Dec 5, 2013 ... 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL .....
research (2003) - Peter Tynan, Chai McConnell, Alexandra West, Jean Hayden.
Restaurants. Attractions and. Activities. e.g., theme parks, ... Duty Free.
Can Japan Compete? Revisited
Professor Michael E. Porter Harvard Business School Porter Prize Conference Tokyo, Japan December 5th, 2013 This presentation draws on ideas from Professor Porter’s articles and books, in particular, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (The Free Press, 1990), “Building the Microeconomic Foundations of Competitiveness,” in The Global Competitiveness Report (World Economic Forum), “Clusters and the New Competitive Agenda for Companies and Governments” in On Competition (Harvard Business School Press, 2008), “Creating Shared Value” (Harvard Business Review, Jan 2011), the Social Progress Index Report (Social Progress Imperative) and ongoing related research. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without the permission of Michael E. Porter. For further materials, see the website of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness (www.isc.hbs.edu), FSG (www.fsg.org) and the Social Progress Imperative (www.socialprogressimperative.org).
Can Japan Compete?
• What is the state of Japanese competitiveness in 2013? How has Japan progressed since 2000? • What is Japan’s strategic agenda for 2014 and beyond? • Is Abenomics sufficient?
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
2
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Can Japan Compete?
1. Japan’s Economic Performance
2. Competitiveness and Economic Growth: The New Learning
3.
The Strategic Agenda for Japan in 2014
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
3
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Economic Performance • Overall economic performance has been disappointing, reflecting a poor macroeconomic environment and continuing microeconomic weaknesses
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
4
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Prosperity Performance OECD Countries
PPP-Adjusted GDP per Capita, 2012 ($USD)
$70,000
OECD Average: 3.49% Norway
$60,000 Switzerland United States
$50,000
$40,000 Iceland Italy
$30,000
Canada Ireland Austria Sweden Netherlands Australia Denmark Germany Japan Belgium Finland France Spain United Kingdom Israel New Zealand Slovenia
OECD Average: $34,439 South Korea Czech Republic
Portugal Greece
$20,000
Poland Hungary
Slovakia Estonia
Chile
Mexico Turkey
$10,000 1.0%
2.0%
3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% Growth in Real GDP per Capita (PPP-adjusted), CAGR, 2000-2012
7.0%
8.0%
Note: Luxembourg Excluded Source: EIU (2013), authors calculations 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
5
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Economic Performance • Overall economic performance has been disappointing, reflecting a poor macroeconomic environment and continuing microeconomic weaknesses • While growth in productivity of existing workers remains in line with many advanced OECD peers, Japan has suffered from declining workforce participation
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
6
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Economic Performance • Overall economic performance has been disappointing, reflecting a poor macroeconomic environment and continuing microeconomic weaknesses • While growth in productivity of existing workers remains in line with many advanced OECD peers, Japan has suffered from declining workforce participation • Japan’s share of world export share has continued to gradually fall, in line with advanced OECD countries besides Germany
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
7
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Share of World Exports Share of World Exports of Goods and Services
Selected Countries, 1980 - 2012
16.0%
14.0%
12.0% United States
10.0%
Germany
8.0% Japan
China
6.0% United Kingdom
4.0% Korea
2.0% India
0.0% 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Source: UNCTADstat (2013) 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
8
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Economic Performance • Overall economic performance has been disappointing, reflecting a poor macroeconomic environment and continuing microeconomic weaknesses • While growth in productivity of existing workers remains in line with many advanced OECD peers, Japan has suffered from declining workforce participation • Japan’s share of world export share has continued to gradually fall, in line with advanced OECD countries besides Germany
• Imports into the Japanese economy have grown, reflecting gradual opening
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
9
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Import Performance OECD Countries
Imports of Goods and Services (% of GDP), 2012 100.0%
OECD Average: 5.38%
90.0%
Slovakia
Estonia
Ireland
Hungary Belgium
80.0%
Netherlands Czech Republic Slovenia
70.0% 60.0%
South Korea Austria Denmark
