

Ing. Salih CAVKIC
orbus editor in chief


Murray Hunter
University Malaysia Perlis

Perpetual Self conflict: Self
awareness as a key to our ethical drive, personal mastery, and perception of
entrepreneurial opportunities.
Murray Hunter

The Continuum of Psychotic Organisational Typologies
Murray Hunter

There is no such person as an entrepreneur, just a person who acts
entrepreneurially
Murray Hunter

Groupthink may still be a hazard to your organization - Murray Hunter

Generational Attitudes and Behaviour - Murray Hunter

The environment as a multi-dimensional system: Taking off your rose
coloured glasses
- Murray Hunter

Imagination may be more important than knowledge: The eight types of
imagination we use - Murray Hunter

Do we have a creative intelligence? - Murray Hunter

Not all opportunities are the same: A look at the four types of
entrepreneurial opportunity -
Murray Hunter

The
Evolution of Business Strategy
- Murray Hunter

How
motivation really works - Murray Hunter

Evaluating Entrepreneurial Opportunities: What’s wrong with SWOT? - Murray
Hunter

The five types of thinking we use - Murray Hunter

Where do entrepreneurial opportunities come from? - Murray Hunter

How
we create new ideas - Murray Hunter

How emotions influence, how we see the world? - Murray Hunter

People tend to start businesses for the wrong reasons - Murray Hunter

One Man, Multiple Inventions: The lessons and legacies of Thomas Edison
- Murray Hunte

Does Intrapreneurship exist in Asia?
- Murray Hunter

What’s
with all the hype – a look at aspirational marketing
- Murray Hunter

Integrating the philosophy of Tawhid – an Islamic approach to organization
-
Murray Hunter

Samsara and the Organization - Murray Hunter

Do
Confucian Principled Businesses Exist in Asia? - Murray Hunter

Knowledge,
Understanding and the God Paradigm - Murray Hunter

On Some of the Misconceptions about
Entrepreneurship - Murray Hunter

How feudalism
hinders community transformation and economic evolution: Isn’t equal
opportunity a basic human right? - Murray Hunter

The Dominance of “Western” Management Theories in South-East Asian Business
Schools: The occidental colonization of the mind. - Murray Hunter

Ethics, Sustainability and the New Realities - Murray Hunter

The Arrival of Petroleum, Rockefeller, and the Lessons He taught Us - Murray
Hunter - University Malaysia Perlis

Elite
educators idolize the “ high flying entrepreneurs” while deluded about the
realities of entrepreneurship for the masses: -
Murray Hunter

Lessons from the Invention of the airplane and the Beginning of the Aviation
Era - Murray Hunter

Missed Opportunities for ASEAN if the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) fails
to start up in 2015 - Murray Hunter

From Europe, to the US, Japan, and onto China: The evolution of the
automobile - Murray Hunter

ASEAN Nations need indigenous innovation
to transform their economies but are doing little about it.
- Murray Hunter

