Books

Of financial inequality and the financial crisis

thomas piketty

Thomas Piketty, a French economist, has taken the world by storm. His book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been the second bestselling book on Amazon.com for a while now. Originally written in French, the book was translated into English and released a few months back in the United States.
Piketty’s Capital is not like some of the recent popular books in economics like Freakonomics or The Undercover Economist. It is a book running into 577 pages (if we ignore the notes running into nearly 80 pages) and is not exactly a bedtime read.
My idea is not to summarize the book in this column. That would be doing grave injustice to the book. Nevertheless I wanted to discuss an important point that the book makes.
A major but not so well discussed reason behind the financial crisis was the increasing inequality in the United States. Piketty discusses this in great detail in Capital.
The top 10% of the American population earned a little more than 50% of the national income on the eve of the financial crisis and then again in the early 2010s. In fact, if we look at income without capital gains, the top 10% earned more than 46% of the national income in 2010, which is already significantly higher than the income level attained in 2007, before the financial crisis started. The trend continued in 2011-2012 as well. In 1976, the top 10% of households earned around 33% of the national income.
The situation becomes even more grim when we look at the top 1% of the population. The top 1% of the households accounted for only 7.9% of total American wealth in 1976. This would grow to 23.5% of the income by 2007. This was because the incomes of those in the top echelons was growing at a much faster rate. The rate of growth of income for the period for those in the top 1% was at 4.4% per year. The remaining 99% grew at 0.6% per year.
A major reason for this inequality has been the pace at which the salaries of the top management of American companies have gone up. As Piketty writes“We’ve gone from a society of rentiers to a society of managers…Top managers[who Piketty calls supermanagers] have the power to set their own remuneration…or by corporate compensation committees whose members usually earn comparable salaries…in some cases without limit and in many cases without any clear relation to their individual productivity, which in any case is very difficult to estimate in a large organization.” This phenomenon was seen mainly in the United States, writes Piketty. But it was seen to a lesser extent in Great Britain and other English speaking developed countries in both the financial as well as non financial sectors.
In fact, Piketty even calls this phenomenon of senior managers being paid very high salaries as a form of “meritocratic extremism” or the need of modern societies, in particular the American society, to reward certain individuals deemed to be as “winners”. Interestingly, research shows that these winners got paid for luck more often than not. It shows that salaries went up most rapidly when sales and profits went up due to external reasons.
The solution to this increasing inequality of income was to some extent more education. But that is something that would take serious implementation and at the same time results wouldn’t have come overnight. How does a politician who has to go back to the electorate every few years deal with this? He needs to plan and think for the long run. But at the same time he needs to ensure that his voters keep electing him. If the voters don’t keep electing him in the short run there is nothing much he can do to improve things in the long run.
This is precisely what happened in the United States. Politicians addressed the issue of inequality by making sure that easier credit was accessible to their voters. Raghuram Rajan, currently the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, explains this very well in his award winning book Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy: “Since the early 1980s, the most seductive answer has been easier credit. In some ways, it is the path of least resistance…Politicians love to have banks expand housing credit, for all credit achieves many goals at the same time. It pushes up house prices, making households feel wealthier, and allows them to finance more consumption. It creates more profits and jobs in the financial sector as well as in real estate brokerage and housing construction. And everything is safe—as safe as houses—at least for a while.”
Hence, the palliative proposed by politicians for the increasing income inequality in America was easy credit. As Michael Lewis writes in The Big Short – A True Story “How do you make poor people feel wealthy when wages are stagnant? You give them cheap loans.”
While, the government and the politicians worked towards making borrowing easier, there is another point that needs to be made here. As income levels stagnated at lower levels, a large section of the population had to resort to taking on debt and this contributed to the financial instability of the United States. As Piketty writes in Capital “One consequences of increasing inequality was virtual stagnation of the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes…which inevitably made it more likely that modest households would take on debt, especially since unscrupulous banks and financial intermediaries….eager to earn good yields on enormous savings injected into the system by the well-to-do, offered credit on increasingly generous terms.”
So, it worked both ways. The government made it easier to borrow and the people were more than willing to borrow. As author Satyajit Das puts it “Borrowing became a substitute for rising incomes.”
This wasn’t surprising given that the minimum wage in the United States when measured in terms of purchasing power reached its maximum level in 1969. At that point of time the wage stood at $1.60 an hour or $10.10 in 2013 dollars, taking into account the inflation between 1968 and 2013. At the beginning of 2013, it was at $7.25 an hour, lower than that in 1969, in purchasing power terms.
The easy money strategy that has been followed in the aftermath of the financial crisis has again worked led to increasing inequality. The American stock market has rallied by more than 150% in the last five years and this has benefited the richest Americans.
In the five year bull run, the stock market generated a paper wealth of more than $13.5 trillion. In fact, in 2013, the market value of listed stocks in the United States went up by $4 trillion. This benefited the top 10% of Americans who own 80% of the shares listed on stock exchanges.
A similar thing happened in the United Kingdom, where the Bank of England admitted in 2012 that its quantitative easing program boosted the value of stocks and bonds by 25% or about $970 billion. Almost 40% of these gains went to the richest 5% of the British households.
Interestingly, the salaries of CEOs in the United States have continued to go up, even after the financial crisis. If one considers the Fortune 500 companies, the average CEOs salary is 204 times that of their rank and file workers. This disparity has gone by 20% since 2009.
At the same time, the income of the median American household fell to $51,404 in February 2013. This was 5.6% lower than what it was in June 2009. Further, the average income of the poorest 20% of the Americans has fallen by 8% since 2009. Given this, more than 100 million Americans are receiving some form of support from the government.
In fact new research carried out by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty reveals that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1% of income earners in the United States enjoyed a real income growth of 31%. Income for the bottom 90% of the earners shrank.
The point being that the Western world does not seem to have learnt from its past mistakes. As George Akerlof and Paul Romer wrote in a research paper titled Looting: The Economic Un­derworld of Bankruptcy for Profit, “If we learn from experience, history need not repeat itself.”If only that were the case!

