440 likes | 647 Vues
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN ISRAEL . Factor Conditions & Government High Education Level Motivated Labor Force Well Developed Infrastructure Knowledge Capital Resources Lack of Transparency Incentives for Investment Demand Conditions Public Sector Dominance
E N D
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN ISRAEL • Factor Conditions & Government • High Education Level • Motivated Labor Force • Well Developed Infrastructure • Knowledge • Capital Resources • Lack of Transparency • Incentives for Investment • Demand Conditions • Public Sector Dominance • Concentration in Private Sector • Decreasing Role of Government • Strategy, Structure & Rivalry • High Exposure to Competition • Targeting Export markets • Good Work Relations • Planning Short Term • Related & Supporting Industries • Micro Electronics • Industries Related & Supporting Agriculture • Defense
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN EGYPT • Factor Conditions & Government • Physical Resources • Strategic Location • Moderate Climate • Low Cost labor Force • Shortage of Skilled Labor • Weak Infrastructure Services • Bureaucracy • Weak Financial Sector • Demand Conditions • Lack of Sufficient Market Information • Weak Marketing & Distribution • Strategy, Structure & Rivalry • Vertical Integration • State Owned Enterprises • Increasing Private Sector Participation • Related & Supporting Industries • Textiles • Household Equipment • Food Processing • Tourism • Engineering Construction
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN JORDAN • Factor Conditions & Government • Few Natural Resources • Shortage in Skilled Labor • Young Population • Well Developed Transportation • Good Banking System • Stabilization Policy • Demand Conditions • Lack of Sophistication • Concentration, 80% Amman/Jordan Valley • Strategy, Structure & Rivalry • Monopolization in Key Sectors • State Owned Companies • Gradual Privatization • Support to Export/Investment • Related & Supporting Industries • Potential Cluster in Phosphates • Limited Specialized Manufacturing
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST • Factor Conditions & Government • Egypt lowest labor cost • PA highest labor cost • Jordanian universities not adapted to needs. • Israeli high skilled labor, • Knowledge sharing (QIZ) • Demand Conditions • Mutual impact of demand • sophistication (irrigation) • Economies of scale for Israeli producers • Arab software • Strategy, Structure & Rivalry • Competition between • Jordan, Egypt and PA on • Israeli contracts • Israeli new specializations, • product differentiation • Related & Supporting Industries • Textiles (Egyptian upper level) • Mining ,Chemicals(Phosphates) • Tourism
IDENTIFICATION PARAMETERS COUNTRY LEVEL FIRM/SECTOR LEVEL PRODUCT LEVEL
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FIRM IDENTIFICATION PARAMETERS IN EACH PERIOD High Medium Low
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION PARAMETERS IN EACH PERIOD High Medium Low
PERIOD OFDEVELOPMENT OF INPUT AGRICULTURAL BASED INDUSTRIES ACCORDING FIRM/PRODUCT INDENTIFICATION PARAMETERS High Medium Low
PERIOD OFDEVELOPMENT OF OUTPUT AGRICULTURAL BASED INDUSTRIES ACCORDING FIRM/PRODUCT INDENTIFICATION PARAMETERS High Medium Low
FORCES DRIVING INDUSTRY COMPETITION Potential Entrants Threats Bargaining Power Bargaining Power Suppliers Industry Buyers Competitors Substitutes Threats
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTS Culture = Way of Living Culture universals: George P. Murdock, common denominator of culture: global not uniform Athletic sports, body adornment, cooking, rituals, religion, family feasting, medicine, meal time. Edward T. Hall: Low context culture (paper work, US), High context culture (persons’ value, Japan-Saudi Arabia)
CONTEXT ORIENTATION IN MAJOR CULTURES High Context Japan China Arab United States Scandinavia Low Context Germany
EMERGING CULTURAL PROFILES Uncertainty Avoidance Low(Formalization) High Low `` Hierarchy High
HOFSTEDE’S MAPS Uncertainty Avoidance Low SIN HOK IND MAL PHI DEN SEW IRE GBR NZL NOR USA CAN AUT SWI FIN GER, ISR IRA THA PAK JAP SPA KOR TUR FRA MEX POR High Small Large Power Distance