|
Australia in the "Asian Century" or is it Lost in Asia?
China and the US - The Australian dilemma.
Murray Hunter
The
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard released a long awaited
white paper Australia in the Asian Century yesterday,
which has been "wowed" by the Australian media. The white
paper basically affirms that Australia's future lies with Asia
and consequently immense economic opportunities exist for
Australia to grab.
The paper hinges the nation's strategy of becoming a competitive
force within the region through skills development, innovation,
infrastructure, the tax system, regulatory reform, and
environmental sustainability. However before a nation can become
a competitive force, it must have an accepted place in the
region.
On this key strategy the White paper does little more than make
a "rally call" to Australians to come out and make it
happen. The paper also reeks of Austro-centrism where
most of the points made in the document are written with the
expectation that Australia will win out of closer ties with Asia
without necessarily giving much back in exchange - such as
Australia having closer ties with Asian universities in order to
attract students and skilled workers. Rather one-way to say the
least.
The Australian China US relationships
Not surprisingly, the document still goes out to reaffirm
Australia's loyalty to the United States. This could be seen as
Premier Julia Gillard's metaphoric statement of "all the way
with LBJ".
Historically the US is seen as a savior from invasion by the
Japanese during WWII and consequently there has been a total
commitment from successive Australian governments through the
cold war until the present time for US foreign policy. The ANZUS
Treaty that embodied these commitments has brought many foreign
policy mistakes to Australia and probably cost Australia in
South-East Asia its own persona of identity.
In addition, although Australia could be considered a rich
multicultural society today, some people in Asia still have a
negative impression because of the old white Australia policy,
treatment of indigenous people, Pauline Hansen, and the latest
policies on boat arrivals of asylum seekers.
In contrast, China is now so important to Australian trade,
investment, and tourism, yet Australia is unconsciously niggling
China with its staunch loyalty to the US. China saved Australia
from a deep recession with demand for minerals whereas the US
brought the Australian Government anguish over the involvement
in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, it appears the US had a
different rule to Australia than other allies. The Australian
Government has been expected to follow US foreign policy in an
unquestionable manner. Each Australian Prime Minister since
Curtin has kowtowed to the US, seeking a close presidential
relationship in the belief that this was in the best domestic
and foreign interests. Certainly a close personal relationship
with the incumbent US president has been seen as something of
importance. Conversely, Kevin Rudd's prowess at speaking Chinese
was not good enough to develop the relationship with China, as
the relationship is much more complex than mere small talk.
China would prefer to deal with an Australia with a mature and
independent foreign policy rather than an enthusiastic supporter
of US foreign policy. Precedent shows that China does not
necessarily expect blind allegiance but would like to see
Australian decisions more in line with its own realities rather
than someone else's. However looking today at both major parties
in Australian politics this is highly unlikely. In addition the
punishment dished out by the US Government to the David Lange
Government in New Zealand in the mid 1980s is a deep lesson
about what happens to those disobedient to the US.
From the US perspective, Australia is a nice ally to have, one
it can rely upon on the international stage, which will be
important as Australia takes up a temporary security council
seat at the UN. With the Obama visit to Canberra and Darwin last
year and the stationing of troops in Australia, the country has
some importance to the US until it can establish much more
substantial bases closer to China.
China as an ally presents less of a dilemma than the US, as
China has historically always allowed some deviation from the
official Chinese foreign policy. For example China does allow
Australia and other nations to have a separate relationship with
Taiwan, and different approaches to regional issues without
making these differences major issues. Maybe Australia can learn
from the Indonesian approach of dynamic equilibrium, a
doctrine where Washington and Beijing would agree to co-exist
rather than compete for supremacy in the region.
Australia is also finding it difficult to accept that there are
other views in the world other than the occidental position on
detente and human rights that it expects within the region. For
example, many Australians cannot understand why so many Chinese
people so strongly support the position of the Chinese
Government on many issues like Tibet, and how people can accept
a communist system.
Australia's relationship with the Asian Region
After decades of successive government foreign and trade policy,
Australia still does not have any embedded position within the
Asian region. In fact Australia has been historically viewed as
occasionally condescending and arrogant towards the region with
attitudes towards human rights, where Australia's own practices
in matters like the detention of boat people are seen by some as
hypocritical.
The influence of Australian business and financial institutions
in the region is minor, nowhere near the critical mass needed to
become a competitive force in the region. Australia at this time
has only a very low profile in the Asian banking and finance
sector with no brands out there. The only exception is in the
mining sector, which to all intents and purposes has made the
Australian economy very dependent upon demand in Asia,
particularly China.
Back in the 1990s the then Prime Minister Paul Keating stated
that Australia is part of Asia and together with the then
foreign minister Gareth Evans made a concerted effort to embed
Australia within the region. This had some positive effect with
Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, and East Timor with Australian policy
working towards enhancing peace and prosperity within the
region. But they had their setbacks over the recalcitrant
remarks about Malaysia's former Premier Mahathir Mohamed which
soured relations with that country for a number of years.
However perceptively, all these gains were lost when John Howard
came to power in 1996 reaffirming the Canberra-Washington link,
earning the label for Australia as the US's deputy sheriff in
the Asia.
The Australian relationship with the region is one where
Australia needs the region more than the region needs Australia.
The Australian market is small compared to other markets and of
little interest to regional exporters who prefer to put their
efforts into the larger markets of China, Japan, EU, and the US.
Other hubs in the region are more conducive to becoming
corporate HQ hubs than Sydney or Melbourne. The only real
interest Australia has for Asian investors been in rent seeking
activities like real estate. Australia is the gateway to
nowhere, so cannot play the role as a hub like Singapore and
Hong Kong have successfully done. However the concept of Darwin
as a gateway to Asia has been formally recognized but it remains
to be seen what will actually be done about it.
With the rapidly changing nature of the region and the shifting
balance between the US and China within Asia, the
Austro-centric view of the region needs urgent revamping.
The Australian economy in the short and medium term is dependent
upon China, and Australia perceives itself rightly or wrongly to
be dependent upon the US for security. Australia's acceptance of
the wide array of Asian views within the region that Australia
can one day become an equal partner in the region.
Though Australia has some deeply historical links with many
parts of the region due to some heroic actions of troops during
the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency after that,
tragically these opportunities to further develop relationships
were not capitalized upon, due to Australian mesmerization with
Washington. White papers aside, it will be action and not words
that are important and China and the region will be surprised to
see any real change, although the intention and realization of
the need is present within the foreign policy Australian agenda.
However with Australia, old habits die hard. And just as Julia
Gillard had an unfortunate fall the other week in India in front
of the media, Australia also has a track record of falling over
itself in Asia.
It will take much more than a massive investment in skills and
education to be able to engage the Asian region, let alone be
"competitive". One of the paramount barriers Australia has
to overcome is the deep set belief that its own cultural values
are not necessarily universally accepted across the region. It's
not about learning Asian languages but about understanding
different points of view, approaches, and 'mindsets'.
Austro-centrism must take a back seat in relationships
around the region for Australia to be seriously considered a
member of the region. Currently it's not.
The white paper is still haunted by Australia's past. Maybe it's
time for Australia to release the US security blanket a little
and become a mature and independent nation within the Asian
region. However one fears with the promise of a rise in real
incomes from the "Asian Century" initiative, that the
whole thing is just a pander to the domestic electorate. As the
report itself aspires, Asia is seen only as a means for
Australian incomes to become one of the top 10 per-capita ones
in the world.
Rather, Ken Henry the principal author of the white paper
appears to have placated the Australian Government's wishful
thinking for a positivist instrument that can be sold to the
electorate, which he may have done well. The White paper has
turned it into a promissory note for a better future within
Australia based upon the misconception that internal capacity
building will make Australia more competitive in Asia, being too
"fuzzy" about developing a real strategy to engage the region.
Building up capacities are only building capabilities. They are
not strategies within themselves.
On initial reading of the 312 page report there appears to be
little new in it, and one could argue that existing ALP policy
was used as a template. If this is correct then it will be
difficult for this white paper to garner bipartisan support, and
maybe fated to become another relic of a former government
tossed out of office.
Presence and accommodation of Asia to what Australia really has
to offer is the vital key. This implies showing the region that
an independent Australia is truly willing to put its lot in with
Asia and not with the US.
Asian suspicion may arise to the issue Ms Gillard herself talked
about Australia being a winner in Asia, and this implies there
must be losers.
Its highly doubtful if anybody in the region is looking at
Australia with any more interest today.
Murray Hunter is an associate professor at University
Malaysia Perlis, and the author of a number of books on
agriculture, economics, and entrepreneurship.
29.10.2012
Surprise, surprise: An Islam economy can be innovative
The Islamic business revolution in Southern Thailand
Murray Hunter
There
is a revolution going on in Southern Thailand and I'm not
talking about the insurgency. Cities like the notorious Hat Yai,
a sexual playground for Malaysian tourists are being transformed
into vibrant Islamic business centres. This rapid transformation
has been spurred on by the migration of Muslims from the three
troubled provinces of Pettani, Yala, and Narathiwat to Songkhla
Province, in order to get away from the trouble. One of the
results of this is a growing cluster of young Thai Malay
entrepreneurs who are finding innovative ways to develop new
business models based upon Islamic principles.
This avant-garde young business group has seen the
potential of integrating their beliefs into what they do
businesswise. And this is paying off as the Thailand Muslim
population is in excess of 6 million people, many cashed up from
bumper rubber prices over the last few years. In addition the
appeal of these products and services produced by these
businesses are not just restricted to the Muslim population.
If one travels around the South of Thailand today there are
Halal restaurants, boutiques, travel agents, tour companies,
insurance, and consumer products all produced and operated by
companies that aspire to comply with Islamic principles. Some
larger projects like Halal hotels and condominiums for
Muslim retirees from Malaysia and Singapore are being currently
constructed. What one can feel talking to these entrepreneurs
and seeing the results of their work is an aire of excitement,
innovation and expectation that this strategy will lead to
growth and success.
This is in stark contrast to south of the border in Malaysia
where over the last 50 years an institutionalized mindset of
dependence upon government contracts, favours, and grants has
severely inhibited innovation. Symbolically, this can be seen
through the individualized Islamic fashion worn by Southern Thai
Muslim women verses the stereotyped fashion worn by Malaysian
