I liked Yaoundé overall. It is not as hectic as other major African cities I have known like Dakar and I hear that Douala (country’s economic capital) is much more painful to navigate than Yaoundé is. There are plenty of hills and mountains around, a lot of green and brown / red because of the climate. The city feels safe and folks are nice. Those are broad generalizations of course but it is interesting how after 3 days one can develop that feeling of safety or not when one move or walk around. I have taken collective taxis, which did not even cross my mind when I got here (not something someone from a Western nation traveling to a poor country would think of doing) and today I can tell that I would move around that way if I lived here. It is very convenient, there are lots of small yellow taxis. Before getting into the cab, people suggest a price and tell their destination (e.g. “300 Carrefour Bastos”) and the driver says yeah or nay…
Also, it is interesting to see how the economy is geared towards consumption in small quantities. For those not having a cell phone (which was my case and I could not call local numbers from my hotel – go figure…), they just find someone on the street who sell SIM cards and phone cards for cell phones but also lend cell phones for anyone to call – rate is 20 cents a minute… By the same token, my hotel did not have wireless, so guests could either use desktops and pay 500 Francs CFA an hour (less than a buck) or use their own computers, get connected to the hotel’s local network and pay 1000 Francs CFA… You have your own laptop – it costs you more. Supposedly, the connection is faster. That is how they justified the price difference when I asked…
The folks I ran into were all very polite (same with each other) and willing to help. Almost no hustling even though there are few non-African travelers or business folks around – so, one gets spotted quickly. It is just nice to be able to go around one’s business freely and concern-free. There is a certain nonchalance also – did not see a lot of people who seemed to run around and rush from one place to the next and be stressed out. That contributes to the ambiance of fine and calm pace, which I liked.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Ministry of Fauna
I wrote this waiting for a guy working for the German cooperation agency GTZ at the Ministry of Forestry and Fauna in Yaoundé, Cameroon, last week. Our friend is actually based in the Ministry per se which itself is housed in a big government office tower. I went up to the 7th floor with 7-8 other folks in the elevator and a guy pressing on the corresponding buttons in the elevator. I am not good at descriptions, so I am not sure that you will be able to visualize the picture, but basically the whole thing looks a bit old and shabby. Stained carpet, old office furniture, some folks sitting in the hallways here and there. A number of offices with closed doors. The office of the guy I am to meet with is under renovation, so there is a nice strident noise less than 10 feet (3 meters) away from me… I forgot to mention that the building entrance is all marble – tower must have been built in the 70s and must have looked quite nice for a while.
I did not get the full picture of what happens in the forestry and fauna sectors in Cameroon, so I won’t claim to say anything thorough and even exactly accurate. One quick thing right away: it is interesting (and not uncommon) to see forestry and fauna under the same ministry’s umbrella. Sustainable forestry is a growing trend but standard practices in forestry still dominate the landscape and are not particularly good for the fauna or flora… But considering the glass half-full, there seem to be signs of hope in the forestry sector as several major operators are moving towards certification under the pressure of demand in their countries (largely in Europe) and small-sized operators may be able to carve a niche, operate sustainably, and make some money.
I did not get the full picture of what happens in the forestry and fauna sectors in Cameroon, so I won’t claim to say anything thorough and even exactly accurate. One quick thing right away: it is interesting (and not uncommon) to see forestry and fauna under the same ministry’s umbrella. Sustainable forestry is a growing trend but standard practices in forestry still dominate the landscape and are not particularly good for the fauna or flora… But considering the glass half-full, there seem to be signs of hope in the forestry sector as several major operators are moving towards certification under the pressure of demand in their countries (largely in Europe) and small-sized operators may be able to carve a niche, operate sustainably, and make some money.
Investing and Africa
Alright, that interesting project I alluded to is the review of a venture fund that makes loans to businesses that produce not only economic benefits but also social and environmental ones (the so-called “triple bottom line”). This fund, Verde Ventures, affiliated to big-time NGO Conservation International is thinking of expanding its activities to new sectors and new geographies (most of its work has centered on coffee and ecotourism in Latin America so far). A potential new investor asked to conduct a review of their operations and assess the potential of VV’s expansion into Africa. Hence, the somewhat (understatement…) busy time in the past few weeks and current trip to Africa….