50.0% OECD Average: 47.36%
Switzerland
40.0%
Portugal
30.0%
Greece
Norway
Germany Sweden
Poland
Finland
United Kingdom
Spain Canada
Iceland
Israel France
Mexico Italy Chile
Turkey
New Zealand
20.0%
Australia
United States
Japan
10.0% 0.0% -10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
Change in Imports of Goods and Services (% of GDP), 2000-2012 Note: Luxembourg omitted Source: EIU (2013), authors calculations 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
10
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Economic Performance • Overall economic performance has been disappointing, reflecting a poor macroeconomic environment and continuing microeconomic weaknesses • While growth in productivity of existing workers remains in line with many advanced OECD peers, Japan has suffered from declining workforce participation • Japan’s share of world export share has continued to gradually fall, in line with advanced OECD countries besides Germany
• Imports into the Japanese economy have grown, reflecting gradual opening • FDI inflows into the Japanese economy remain the lowest of any OECD country. Outbound FDI has grown but lags all other advanced economies
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
11
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Inbound Foreign Investment Performance Stocks and Flows, OECD Countries Inward FDI Stocks as % of GDP, Average 20002011 80.0%
Belgium (95.21%, 139.07%)
Netherlands
OECD Average: 22.71%
Estonia
70.0%
Ireland (45.26%, 110.22%)
Switzerland Chile Hungary
60.0%
Czech Republic
Sweden
Slovakia
New Zealand
50.0%
OECD Average: 48.01% Denmark Iceland
Portugal
40.0% Australia
Austria Norway Slovenia
30.0%
United Kingdom
Spain France Canada Finland Poland Mexico Israel
United States
20.0%
Germany Turkey
Greece
10.0%
Korea
Italy
Japan 0.0% 0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
FDI Inflows as % of Gross Fixed Capital Formation, Average 2000-2011
Note: Luxembourg omitted Source: UNCTAD, World Investment Report (2012) 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
12
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Economic Performance • Overall economic performance has been disappointing, reflecting a poor macroeconomic environment and continuing microeconomic weaknesses • While growth in productivity of existing workers remains in line with many advanced OECD peers, Japan has suffered from declining workforce participation • Japan’s share of world export share has continued to gradually fall, in line with advanced OECD countries besides Germany
• Imports into the Japanese economy have grown, reflecting gradual opening • FDI inflows into the Japanese economy remain the lowest of any OECD country. Outbound FDI has grown but lags all other advanced economies
• Japan continues to be among the top innovators in the world, but some other countries are more rapidly increasing R&D spending
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
13
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Innovative Output Selected Countries Average U.S. patents per 1 million population, 2010-2012 400 Taiwan
Japan
350
United States
300
Israel 250
South Korea Switzerland
200
Sweden
Finland Germany Canada
150
Denmark
Singapore
Netherlands 100
Austria Norway Australia
France Belgium
Ireland
United Kingdom
50
Brazil
0 0%
Mexico
China (35.0%)
New Zealand
Italy South Africa
Hong Kong
5%
Czech Republic Malaysia
Spain Russia
10%
Saudi Arabia 15%
CAGR of US-registered patents, 2000-2012 Source: USPTO (2010), Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Total Economy Database (2010) 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
14
India 20%
25% 13,000 patents = Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Can Japan Compete?
1. Japan’s Economic Performance
2. Competitiveness and Economic Growth: The New Learning
3.
The Strategic Agenda for Japan in 2014
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
15
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Competitiveness and Economic Growth
A nation or region is competitive to the extent that firms operating there are able to compete successfully in the regional and global economy while maintaining or improving wages and living standards for the average citizen
• Competitiveness depends on the long-run productivity of a location as a place to do business - The productivity of existing firms and workers - The ability to achieve high participation of citizens in the workforce • Competitiveness is not: - Low wages - A weak currency - Jobs per se
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
16
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
What Determines Competitiveness?
Endowments
•
Endowments, including natural resources, geographical location, population, and land area, create a foundation for prosperity, but true prosperity arises from productivity in the use of endowments
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
17
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
What Determines Competitiveness?