Malay women. Even the night markets in Southern Thailand are
full of innovative Halal foods like dim sum and sushi with
stalls decorated in colourful banners in contrast to the drab
night markets across the border.
This "tale of two cities" along the border of Malaysia
and Thailand probably reflects the vastly different approaches
to development by the two countries. Thai development has been
much more ad hoc than Malaysia, where ideas tend to be
generated by individuals who do something about them using their
own resources. If and when they are successful, others follow
and build upon this base with complementary rather than
competitive businesses. Soon after government agencies provide
channels and assistance through their community industry and
marketing programs. Later universities like Chulalongkorn set up
fully accredited Halal testing labs to support the growing
business cluster. These clusters start and grow almost naturally
and this is occurring along the Islamic business front now.
In contrast, Malaysian development comes from top down planning.
Much fanfare is given to new infrastructure projects with grand
objectives. The participants attending launches and involved in
implementation are bureaucrats and agency officials with very
little participation by the private sector. Where opportunities
are identified, an agency may set up a government linked company
as a vehicle to exploit it, actually stifling out private
enterprise growth rather than promoting it. The end result is an
attempt to build a cluster with little private enterprise
support, that doesn't have any natural growth or momentum,
continually requiring funds to prop it up.
This story tends to support what the creativity pundits say.
Creativity and innovation comes from adversity and hardship
rather than a comfortable and complacent environment. The Muslim
entrepreneurs in Southern Thailand have had to make it on their
own and not rely upon favors from a structure of cronies who can
dish out contracts and funds. In addition this trend toward
Islamic principled business shows that future wealth will come
from innovation rather than connections, which is very important
if substantiated and real economic development is going to
occur. It's not brick and mortar that will bring development,
but new ideas and practices connecting hinterland, culture and
entrepreneur to new market possibilities.
The Malay entrepreneurs of Southern Thailand as well aware that
almost 25% of the world population are Muslims and that an
Islamic approach to the market is sure to provide a regional
source of competitive advantage in the international market
arena within the not too distant future. Culture and religion
can be a strong and powerful economic resource.
Their gung-ho attitude is to develop the market in
Southern Thailand today and extend out to the region tomorrow.
One can see through the Halal supply chain system developed by
the Halal Research Centre at Chulalongkorn University that this
is not just a dream. Some of the world's major food
manufacturers like Nestlé have already adopted it.
And finally what could this mean for the restless south of
Thailand. Will growing economic prosperity and wealth be the
best long term weapon against any insurgency? Can the people
solve this themselves without any outside assistance? If this
hypothesis is true, then the growing Islamic business cluster in
Southern Thailand may marginalize the insurgency movement.
However this doesn't mean that the violence would end. When a
movement is being marginalized it may seek attention thought
further 'high profile' acts of violence. That's the sad
part of the story.
Has The Nobel Prize Committee Awarded the 2012 Peace prize to
the EU Against the Nobel Foundation Charter and Sentiments of
Alfred Nobel Himself?
Murray Hunter
The 2012 Nobel Peace Prize awarded by the Norwegian Peace
prize committee to the European Union could prima facie contravene the
Nobel character and personal sentiments of Alfred Nobel himself, according to
his will.
According to the will of Alfred Nobel made in Paris on 27th November 1895 in
setting up the trust in his own words, it is clear that only individuals were
intended to be recipients of the awards.
“The
whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following
way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute
a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of
prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the
greatest benefit to mankind….The said interest shall be divided into five equal
parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall
have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics;
one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery
or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important
discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person
who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in
an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or
the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of
standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. …".
There have on a number of occasions been awards given to organizations like the
Red cross and UN Atomic Energy commission (IAEA). But these are groups of
collective people who performed some specific acts, unlike the EU which is a
group of nations and not a person or a citizen of any country.
Alfred Nobel specifically mentioned that a person awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
be a citizen of a country...."It is my express wish that in awarding the
prizes no consideration whatsoever shall be given to the nationality of the
candidates, but the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be
Scandinavian or not." Consequently according to Alfred Nobel's will of 27th
November 1895, A citizen of the EU can be awarded the Nobel prize, but not the
EU itself as the EU is not a person and as such can't have a nationality.
Under this issue, could the Norwegian Peace prize committee's decision be
challenged in a court of law as being against the intention of Alfred Nobel's
will?
This will probably never be tested which leaves the Norwegian committee free to
make future absurd decisions like awarding the prize to the Sun for providing us
with free energy, or the Moon for inspiring love and romance on the earth.
Just
in case you are in doubt here are Alfred Nobel's own words in his will of 1895.
I, the undersigned, Alfred Bernhard Nobel, do hereby, after mature deliberation,
declare the following to be my last Will and Testament with respect to such
property as may be left by me at the time of my death:
To my nephews, Hjalmar and Ludvig Nobel, the sons of my brother Robert Nobel, I
bequeath the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Crowns each;
To my nephew Emanuel Nobel, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand, and to my niece
Mina Nobel, One Hundred Thousand Crowns;
To my brother Robert Nobel’s daughters, Ingeborg and Tyra, the sum of One
Hundred Thousand Crowns each;
Miss Olga Boettger, at present staying with Mrs Brand, 10 Rue St Florentin,
Paris, will receive One Hundred Thousand Francs;
Mrs Sofie Kapy von Kapivar, whose address is known to the Anglo-Oesterreichische
Bank in Vienna, is hereby entitled to an annuity of 6000 Florins Ö.W. which is
paid to her by the said Bank, and to this end I have deposited in this Bank the
amount of 150,000 Fl. in Hungarian State Bonds;
Mr Alarik Liedbeck, presently living at 26 Sturegatan, Stockholm, will receive
One Hundred Thousand Crowns;
Miss Elise Antun, presently living at 32 Rue de Lubeck, Paris, is entitled to an
annuity of Two Thousand Five Hundred Francs. In addition, Forty Eight Thousand
Francs owned by her are at present in my custody, and shall be refunded;
Mr Alfred Hammond, Waterford, Texas, U.S.A. will receive Ten Thousand Dollars;
The Misses Emy and Marie Winkelmann, Potsdamerstrasse, 51, Berlin, will receive
Fifty Thousand Marks each;
Mrs Gaucher, 2 bis Boulevard du Viaduc, Nimes, France will receive One Hundred
Thousand Francs;
My servants, Auguste Oswald and his wife Alphonse Tournand, employed in my
laboratory at San Remo, will each receive an annuity of One Thousand Francs;
My former servant, Joseph Girardot, 5, Place St. Laurent, Châlons sur Saône, is
entitled to an annuity of Five Hundred Francs, and my former gardener, Jean
Lecof, at present with Mrs Desoutter, receveur Curaliste, Mesnil, Aubry pour
Ecouen, S.& O., France, will receive an annuity of Three Hundred Francs;
Mr Georges Fehrenbach, 2, Rue Compiègne, Paris, is entitled to an annual pension
of Five Thousand Francs from January 1, 1896 to January 1, 1899, when the said
pension shall discontinue;
A sum of Twenty Thousand Crowns each, which has been placed in my custody, is
the property of my brother’s children, Hjalmar, Ludvig, Ingeborg and Tyra, and
shall be repaid to them.
The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following
way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute
a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of
prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the
greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal
parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall
have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics;
one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery
or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important
discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person
who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in
an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or
the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of
standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The
prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of
Sciences; that for physiological or medical work by the Caroline Institute in
Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for
champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian
Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration
whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most
worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.
As Executors of my testamentary dispositions, I hereby appoint Mr Ragnar Sohlman,
resident at Bofors, Värmland, and Mr Rudolf Lilljequist, 31 Malmskillnadsgatan,
Stockholm, and at Bengtsfors near Uddevalla. To compensate for their pains and
attention, I grant to Mr Ragnar Sohlman, who will presumably have to devote most
time to this matter, One Hundred Thousand Crowns, and to Mr Rudolf Lilljequist,
Fifty Thousand Crowns;
At the present time, my property consists in part of real estate in Paris and
San Remo, and in part of securities deposited as follows: with The Union Bank of
Scotland Ltd in Glasgow and London, Le Crédit Lyonnais, Comptoir National
d’Escompte, and with Alphen Messin & Co. in Paris; with the stockbroker M.V.
Peter of Banque Transatlantique, also in Paris; with Direction der Disconto
Gesellschaft and Joseph Goldschmidt & Cie, Berlin; with the Russian Central
Bank, and with Mr Emanuel Nobel in Petersburg; with Skandinaviska Kredit
Aktiebolaget in Gothenburg and Stockholm, and in my strong-box at 59, Avenue
Malakoff, Paris; further to this are accounts receivable, patents, patent fees
or so-called royalties etc. in connection with which my Executors will find full
information in my papers and books.
This Will and Testament is up to now the only one valid, and revokes all my
previous testamentary dispositions, should any such exist after my death.
Finally, it is my express wish that following my death my veins shall be opened,
and when this has been done and competent Doctors have confirmed clear signs of
death, my remains shall be cremated in a so-called crematorium.
Paris, 27 November, 1895
Alfred Bernhard Nobel
That Mr Alfred Bernhard Nobel, being of sound mind, has of his own free will
declared the above to be his last Will and Testament, and that he has signed the
same, we have, in his presence and the presence of each other, hereunto
subscribed our names as witnesses:
Sigurd Ehrenborg
former Lieutenant
Paris: 84 Boulevard Haussmann
R. W. Strehlenert
Civil Engineer
4, Passage Caroline
Thos Nordenfelt
Constructor
8, Rue Auber, Paris
Leonard Hwass
Civil Engineer
4, Passage Caroline
Published on ORBUS: 19.10.2012
Asia needs ASEAN-ization not Pakistanization of its continent
What China wants in Asia: 1975 or 1908 ? – addendum
(Gunboat diplomacy in the South and East China Sea – Chinese strategic
mistake)
prof. dr. Anis Bajraktarević
As the recent maritime contests in both the South and the East China Sea
has shown, Beijing underestimated an emotional charge that the
territorial disputes carry along, as well as the convenience given to
the neighbors to escalate these frictions in order to divert public
attention from their own pressing domestic socio-economic and political
issues. A costly, spiral and dangerous game of the reinvigorated
nationalistic rhetoric, it presently instigate a climate that could
easily hijack the next Asian decade as a whole.
Speculations over the alleged bipolar world of tomorrow (the so-called
G-2, China vs. the US), should not be an Asian dilemma. It is primarily
a concern of the West that, after all, overheated China in the first
place with its (outsourcing) investments. Hence, despite a (cacophony of
voices, actually of a) distortive noise about the possible future G-2
world, the central security problem of Asia remains the same: an absence
of any pan-continental multilateral setting on the world’s largest
continent.