Madrid, Madrid
I have been off line for a while because I started a new interesting project that I will have a chance to write more about. Not that my readership missed me that much and demanded to read an update – but hey, who knows? Who do we write blogs for? For others first? But who are they? Or for ourselves? Anyway, I will revisit this topic at a later point I am sure. Alright then, in mid-March I spent a wonderful long weekend in Madrid – weather was gorgeous and warm for that time of year, in the lower 70’s (over 20 degrees Celsius), exactly when we needed after the long Boston winter.
What struck me in Madrid is the money that has been poured into infrastructure and public spaces. The subway has undergone a vast improvement / expansion plan – absolutely modern and efficient today, a lot of trains throughout the day and at night, a lot of new stations that have made the network pretty dense. There are good bus connections from what I could tell in the outer subway stations to reach suburbs where the subway does not get yet - and there is also a brand-new light rail system that I did not have a chance to experiment.
The real estate boom that has characterized Spain in the last several years before the meltdown has been accompanied by the construction of new monuments or public spaces all across town. I am certainly biased with respect to the place and importance of culture in society, having grown up in France, but the myriad of monuments and public areas, old and new (the Prado garden which dates back to the 17th century is wonderful) make Madrid so livable and just great.
So, the 64-thousand-dollar question to which I don’t have an answer is who foots the bill (and how…). Obviously, it is a big one. In America we would say, “well, that’s why they pay higher taxes in Europe”. Why is it such a bad thing anyway? At least, everyone gets something concrete (a much improved public transportation system) and, granted this is a bit more subjective, a better quality of life thanks to the presence of art in more and more public spaces (free and accessible).
I am not sure Americans realize that so many cities around the world have gone through those beautification processes which have often entailed the integration of more art accessible to everyone. Several US cities have done a good job of revamping parts of their downtown areas, for instance with the construction of ballparks (baseball stadium) that triggered the resurgence of the area around them, especially through the arrival of retail stores and restaurants. Denver, San Diego, and Baltimore are just a couple of examples. But - and this is where it goes back to the subjective part – don’t we need more than just sport, food and shopping?
What struck me in Madrid is the money that has been poured into infrastructure and public spaces. The subway has undergone a vast improvement / expansion plan – absolutely modern and efficient today, a lot of trains throughout the day and at night, a lot of new stations that have made the network pretty dense. There are good bus connections from what I could tell in the outer subway stations to reach suburbs where the subway does not get yet - and there is also a brand-new light rail system that I did not have a chance to experiment.
The real estate boom that has characterized Spain in the last several years before the meltdown has been accompanied by the construction of new monuments or public spaces all across town. I am certainly biased with respect to the place and importance of culture in society, having grown up in France, but the myriad of monuments and public areas, old and new (the Prado garden which dates back to the 17th century is wonderful) make Madrid so livable and just great.
So, the 64-thousand-dollar question to which I don’t have an answer is who foots the bill (and how…). Obviously, it is a big one. In America we would say, “well, that’s why they pay higher taxes in Europe”. Why is it such a bad thing anyway? At least, everyone gets something concrete (a much improved public transportation system) and, granted this is a bit more subjective, a better quality of life thanks to the presence of art in more and more public spaces (free and accessible).
I am not sure Americans realize that so many cities around the world have gone through those beautification processes which have often entailed the integration of more art accessible to everyone. Several US cities have done a good job of revamping parts of their downtown areas, for instance with the construction of ballparks (baseball stadium) that triggered the resurgence of the area around them, especially through the arrival of retail stores and restaurants. Denver, San Diego, and Baltimore are just a couple of examples. But - and this is where it goes back to the subjective part – don’t we need more than just sport, food and shopping?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Dr. Ross
It was a treat seeing George Clooney (Le Beau George…), Julianne Margulies, and Eriq LaSalle back in ER the other night (no in the ER since the characters played by Clooney and Margulies are now in Takoma, WA and the surgeon played by LaSalle is at Northwestern…). Seeing Le Beau George made me think that I don’t know that many examples of TV series lead actors who became worldwide movie stars. That Clooney guy is sure to go anywhere in this world – he will be recognized. A true old-school movie star…
I read about ER ratings’ slide in the last several years (now the 49th most seen show nationally or something like that). I have remained among the ER faithful (though missing the earlier era) – but I am sure a lot of folks, including those who got tired of the series, enjoyed that episode last Thursday and maybe also felt a bit sad that ER lost some of its momentum over time.
