Among the examples of economic warfare provided by the School of Economic Warfare in Paris, it is worth mentioning the case of Mittal’s takeover of Arcelor and the situation of European iron and steel industry vis-à-vis financial globalization.
Over the years, the increasing number of takeovers, unions and joint ventures became an for market competitiveness. In this context, some of the takeovers stand out as hostile financial actions aimed neutralizing the opponent. Such strategic maneuvers are a significant source of concern for economic operators, as they observe the reaction of both private and public sector, which is likely to intervene in order to protect the sectors of national interests.
The acquisition of Arcelor operated by Mittal is a case in point because it involves steel, which is both one of the symbols of the European industry and the main material for other productive and strategic sectors. Both Mittal and Arcelor were two titans of the steel sector: while Mittal’s primacy consisted in the largest number of employees and produced materials, Arcelor could count on the most robust trade volume. In fact, when Mittal took it over, Arcelor was a very healthy company that had just incorporated the Canadian company Dofasco. Through this surprising trial of strength that no political or economic operator could have foreseen, Mittal secured a significant advantage on its competitors. In order to understand the strategic interests of this acquisition, it is necessary to examine Mittal’s communication campaign and the lobbying role of all the players, from the steel market to public opinion.
Looking at the steel market trends between 1980 and 2005, it is possible to notice that since the minerals coming from the Soviet Union entered the global market in 1992, both prices and demand of iron ore and steel increased significantly. If it is true that over a hundred countries produce steel, there is only a small group of states that influence its market trend: Brazil and Australia, for example, control 42% of the steel market.
Due to the impressive growth of recent years, China alone accounts for 40% of global steel production (349 million tons in 2005), of which only 3% is exported. One of the first crisis occurred when China decided to limit the export of carbon coke – the main fuel for blast furnaces. This resulted in a spike in prices of 600% and showed how a given economic choice (driven by the desire of full independence) had remarkable strategic repercussions.
In order to discuss the conflict emerged with the Mittal/Arcelor case, the School of Economic Warfare provides a deep analysis of the actors involved.
The Mittal family was the majority shareholder of this company and its funds were located in tax havens. If on the one hand the choice of acquiring Arcelor was motivated by economic and fiscal reasons, on the other hand it also hides some interests that the economic warfare should explore. The Mittal family remained the majority shareholder (51%), whereas the remaining part was divided between investment funds and institutions. In designing such a stake distribution, Mittal showed its strategic intelligence: with such a property assets arrangement, it was impossible for Arcelor to regain its business through another takeover.
Since it is more difficult to convince more shareholders to sell their quotas rather than a single one, it is more difficult to take over a business when there are multiple owners. Therefore, from the strategic point of view, Arcelor’s large pool of stakeholders discouraged competitors from acquiring it. Besides, Arcelor benefited from a strong political support on the international level thanks to its strong ties with governments and to its strategic appeal, since it was the symbol of a united Europe. The main shareholders of Arcelor –involved in the evolution of the company – were:
– The Luxemburg government: traditional stakeholder, represented at that time by Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker, who had been very active on the European level and who initially opposed the acquisition of Arcelor by Mittal.
– The Belgian government, namely the Wallonia region, which also opposed Mittal acquisition after consulting Banque Lazard.
– Colette Neuville, who held 2.5% of the stocks and represented the small shareholders, abstained from voting on Mittal acquisition. Even though she had such a small quota, Neuville could have played an important role due to the fragmentation of Arcelor ownership.
– Romani Zaleski, French-Polish major shareholder and key man of Arcelor.
In order to secure its interests Mittal influenced decision makers and public opinion thanks to a network of associates:
– John Ashcroft, representative of the U.S. Republican right-wing party, Attorney General between 2001 and 2005. At the end of his political career he founded a lobbying agency and was hired by Mittal because of his moral integrity and relations with several members of European governments.
– Anne Méaux, press officer of Giscard d’Estaing, director of communication for Alain Madelin, who had entertained long term relations with prominent members of the French right-wing party.