On the eastern, ascendant flank of the Eurasian continent, the Chinese
vertigo economy is overheated and too-well integrated in the petrodollar
system. Beijing, presently, cannot contemplate or afford to allocate any
resources in a search for an alternative. (The Sino economy is a
low-wage- and labor intensive- centered one. Chinese revenues are
heavily dependent on exports and Chinese reserves are predominantly a
mix of the USD and US Treasury bonds.) To sustain itself as a single
socio-political and formidably performing economic entity, the People’s
Republic requires more energy and less external dependency.[1]
Domestically, the demographic-migratory pressures are huge, regional
demands are high, and expectations are brewing.[2]
Considering its best external energy dependency equalizer (and inner
cohesion solidifier), China seems to be turning to its military upgrade
rather than towards the resolute alternative energy/Green Tech
investments – as it has no time, plan or resources to do both at once.
Inattentive of the broader picture, Beijing (probably falsely) believes
that a lasting containment, especially in the South China Sea, is
unbearable, and that –at the same time– fossil-fuels are available
(e.g., in Africa and the Gulf), and even cheaper with the help of
battleships.[3]
In effect, the forthcoming Chinese military buildup will only strengthen
the existing, and open up new, bilateral security deals[4]
of neighboring countries, primarily with the US – as nowadays in
Asia, no one wants to be a passive downloader. Ultimately, it may
create a politico-military isolation (and financial burden) for China
that would consequently justify and (politically and financially)
cheapen the bolder reinforced American military presence in the
Asia-Pacific, especially in the South and the East China Sea. It
perfectly adds up to the intensified demonization of China in parts of
influential Western media.[5]
Hence, the Chinese grab for fossil fuels or its military competition for
naval control is not a challenge but rather a boost for the US
Asia-Pacific –even an overall– posture. Calibrating the contraction of
its overseas projection and commitments – some would call it managing
the decline of an empire – the US does not fail to note that nowadays
half of the world’s merchant tonnage passes though the South China Sea.
Therefore, the US will exploit any regional territorial dispute and
other frictions to its own security benefit, including the costs sharing
of its military presence with the local partners, as to maintain pivotal
on the maritime edge of Asia that arches from the Persian Gulf to the
Indian Ocean, Malacca, the South and East China Sea up to the
northwest–central Pacific. Is China currently acting as a de facto
fundraiser for the US?
A real challenge is always to optimize the (moral, political and
financial) costs in meeting the national strategic objectives. In this
case, it would be a resolute Beijing’s turn towards green technology,
coupled with the firm buildup of the Asian multilateralism. Without a
grand rapprochement to the champions of multilateralism in Asia, which
are Indonesia, India and Japan, there is no environment for China to
seriously evolve and emerge as a formidable, lasting and trusted global
leader.[6]
Consequently, what China needs in Asia is not a naval race of 1908,
but the Helsinki process of 1975. In return, what Asia needs (from China
and Japan) is an ASEAN-ization, not a Pakistanization of its continent.[7]
Opting for either strategic choice will reverberate in the dynamic
Asia–Pacific theatre.[8]
However, the messages are diametrical: An assertive military –
alienates, new technology – attracts neighbors. Finally, armies
conquer (and spend) while technology builds (and accumulates)! At this
point, any eventual accelerated armament in the Asia-Pacific theatre
would only strengthen the hydrocarbon status quo, and would implicitly
further help a well-orchestrated global silencing of consumers’
sensitivity over the record-high oil price.
With its present configuration, it is hard to imagine that anybody can
outplay the US in the petro-security, petro-financial and petro-military
global playground in the decades to come. Given the planetary
petro-financial-media-tech-military causal constellations, this type of
confrontation is so well mastered by and would further only benefit the
US and the closest of its allies. China’s defense complex is over-ideologized,
under-capitalized, technologically outdated and innovation-inert, while
the US’ is largely privatized, highly efficient, deployable and prime
innovative. Thus, even in security domain, the main China’s problem is
not a naval or overall military parity, but the disproportionate
technological gap. After all, China’s army was not meant (by Mao) and
maintained (by Deng and his successors) to serve the external projection
purpose. It was and still remains an ideological enterprise of cohesion,
an essential centrifugal force to preserve territorial integrity of this
land-colossus.
Within the OECD/IEA grouping, or closely: the G-8 (the states with
resources, infrastructure, tradition of and know-how to advance the
fundamental technological breakthroughs), it is only Japan that may
seriously consider a Green/Renewable-tech U-turn. Tokyo’s external
energy dependencies are stark and long-lasting. Past the recent nuclear
trauma, Japan will need a few years to (psychologically and
economically) absorb the shock – but it will learn a lesson. For such an
impresive economy and considerable demography, situated on a small
land-mass which is repeatedly brutalized by devastating natural
catastrophes (and dependent on yet another disruptive external influence
– Arab oil), it might be that a decisive shift towards green energy is
the only way to survive, revive, and eventually to emancipate.
An important part of the US–Japan security treaty is the US energy
supply lines security guaranty, given to (the post-WWII demilitarized)
Tokyo. After the recent earthquake-tsunami-radiation armageddon, as well
as witnessing the current Chinese military/naval noise, (the cabinet of
the recently reconfirmed PM Noda and any other subsequent government of)
Japan will inevitably rethink and revisit its energy policy, as well as
the composition of its primary energy mix.
Tokyo is well aware that the Asian geostrategic myopias are strong and
lasting, as many Asian states are either locked up in their narrow
regionalisms or/and entrenched in their economic egoisms. Finally, Japan
is the only Asian country that has clearly learned from its own modern
history, all about the limits of hard power projection and the strong
repulsive forces that come in aftermath from the neighbors. Their own
pre-modern and modern history does not offer a similar experience to the
other two Asian heavyweights, China and India. This indicates the Far
East as a probable zone of the Green-tech excellence (as much as ASEAN
might be the gravity center of the consolidated diplomatic and
socio-political action) and a place of attraction for many Asians in the
decade to come.
Anis H. Bajrektarevic, Geopolitics of Energy Editorial Member
Chairperson for Intl. Law & Global Pol. Studies
Vienna, 08 OCT 12
contact:
anis@bajrektarevic.eu
Notes and References
* Present
text is an addendum to the previous policy paper: What China wants in
Asia: 1975 or 1908? (Gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea – Chinese
strategic mistake), first published by the China Daily Mail (20 May
2012)
[1] Most of
China’s economic growth is attributed to outsourced manufacturing. The
US, the EU, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and other Asian and
non-Asian OECD countries predominantly take advantage of China’s coastal
areas as their own industrial suburbia. It remains an open question how
much this externally dictated growth of China has a destabilizing effect
on the inner compact of the Sino nation.
[2] The
geopolitical event of the year is ahead of us. The forthcoming 18th
Congress of the China’s Communist Party should soon decide on its
leadership for the next 10 years. In the secretive, opaque world of CPC
decision making, the ongoing contest between taizi dang (children
of senior Party figures and heroes of the Revolution) and tuanpai
(party members of a modest social background who successfully played
their careers in the Communist Youth League) is an important one
although not the only ideological and socio-political power-struggle
puzzling the future of China.
[3]
Since the glorious Treasury Fleets of Admiral Zhèng Hé have been
dismantled by the order of the Mandarin bureaucracy in 1433, China has
never recovered its pivotal naval status in the Asia-Pacific.
[4]
More bilateralism (triggered by unilateralism) is not only less
multilateralism– essentially, it is a setback for any eventual
emancipation of the continent.
[5]
In late September 2012, China put its first aircraft carrier (the
Liaoning) into service with a lot of parade domestically and huge
anxiety in its neighborhood. However, the media underreported three
important details: (i)this Soviet-constructed vessel is over 20 years
old (bought from Ukraine in 1998); (ii) its runway deck cannot support
any aircraft landing; (iii) China’s best tactical jetfighter J-8 (a
copycat of the Soviet MIG 23s, 30-year-old technology) is not designed
for landing on any aircraft carrier. From the military technology point
of view, China is still well-behind were e.g. the Imperial Japan was
some 80 years ago – as the Liaoning carrier is neither home-made
nor of any practical use for either the Sino Navy or its Air Force.
[6]
More on the pan-Asian security architectures and preventive diplomacy
in: Bajrektarevic, A. (2011) No Asian century without the pan-Asian
Institution, GHIR (Geopolitics, History, and Intl. Relations) 3 (2)
2011, Addleton Publishers NY
[7]
An ASEAN summit in June 2012 failed to issue a joint communiqué for the
first time in its 45-year history after an open disagreement over the
wording of a section on the South China Sea territorial claims.
Cambodia, the current ASEAN chair, was seen by several member states of
