More than a year after the EuroMaidan protests took the world by surprise, Ukraine’s political and economic struggles continue. Developments in the country since the new government came to power highlight the ongoing challenges of systemic overhaul following an exciting, rapid transition. These challenges clearly illustrate the link between democratic development and economic reform, so central to CIPE’s work. Accomplishing the tasks facing Ukraine, from combating corruption, to reducing the barriers to doing business, to creating space for public-private dialogue, will be no easy feat.
The success of Ukraine’s economic and democratic development largely depends on ensuring the success of the country’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The entrepreneurial and flexible nature of SMEs makes them integral to achieving a number of the country’s goals: economic diversification; closer integration with Europe; building an adaptable economy; stimulating job growth; and boosting productivity.
Ukraine thus seeks to emulate the ways in which SMEs have helped make the U.S. economy among the world’s most successful. Boosting SMEs will require both giving the business community – and SMEs in particular – a seat at the policymaking table, and providing these firms with extensive support and training. CIPE’s partners are playing an important role in both of these processes.
CIPE’s primary focus in Ukraine has been to reduce policy barriers to business through cross-regional advocacy. Since opening the Kyiv office in 2010, CIPE has developed an extensive network of partner business associations and chambers of commerce across the country that work to represent and support Ukraine’s citizens through the work that they do.
The author, Kim Bettcher, with Jehan Ara, President of the Pakistan Software Houses Association (P@SHA) in Milan.
What I love best about the Global Entrepreneurship Congress, most recently the GEC 2015 in Milan, is the diversity of approaches, organizations, and countries that I encounter under the big tent. At this carnival of entrepreneurship, one meets founders and policymakers, leaders from innovation economies and emerging markets, people who have already made it and others who are shaping the future.
Out of this medley, I try to stitch together, what do we actually know about advancing entrepreneurship? And where might promising new directions lie? For me, the theme of this year’s congress was moving the frontiers of entrepreneurship. We are currently pushing against several big frontiers, which include geographic, demographic, and policy frontiers.
Emerging markets are the first frontier. While commonly described as factor-driven or efficiency-driven economies, emerging markets contain pockets of innovation and entrepreneurial ambition. For instance, entrepreneur stories from the Middle East captured in Christopher Schroeder’s Startup Rising have created considerable excitement, as has the Cinderella story of Medellín, Colombia, the site of GEC 2016. In Milan, I was honored to have on my panel Jehan Ara, President of the Pakistan Software Houses Association (P@SHA), who recently founded the Nest i/o incubator. Ara described a growing entrepreneurial community in Karachi and a feeling among entrepreneurs of “wanting to give back” (not unlike the community spirit described by Brad Feld in Boulder). I was ecstatic to see our friends from Nepal, the Samriddhi Foundation, take the limelight as winners of the Rookie of the Year award.
Korea’s rapid economic ascent over the past few decades was powered by huge conglomerates like Samsung. Now the country is aiming to encourage more startups and entrepreneurs.
By Tyler Makepeace
The Republic of Korea is one of the greatest economic development success stories in history — going from one of poorest countries in the world and a major aid recipient to a high-income country and a major aid donor in just a single generation. Both the head of the World Bank and the United Nations claim Korea as their birthplace.
The “Miracle on the Han River” which led to Korea’s stunning economic growth was based on an export-oriented industrialization model, similar to that of Japan, Taiwan, and later China. However, this model of fast growth has now run its course, and for Korea to continue onto the next stage of economic development it will require a different model for economic growth based on an innovative society.
In response to this need, President Park Geun-hye announced in her 2013 inaugural speech the beginning of the “Second Miracle on the Han River” through a new policy called the Creative Economy. This initiative seeks to create a supportive ecosystem for entrepreneurs and SMEs, especially in the tech sector, in order to boost job creation and pursue greater economic democratization within the country.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government is counting on a new multi-billion dollar Suez Canal project to help overcome what has been described as Egypt’s worst economic crisis since the 1930s, with high unemployment — 13.4 percent — and 45 percent of the population living below the international poverty line of $2 per day. Yet, what’s more important than the new Suez Canal’s objective to stimulate the economy and create jobs is who made it financially possible to carry out such an ambitious project and what that could mean for Egypt.
In eight days, Egyptians invested 64 billion EGP (about $9 billion) in the new Suez Canal project — and 82 percent of that investment came from individuals versus just 18 percent from institutions. The influx of investments introduced 27 billion EGP (about $3.8 billion) into the banking system, which is especially notable given that only one in ten Egyptians has a bank account. The overwhelming turnout of individual, cash-heavy investors from an underbanked population points to Egypt’s strong cash economy, which in turn begs the questions: how much more money is hiding under mattresses and why have these assets remained unused?
