women face when they go out to get financing. People see them as less willing to take risks and less capable of solving problems and trouble- shooting.

Not much research so far:

Another difficulty is that there isn’t much research on the subject available. What there is supports what I’ve observed. Studies in the last 2 years show that Indian women make up 16 percent at junior levels of work but at the highest level (CEOs), that tapers off to only 1 percent. There are only 2 -3 women in administrative and managerial positions for every 100 economically active people. That’s far behind the rest of the world. And while the rest of the world has spent time researching the matter (for example, Breaking through the Glass Ceiling, ILO, 2004), Indian examples haven’t usually figured in the research.

Of course, some of the problems in India are common to other countries too , problems like sexual harassment, patriarchal attitudes and some gender bias in hiring and employment practices. Just as in other countries, these are likely to get better with targeted effort.

Culture can help women too:

Surprisingly, culture can be a positive too. The statistics for top- level managers and leaders in the US may be better. But there are other areas where Indian culture, counter-intuitively, provides a a friendlier environment.

*Studies show that women in Asia tend to draw more of their income from business than women elsewhere. That’s proof of a solid tradition of female business acumen, even if it’s a tradition that’s largely been centered around the family. (Powerful Indian business women usually came out of powerful Indian business families: Simone Tata, from the Tata family (Trent Ltd); Vidya Chabria (Jumbo Group) and Priya Padamjee (Thermax) all owe their positions to family connections).

But even that might be changing now. Now you can also find a Kiran Mazumdar Shaw. Shaw started the biotech giant Biocon, from her garage, after being turned down for a job as a master brewer. And there is a whole crop of managerial divas – from Naina Kidwai (CEO of HSBC) to Microsoft India’s Neelam Dhawan.

Technology spurs womenomics

*There’s another angle to this. It shows how “culture” as an explanation can cut both ways. In India, engineering had been (and still is) a field for men. One side effect was that the “alternative” discipline of computer science was left wide open for women. So, when the Internet revolution brought the outsourcing industry to India, Indian urban women with computer skills got a good chunk of the financial benefits.

*Technology has helped. Contrary to Luddite rhetoric, globalization and the Info-tech revolution have helped womenomics in India. Take transportation. In the past, it’s been a major barrier for would-be business women in India. Now women can set up shop whenever they turn on their computers. Not only do computers let house-bound women become entrepreneurs, they also open up a whole new market of home-shoppers to whom other businesses can sell. Computers also make networking and mentoring easier and cheaper. An example of a bottom-up network enabled by the computer is the popular Indian work-at-home site, sitagita.com

Some people even credit computer technology with the renaissance of Indian female entrepreneurship. That might not be completely true. But what’s true is that female home businesses are a success story overlooked by activists who focus only on the negatives, like the impact of multinationals on female agricultural workers.

Other cultural factors that help

*Despite the traditionalism shown in gender roles, Indian women leaders, at the highest levels, seem to be judged more fairly. A comparison of national politics in the US and in India bears this out. In the US, female candidates have to suffer far more remarks about their appearance than Indian candidates do. And Indian female business leaders are called upon in the media as much as, or more than, American female business leaders.

I believe that one reason for this is a streak of misogyny hidden under the surface of a lot of popular culture in the US. Being able to command the respect of her peers and subordinates is perhaps the most crucial element in a woman getting to the top. But public culture in the US is permeated by demeaning imagery and language. Violently misogynistic rap lyrics and pornography and sexualized epithets for women do not help the perception of them as workers. Asian cultures tend to be less permissive about this.

* Another positive for Indian women in business is that although women are only a tiny part of top management, the women who are at the top are very powerful and in crucial sectors where they make an enormous impact.

How demographics can help women in India

*Demographics also helps in India. India (like China) suffers…and will continue to suffer…a shortage of skilled personnel. This seems incredible given the population figures. But first-class education there really does not reach down as deep as it does in the west. In a number of disciplines, including computer programming and management, there simply aren’t enough people for all the start-ups, expansion and relocation going on. That’s going to be good for women. Human resources departments will have to go after them more actively and groom them for higher positions.

*There are other positives. About a third of India consists of young people below the age of 15. That means that the pool of experienced labor is relatively small and HR departments will be forced to turn to an overlooked resource: women who’re done with rearing their children and want to reenter the job market. Since women live longer than men by several years, there’s no reason why women couldn’t outlast them to reach the top in managerial positions.

*Companies looking to hire Indians who live abroad and relocate them to India are running into obstacles. The Indian- origin employees want pay and benefits equal to other employees. Also, they’re often not in touch with what’s happening in their home country, unless they revisit frequently (as I do). Local employees resent the “foreign-returned” Indians. There are only a few areas where this isn’t so, and two of them are computers and finance. Not surprisingly, some of the most powerful women entrepreneurs and managers are in those areas.

The most important Indian business women

* Who are the most important Indian business women?

It’s difficult for an outsider to judge but it’s possible to pick a dozen of the most visible.