stonewalling in support of its ally, China. Quickly absorbing the shock,
the ASEAN diplomatic offensive has started, primarily shuttled by the
Indonesian Foreign Office. One of the chief negotiators recently told me
in Jakarta: “The biggest threats (related to the South China Sea
territorial disputes, rem. a.) to ASEAN’s centrality are the gnawing
moves that ultimately pit its 10 members against each other.” The
views I’ve heard while in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok this fall,
well-corresponded with the concerns expressed in Jakarta: “What will
be rejected is the seeming habit of major powers – be they China or the
US – to define countries as allies or adversaries…and so, riling ASEAN’s
divisions.”
[8]
Historically, both Europe and Asia had a weak centre with the
continent’s peripheries traditionally pressing on a soft centre. With
the strengthening of 19th
century Germany (Bismarck’s Greater Prussia), and of late 20th
century’s Deng’s China, the centre started pressing on its peripheries
for the first time in modern history. One of the central security
dilemmas between Bismarck and Helsinki times was ‘how many Germanys’
Europe should have to preserve its inner balance and peace. Europe and
the world have paid an enormous price in two world wars to figure it
out. With the bitter memories of Nazism still residing in the body and
soul of the continent, the recent unification of Germany was only
possible within the Helsinki’ tranquilized Europe.
16.10.2012
From
Europe, to the US, Japan, and onto China: The evolution of the automobile
Murray Hunter
The
pre-automobile era
Even though the railways existed in Britain, Europe, and America by the
late 1880s, most road transport was still undertaken by house and
carriage. There were over three million horses in Britain and ten times
that many in America which had to be breed, fed, cared for, and housed.
A large amount of farmland was devoted to producing hay and oats for
horse feed and it was becoming an expensive exercise to maintain a house
and carriage. The industry was reaching the limits to its potential
growth by 1900.
The automobile was not invented by any one individual and was developed
from a combination of other inventions and incremental innovations over
time to create what we know as the automobile today.
One of the first forms of self-propelled automobiles was Cugnot’s steam
wagon in 1771 discussed earlier in the steam engine section. This was
followed in Britain by William Murdoch’s steam carriage in 1784 and
Richard Trevithick’s full size steam vehicle in 1801. However the
British Parliament passed the Locomotive Act (1865)
that required any self-propelled vehicles on roads to be
preceded by a man on foot with a red flag and blowing a horn,
effectively discouraging much more development of the automobile in
Britain, where attention was shifted back to the steam engine.
The automobile evolved through incremental
invention
Outside Britain there were a number of various vehicles built, some
having useful features that would be incorporated into later versions of
the automobile. For example Ivan Kulibin in Russia developed a steam
carriage in 1791 that incorporated a flywheel, brake, gearbox, and
bearings. In 1805 Oliver Evens, an American developed a self-propelled
vehicle that was also an amphibious vehicle. In 1815 Josef Buzek from
Prague, from what is now known as the Czech Republic built an oil fired
steam car that could run further than other steam vehicles developed
until that date due to its more efficient fuel. In 1830s there were also
a number of electric cars developed including Anyos Jedlik’s model car
powered by his electric motor in 1928, Thomas Davenport’s model electric
car in 1834, Stratingh and Becker’s small electric car in 1835, Robert
Davidson’s electric car in 1838 that ran on tracks, a forerunner to an
electric tram, and Robert Anderson’s electric carriage in 1839.
However steam and electricity were not practical power sources for an
automobile, and the absence of a suitable power source hindered
commercial development. Likewise the ride on these early vehicles was
very rough due to the wheels being fabricated out of wood or iron. A
softer material that could take some shock out of the road was
necessary. These problems had to be solved before any commercial vehicle
could be invented.
One of the very early concepts of a combustion engine was a water pump
driven by gunpowder in the 17th
Century to pump water for the Versailles Palace gardens
developed by Christiaan Huygens. Shortly after, a number of piston
engines utilizing gas were developed. In 1807 a Swiss engineer François
Isaac de Rivaz developed an internal combustion engine driven by a
hydrogen and oxygen mixture, ignited by an induced spark based on
Alessandro Volta’s concept of propulsion using air and hydrogen in a
pistol to propel a cork from the end of the barrel from 1790s.
Over the years a number of improvements to the combustion engine were
made by Sadi Carnot, Samuel Morey, William Bernett, Eugenio Barsanti and
Felice Matteucci, and Pietro Benini. The development of an efficient
combustion engine was hindered by the absence of petroleum as a fuel
which was just appearing in the later part of the 19th
century.
Around 1860 the Belgian Etienne Lenoir developed a gas fueled
electrically ignited internal combustion engine that utilized cylinders,
pistons connected to rods and a flywheel where the gas basically took
the place of steam, as in the Watt steam engines. The engine was
commercially produced and used extensively to drive stationary
machinery. Although the Lenoir engine attracted much publicity, it was
not suitable for a moving vehicle but inspired others to refine and
develop upon the basic design.
One of these people was Nikolaus August Otto who thought that running
the engine on gas was impractical and imagined an engine running on the
vapour of petrol mixed with air. Together with a friend Michael Zons who
had a workshop, they built a small engine that ran on alcohol and
applied for a patent that stipulated an engine that would propel
vehicles serviceably along a country road[1].
The patent application was turned down on the basis that the engine was
too close to others, so Otto and Zons continued to development until
they created a four-stroke cycle engine. That year Otto formally joined
Zons in his machine shop and went across to London to see if anybody
else was offering any similar types of engines. He found that nobody
else had anything like it.
Otto had a number of ideas to make the engine more efficient but was
starting to run out of money. He eventually met up with a young engineer
Eugene Langen from a wealthy family who became a partner and bankrolled
Otto, forming N.A. Otto & Company, engine builders. After selling a few
engines they found that in their present form the engine was not too
saleable and spent the next three years experimenting until they created
an engine with a vertical cylinder and piston connected to a cog wheel
that went up and down. They presented it at the Great Exhibition in
Paris during 1867. It just so happened that one of Otto’s old
acquaintances Professor Franz Reuleaux of Berlin University was on the
judging committee and insisted Otto’s engine be directly compared to the
Lenoir engines on display. The judges found that the Otto engine used
only one third the fuel used by the Lenoir engine and Otto and Langen
won the gold medal personally presented to them by Napoleon III. After
the exhibition sales increased dramatically and by 1871 they had
licensed production of the engine to Crossley Brothers of Manchester and
were making profits. The company continued to grow and took on some new
partners and was renamed Deutz-AG-Gasmotorenfabrik.
Gottlieb Daimler was interested in building an automobile from an early
age. He showed himself to be a very skilled craftsman during his
apprenticeship at a gunsmith workshop and was awarded a place at the
School for Advanced Training in Stuttgart where he studied at night
while working during the day. Daimler later moved to Strasbourg where he
worked on steam locomotives and built railway cars, becoming foreman at
the age of 22. He was given leave to study at the Stuttgart Polytechnic
Institute and completed the four year course in two years. Daimler then
spent some time in Paris and Britain where he toured and worked at a
number of engineering works. He also attended the 1862 Great Exhibition
in London. Upon his return to Germany Daimler spent a few years working
at the Bruderhaus Factory producing machines for paper mills, farms, and
weighbridges. During his time at Bruderhaus, Daimler met Wilhelm Mayback
with whom he developed a very close relationship. Maybach was a very
creative draughtsman who was later to follow Daimler from job to job.
Daimler was approached by Langen in 1872 to work for Deutz which was
expanding their production of the Otto engine. Daimler persuaded Langen
to also take on Mayback as chief designer for the company. They both
spent about ten years at Deutz, with Daimler leaving to set up his own
company in Cannstatt from the compensation he got from Otto for his work
on the patents. Maybach soon joined him and they set out to produce a
petrol engine that had an efficient and quick starting ignition and a
power-to-weight ratio that would be suited for an automobile. By 1885
they had produced a one horsepower engine with some improvements over
the Otto engine including a carburetor to mix fuel with the air for
better combustion. Daimler fixed an engine to a bicycle and created the
first powered motorcycle. Daimler also bought a carriage he bought from
Stuttgart and mounted the engine onto it as a “present to his wife”.
Quite independently Karl Friedrich Benz was also working on a petrol
engine. Benz was born into a relatively poor family but was able to get
a good education where he studied locomotive engineering at university.
During these years Benz had a dream of building a self-propelled
horseless carriage. Benz started his first business a machine shop and
supplier of construction materials in 1871 with a partner August Ritter.