Note: Not all data has been sourced from Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Some numbers have been sourced from Raghuram Rajan’s Fault Lines.

The article originally appeared in the June 2014 edition of the Wealth Insight magazine

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

Everybody loves a good story

bullfighting

 Vivek Kaul

I am writing this piece sometime in the middle of April 2014. The stock market in India has been on fire over the last one month, with the NSE Nifty and the BSE Sensex regularly touching new highs. Every time the market touches a new high, editors of newspapers/magazines/websites have to look for a new reason to explain the bull run.
Several reasons have been offered during the course of the last one month. First we were told that the stock market investors were betting on Narendra Modi becoming the Prime Minister. The numbers in this case didn’t really add up. The domestic institutional investors sold stocks worth Rs 13,130.77 crore during March 2014. Their selling continued in April as well. Till April 11, 2014, the domestic institutional investors had sold stocks worth Rs 3,728.06 crore. If these investors are really supporting Modi, then why are they selling out of the stock market?
Then we were told that the foreign investors were betting on Modi coming to power and setting the faltering Indian economy right. In this case, the numbers do add up. In March 2014, foreign institutional investors bought stocks worth Rs 25,376.45 crore. In April, the trend continued and by April 11, they had bought stocks worth Rs 3,658.21 crore.
But is the logic as simple as that? It is worth remembering here that the Western central banks have been running an “easy money” policy for a while now. The Federal Reserve of the United States, has been reducing the amount of money it has been printing since the beginning of the year. But at the same time it has reiterated time and again that short term interest rates will continue to be close to 0% in the near future.
Interestingly, the Fed repeated this in a statement released on March 19, 2014. The foreign institutional investors invested Rs 4,222.10 crore on March 21, 2014, in the Indian stock market. This is the highest amount they have invested on any single day, since the beginning of this year. So, are the foreign investors investing in India because they have faith in Modi? Or are they simply investing because “easy money” continues to be available to them at rock bottom interest rates? The stories appearing in the media haven’t got around to explaining that.
Another theory that went around briefly was that the stock market is rallying because India’s economic data had been improving. Inflation was down. Industrial output as measured by the index of industrial production had marginally improved. And the current account deficit had been brought under control. This theory lasted till the index of industrial production for the month of February 2014 was declared. Industrial output for the month was down 1.9%.
The conspiracy theorists also suggested that it was the black money of politicians coming back to India. They needed that money to fight elections. Well, if they needed that money, they would have sold their stock market holdings, and the stock market would have fallen. But that hasn’t really happened.
So what is happening here? As Ben Hunt writes in a newsletter titled Epsilon Theory and dated February 28, 2014 “Ants, bees, termites, and humans – the most successful species on the planet – are constantly signaling each other so that we can make sense of our world together. That’s the secret of our success as social animals.”
The point is that everybody loves a good story. We want coherent explanations of what is happening in the world around us. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes in The Black Swan—The Impact of the Highly Improbable “We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotionally laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the official…the lurid. Most of all we favour the narrated.”