  • The capital markets are important as India opens up to foreign direct investment. And Naina Lal Kidwai, who was the first Indian woman to graduate from Harvard Business School and runs the Indian operations of HSBC, has been named repeatedly on lists of the most prominent Indian business women.

    Lalita Gupte and Kalpana Morparia, the joint managing directors of ICICI Bank, India’s second largest bank are important figures as well.

    So is Manisha Girotra, who chairs the India operation of Swiss banking giant UBS.

  • In Information technology and computers, one of the most visible managers is Neelam Dhawan, head of Microsoft’s Indian operations.

  • In Biotech, the biggest name is Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, who heads Biocon.

  • The automotive industry has also been pretty important in recent developments, with a number of large auto manufacturers opening branches in India (including Ford, Toyota, and Hyundai) and with large-scale investment in highway projects and in other infrastructure.Sulajja Firodia Motwani, joint MD of Kinetic Motor, which manufactures two-wheelers, scooters and motorcycles and various auto components, as well as elevators, escalators and auto parking systems, is a noteworthy figure here. Her company has attracted investment from the likes of Citigroup and is likely to do well as the transportation business profits from the real estate boom in India.

  • Priya Paul, the chairwoman (chairperson is an awful word – I prefer chairman or chairwoman) of Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels is a business woman in a field which has a pivotal role to play now – travel and tourism. Commercial real estate and the hotel business is slated to be very profitable in Asia and Paul is the president of the Hotel Association of India and leads the Indian team at the World Travel and Tourism Council.
  • Health and medicine is an area where India offers extremely competitive rates for world class services and I expect that private medical groups like the Apollo Hospital will do very well, especially as medical tourism grows. Since Apollo caters to that demand, the heads of Apollo, Preetha and Sangita Reddy are positioned at the center of the development.
  • In alternative medicine, Shahnaz Hussain, CEO of Shahnaz Herbals which has hundreds of world wide franchises, was one of the earliest to realize the business potential of Ayurveda and alternative medicine.

  • In the food and beverage industry, Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo’s CEO (and one-time president and CFO) is one of the most noted managers and has been listed among Forbes top 10 women CEOs. She’s also on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of N York, one of the most important banks in the US.
  • Shobana Bhartia (of the famous Birla family) is a news maker in the area of media. She’s is the Vice President of Hindustan Times and was appointed to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament.
  • Vidya Chabria (a non-resident Indian based in Dubai) who took over Jumbo Group (which includes one of the largest distributors of consumer electronics, IT and Telecom in the Middle East as well as several breweries and other companies in India) from her husband,

And you can’t leave out Jyoti Naik, President of Lijjat Papad (pappads are fried lentil crisps very popular in Indian households), the first cooperative business by housewives with no experience to make it big.

My Writing on Women:

My interest in India and Indian women stems from writing about the complexity of language, and about how small groups and businesses (and a contextual approach) do better at catering to the the needs of communities than big businesses.

I am not a gender feminist, although I’ve used the language when it’s useful. I’ve blogged on men’s rights and done some very anti-feminist pieces where I think it’s been warranted.

I would say I’m interested in marrying methodological individualism (from the right) with psycho-social awareness (from the left). Applied complexity theory might be another way of saying it.

Some writing that’s related:

  • “Witches and Bastards,” 2005, Counterpunch, is a complex piece about Indira Gandhi and what it means to be a powerful woman in India. It argues that India is in many ways a very female-centered culture, where even village women are more powerful than many give them credit for being. It also suggests that Gandhian political economy has more sense than it’s been given credit for and might be the basis of a small group approach to politics and the economy. (This is a theme I take up in my book “Mobs, Messiahs and Markets,” 2007)
  • “Missing Women,” 2004 The Gowanus Review – is a piece I did about female foeticide in India that explores cultural and economic explanations and suggests remedies. I make the point about technology and female entrepreneurship for the first time there.

“Psychic Injuries and Double Standards,” – a chapter contributed to One of the Guys(Seal Press, 2007).

It argues that female soldiers should be held to be as accountable as the male soldiers.

  • “The Globalized Village,” Alternet, 2003 (included in the book, The Third World: Alternative Views, 2006)demonstrates how ambiguous language has obscured the negative impact of free market policies on small-scale community efforts. The piece was widely reprinted. I make special note of the impact on village women’s access to water.
  • “How About Your Back Yard?” 2004, Himal South Asian, argues that “north-south” language doesn’t help explain the problem of waste disposal in India, and that turning to multinationals doesn’t help. It actually disrupts the successful efforts of local small groups.
  • *I did an extended research paper on images of India in the American media as part of my graduate studies and also did graduate work in theories of representation focusing on how speech and imagery affect political discourse, with special reference to pornography.
  • This was continued in a series of popular articles in the alternative press, “Iraqi Women and Torture” questioning the media emphasis on the torture of men during the Iraq war. This led to a book on the subject, “The Language of Empire” (MR Press, 2005), which was well-regarded and influenced the work of many establishment journalists.
  • I am contributing an article on torture and performance theory to the Routledge Key Concepts Series, 2009. I make an extended argument to show that depictions of women in violent pornography can be torturous, given the cultural context.