The company ran into financial trouble and Benz fiancée Bertha Ringer
bought out Ritter with money from her dowry. After further poor business
performance the firm got into further financial trouble where Benz
admitted a new partner and lost control of the company. In 1883 Benz
left the company and bought into a bicycle repair shop in Mannheim with
Max Rose and Friedrich Wilhelm Eβlinger.
Benz soon left and went into the engine building business and formed
Benz & Cie Rheinsche Gasmotoren-Fabrik. The business went well producing
engines for a growing market and this gave Benz the opportunity to focus
his attention on building an automobile. Benz developed an automobile
primarily based on bicycle technology. It was powered by a four-stroke
engine Benz had designed, sitting between the rear wheels with the power
being transmitted through chains to the rear axle. Benz patented his
automobile in 1886 calling it the Benz Patented Motorwagen. This first
model had plenty of room for improvement and Benz over successive years
created new versions that ironed out faults in the previous model.
Although his invention had plenty of attention, there was actually
little interest in purchasing the vehicle. Most of the sales were in
France through Benz’s agent Emile Roger, who was already building Benz
engines under license there.
There were still a number of problems. Gasoline at the time was only
sold by pharmacies as a cleaning fluid, and the automobile still lacked
power to climb small hills and the brakes were rough. The automobile
could not go in reverse. An important event in the history of Benz was
the story of Bertha Benz in 1888 using the car to travel from Mannheim
to Pforzheim to visit her mother, a round trip of some 212 km. During
the trip she apparently made some technical improvements to the
automobile which included putting leather brake linings on the brakes to
help with downhill braking and recommended to her husband to add another
gear to the engine so it could go up hills better.
By 1895 the Benz factory had sold more than 135 cars and was known as
one of the most important manufacturer of automobiles[2].
Now Germany had three manufacturers of petrol engines.
The early bicycles and automobiles used wooden or iron rims for tyres
which had no shock absorbing properties. However for the tyre to be
invented, a pliable material that could be used in its construction was
required. Charles Goodyear heard about the properties of gum elastic[3]
and went to see J. Haskins, the manager of Roxbury Rubber Company in New
York. Goodyear found that the rubber used to make products disintegrated
over time rendering them useless. He started working with Indian rubber
by heating it and adding different materials in attempts to get the
stickiness out of the material. Goodyear thought that he found the
solution using an acidic material to cure the latex and built up a
business manufacturing life preservers, rubber shoes, and other rubber
based products. Due to the crash of 1837, Goodyear became penniless and
it was only the financial support given to him by J. Haskins who he knew
at Roxbury Rubber Company that saved him. Goodyear continued to
experiment to improve the curing process. In 1838 Goodyear met with
Nathaniel Hayward who had been using sulphur to dry rubber. Goodyear
found that when rubber was heated with sulphur, the rubber cured
perfectly–heating sulphur with rubber created vulcanized rubber, named
after the Greek god of fire. It is debated today whether Goodyear found
the solution by pure luck or through careful application and
observation. Goodyear made the discovery in 1839 but only patented it in
1844 after he enhanced and fine tuned the process. Vulcanized rubber
could be utilized to make many products of which automobile tyres was
one of them.
Robert William Thomson was born in Stonehaven, Scotland and moved to
America at the age of 14 where he was apprenticed to a merchant. Two
years later he returned to Scotland teaching himself chemistry,
electricity, and astronomy. Robert’s father built him a workshop where
he improved upon his mother’s washing mangle so wet linen could be
passed through, designed a ribbon saw, made a working model of an
elliptic steam engine, and a number of other inventions. He set up his
own railway consulting company, while he designed and built a pneumatic
tyre for horse carriages. The tyre consisted of a hollow India rubber
and canvas tube inflated with air enclosed in a strong leather casing of
leather and bolted to the wheel. The wheels formed a cushion of air upon
the road or track they ran on which greatly improved the comfort of
travel and reducing the noise. One set of tyres lasted for more than
1,200 miles. Thomson patented the tyre in France in 1846 and in America
in 1847.
Thomson’s invention basically went unnoticed and forty years and
forgotten. A Scottish veterinary surgeon John Boyd Dunlop came up with
the idea again as a way to improve the suspension of carriages. Dunlop
had worked with sheets of rubber at his surgery and first made a
pneumatic tyre for his son’s tricycle from wrapping the sheet into a
hollow lined with linen that he blew up with his son’s football pump.
After finding that bicycles with pneumatic tyres were much faster than
existing tyres at the time, the bicycle fraternity in Ireland switched
over to them and in 1889 Dunlop formed a company with Harvey du Cros,
President of the Irish Cyclists Association. On filing a patent
application, Dunlop’s claim to novelty was invalidated by Thomson’s
prior patent. Other aspects of the tyre were patented and Dunlop
assigned his patent over to Harvey du Cros and du Cros formed the Dunlop
Rubber Company of which Dunlop had no interest. Dunlop had reinvented
the pneumatic tyre, unlike in Thomson’s time, at a crucial time in the
development of road transport.
At about the same time Dunlop was producing tyres in Ireland, Edouard
and André Michelin in France were running a rubber factory in France.
The company produced rubber balls and invented rubber brake pads for
horse-drawn carriages. There are a number of stories about how the
Michelin brothers started making tyres but one story tells of how the
Grand Pierre asked for help at the Michelin workshop to repair one of
his pneumatic tyres on the bicycle[4].
According to this story the tyre was glued to the wheel rim and it took
hours to remove it and all night for the glue to dry after it was
repaired. Edouard saw the need to have pneumatic tyres that could be
easily removed from wheel rims for repairs. From 1891 the Michelin
brothers began manufacturing tyres where France became the number one
tyre maker in the world until the end of the century.
A number of companies ventured into automobile manufacturing in Europe
and the automobile started replacing the bicycle and horse and carriage.
After lobbying British restrictions on automobiles were lifted and the
industry flourished. Motor buses and trucks began appearing changing
public and goods transport. With the petroleum industry established in
the United States and large distances to travel the automobile very
quickly became popular with the likes of Charles and Frank Duryea
forming the Duryea Motor Company, Ransom E Olds forming the Olds Motor
Vehicle Company, and the eventual formation of the Ford Motor Company
that was going to take automobiles onto a new plain in the new
Millennium.
The transition to Chinese dominance
The decade saw the rise of the fourth generation of modern automobile
manufacturers, the first being the US automakers, then the Japanese
emergence in the 1960s and 70s, and then the Korean emergence during the
1990s. The fourth Generation consists of Indian manufacturers like Tata
Motors and a number of newly created Chinese manufacturers which include
BYD, Lifan, Chang’an (Chana), Geely, Cheri, Hafei, Great Wall, Jianghuai
(JAC), Roewe, Martin and a number of others.
Tata Motors is part of the Tata Group, the largest privately owned
conglomerate in India. Tata began operations in 1945 building
locomotives and then in 1954 commenced manufacturing commercial vehicles
as a joint venture with Daimler-Benz. Tata entered the passenger car
market in 1991 launching the Tata Sierra and a number of other models.
In 1998 Tata launched the Indica, the first fully indigenous car built
in India which was a great success and now exported to South Africa, the
United Kingdom, and Italy. The company acquired Daewoo truck
manufacturing operation in 2004, a controlling interest in Aragonese
(within Spain) Hispano Carrocera in 2005, formed a joint venture with
Marcopolo in Brazil in 2007, acquired British Jaguar land Rover in 2008
and took an 80% stake in Trilix of Italy in 2010. In 2008 Tata launched
the Nano, a car priced around USD $2,000 so that more people could
afford to purchase an automobile in India. Tata is experimenting with
electric cars and compressed air engines. Today Tata has an extremely
strong customer based on the Sub-continent and exports to 26 countries
with manufacturing plants in the UK, Korea, Spain, Thailand, South
Africa, and Argentina. Under franchise Tata cars are also assembled in
Russia, Ukraine, Kenya, Bangladesh, and Senegal.
China’s auto industry began in the 1950s under the guidance of the
Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, with technical assistance
from the Soviet Union. From the 1980s to 2000 all of the China’s leading
automakers were joint ventures with foreign automobile companies. Output
was tightly controlled with most production focused on commercial
vehicles. As China prospered, vehicle ownership has increased
dramatically, where production increased from one million automobiles in
2000 to almost 14 million vehicles in 2009[5],
making China the largest automobile manufacturer in the world[6].
Many of the local companies that commenced operations after the 1990s
were owned by the Defense Ministry, Chang’an Motors, Changhe, Hufei
Motors, or provincial authorities, Brilliance China Auto, Cherry
Auto, and Chang Feng Automotive. A few private companies
BYD Auto, Greely Automotive and
Great Wall Motors also started up. On the whole Chinese automakers