And this is where the media comes in, which tries to give us convincing explanations of what is happening in the world around us. Whether the reason behind a market movement is the real reason or not, does not really matter, as long as it sounds sensible enough. Taleb gives an excellent example of the same in The Black Swan.
“One day in December 2003, when Saddam Hussein was captured, Bloomberg News flashed the following headline at 13:01: U.S. TREASURIES RISE, HUSSEIN CAPTURE MAY NOT CURB TERRORISM,” Taleb writes.
Basically, what Bloomberg was saying was that the capture of Hussein will not curb terrorism and hence, investors had been selling out of other investments and buying the safe US government bonds, thus pushing up the price.
Around half an hour later, Bloomberg had a different headline. As Taleb writes “At 13:31 they issued the next bulletin: U.S.TREASURIES FALL: HUSSEIN CAPTURE BOOSTS ALLURE OF RISKY ASSETS.”
What had happened was that during a period of half an hour the price of the US government bonds had fluctuated. First they had risen as investors had bought the bonds. In half an hour’s time some selling had happened and the prices were falling. Bloomberg now told its readers that prices were falling because investors were selling out of US government bonds and looking at other investments given that with the capture of Hussein, the world was a much safer place.
Hunt offers a similar example in his newsletter. On November 28, 2008, Barack Obama, who had just been elected the President of the United States, appointed Tim Geithner, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as his Treasury Secretary. The S&P 500, one of America’s premier stock market indices, rallied by about 6% on that day and Geithner’s nomination was deemed to be the major reason behind the same. As Hunt writes “All of the talking heads on the Sunday talk shows that weekend referenced the amazing impact that Geithner had on US markets, and this “fact” was prominently discussed in his confirmation hearings. Clearly this was a man beloved by Wall Street, whose mere presence at the economic policy helm would soothe and support global markets. Yeah, right.”
Geithner’s nomination was good news, but was it big enough to drive up the stock market up by 6% in a single day? As Hunt explains “So long as Obama didn’t nominate a raving Marxist I think it would have been a (small) positive development in the context of the collapsing world of November 2008. Was the specific nomination of specifically Tim Geithner WHY markets were up so much on November 24th? Of course not.”
The moral of the story is that first things happen and then people go looking for reasons. Hunt calls it “the power of why”. As he writes “It is the Power of Why, and it has no inherent connection to any true causal connection or the way the world truly works. Maybe it’s all true. Probably it’s partially true. But it really doesn’t matter one way or another.”
What is true of the financial markets in particular is also true for the world at large in general. As Taleb puts it “It happens all the time: a cause is proposed to make your swallow the news and make matters more concrete. After a candidate’s defeat in an election, you will be supplied with the “cause” of the voters’ disgruntlement. Any conceivable cause can do. The media, however, go to great lengths to make the process “thorough” with their armies of fact-checkers. It is as if they wanted to be wrong with infinite precision.”
So what is the way out? Taleb has an excellent suggestion in his book Fooled By Randomness—The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets “To be competent, a journalist should view matters like a historian, and play down the value of the information he is providing, such as by saying “Today the market went up, but this information is not too relevant as it emanates mostly from noise.””
But that is easier said than done.