Macroeconomic Competitiveness Human Development and Effective Political Institutions
Sound Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Endowments
•
Macroeconomic competitiveness sets the economy-wide context for productivity to emerge, but is not sufficient to ensure productivity • Endowments, including natural resources, geographical location, population, and land area, create a foundation for prosperity, but true prosperity arises from productivity in the use of endowments 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
18
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
What Determines Competitiveness? Microeconomic Competitiveness Sophistication of Company Operations and Strategy
State of Cluster Development
Quality of the Business Environment
Macroeconomic Competitiveness Human Development and Effective Political Institutions
Sound Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Endowments •
Productivity ultimately depends on improving the microeconomic capability of the economy and the sophistication of local competition revealed at the level of firms, clusters, and regions • Macroeconomic competitiveness sets the economy-wide context for productivity to emerge, but is not sufficient to ensure productivity • Endowments, including natural resources, geographical location, population, and land area, create a foundation for prosperity, but true prosperity arises from productivity in the use of endowments 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
19
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Improving the Quality of the Business Environment Context for Firm Strategy and Rivalry
• Local rules and incentives that encourage investment and productivity Factor (Input) Conditions
– e.g. incentives for capital investments, IP protection
• Sound corporate governance
Demand Conditions
• Open and vigorous local competition • Improving access to high quality business inputs – – – –
Qualified human resources Capital availability Physical infrastructure Scientific and technological infrastructure – Efficient regulatory system
− Openness to foreign competition − Strict competition laws
• Sophisticated and demanding local needs
Related and Supporting Industries
– e.g., Strict quality, safety, and environmental standards
• Availability and quality of suppliers and supporting industries
• Many things matter for competitiveness • Successful economic development is a process of successive upgrading, in which the business environment improves to enable increasingly sophisticated ways of competing 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
20
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Developing Clusters: Tourism in Cairns, Australia Public Relations & Market Research Services
Travel Agents
Tour Operators
Food Suppliers
Attractions and Activities
Hotels
Government Agencies e.g., Australian Tourism Commission, Great Barrier Reef Authority
Local Transportation
e.g., theme parks, casinos, sports
Souvenirs, Duty Free
Property Services
Maintenance Services
Local Retail, Health Care, and Other Services
Airlines, Cruise Ships
Restaurants
Banks, Foreign Exchange
Educational Institutions
Industry Groups
e.g., James Cook University, Cairns College of TAFE
e.g., Queensland Tourism Industry Council
Sources: HBS student team research (2003) - Peter Tynan, Chai McConnell, Alexandra West, Jean Hayden 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
21
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Prosperity of Japanese Prefectures $45,000
Japan Real Growth Rate of GDP per Capita: 2.75%
Tokyo ($ 62,195, 2.14 %)
Gross Domestic Product per Capita, 2010 (Current $US at PPP)
$40,000 Shiga Aichi
Shizuoka
Osaka
$35,000
Japan GDP per Capita: $34,758 Ishikawa
Hokkaido
Gumma
Okayama Niigata Kagawa
Nagano
Gifu
Yamaguchi
Yamanashi
Fukuoka Tokushima Wakayama
Kyoto Ehime Akita
Hyogo Shimane Iwate Chiba
Mie
Ibaraki
Oita
Fukushima
Kanagawa Tottori
Tochigi
Hiroshima
Miyagi
$30,000
Fukui
Toyama
Saga Yamagata
Kumamoto
Kagoshima Miyazaki Nagasaki
Aomori
Kochi
$25,000
Saitama
Okinawa
Nara
$20,000 1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Real Growth Rate of GDP per capita, 2000-2010 Source: OECD iLibrary (2013) 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
22
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
The Role of Regions in Economic Development • Many essential levers of competitiveness reside at the regional level • Regions specialize in different sets of clusters
• Regions are a critical unit in competitiveness • Each region needs its own distinctive strategy and action agenda – Business environment improvement
– Cluster upgrading – Improving institutional effectiveness
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
23
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Geographic Influences on Competitiveness
Neighboring Countries
Nation
Regions and Cities
• Economic coordination and integration with neighboring countries is a major force of productivity and competitiveness 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
24
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Competitiveness Profile, 2001 ISC Competitiveness Model Country Competitiveness
