What professors of international business are writing:

Stephen Blank is a professor of international business at <st1:placename w:st="on">Pace</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> and Director of the PanAmerican Partnership for Business Education; Stephanie R. Golob is a professor of political science at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Baruch</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">College</st1:placename></st1:place>.

From:

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/january/18/blank/

Embassy, January 18th, 2006
FEATURE
By Stephen Blank and Stephanie R. Golob

It Is Time to Talk About <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place>

During the past year, media usually oblivious to North American developments focused on increasing tension among the NAFTA partners. In March 2005, after Ottawa's decision not to join the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) program, Time columnist Stephen Handelman wrote, "Canada's stock seems be hovering at North Korea level in Washington." <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> demands on passports, the Senate's vote to keep the border shut to Canadian cattle, alleged American gun trafficking and, above all, <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state>'s efforts to evade the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber led to a Canadian tsunami of righteous indignation. While former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy urged Canadians to consider withdrawing from NAFTA, others suggested shutting down hydrocarbon exports until <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> shaped up on softwood. As the Canadian election campaign opened, it seemed that the prime minister was running against the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> -- and that U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins was deep in the fray.

Yet, despite this mix of genuine grievances and political posturing, we see substantial movement toward a more efficient North American economic system.

Reports from the Security and Prosperity Partnership Working Groups set up after the Bush-Fox-Martin meeting in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Waco</st1:place></st1:city> last March illustrated a wide array of activities taking place under the political-journalistic radar. These include, for example, a new framework agreement to encourage trans-border online business, the implementation of modifications of rules of origin covering many products, a memorandum of understanding on information exchange and cooperation on public health and safety protection of consumer products and even a harmonized approach to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow disease). There were agreements to develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperation Framework by 2007, to pursue a North American Steel Strategy, to create a trilateral Automotive Partnership Council of North America and to undertake an accelerated program to promote mutual recognition of results from testing laboratories.

Perhaps more important are the myriad of business- and community-driven initiatives underway to expand and improve cross-border links. Specialist groups such as the Can-Am Border Trade Alliance provide a critical voice insisting that security and efficiency are not incompatible. From the Detroit River International Crossing Project to the improved Lacolle-Champlain Border Crossing and the East-West Maine Highway Study -- to name a very few -- business and local groups are pressing for new transportation and border infrastructure. The same goes for developments along trade corridors, such as deepening entrepreneurial ties among <st1:city w:st="on">Winnipeg</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Kansas</st1:state> City, <st1:city w:st="on">Guadalajara</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Monterrey</st1:city> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Mexico</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s deep-water Pacific ports. Indeed, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Mexico</st1:country-region> plans to open its first foreign based customs clearing facility in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kansas City</st1:place></st1:city> in 2006, 1,000 miles from the border.

How much of all of this will actually lead to concrete results is unclear. But two conclusions are evident.

One is that this movement is driven by deepening interdependence. The political economy of <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place> is no longer composed of three national economies, but rather of links among production clusters and distribution hubs across the continent -- links resting on new cross-border alignments among businesses, communities and local and state-provincial governments.

The second is that the current two-tier process in which national leaders kick each other in the shins while businesses and bureaucrats in federal, state and municipal governments and community groups squirrel away to repair problems in the North American system is unacceptable.

Unacceptable because, despite these efforts to overcome the "tyranny of small differences," the step-by-step approach lacks the coherence needed now. North American economic integration has been driven by corporate strategies and structures. Now, limits to this bottom-up process have been reached and clear decisions are required on key issues of security, borders, transportation, energy and immigration. At this point, the incremental approach is simply not enough.

Transportation is a good example. A huge amount of work is underway on borders, ports, hubs and corridors. But despite billions of dollars being spent on highways alone, for example, we are no closer to a rational, efficient North American transportation system that will support the expansion of trade in the next decade.

Integration-by-stealth is also unacceptable. NAFTA quickly became the lightning rod for every fear about globalization and if we hope to get beyond this, these concerns must be confronted. The time has come to examine carefully what is happening in North America, to explore what our interests are in this emerging continental system, and to open a dialogue about different, even competing, visions of <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place>. The dialogue should involve perspectives from different regions, different economic and social sectors, and those who oppose as well as support integration. The process must get outside of the beltways -- it must give voice to community and economic leaders who are most deeply involved in this new system. And while some work has been done (for example, on a North American customs union) we need to promote investigation that probes more deeply into the evolving shape of the North American system.

We believe it is in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region>'s interest to initiate this dialogue, and to articulate clearly what a <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place> would look like that enhances Canadians' values and interests. We believe <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> has much to gain from a well-functioning, inclusive and secure North American economic system and much to lose if it fails. Without some overall sense of where we are going and why, the many steps now underway may not lead anywhere.

The problem with <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></st1:place> is that it has put all its eggs (economies- about 86 percent) in one basket something we are told as adolescents not to do. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> needs to revisit its trade and geopolitical alliance to determine whether it is not time to realign its trade and geopolitical alliances toward more friendly and accommodating partners. With respectful regard to "What professors of international business are writing" I think it is in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s interest to reevaluate seriously its trade agreement with US. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> is the only nation that has been benefiting mostly from the NAFTA and has been violating blatantly and consistently the spirit and letter of the agreement with the help of the lobby and interest groups, so much for the NAFTA. How many more trade agreement infractions does it need before it realizes that the agreement is not working in good faith? We have had too many meetings, talks, with no improvement in the trade climate. I suggest the concept of globalization in the sense it is expressed is a fallacy; what we truly have is regionalization. It is in that sense <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> needs <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region> just as much if not more than <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></st1:place> needs it. It is not too late for <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></st1:place> to re-strategize.