The article originally appeared in the May 2014 issue of the Wealth Insight magazine

 (Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

Capitalism and the common good

thomas piketty

Thomas Piketty is a professor at the Paris School of Economics. Over the last few months he has become the most talked about economist globally with the release of the English edition of his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press). The original was written in French.
Capital has been the second best-selling book on Amazon.com for a while now. This is a rarity for a book which is not exactly a bed time read and runs into 577 pages (without including the nearly 80 pages of notes). But that is not a surprise given the important issues the book tries to address. In this book Piketty deals in great detail about the “distribution of wealth”.
As he writes “The distribution of wealth is one of today’ most widely discussed and controversial issues. But what do we really know about its evolution over the long term? Do the dynamics of private capital accumulation inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in fewer hands, as Karl Marx believed in the nineteenth century? Or do the balancing forces of growth, competition, and technological progress lead in later stages of development to reduced inequality and greater harmony among the classes…?”
In this interview he speaks to Vivek Kaul. Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy which deals with the evolution of money and the financial system and how that led to the current financial crisis. The second book in the trilogy Easy Money—Evolution of the Global Financial System to the Great Bubble Burst releases in June 2014.

Excerpts:

You write that “It is an illusion to think that something about the nature of the modern growth or the laws of the market economy ensures the inequality of wealth will decrease and harmonious stability will be achieved”. Why is that incorrect? Has capitalism failed the world? Capitalism and market forces are very good at producing new wealth. The problem is simply that they know no limit nor morality. They can sometime lead to a distribution of wealth that is so extremely concentrated that it threatens the working of democratic institutions. We need adequate policies, particularly in the educational and fiscal areas, to ensure that all groups in society benefit from globalisation and economic openness. We want capitalism to be the slave of democracy and the common good, not the opposite.
A major part of your book deals with how capitalism leads to inequality…
History tells us that there are powerful forces going in both directions — the reduction or the amplification of inequality. Which one will prevail depends on the institutions and policies that we will collectively adopt. Historically, the main equalizing force — both between and within countries — has been the diffusion of knowledge and skills. However, this virtuous process cannot work properly without inclusive educational institutions and continuous investment in skills. This is a major challenge for all countries in the century underway.
What is the central contradiction in capitalism? How does that lead to inequality?
In the very long run, one powerful force pushing in the direction of rising inequality is the tendency of the rate of return to capital rto exceed the rate of output growth g. That is, when rexceeds g, as it did in the 19th century and seems quite likely to do again in the 21st, initial wealth inequalities tend to amplify and to converge towards extreme levels. The top few percents of the wealth hierarchy tend to appropriate a very large share of national wealth, at the expense of the middle and lower classes. This is what happened in the past, and this could well happen again in the future. According to Forbes global billionaire rankings, top wealth holders have been rising more than three times faster than the size of the world economy between 1987 and 2013.
That clearly is a reason to worry. Why are you confident that in the years to come economic growth rate will be lower than the return on capital. What implications will that have on capitalism and the inequality that it breeds?
Nobody can be sure about the future values of the rate of return and the economy’s growth rate. I am just saying that with the decline of population growth in most parts of the world, total GDP (gross domestic product) growth rates are likely to fall. Also, as emerging economies catch up with developed economies, productivity growth rates are likely to resemble what we have always observed at the world technological frontier since the Industrial revolution, i.e. between 1 and 2% per year. With zero or negative population growth, this suggests that total GDP growth rates will fall much below 4-5%, which has been the typical value for the average rate of return to capital in the very long run.
So what is the point that you are trying to make?
My main point is not to make predictions, which by nature are highly uncertain. My main point is that we should have more democratic transparency about how the different income and wealth groups are doing, so that we can adjust our policies and tax rates to whatever we observe. As long as top groups grow at approximately the same speed as the rest of society, there is no problem with inequality per se. But if the top rises three times faster than the size of the economy, you need to worry about it.
Your book is being compared to Karl Marx’s Capital. How different is your work from his?
One obvious difference is that I believe in private property and markets. Not only are they necessary to achieve economic efficiency and development — they are also a condition of our personal freedom. The other difference is that my book is primarily about the history of income and wealth distribution. It contains a lot of historical evidence. With the help of Tony Atkinson, Emmanuel Saez, Abhijit Banerjee, Facundo Alvaredo, Gilles Postel-Vinay, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, Gabriel Zucman and many other scholars, we have been able to collect a unique set of data covering three centuries and over 20 countries. This is by far the most extensive database available in regard to the historical evolution of income and wealth. This book proposes an interpretative synthesis based upon this collective data collection project.
Any other differences?
Finally, Marx’s main conclusion was about the falling rate of profit. My reading of the historical evidence is that there is no such tendency. The rate of return to capital can be permanently and substantially higher than the growth rate. This tends to lead to very high level of wealth inequality, which may raise democratic and political problems. But this does not raise economic problems per se.
One of the most interesting points in your book is about the rise of the supermanager in the US and large parts of the developed world and the huge salaries that these individuals earn. You term this as meritocratic extremism. How did this phenomenon also contribute to the financial crisis?
According to supermanagers, their supersalaries are justified by their performance. The problem is that you don’t see it the statistics. In the US, between two thirds and three quarters of primary income growth since 1980 has been absorbed by the top 10% income earners, and most of it by the top 1% income earners. If the economy’s growth rate had been very high, rising inequality would not have been such a big deal. But with a per capita GDP growth rate around 1.5%, if most of it goes to the top, then this is not a good deal for the middle class. This has clearly contributed to rising household debt and financial fragility.

