ISC PowerPoint Template

5 downloads 6275 Views 433KB Size Report
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