23 Macroeconomic Competitiveness
Microeconomic Competitiveness
28
17
Political Institutions
32
Macroeconomic Policy
National Business Environment
Company Operations and Strategy
66
22
9
Rule of Law
22
Japan’s GDP per capita rank is 18th versus 71 countries
Human Development
15
Significant disadvantage
Moderate disadvantage
Neutral
Moderate advantage
Significant advantage
Note: Rank versus 71 countries; *Color coding based on comparison relative to income; Source: Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard University (2012), based in part on survey data from the World Economic Forum; analysis prepared based on research findings by Scott Stern, Mercedes Delgado, and Christian Ketels. 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
25
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Can Japan Compete? The Corporate Agenda in 2001 1. Shift the goal from growth to profitability 2. Create distinctive, long term strategies 3. Expand the focus of operational effectiveness to IT 4. Understand the role of industry structure 5. Reduce unrelated diversification
6. Update the Japanese organizational and governance model 7. Develop a stronger role for the private sector in economic development
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
26
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Can Japan Compete? Government Agenda in 2001 1. Open up domestic competition and reduce government intervention 2. Open trade and foreign investment 3. Modernize archaic and inefficient domestic sectors
4. Build a world class university system 5. Create new models of innovation and entrepreneurship
6. Encourage decentralization, regional specialization, and cluster development 7. Create stronger corporate accountability
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
27
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Competitiveness Profile, 2012 ISC Competitiveness Model Country Competitiveness
18 Macroeconomic Competitiveness
Microeconomic Competitiveness
24
14
Political Institutions
22
Macroeconomic Policy
National Business Environment
Company Operations and Strategy
68
16
4
Rule of Law
17
Japan’s GDP per capita rank is 18th versus 71 countries
Human Development
14
Significant disadvantage
Moderate disadvantage
Neutral
Moderate advantage
Significant advantage
Note: Rank versus 71 countries; *Color coding based on comparison relative to income; Source: Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard University (2012), based in part on survey data from the World Economic Forum; analysis prepared based on research findings by Scott Stern, Mercedes Delgado, and Christian Ketels. 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
28
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Company Progress since 2001 1.
Shift the goal from growth to profitability – More businesses are being divested due to inadequate profitability, but Japanese ROIC remains low
2.
Create distinctive, long term strategies – The Porter Prize has recognized 41 companies with distinctive strategies since 2001 – Many companies have become more focused
3.
Expand the focus of operational effectiveness to IT – The utilization of IT has increased substantially, improving productivity
4.
Understand the role of industry structure – Industry attractiveness has become a larger factor in corporate choices
5.
Reduce unrelated diversification – Many corporate portfolios have been pruned
6.
Update the Japanese organizational and governance model – The number of executive board members has been reduced – The number of companies with outside board members have substantially increased – Cross shareholding has fallen
7.
Develop a stronger role for the private sector in economic development – Business leaders are becoming more involved in national and regional economic development – Shared value has become a major new thrust in Japanese corporations
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
29
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Government Progress Since 2001 1.
Open up domestic competition and reduce government intervention – – –
2.
Stricter anti-trust laws and enforcement has brought Japan closer to world standards Government still prone to intervention and government solutions (e.g. electronics) Targeting persists in “growth industries”
Open trade and foreign investment – –
3.
FTAs signed with many nations, with the TPP being discussed FDI restrictions have been partially reduced, but barriers remain
Modernize archaic and inefficient domestic sectors – – –
4.
Rules governing construction improved Protection for small scale retailing reduced Agriculture largely unchanged
Build a world class university system – –
5.
Some steps have been taken to raise university standards and accountability Archaic rules still disadvantage students studying outside Japan
Create new models of innovation and entrepreneurship – – –
6.
Rules for starting businesses have improved, though still not world class IP protection strengthened Access to public listing by newer companies has improved
Encourage decentralization, regional specialization, and cluster development – –
7.