lack the efficiency and quality, but still produce cars much cheaper
than manufacturers in other countries. R&D is still low at present with
some companies taking inspiration from international models. The state
owned Cherry Automobile Co. Ltd. is the largest independent domestic
vehicle manufacturer and will be privatized soon. Some of the other
major domestic manufacturers First Automobile Works Group Corporation
(FAW), Greely, SAIC, and Dong Feng have
built their cars upon platforms provided from international automakers
while the rest have been the result been built from knowledge gained
through reengineering or just outright copying[7].
Some firms like SAIC and Nanjing Automobile Group acquired MC Rover to
access technology and there is a tendency for domestic companies to
acquire international brands rather than build them[8].
The Chinese Government is encouraging domestic automakers to merge so
that three or four main domestic players exist in the industry[9].
Due to the economic downturn of 2008 Chinese Automakers had been able to
acquire struggling part manufacturers such as the Greely purchase of the
Australian Drivetrain Systems International (DSI).
Chinese companies are working on developing electric cars. However costs
are still too high for the average Chinese consumer, and there are still
many practical problems as most Chinese live in apartments and access to
power supplies may be difficult. Nevertheless China is the largest
producer of electric cars in the world. One company committed to the
development of electric cars is BYD, a Shenzhen based company founded by
entrepreneur Wang Chuanfu in 1995 when he was 29 years old[10].
By 2005 BYD was the largest manufacturer of batteries in the world for
mobile phones, iPods, digital cameras, and other electronic goods. While
he still eats in the company canteen and lives in the company housing
block, Wang Chuanfu is now considered one of the richest people in China[11].
Warren Buffet is an investor in BYD.
As we can see the invention of the automobile was built upon a number of
foregoing pieces of new knowledge and inventions in various domains that
filled in the missing links that make the invention possible. Until
every aspect of knowledge and sub-component exists that is required for
the invention to take form, it cannot take form. For example an
automobile is a compilation of numerous previous inventions that enable
the form of an automobile to exist. Without the ideas of steel, rubber,
fuel, concepts of compression and combustion, electronics, tires,
braking systems, new alloys, hydraulic systems, road rules and
carriageways, the automobile cannot exist (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The hierarchy of inventions that make the invention of the
automobile possible[12]
The creation of inventions that become incorporated into what we call
the automobile was and still is a continuous process, making incremental
improvements to the whole idea and concept. New composite polymer
materials and plastics make lighter frames without sacrificing strength,
new engine power enhancing systems like turbochargers and fuel injection
systems contribute to the enhancement of car performance. The automobile
is a system of ideas and also forms part of other idea systems like
transport and city planning, etc.
Any new technology like the automobile brings with it a number of new
opportunities in addition to the original intended purpose of the
technology. The advent of the automobile industry enabled the formation
and development of many specialized service businesses, and satellite
suppliers of car parts for production. The automobile has led to
automobile service stations, parts manufacturers, paint manufacturers,
steel suppliers, logistic transport providers, and automobile dealers,
as well as the invention of seat beats and other safety equipment. The
development of cities like Detroit in the 1950s was driven by the auto
industry.
The automobile also radically changed the way societies existed. Auto
manufacturing clusters are also a feature in the development of a
nation, as we have seen in Britain, Europe, the US, Australia, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, and of late India and China - rising, stagnating, and
eventually declining. Some of these early industries may grow out of
factor advantages such as low cost labour, as did the Japanese consumer
product manufacturing during the 1950s and 1960s. However to maintain
any industry in the long term, a new basis of competitive advantage
should be developed on the production and/or market sides, i.e., new
technologies, design superiority, the development of enhanced logistical
chains, or the targeting of special market segments like the Japanese
did with small automobiles, etc.
Now we are again witnessing a change in the guard of this industry
towards China.
Notes and References
[1]Diesel,
E., Goldbeck, G., & Schildberger, F. (1960). From Engines to Autos:
Five pioneers in engine development and their contributions to the auto
industry, Chicago, Henry Regnery Company
[2]
Weightman, G. (2007). The Industrial Revolutionaries: The making of
the modern world, 1776-1914, New York, Grove Press, P. 320.
[3] Natural
rubber derived from latex.
[4] Lottman,
H.R. (2003). The Michelin Men Driving and Empire, London, I.B.
Tauris.
[5] See:
Motoring Ahead: More Cars are Sold in China than in America, The
Economist, 23rd October 2009,
http://www.economist.com/node/14732026?story_id=14732026&fsrc=nwl,
(accessed 16th February 2011).
[6] Marr, K.
(2009). As Detroit Crumbles, China Emerges as Auto Epicenter, The
Washington Post, 18th
May,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702269.html,
(accessed 15th
February 2011).
[7] Tang, R.
(2009). The Rise of China’s Auto Industry and its Impact on the U.S.
Motor Vehicle Industry, Washington D.C., Congressional Research Service,
P. 13,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40924.pdf,
(accessed 15th
February 2011).
[8] Jian, Y.
(2009). Chinese Car Companies Resort to Buying Brands Rather Than
Creating Them, Advertising Age, 15th
July,
http://adage.com/china/article?article_id=137900, (accessed 16th
February 2011).
[9] Tang, R.
(2009), P. 14.
[10] Wang
Chuanfu: Building electric dreams in China, CNN.com/asia, 20th April
2009,
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/20/byd.wangchuanfu/index.html,
(accessed 14th February 2011).
[11] See:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Wang-Chuanfu_39SU.html
[12]
Hunter, M. (2012), Opportunity, Strategy, & Entrepreneurship: A
Meta-Theory, Vol. 1., New York, Nova Science Publishers, P. 53.
09.10.2012
PUBLICATIONS:
Australia in the "Asian Century" or is it Lost in Asia? - Murray Hunter
Surprise, surprise: An Islam economy can be innovative - Murray Hunter
Do Asian Management Paradigms Exist? A look at four theoretical frames - Murray
Hunter
What China wants in Asia: 1975 or 1908 ? – addendum - prof. dr. Anis
Bajraktarević
ASEAN Nations need indigenous innovation
to transform their economies but are doing little about it. - Murray Hunter
From Europe, to the US, Japan, and onto China: The evolution of the automobile -
Murray Hunter
Missed Opportunities for ASEAN if the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) fails to
start up in 2015 - Murray Hunter
Lessons from the Invention of the airplane and the Beginning of the Aviation Era
- Murray Hunter
Elite educators idolize the “ high flying entrepreneurs” while
deluded about the realities of entrepreneurship for the masses: -
Murray Hunter
The
Arrival of Petroleum, Rockefeller, and the Lessons He taught Us - Murray Hunter
- University Malaysia Perlis
Ethics, Sustainability and the New Realities - Murray Hunter
The Dominance of “Western” Management Theories in South-East Asian Business
Schools: The occidental colonization of the mind. - Murray Hunter
How feudalism
hinders community transformation and economic evolution: Isn’t equal opportunity
a basic human right? - Murray Hunter
On Some of the Misconceptions about Entrepreneurship - Murray Hunter
Knowledge, Understanding and the God Paradigm - Murray Hunter
Do Confucian Principled Businesses Exist in Asia? - Murray Hunter
Samsara and the
Organization - Murray Hunter
Integrating the philosophy of Tawhid – an Islamic approach to organization. -
Murray Hunter
What’s
with all the hype – a look at aspirational marketing - Murray Hunter
Does Intrapreneurship exist in Asia? - Murray Hunter
One Man, Multiple Inventions: The lessons and legacies of Thomas Edison -
Murray Hunter
People tend to start businesses for the wrong reasons - Murray Hunter
How
emotions influence, how we see the world? - Murray Hunter
How we create new ideas - Murray Hunter
Where do entrepreneurial opportunities come from? - Murray Hunter
The
five types of thinking we use - Murray Hunter
Evaluating Entrepreneurial Opportunities: What’s wrong with SWOT? - Murray
Hunter
How
motivation really works - Murray Hunter
The
Evolution of Business Strategy - Murray Hunter
Not all opportunities are the same: A look at the four types of
entrepreneurial opportunity -
Murray Hunter
Do we have a creative intelligence? - Murray Hunter
Imagination may be more important than knowledge: The eight types of imagination
we use - Murray Hunter
The environment as a multi-dimensional system:
Taking off your rose coloured
glasses
- Murray Hunter
Generational Attitudes and Behaviour -
Murray Hunter
Groupthink may still be a hazard to your organization - Murray Hunter
Perpetual Self conflict: Self awareness as a key to our ethical drive, personal mastery, and perception of
entrepreneurial opportunities - Murray Hunter
The Continuum of Psychotic Organisational Typologies - Murray Hunter
There is no such person as an entrepreneur, just a person who acts
entrepreneurially - Murray Hunter
Go Home, Occupy Movement!!-(The McFB– Was Ist Das?) - prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
Diplomatie préventive - Aucun siècle Asiatique sans l’institution pan-Asiatique - prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
Democide Mass-Murder
and the New World Order - Paul Adams













