The China Google rift has given us some interesting insights.
This from the New York Times, (all bold highlights)
``The story behind the success of these companies is a simple one, some analysts say. The young people who dominate Web use in China are not just searching for information; they’re searching for a lifestyle. They are passionate about downloading music, playing online games and engaging in social networking.
``“Sixty percent of the Internet users here are under the age of 30,” said Richard Ji, an Internet analyst at Morgan Stanley. “In the U.S., it’s the other way around. And in the U.S. it’s about information. But in China, the No. 1 priority is entertainment.”
``Experts say American companies have largely failed here because they don’t have local expertise, are too slow to adapt and don’t know how to deal with the Chinese government.
``“Internet companies in China have to work so closely with the government,” said Xiao Qiang, of the China Internet project at the University of California, Berkeley. “And that means the government’s political agenda can become the company’s business agenda.”
``The need to censor Web sites, for example, can overwhelm smaller companies, Mr. Xiao said. “This becomes a growing business cost. So often, small companies don’t develop.”
``At this stage, analysts say the Web in China is less about innovation than about quickly delivering on the latest online trend.
``“People here are quick to see trends, and to clone and innovate,” said William Bao Bean, a former Internet analyst who is now a partner at Softbank China & India Holdings. “If one company is doing well, other companies will quickly clone it and roll it out.”...
My observations:
1. cultural difference in the use of the web: "And in the U.S. it’s about information. But in China, the No. 1 priority is entertainment.”
2. American companies outside the China's intrusion has failed to grab a substantial share because of the lack of local knowledge or expertise.
This is very Hayekian. From the Use of Knowledge in Society, ``But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation."
How does this relate to macroeconomics-alot!
Google's failure involves one of risk money plus a real attempt to establish or gain a foothold in China's market. Whereas people or even officials condemning China, have not been there nor have they a real or working knowledge of how things operate in China. All they base their polemics is on aggregate assumptions. If Google can be wrong how much more with personalities suffering from "fatal conceit".
3. Government intervention have limited competition to the locals and may have even politicized the distribution.
More insights from the New York Times, (bold highlights mine)
``One advantage local companies have is government protectionism. Because the Communist Party wants to maintain tight control over communication and the media, foreign Internet companies come under suspicion.
``For instance, YouTube has been blocked inside the country for over a year, ever since a user uploaded a video that was said to show human rights violations in Tibet.
``YouTube, which is owned by Google, had a large following here. But now online video in China is being championed by companies like Youku.com and Tudou.com. They may have dominated anyway, analysts say, but it certainly helps to have few big competitors.
``And without competition here from Facebook, which has not yet tried to develop a site for the Chinese market, a social networking site called Kaixin001.com has managed to register over 70 million users.
``But some experts say Google’s departure will leave Internet users here with fewer options, making the country’s Internet market less competitive and less open.
“The biggest loser is Netizens,” says Fang Xingdong, chief executive of Chinalabs.com, a research firm. “Google is a multilinguistic search engine, but Baidu is a Chinese-language one. Chinese information only occupies a small fraction of the Internet.”
Additional observations:
4. It's odd that the New York Times can be promoting competition (selectively though), apparently this depends on which interest groups benefits.
5. As the article suggests, government protectionism is considerably hindering the development of social networking sites. This translates to endemic disadvantages or obstacles from developing the local market (even if the Yuan appreciates!) and from attaining productivity enhancing facilities that would enable them to even be more competitive in terms of value-added products.
Put differently, in a world being revolutionized by Web 2.0, China will unlikely match the level of capital structure of economies that fosters open competition in the cyberspace that would lead to more innovation.
So unless China opens up, the pace of growth will be constrained by the current industrial framework. But she will lag in the advances of technology, which I think will be a significant growth driver for the world over the coming years.
This from the New York Times, (all bold highlights)
``The story behind the success of these companies is a simple one, some analysts say. The young people who dominate Web use in China are not just searching for information; they’re searching for a lifestyle. They are passionate about downloading music, playing online games and engaging in social networking.
``“Sixty percent of the Internet users here are under the age of 30,” said Richard Ji, an Internet analyst at Morgan Stanley. “In the U.S., it’s the other way around. And in the U.S. it’s about information. But in China, the No. 1 priority is entertainment.”
``Experts say American companies have largely failed here because they don’t have local expertise, are too slow to adapt and don’t know how to deal with the Chinese government.
``“Internet companies in China have to work so closely with the government,” said Xiao Qiang, of the China Internet project at the University of California, Berkeley. “And that means the government’s political agenda can become the company’s business agenda.”
``The need to censor Web sites, for example, can overwhelm smaller companies, Mr. Xiao said. “This becomes a growing business cost. So often, small companies don’t develop.”
``At this stage, analysts say the Web in China is less about innovation than about quickly delivering on the latest online trend.
``“People here are quick to see trends, and to clone and innovate,” said William Bao Bean, a former Internet analyst who is now a partner at Softbank China & India Holdings. “If one company is doing well, other companies will quickly clone it and roll it out.”...
My observations:
1. cultural difference in the use of the web: "And in the U.S. it’s about information. But in China, the No. 1 priority is entertainment.”
2. American companies outside the China's intrusion has failed to grab a substantial share because of the lack of local knowledge or expertise.
This is very Hayekian. From the Use of Knowledge in Society, ``But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation."
How does this relate to macroeconomics-alot!
Google's failure involves one of risk money plus a real attempt to establish or gain a foothold in China's market. Whereas people or even officials condemning China, have not been there nor have they a real or working knowledge of how things operate in China. All they base their polemics is on aggregate assumptions. If Google can be wrong how much more with personalities suffering from "fatal conceit".
3. Government intervention have limited competition to the locals and may have even politicized the distribution.
More insights from the New York Times, (bold highlights mine)
``One advantage local companies have is government protectionism. Because the Communist Party wants to maintain tight control over communication and the media, foreign Internet companies come under suspicion.
``For instance, YouTube has been blocked inside the country for over a year, ever since a user uploaded a video that was said to show human rights violations in Tibet.
``YouTube, which is owned by Google, had a large following here. But now online video in China is being championed by companies like Youku.com and Tudou.com. They may have dominated anyway, analysts say, but it certainly helps to have few big competitors.
``And without competition here from Facebook, which has not yet tried to develop a site for the Chinese market, a social networking site called Kaixin001.com has managed to register over 70 million users.
``But some experts say Google’s departure will leave Internet users here with fewer options, making the country’s Internet market less competitive and less open.
“The biggest loser is Netizens,” says Fang Xingdong, chief executive of Chinalabs.com, a research firm. “Google is a multilinguistic search engine, but Baidu is a Chinese-language one. Chinese information only occupies a small fraction of the Internet.”
Additional observations:
4. It's odd that the New York Times can be promoting competition (selectively though), apparently this depends on which interest groups benefits.
5. As the article suggests, government protectionism is considerably hindering the development of social networking sites. This translates to endemic disadvantages or obstacles from developing the local market (even if the Yuan appreciates!) and from attaining productivity enhancing facilities that would enable them to even be more competitive in terms of value-added products.
Put differently, in a world being revolutionized by Web 2.0, China will unlikely match the level of capital structure of economies that fosters open competition in the cyberspace that would lead to more innovation.
So unless China opens up, the pace of growth will be constrained by the current industrial framework. But she will lag in the advances of technology, which I think will be a significant growth driver for the world over the coming years.