CULTURE & BUSINESS PROCESSES Policy & Procedures: US, low u.a., high formal reporting UK, low u.a., detailed jobs description Germany, high u.a., well internalized Systems & Controls: French = control(hierarchy), British=coordinate) US-UK reporting procedures French: hiring elites German operational planning Planning strategic(UK) Information & Communication: French: Compartmentalized Sweden: Communication open informal, transparency Decision Making: Participation in decision making (Sweden, Germany- less hierarchy) PDG in France –Italy (Zanussi)
PARTIAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF A TARIFF Price S D Pw1 Pw2 Sw1 Sw2 Quantity Q2 Q4 Q4 Q1
1945 Two Super Powers 1948-52 Marshall Plan 1951 Schuman Declaration 1951 Paris Agreement ECSC 1957 Roma Agreement EC 1968 Custom Union 1985 Cockfield’s White Paper 1987 Single European Act 1991 Maastricht Treaty 1992 SEA Implementation 1997 Amsterdam Treaty 1999 Monetary Union 1999 Nice Treaty 2002 Euro THE EUROPEAN UNION MILSTONES
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION • 1956: Germany, France, Benelux, Italy • 1971: UK, Ireland, Denmark • 1981: Greece • 1986: Spain, Portugal • 1995: Sweden, Austria, Finland • 2004: Poland, Hungary, Tchek Republic, Cyprus, Slovakia, Malta, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia
POLITICAL GROUPS IN THE E.U. PARLIAMENT -DEPPE Group of the European People's Party and European Democrats PSE Group of the Party of European Socialists ELDR Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party Verts / ALE Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance GUE NGL ConfederalGroup of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left UEN Union for Europe of the Nations Group EDD Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities NI Non Attached
THE COUNCIL Commission Proposals Legislative Power Co-decision with the Parliament Foreign & Security Ministers The European Council THE COMMISSION Executive Power Proposes Amendments Manages Policies Controls Policies Implementation President(Prodi) + 20 Ministers, 24 DG THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
QUALIFIED MAJORITY Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom 10 votes Spain 8 votes Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal 5 votes Autriche, Suède 4 votes Danmark, Finland, Ireland 3 votes Luxembourg 2 votes Commission proposals must receive 62 votes out of a total of 87 in order to be approved. To amend a Commission proposal without the Commission’s consent, unanimity among Council members is required
POLICIES AND DGS • Agriculture • Audiovisual • Biotechnology • Civil Society • Competition • Consumers • Culture • Custom Union • Economic & Monetary Union • Education & Training • Employment &Social Affairs • Energy • Enterprise • Environment • Fisheries • Food Safety • Freedom, Security & Justice
Information Society • Internal Market • Public Health • Regional Policy • Research & Development • Space • Sport • Taxation • Trans European Networks • Transport • International Affairs: Development, Enlargement, External Assistance, External Trade Foreign Policies, Humanitarian Aids • Institutional Affairs • Finance: Budget, Fraud, Public Procurement
THE PARLIAMENT Legislative Power co decision with the Council Assent Procedure(int.) Adoption of the Budget Approval of the Commission Participation to the European Council THE COURT OF JUSTICE 13 Judges for 6 years Request from Private, Country, Firm Unique Legal Power
Total PPE-DE 6 1 53 9 28 21 5 34 2 9 7 9 5 7 36 232 PSE 5 3 35 9 24 22 1 16 2 6 7 12 3 6 30 181 ELDR 5 6 3 1 8 1 8 5 4 11 52 Verts/ ALE 7 4 4 9 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 6 45 GUE/ NGL 1 7 7 4 11 6 1 2 1 3 43 UEN 1 3 6 10 2 22 EDD 4 9 3 2 18 NI 2 1 12 11 5 2 33 Total 25 16 99 25 64 87 15 87 6 31 21 25 16 22 87 626 THE EUROPEAN UNION PARLIAMENT 1999-2004
THE ECONOMIC & SOCIAL COMMITTEE Representative of Economic Forces 222 Representatives Sectorial Commissions Social & Economic Commissions THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS Consultative Power 222 members Trans European Network, public, Health, Education, Economic Cohesion
Court of Justice President(6 chambers each comprising 3 or 5 juges) • Action for failure Treaty obligations(Commission against a Member State or Member State against another Member State) • Actions for annulment(judicial review of the legality of Community acts) • Actions for failure to act(against the Parliament, Council or Commission • Actions for damages(against Community institutions or servants) • Preliminary rulings on the interpretation or validity of Communitylaw (references from national courts) • Appeals against judgments of the Court of First Instance