Corruption is a systemic problem that plagues many transitional countries across the world, rooted in weak rule of law and lack of private property rights. Not only does corruption erode trust in public institutions, such practices also hinder economic growth and weaken democratic governance.
The corruption challenge can be addressed by building responsive institutions that offer basic assurances of private property rights and ensure law and order. CIPE programs address the root causes of corruption through a multi-pronged approach. CIPE programs mobilize the private sector to raise anti-corruption standards and advocate for reforms; streamline regulations and reduce implementation gaps to limit opportunities for corruption; improve corporate governance to strengthen firm-level integrity; facilitate collective action to level the playing field and coordinate company efforts; and equip small and medium-sized enterprises to resist bribery and meet the requirements of global value chains.
Two recent case studies, described below, show these CIPE approaches in action.
By Ben Kiragu
One of the things Kenya’s new government succeeded in doing within its first year was to reduce the number of days it takes to move cargo from the Mombasa port to Malaba from 18 to 8 days — a 56 percent improvement in just 6 months. This is a major achievement which has boosted commercial relations with Uganda and other neighboring landlocked countries, forestalled competition from alternative transit routes, and ultimately reduced the cost of doing business, therefore improving economic growth in the region. How did the government accomplish this?
First of all, the president set up a cabinet subcommittee of Cabinet Secretaries dealing with the Northern Corridor — the transit links connecting Kenya’s landlocked neighbors to the sea — which reported to him during weekly cabinet meetings. Second, administrative changes were instituted; all agencies involved in the process including KRA, KEPHIS, KEBS and KMA were instructed to work under the authority of the Kenya Ports Authority and relocated to Mombasa port. Also all government agencies were to take orders from KPA and finalize operations in Mombasa without reference to any other authority. Finally, the process of clearing was digitized and weighing bridges were modernized.
What are the lessons learnt from this? There was very clear knowledge, analysis, and understanding of the problems and where the bottle necks lay, therefore solving the problem was undertaken with almost surgical precision. There was very little need for new financial resources or the construction of major physical infrastructure. This is one of the key reasons why most projects in Kenya are delayed, as they wait for budgetary allocations or get into procurement bureaucracy and controversy as we have come to see especially as a result expanded democratic space. Lastly and probably most important there was clear and dynamic leadership, the president led from the front on this one and delegated to decisive and action-oriented managers. The impact is there for all to see.
Creation of jobs was one of the rallying calls of the Jubilee campaign with 1 million jobs promised per year, but so far no major job creating initiative has borne fruit. The government seems to be waiting for big projects such as the Standard Gauge Railway and the Galana-Kulalu irrigation project to create jobs; one wonders if this will work, as time is clearly not on their side especially given the issues associated with some of these projects. My recommendation: why not replicate the cargo movement magic to prune low-hanging fruits and achieve quick wins in job creation by creating an enabling environment for micro and small enterprises (MSEs)?
In 2011, both Tunisia and Egypt were rocked by popular protests against economic and political repression that ended in the ouster of their authoritarian governments. Three years later, how much progress have these states made in reforming their economies? And what has happened to the entrepreneurs whose grievances helped fuel these revolutions?
Reforming the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Post-Revolutionary Egypt and Tunisia, a report from CIPE and Stanford University’s Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), attempts to answer these key questions. With this report, CIPE staff and IACE will engage policymakers and stakeholders in roundtable discussions to formulate policy recommendations in the coming weeks.
Working with CIPE Cairo staff and CIPE partner L’Institut Arabe des Chefs d’Entreprises (IACE) in Tunisia, lead researcher Amr Adly conducted an extensive study of existing literature and over 100 detailed interviews with entrepreneurs in each country to shed light on the obstacles and opportunities that comprise the entrepreneurial ecosystems in these post-revolutionary states.
The survey results paint a small yet detailed portrait of what life is like for the Egyptians and Tunisians trying to make ends meet in countries with increasing unemployment rates, among other worries. Dysfunctional and inaccessible regulatory structures, crony networks solidified by corrupt past regimes, and a lack of access to information for the private sector and policymakers are only a few of the areas for which Adly’s research provides nuance.
Who are the entrepreneurs that can withstand such an unstable environment? The majority of respondents in both countries affirmed that they do not trust formal contract enforcement, managed to start their business largely through self-financing due to a lack of access to loans, and endure high transaction costs as a result of inadequate institutions. They are men and women, younger and older, more or less educated, formally registered or informally operating, risking bankruptcy and/or jail time for a failed venture, running joint or solo endeavors—and they are all citizens for whom their government is not working.