 (Vivek Kaul can be reached at [email protected])

The interview originally appeared in The Corporate Dossier, The Economic Times on May 23, 2014 

Of Yuvraj Singh, stock markets and the Vietnam War

 yuvraj

Vivek Kaul

 It is in the last week of March 2014 that I am writing this piece. The stock market in India is flirting with all time high levels. At the same time in the T20 cricket World Cup that is on, Yuvraj Singh’s bad form with the bat continues (as I write India has played two matches, and in both, Yuvraj has failed with the bat).
Despite the fact that the stock market is flirting with all time high levels, there are still a lot of investors who are holding onto stocks they had bought at the peak levels reached in 2008. Real estate and infrastructure stocks were a favourite among investors back then.
Once the stock market started to crash in 2008, these stocks crashed big time. They still are nowhere near the high levels they had achieved way back in 2008. And more than that, the prospects for these sectors(particularly real estate) in India, are not looking good either. Nevertheless, there are still some investors who have held onto these stocks bought in 2008, in the hope that these stocks will make money for them one day. So what is happening here? Barry Schwartz explains this in his book The Paradox of Choice. As he writes “People hold on to stocks that have decreased in value because selling them would turn the investment into a loss. What should matter in decisions about holding or selling stocks is only your assessment of future performance and not (tax considerations aside) the price at which the stocks were purchased.”
But the price at which the stock is bought does turn out to matter. This fallacy is referred to as the sunk-cost fallacy by behavioural economists.
And what about Yuvraj Singh? What is he doing here? Vijay Mallya owned IPL Royal Challengers Bangalore bought him for a mind-boggling Rs 14 crore in a recent auction in the Indian Premier League(IPL). The tournament starts in mid April, right after the T20 World Cup ends. From the way things currently are, Yuvraj doesn’t look in great form. But despite that he is likely to be played by Royal Challengers Bangalore in all the matches that they play.
And why is that? Simply because the sunk-cost fallacy will be at work. The Royal Challengers Bangalore have paid so much money to buy Yuvraj that they are likely to keep playing him in the hope that he will eventually start scoring runs. Schwartz discusses this in the context of professional basket ball players in the United States. “According to the same logic of sunk costs, professional basketball coaches give more playing time to players earning higher salaries independent of their current level of performance,” he writes.
The sunk-cost fallacy is a part of our everyday lives as well. Many of us make instinctive expensive purchases and then don’t use the product, due to various reasons. At the same time, we don’t get rid of the product either, in the hope of using it in some way in the future.
Richard Thaler, a pioneer in the field of Behavioural Economics, explains this beautifully through a thought experiment, in a research paper titled Mental Accounting Matters. “Suppose you buy a pair of shoes. They feel perfectly comfortable in the store, but the first day you wear them they hurt. A few days later you try them again, but they hurt even more than the first time. What happens now? My predictions are: (1) The more you paid for the shoes, the more times you will try to wear them. (This choice may be rational, especially if they have to be replaced with another expensive pair.) (2) Eventually you stop wearing the shoes, but you do not throw them away. The more you paid for the shoes, the longer they sit in the back of your closet before you throw them away. (This behaviour cannot be rational unless expensive shoes take up less space.) (3) At some point, you throw the shoes away, regardless of what they cost, the payment having been fully `depreciated’.”
Along similar lines people hold on to CDs they never listen to, clothes they never wear and books they never read. Keeping these things just holds up space, it doesn’t create any problems in life. But there are other times when the escalation of commitment that the sunk-cost fallacy causes, can lead to serious problems. As Daniel Kahneman, writes in Thinking, Fast and Slow “The sunk cost fallacy keeps people for too long in poor jobs, unhappy marriages, and unpromising research projects. I have often observed young scientists struggling to salvage a doomed project when they would be better advised to drop it and start new one.”
As far trying to salvage doomed projects go, CEOs and businesses seem to do it all the time. As Kahneman points out “Imagine a company that has already spent $50 million on a project. The project is now behind schedule and the forecasts of its ultimate returns are less favourable than at the initial planning stage. An additional investment of $60 million is required to give the project a chance. An alternative proposal is to invest the same amount in a new project that looks likely to bring higher returns. What will the company do? All too often a company afflicted by sunk costs drives into the blizzard, throwing good money after bad rather than accepting the humiliation of closing the account of a costly failure.”
A similar problem afflicts a lot of government infrastructure projects as well, where good money keeps getting thrown after bad. It also explains why the United States kept waging a war in Vietnam and then in Iraq, even though it was clear very early in the process that Vietnam was a lost cause and that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
To conclude, it is important to understand why human beings become victims of the sunk-cost fallacy? “Sunk-cost effects are motivated by the desire to avoid regret rather than just the desire to avoid a loss,” writes Schwartz. And if you, dear reader, do not want to become a victim of the sunk-cost fallacy, this is an important point to remember.