Emmanuel A. Abégunrin

Emmanuel A. Abégunrin, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Ph.</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">D.</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Candidate</st1:placename>
<st1:placename w:st="on">Capella</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype>
<st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Business

Emmanuel A. Abégunrin is a Ph. D. Candidate in Organization and Management at the <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Business</st1:placename>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Capella</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>. He holds M. B. A. (Marketing) from <st1:placetype w:st="on">City</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> and B. B. M. (HRM) with minor in Business Communication, International Business and Law from <st1:placename w:st="on">Ryerson</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype>. His areas of research interest are in but not limited to strategy, mergers and acquisition, culture, leadership, organizational knowledge, intellectual property rights, e-business. His dissertation is on "THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURE 'FIT' IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITION: An Empirical Study."

What professors of international business are writing:

Stephen Blank is a professor of international business at <st1:placename w:st="on">Pace</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> and Director of the PanAmerican Partnership for Business Education; Stephanie R. Golob is a professor of political science at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Baruch</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">College</st1:placename></st1:place>.

From:

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/january/18/blank/

Embassy, January 18th, 2006
FEATURE
By Stephen Blank and Stephanie R. Golob

It Is Time to Talk About <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place>

During the past year, media usually oblivious to North American developments focused on increasing tension among the NAFTA partners. In March 2005, after Ottawa's decision not to join the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) program, Time columnist Stephen Handelman wrote, "Canada's stock seems be hovering at North Korea level in Washington." <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> demands on passports, the Senate's vote to keep the border shut to Canadian cattle, alleged American gun trafficking and, above all, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Washington</st1:state></st1:place>'s efforts to evade the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber led to a Canadian tsunami of righteous indignation. While former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy urged Canadians to consider withdrawing from NAFTA, others suggested shutting down hydrocarbon exports until <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> shaped up on softwood. As the Canadian election campaign opened, it seemed that the prime minister was running against the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> -- and that U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins was deep in the fray.

Yet, despite this mix of genuine grievances and political posturing, we see substantial movement toward a more efficient North American economic system.

Reports from the Security and Prosperity Partnership Working Groups set up after the Bush-Fox-Martin meeting in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Waco</st1:city></st1:place> last March illustrated a wide array of activities taking place under the political-journalistic radar. These include, for example, a new framework agreement to encourage trans-border online business, the implementation of modifications of rules of origin covering many products, a memorandum of understanding on information exchange and cooperation on public health and safety protection of consumer products and even a harmonized approach to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow disease). There were agreements to develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperation Framework by 2007, to pursue a North American Steel Strategy, to create a trilateral Automotive Partnership Council of North America and to undertake an accelerated program to promote mutual recognition of results from testing laboratories.

Perhaps more important are the myriad of business- and community-driven initiatives underway to expand and improve cross-border links. Specialist groups such as the Can-Am Border Trade Alliance provide a critical voice insisting that security and efficiency are not incompatible. From the Detroit River International Crossing Project to the improved Lacolle-Champlain Border Crossing and the East-West Maine Highway Study -- to name a very few -- business and local groups are pressing for new transportation and border infrastructure. The same goes for developments along trade corridors, such as deepening entrepreneurial ties among <st1:city w:st="on">Winnipeg</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Kansas</st1:state> City, <st1:city w:st="on">Guadalajara</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Monterrey</st1:city> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Mexico</st1:country-region></st1:place>'s deep-water Pacific ports. Indeed, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Mexico</st1:country-region> plans to open its first foreign based customs clearing facility in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Kansas City</st1:city></st1:place> in 2006, 1,000 miles from the border.

How much of all of this will actually lead to concrete results is unclear. But two conclusions are evident.

One is that this movement is driven by deepening interdependence. The political economy of <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place> is no longer composed of three national economies, but rather of links among production clusters and distribution hubs across the continent -- links resting on new cross-border alignments among businesses, communities and local and state-provincial governments.

The second is that the current two-tier process in which national leaders kick each other in the shins while businesses and bureaucrats in federal, state and municipal governments and community groups squirrel away to repair problems in the North American system is unacceptable.

Unacceptable because, despite these efforts to overcome the "tyranny of small differences," the step-by-step approach lacks the coherence needed now. North American economic integration has been driven by corporate strategies and structures. Now, limits to this bottom-up process have been reached and clear decisions are required on key issues of security, borders, transportation, energy and immigration. At this point, the incremental approach is simply not enough.

Transportation is a good example. A huge amount of work is underway on borders, ports, hubs and corridors. But despite billions of dollars being spent on highways alone, for example, we are no closer to a rational, efficient North American transportation system that will support the expansion of trade in the next decade.

Integration-by-stealth is also unacceptable. NAFTA quickly became the lightning rod for every fear about globalization and if we hope to get beyond this, these concerns must be confronted. The time has come to examine carefully what is happening in North America, to explore what our interests are in this emerging continental system, and to open a dialogue about different, even competing, visions of <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place>. The dialogue should involve perspectives from different regions, different economic and social sectors, and those who oppose as well as support integration. The process must get outside of the beltways -- it must give voice to community and economic leaders who are most deeply involved in this new system. And while some work has been done (for example, on a North American customs union) we need to promote investigation that probes more deeply into the evolving shape of the North American system.

We believe it is in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region>'s interest to initiate this dialogue, and to articulate clearly what a <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place> would look like that enhances Canadians' values and interests. We believe <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></st1:place> has much to gain from a well-functioning, inclusive and secure North American economic system and much to lose if it fails. Without some overall sense of where we are going and why, the many steps now underway may not lead anywhere.