I read about ER ratings’ slide in the last several years (now the 49th most seen show nationally or something like that). I have remained among the ER faithful (though missing the earlier era) – but I am sure a lot of folks, including those who got tired of the series, enjoyed that episode last Thursday and maybe also felt a bit sad that ER lost some of its momentum over time.
AIG and a Call for Service
Alright so, there was this outcry over the weekend about the bonuses paid to AIG folks amounting to millions of dollars that will come from the $160bn the company got in bailout money. The Obama Administration was on the defensive of course, displaying a combination of tactics, saying “this is outrageous” and “but this is the best we could do”. They probably understood (Summers and Bernanke are the two I saw) that they had to show empathy and reflect what 99% of folks out there were thinking (it is outrageous) and then they could explain what the administration did, i.e. they had to comply with existing contracts that included clauses about bonus payments (not sure how those were calculated – even when the company loses billions of dollars, those guys get bonuses – pretty good deal…).
That is the story. We have to pay those people to retain them. I don’t know who those folks are, nor what they do exactly, so I won’t make a definite judgment about how valuable they are. But it does seem to me as though the Administration, now holding a 80% stake of AIG, could be more creative and offer something that would be in line with Obama’s Call for Service (in his victory and inaugural speeches and in his state of the union address).
Since working for AIG is basically a government job tantamount to a “rescue mission”, why not call on the thousands of folks unemployed / ill-employed / seeking a challenge / willing to help who would be happy to get involved in salvaging AIG for a set period of time (6 months for instance, renewable once) for a decent amount of money but something lower than they would get in a Finance job (e.g. $100k)? That short experience would look good on their résumés – it would be a quasi-Obama Administration job (something likely to be carried as a badge of honor in the future) focusing on a complex and difficult mission (preventing the AIG-Titanic boat from sinking and thus avoiding a snowball effect in the rest of the global financial system). The opportunity cost for those folks would be acceptable – being away from high-paying jobs (assuming they could get one of the few that are left…) for only 6 months to a year would not be that bad…
I love the Obama Administration – don’t get me wrong… But they have been showing two facets that I don’t like that much: they have not been hugely creative in coming up with solutions to this mess and they have adopted a very middle-of-the-road approach that probably makes sense in a lot of cases (this mess is more complex that most of us understand, so let’s not be tempted by rash solutions) but sometimes they should draw the line in actions vs. in words (saying “this is outrageous” is not enough).
That is the story. We have to pay those people to retain them. I don’t know who those folks are, nor what they do exactly, so I won’t make a definite judgment about how valuable they are. But it does seem to me as though the Administration, now holding a 80% stake of AIG, could be more creative and offer something that would be in line with Obama’s Call for Service (in his victory and inaugural speeches and in his state of the union address).
Since working for AIG is basically a government job tantamount to a “rescue mission”, why not call on the thousands of folks unemployed / ill-employed / seeking a challenge / willing to help who would be happy to get involved in salvaging AIG for a set period of time (6 months for instance, renewable once) for a decent amount of money but something lower than they would get in a Finance job (e.g. $100k)? That short experience would look good on their résumés – it would be a quasi-Obama Administration job (something likely to be carried as a badge of honor in the future) focusing on a complex and difficult mission (preventing the AIG-Titanic boat from sinking and thus avoiding a snowball effect in the rest of the global financial system). The opportunity cost for those folks would be acceptable – being away from high-paying jobs (assuming they could get one of the few that are left…) for only 6 months to a year would not be that bad…
I love the Obama Administration – don’t get me wrong… But they have been showing two facets that I don’t like that much: they have not been hugely creative in coming up with solutions to this mess and they have adopted a very middle-of-the-road approach that probably makes sense in a lot of cases (this mess is more complex that most of us understand, so let’s not be tempted by rash solutions) but sometimes they should draw the line in actions vs. in words (saying “this is outrageous” is not enough).
Sunday, March 15, 2009
New Labor?
I read an interesting article in the New York Times the other day (“Job Losses Hint at Vast Remaking of Economy”) whose punch line was basically that a significant portion of the jobs that vanished as a result of the current downturn are not going to come back. McKinsey partner and Harvard Business School (HBS) professor Bhaskar Chakravorti had a more optimistic message in an interview for HBS’s Working Knowledge (“Creative Entrepreneurship in a Downturn”) in late February that new needs will emerge in this time of crisis and resources will be available at a relatively lower cost. That will constitute a kind of “private stimulus” that will contribute to getting us out of the current mess.