Cluster initiatives have proliferated, but progress remains uneven Only modest delegation of central government powers has occurred
Create stronger corporate accountability – –
At least one independent board member is recommended for TSE-listed companies Few companies still have effective corporate governance
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
30
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Trajectory of the Japanese Business Environment Rank in 2012
Change in Rank
16
+7
Supporting and Related Industries and Clusters
4
0
Logistical Infrastructure
12
-4
Demand Conditions
16
+3
Capital Market Infrastructure
20
+7
Communications Infrastructure
21
0
Factor Conditions
21
+1
Context for Strategy and Rivalry
22
+7
Innovation Infrastructure
23
-2
Regulatory Infrastructure
38
-2
Overall Business Environment
Rank versus a consistent sample of 71 countries
Note: Rank versus 71 countries Source: Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard University (2012), based in part on survey data from the World Economic Forum; analysis prepared based on research findings by Scott Stern, Mercedes Delgado, and Christian Ketels. 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
31
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Microeconomic Competitiveness Indicators Ease of Doing Business Rankings – Japan Ranking, 2013 (vs. 185 countries)
Favorable
Unfavorable
140
120
100
80
60
40 Japan’s GDP per capita rank: 21
20
0 Ease of Doing Business Rank
Resolving Insolvency
Protecting Investors
Trading Across Borders
Getting Credit
Getting Electricity
Enforcing Contracts
Registering Property
Dealing with Construction Permits
Starting a business
Paying Taxes
Source: World Bank Report, Doing Business (2013) 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
32
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Can Japan Compete?
1. Japan’s Economic Performance
2. Competitiveness and Economic Growth: The New Learning
3.
The Strategic Agenda for Japan in 2014
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
33
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Strategy under Prime Minister Abe The “Three Arrows” of Abenomics
Monetary Expansion
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
Temporary Fiscal Expansion, then Consolidation
34
Structural Reforms
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
Japan’s Strategy under Prime Minister Abe The “Third Arrow”: Structural Reforms
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
35
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
The “Three Arrows” of Abenomics: Progress to Date
Monetary Expansion
Temporary Fiscal Expansion, then Consolidation
• Fully implemented
• Expansion implemented
• Promising Results
• Consolidation beginning • Success unclear
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
36
Structural Reforms
• An extensive list of suggested actions, few steps taken so far
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
The Japanese Corporate Agenda for 2014 1. Accelerate the shift to strategic thinking 2. Accelerate globalization, making greater use of M&A 3. Encourage fast track leadership development and mid career recruiting to complement internal promotion – Mobility of talent will dramatically improve Japanese company performance
4. Simplify and streamline decision making while continuing to improve accountability and governance 5. Evolve executive compensation practices to incentivize risk taking 6.
Embrace shared value as the guiding principle for Japanese business
20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
37
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
The National Agenda in 2014 1. Continue opening domestic and international competition – Eliminate remaining barriers to FDI and imports
– Reduce government subsidies and intervention in companies
2.
Lower the unnecessary high costs of doing business in Japan – Regulation and bureaucracy is Japan’s greatest weakness
3. Deregulate the key Japanese sectors to unlock growth, productivity and innovation – Agriculture – Health Care
4. Continue decentralizing resources and responsibility to Japanese prefectures and metropolitan regions – Let regions compete to develop clusters, attract investment and upgrade their business environment
5. Restructure Japan's fiscal structure – Lower the corporate tax rate while eliminating tax breaks – Reduce capital gains taxation – Moderate taxes on earned income – Increase consumption based and non-renewable energy use taxes 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
38
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter
The National Agenda in 2014 6. Set a pragmatic long term energy strategy – The cost of energy is a major competitiveness issue – Transitional solutions and carbon taxes will be needed to bridge the present and the future – Energy efficiency must become a national priority
7. Connect Japan to the rest of the world – Raise language skills – Support international education – Welcome skilled immigration – Embrace the internationalization of knowledge – Encourage deeper globalization by Japanese companies – Move from politics to building economic partnership with other Asian countries
8. Tap the talent and potential of Japanese citizens and enrich the nation’s human resources – Embrace and enable womens’ participation in the workforce – Open up labor mobility – Welcome skilled expatriates from abroad – Encourage and support Japanese students studying abroad
– Raise the standards in Japanese universities and business schools
9. Deepen economic integration of Japan in the Asian region 20131205—Porter Prize Japan Competitiveness Presentation—FINAL
39
Copyright 2013 © Professor Michael E. Porter