– Partner banks of Mittal Steels. There were five banks which acted simultaneously to support Mittal’s takeover of Arcelor: Goldman-Sachs, Crédit Suisse, HSBC, Citigroup and Société Générale. Goldman-Sachs, which had been previously involved together with Citigroup in Arcelor’s acquisition of Dofasco, played a prominent role in Mittal’s takeover of Arcelor; Société Générale opened up an eight-million-euro credit line for Mittal.
Arcelor’s network was quite complex. It mainly consisted in both personal and business relationships: the actors would pursue their own interests while immerged in a broader network of bigger interests that would tower over those of the single actors:
– BNP Paribas and Calyon, Arcelor partner banks that had traditionally offered financial support. Merrill Lynch and UBS drafted the strategy while other institutions were also involved: Michael Zaoui from Morgan Stanley (brother of Yoel Zaoui, main strategist of Mittal) was appointed by Arcelor Management Board to consider Mittal’s offer.
– DMG – Michel Calzaroni, international communication agency, embraced market battles on behalf of food titans and French energy companies.
– Public Opinion. In order to influence public opinion, Arcelor chose Publicis Group, second best rated consultancy and media acquisition company.
– Skadden Arps, international law firm whose team was made of twelve professionals from France, Belgium and United Kingdom.
Mittal’s acquisition of Arcelor was supported by a well-designed communication campaign. Communication capacities are an essential asset for big firms, especially for those with a large number of shareholders like in the case of Arcelor, where small investors represented 85% of shareholders. In fact, this was the main problem Mittal faced when acquiring Arcelor, even more than the legal and economic aspect or the anti-trust regulations. While competition authorities of the United States, Canada and European Union were in the process of approving this operation, Mittal was allocated huge economic resources in convincing thousands of investors to support its project.
Between the above mentioned personalities, Anne Méaux played a very special role in the deal: she chose a strategy using multiple communication tools (such as press conferences, advertising on business magazines, conference calls and travels to Mittal headquarters) in order to convince the investors of the opportunities of the project; in a context of economic warfare, these communication strategies are able to address competitors with hostile messages. Mittal’s strategy was very detailed and engaged trade unions as well. Since February 2006, Mittal Steel had committed to communicate to Arcelor’s trade unions representatives its intentions about the industrial plan supporting the acquisition. The main points were occupational advantages and better work conditions, together with promise of keeping in place the agreements they had previously made with Arcelor.
Mittal also conceived a special communication strategy targeting shareholders mainly using specialized press and popular weekly magazines. Communication agencies focused on conveying a very positive image of the leader Lakshimi Mittal, through describing him as a successful self-made-man able to gather consensus both between businessmen and public opinion. Their goal was portraying Mittal as a successful entrepreneur interested in the development of his country; this made him much different from foreign investors that delocalized investments and performed a “reverse colonization” both on the economic and cultural side.
Arcelor counter-campaign, instead, presented Mittal as an inferior competitor presenting an “Indian” offer, derogatorily referring to India as a poor country (quite inappropriate considering India’s fast paced economic development). Supported by the belief to be able to rely on state aid, Arcelor tried every possible way to contrast Mittal’s attack and offered its small investors twice as much the dividends of 2005, hoping that they would have rejected Mittal’s offer. Since Arcelor’s strength consisted in the division of the ownership between small investors, in April 2006 this company offered another increase in the dividends. A month later, Arcelor announced to have received a very interesting takeover offer from a Russian company named Severstal: Mordachov, Severstal’s tycoon, would have acquired 32% of the company and the investors would have benefited from even more advantageous distributions of the dividends. Due to the initial lack of enthusiasm of Arcelor’s investors, Severstal decided to reduce its participation to 25% (that secured its position as majority shareholder), while discouraging Mittal from acquiring Arcelor and reassuring small investors on their pretty substantial profits.
Mittal’s decision to approach directly the group of Arcelor’s investors resulted in a winning move: almost the entire management board of Mittal – included Lakshimi Mittal – met with 70% of Arcelors investors and established open communication. This helped convincing their counterpart of the advantages of their acquisition offer.