Maasmechelen Village

Maasmechelen Village


Adria

Bosnian
Važne vijesti
Bulgarian
Важни новини
Catalan
Notícies importants
Czech
Důležité zprávy
Danish
Vigtige nyheder
Dutch
Belangrijke nieuws
English
Important News
Estonian
Tähtis Uudised
French
Nouvelles importantes
German
Wichtige News
Greek
Σημαντικές ειδήσεις
Hungarian
Fontos hírek
Irish
Fógra tábhachtach Nuacht
Italian
Importanti novitŕ
Latvian
Svarīga Jaunumi
Lithuanian
Svarbu Naujienos
Portuguese
Importante Notícias
Slovenian
Pomembne novice
Spanish
Noticias importantes
Swedish
Viktiga nyheter


BALKAN AREA


prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Go Home, Occupy Movement!!
-
(The McFB – Was Ist Das?)
-
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Diplomatie préventive - Aucun sičcle Asiatique sans l’institution pan-Asiatique
- prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic\/span|

ADDENDUM – GREEN/POLICY PAPER: TOWARDS THE CREATION OF THE OSCE TASK FORCE ON (THE FUTURE OF) HUMAN CAPITAL
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Gunboat Diplomacy in the South China Sea – Chinese
strategic mistake
-
Anis H. Bajrektarevic

Geopolitics of Quantum Buddhism: Our Pre-Hydrocarbon Tao Future
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

The Mexico-held G–20 voices its concerns over the situation in the EURO zone
- Anis H. Bajrektarevic

What China wants in Asia: 1975 or 1908 ? – addendum - prof. dr. Anis
Bajraktarević


Maasmechelen Village


Maasmechelen Village

| |