 The article originally appeared in the April2014 issue of the Wealth Insight magazine.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

“India should focus on branding its software business”

al ries 2Vivek Kaul  
Al Ries first rose to fame in 1972 when he wrote a series of three articles on a new concept called “Positioning” along with Jack Trout. In 1981, the Positioning book was published and has since sold well over 1 million copies. The book has sold over 400,000 copies in China alone. The two authors also wrote Marketing Warfare, Bottom-Up Marketing, Horse Sense and The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing.
Al is also the co-founder and chairman of the Atlanta-based consulting firm Ries & Ries with his partner and daughter, Laura Ries. Along with Laura he has written bestsellers like War in the Boardroom and The Origin of Branding. In this interview he speaks to FirstBiz on how countries can go about branding themselves. 

Can countries be branded like products?
It depends on the size of the country. The bigger the country, the harder it is to brand. The smaller the country, the easier. Brand USA, a partnership between the travel industry and the U.S. government, is planning a $200-million campaign to attract tourists to America. The theme: “United States of Awesome Possibilities.” That’s a ridiculous idea.
On the other hand, take a small country like Kenya. What is Kenya’s major tourist attraction? Wild animals from lions to elephants to giraffes. So how would I brand Kenya? “The world’s largest zoo.” How is branding a country different from branding a product?
It’s essentially the same as branding a product. So how to you brand a product?
Narrow the focus. BMW narrowed its focus to “driving” and became the world’s largest-selling luxury-vehicle brand, ahead of Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Cadillac and Lincoln.
What makes Singapore different from every other country in the world? Housing. 80 percent of the residents of the country live in apartments, not houses. As the world’s population continues to increase, more and more people are going to have to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Here’s how I would brand Singapore: “City of the Future.”
Can you give us examples of countries which have branded themselves well?
I know of only two, both small countries. Guatemala, a country in Central America, is branding itself as “The heart of Maya country.” An ancient civilization, the Maya have left hundreds of imposing temples scattered throughout Central America. But the country that has the most temples and other historic sites is Guatemala. (I once suggested the country change its name to Guatemaya). The other is Grenada, a country in the Caribbean sea, which is branding itself as “The Caribbean the way it used to be.” In other words, without all the fancy high-rise hotels for tourists.
How can a country go about branding itself?
The basic principle is to narrow the focus. But that’s extremely difficult for a large country. That’s why a large country should forget about branding the country. It should brand its major city instead. Instead of branding America, we should brand New York City, the one city most tourists to America want to visit.
Turkey is a large country that is trying to brand itself with a silly slogan, “Turkey is ready.” A better direction is to brand Istanbul as the best place in the business world for a global headquarters.
Could you elaborate on that?
Consider a company with representatives in the major cities on six continents: Johannesburg, London, Mumbai, New York, Sao Paulo, Shanghai and Sydney. Now where should a company like this one hold it corporate meetings? Istanbul.
Here are combined mileage statistics for a single representative from each city attending a potential global meeting held in these major cities.
Sydney . . . . . . . . 58,784 miles
Johannesburg . . . 58,676 miles
Sao Paulo . . . . . . 50,846 miles
Mumbai . . . . . . . 49,450 miles
New York . . . . . 46,342 miles
Shanghai . . . . . . 44,925 miles
London . . . . . . . 42,472 miles
Istanbul . . . . . . . 40,411 miles
And it’s not just location that gives Istanbul an advantage. Companies like to hold meeting in “neutral” locations, so that local representatives don’t dominate the meetings. Istanbul is not a European city. Istanbul is not an Asian city. Istanbul is a cosmopolitan city with roots in both continents.
And how would you brand Istanbul?