This way, Mittal Steel managed to buy 34% of the Arcelor’s stake in May 2006. As the takeover took place, Mittal created the new management board in order to meet reassure the investors’ concerns about Lakshimi Mittal’s management, such as transparency of decision-making and compliance to share ownership arrangements. At the end of May, another key step was taken: in relation to a speculative investment fund, Goldman Sachs together with almost 30% shareholders requested to modify the approval procedure of Severstal proposal. At this point, the intervention of Zaleski – Arcelor’s majority shareholder – helped reaching a final solution. Thanks to the alteration of the procedures that Goldman Sachs had requested, Zaleski managed to buy more than 7.8% stocks so that by June 25th, Arcelor was fused with Mittal Steel with a final agreement granting shareholders 10% profits.
This case study highlights the importance of economic warfare that aims at protecting strategic sectors of a given field, preserving the resources and ensuring the employment development of related fields and more specifically of the industrial sector.
Besides the economic aspect of this kind of warfare, the School of Economic Warfare in Paris insists on its geopolitical aspects. In this perspective, the case discussed above has a number of hidden implications. For example, Mittal’s takeover of Arcelor can be interestingly considered as an operation aimed at containing Chinese expansionism.
Looking at the role of the United States, it is possible to argue that since the end of the Cold War, this country has adopted quite a unilateral approach in foreign policy that supported its role of world’s first economic power. Whoever challenges the American power, automatically becomes a rival, especially on the economic level. In this regard, China is a dangerous competitor that is able to successfully join forces with some African countries: through investing in education without linking any conditionality of human rights respect or fight against crime, Beijing creates alliances in another continent and gains profits from its own investments.
Besides, the Chinese government even reached a number of agreements with South American countries that are not limited to the economic sphere but also involve cultural aspect like the spread of Chinese language and culture. In Asia, China and India sealed an important deal aimed at going beyond containing the historical rivalry between the two countries: promoting in the Asian continent an environment of cooperation that is able to challenge the dominance of the United States.
Since India is the only regional actor able to contain China, the USA repeatedly tried to engage India as a trade partner, as mentioned in the deal between the two countries sealed in 2000.
In order to ensure its own economic growth and independence from other actors, China and India increased significantly their steel production and manufacturing.
In 2005, China’s consumption of steel accounted for one third of the world steel market and the very same year, Beijing became a prodigious exporter of steel. In the same timeframe, India’s steel production exceeded the needs of the country and this compromised supply-demand balance. In such a delicate phase for the steel sector, the political world did not welcome Mittal’s acquisition of Arcelor because of its impact on the strategic balance of power. From the United States perspective, Mittal was quite interesting and profitable:
– according to the authorities of the country, Mittal Steel group was not Indian;
– the reason for Mittal’s economic expansion was China. In fact, in 2004 Mittal was the first foreign company that managed to acquire 37.17% of a Chinese steel company.
The US financial community welcomed the fusion between Arcelor and Mittal, but the Department of Justice opened an investigation in order to make sure that the US could continue import large amount of steel from Arcelor. Besides, even on the financial level, Mittal’s acquisition of Arcelor confirmed the general world trend of the strategic formation of a few stable economic hubs.
As a final consideration on this topic, the European Union’s behavior vis-à-vis Mittal’s operation was quite surprising. Even though the EU originated from European Coal and Steel Community, (the organization promoting free trade for coal and steel), it did not adopt any measure to protect such a strategic sector whose value was both economic and symbolic.
Modi’s India a flawed partner for post-Brexit Britain
With just two weeks to go until Britain is scheduled to exit the European Union, Boris Johnson and his ministers are understandably focused on the last-minute dash to formulate a workable Brexit deal with the EU. Once this moment has passed, however, either Johnson or whoever replaces him as PM will come under intense pressure to deliver the trade deals Brexit side supporters have so talked up since 2016.