It seems as though we are seeing and hearing different things regarding the job situation, how bad unemployment could get, and what we should do to improve the situation. A significant portion of the stimulus plan is going to pay for those infrastructure jobs that the Administration says are needed because our infrastructure is crumbling. Well, they have a point there. However, it is a “shot in the arm”-type solution that will get a number of folks out of unemployment in the short run only – until those bridges or roads are fixed. And then what?
We should focus our resources, we being the government, the corporate community, and society, on thinking about what will be reservoirs for those jobs that in the long run will sustain the economy. Green technologies are big and we all sense that anything related to reducing our dependence on oil and our environmental footprint will be increasingly needed and popular in the years to come. There is also a sense however that a bubble might be forming in the green tech / cleantech world and there will be winners and losers. I guess Venture Capitalists live by that risk, one home run out of 10 tries, but the likelihood or imminence of that bubble bursting might discourage some investors.
Then, related to the jobs that are not coming back (re. the NYT article), what about the folks who got trained on those jobs and are not skilled at anything else really? If the plan is for all those people to go back to unskilled jobs, that is not going to help them (low salaries) or the broader economy as a whole.
As to the question that the Administration does not want to ask bluntly, what about the jobs that should disappear? I don’t want to be too hard on General Motors and Detroit and I know that pension plans have weighed significantly on their accounts and thus have given us a biased view of those folks’ profitability but it is not as though we have not seen the Big Three’s competitive positions eroding in the past 20 years – and mind you, they have certainly been trying to do something about it, but it has not worked so far.
I found ironic actually that GM recently announced that they would discontinue Saturn as a brand whereas when it was introduced Saturn was supposed to lead the way and show the world how differently GM was going to make cars from then on.
So, the temptation is to have GM and the other car makers throw the towel and let markets do their magic (or damage…). Of course, the human price would be huge because of the millions of folks depending on the Big Three directly and indirectly for their livelihoods – but supporting those companies over time just because they provide jobs does not make any sense either. And how about diversification in the Detroit area? Easier said than done for sure – but depending so much on the Big Three is not healthy for the Greater Detroit area – that is certain.
It seems as though we are seeing and hearing different things regarding the job situation, how bad unemployment could get, and what we should do to improve the situation. A significant portion of the stimulus plan is going to pay for those infrastructure jobs that the Administration says are needed because our infrastructure is crumbling. Well, they have a point there. However, it is a “shot in the arm”-type solution that will get a number of folks out of unemployment in the short run only – until those bridges or roads are fixed. And then what?
We should focus our resources, we being the government, the corporate community, and society, on thinking about what will be reservoirs for those jobs that in the long run will sustain the economy. Green technologies are big and we all sense that anything related to reducing our dependence on oil and our environmental footprint will be increasingly needed and popular in the years to come. There is also a sense however that a bubble might be forming in the green tech / cleantech world and there will be winners and losers. I guess Venture Capitalists live by that risk, one home run out of 10 tries, but the likelihood or imminence of that bubble bursting might discourage some investors.
Then, related to the jobs that are not coming back (re. the NYT article), what about the folks who got trained on those jobs and are not skilled at anything else really? If the plan is for all those people to go back to unskilled jobs, that is not going to help them (low salaries) or the broader economy as a whole.
As to the question that the Administration does not want to ask bluntly, what about the jobs that should disappear? I don’t want to be too hard on General Motors and Detroit and I know that pension plans have weighed significantly on their accounts and thus have given us a biased view of those folks’ profitability but it is not as though we have not seen the Big Three’s competitive positions eroding in the past 20 years – and mind you, they have certainly been trying to do something about it, but it has not worked so far.
I found ironic actually that GM recently announced that they would discontinue Saturn as a brand whereas when it was introduced Saturn was supposed to lead the way and show the world how differently GM was going to make cars from then on.
So, the temptation is to have GM and the other car makers throw the towel and let markets do their magic (or damage…). Of course, the human price would be huge because of the millions of folks depending on the Big Three directly and indirectly for their livelihoods – but supporting those companies over time just because they provide jobs does not make any sense either. And how about diversification in the Detroit area? Easier said than done for sure – but depending so much on the Big Three is not healthy for the Greater Detroit area – that is certain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