“Crossroads of the world.” Sometimes it’s a good idea to compare yourself with another country or another location. Jamaica is a small country in the Caribbean, but it has mountains and waterfalls similar to Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean which is a major tourist attraction for Americans. Here is how we would brand Jamaica: “The Hawaii of the Caribbean.”
Most people think New Zealand is a country. But it’s also an island. Actually, it’s two islands. The North island and the South island. Here is the slogan we developed to brand New Zealand: “The two most-beautiful islands in the world.”
Any other examples?
Colombia is a country in South America that has had a lot of civil wars. But Bogota, the capital, sits on the natural trade route from North America to South America and would make an ideal location for foreign companies to establish their South American headquarters. Furthermore, Bogota sits on top of the equator, but at 8,000 feet above sea level. As a result, warehouses need no air conditioning and no heating all year long. Our proposed branding slogan: “Air conditioned by God.”
Would you suggest that when the reputation of a country is clear and positive, products that are made in that country carry an extra credibility?
Every country has a “natural” position established by decades or centuries of publicity.
Germany is “engineering.”
France is “wine.”
Italy is “fashion.”
Switzerland is “watches.”
Japan is “automobiles.”
America is “computers.”
India is “tea.”
So when you brand a product, it can be helpful to relate your product brand to the country’s position. For example, I met once with the CEO of a Swiss company developing a new automobile brand. Does an automobile from Switzerland make any sense, he asked me? Sure, I said and I have a headline for your first ad: “Runs like a watch.” 
What does India need to do to brand itself well? What sort of Indian products will it help sell? The first decision to make is, Do we want to build a brand to attract tourists or to attract business? You can’t do both. Potentially, India can have a great tourist business, but the current visa situation is seriously undermining that possibility. So I would suggest India focus on business, rather than tourists.
What type of business should India focus on?
Darjeeling tea is one possibility. But it would take forever to broaden the territory covered by the Darjeeling “tea gardens.” A better possibility is “computer software.”
India has three advantages in software. First of all, India turns out more college graduates than any other country in the world. Second, computer software today is primarily developed in the English language which put countries like China at a serious disadvantage. Third, wage levels in India are lower than in most developed countries.
Then, too, opportunities are opening up in software because the market is fragmenting. Microsoft is not nearly as dominant as it once was. Also, the raft of new electronic products (smartphones, tablet computers and many more to come) will continue to generate strong demand for software.
How can a strong country brand help companies and brands originating from that country ?  Many brands take advantage of this idea by including the name of their country or city in their logotypes. Paris is known for cosmetics and L’Oréal is a leading French cosmetics company. The company’s logotype says: L’Oréal Paris. And the Lancȏme logo also includes the name “Paris.”
In one of the columns that I read on country branding it was suggested “ Brands across the board from particular countries can command higher prices than those from other countries, simply by virtue of the strength of the country’s brand.” Do you believe in that? Could you give us examples on the same?
The best example is Switzerland which has a monopoly on expensive watches. A quartz watch made in Japan and sold in America for $500 or so will keep better time than a mechanical watch like Rolex that sells for $5,000 or $10,000.
So why do people pay thousands of dollars for a mechanical watch? Because it’s a Rolex from Switzerland. The same is true for wine from France. Fashion from Italy. Spain is the world’s largest producer of olive oil. But Spain doesn’t have the same reputation for olive oil as Italy. So much of Spain’s olive oil is shipped to Italy and then sold on the world market as “Olive oil from Italy.”
The interview originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on March 7, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)