One such envisaged deal is with India. Seven decades after securing independence from Britain’s colonial empire, New Delhi has the world’s seventh-largest economy and one of its fastest growth rates. The prospect of deeper trade ties with Asia’s third-largest economy has been a major feature of the pitch for a “Global Britain” that extends the UK’s reach beyond the continent, and Johnson himself made a big thing of expanding economic ties with India while campaigning to become PM.
Unfortunately, any plans to kickstart trade agreements with India will run into problems, and not just over immigration and visa issues. India is on the verge of a serious economic downturn, hit by job losses and decreasing levels of foreign investment. With growth slowing down, Indian PM Narendra Modi has fallen back on his aggressive brand of Hindu nationalism to galvanise public support, a gambit that has most recently resulted in his government’s controversial move to strip automony from Kashmir.
Bad time for a UK-India trade deal
Whereas only a few years ago India was held up as one of the world’s fastest growing economies and an enticing prospect for global trade and investment, Moody’s new projection of a 5.8% growth rate represents a danger to Narendra Modi’s promise of a $5 trillion economy. Recently released figures show India’s GDP growth falling for the fifth successive quarter, to a six-year low of 5.2%.
India’s economic woes are reflected in patterns of foreign investment. Around $45 billion has been invested in India from abroad over the last 6 years. The downturn in the country’s economic fortunes has seen a record $4.5 billion of shares sold by foreign investors since June this year. These economic problems are linked to Modi’s failure to carry through on economic reforms promised when he came to power in 2014, when a number of structural problems were seen as inhibiting external trade relationships.
India currently has over 1,000 business regulations and more than 3,000 filing requirements, as well as differing standards for social, environmental and human rights. These have been sticking points in the moribund trade deal negotiations between India and the EU, and Brexit advocates have not explained how they plan to overcome these hurdles.
Hostility to foreign companies
Structural issues are only part of the problem. Another key concern is the Indian government’s adversarial attitude towards foreign investors. Despite Modi’s promises to make India an attractive place to do business, his government has continued protectionist policies that throttle the country’s ability to attract outside capital.
One issue is retrospective taxation. Under Modi’s predecessor, Manmohan Singh, several British and international firms were hit with sizeable, legally dubious tax bills by the Indian government. Modi came to power on a promise of ending retrospective tax bills being imposed on overseas companies, and yet British firms such as Vodafone and Cairn Energy still find themselves pursued through the courts for back-dated tax bills, despite the protections they should enjoy under the bilateral investment treaty between India and the UK.
Vodafone’s case involved its 2007 acquisition of a stake in cellular carrier Hutchinson Essar. While the deal did not take place in India, New Delhi determined Vodafone still owed $5 billion in taxes on the overseas transaction. After the Indian Supreme Court dismissed the claim in 2012, India’s previous government introduced a new law to tax transactions of this nature that retroactively applied to cases going back to 1962. Modi attacked this “tax terrorism” at the time, but his government has continued its dogged pursuit of Vodafone in the courts.
Cairn Energy has faced an equally arduous struggle with the Indian Ministry of Finance, which in 2014 blocked the British firm from selling its 10% stake in Cairn India and subsequently demanded $1.6 billion in taxes. Indian officials used the 2012 law to justify their actions, violating the bilateral investment treaty and breaking one of Modi’s own campaign promises in the process.
Immigration laws a further sticking point
This recent history should already give British businesses pause, but the most obvious obstacle in any trade negotiations between UK and India will be the issue of immigration. The Centre For European Reform has argued post-Brexit trade will be closely linked to opening up UK borders to workers from partner countries, but a UK Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee report in June highlighted how Britain’s immigration restrictions on Indian workers, students and tourists has already impacted bilateral trade relations. The report noted how the UK has slipped from being India’s 2nd largest trade partner in 1999 to 17th in 2019, adding that skilled workers, students and tourists are deterred from coming to the UK by the complicated, expensive and unwelcoming British migration system.
It is unlikely the Modi government will agree to any UK-India trade deal that doesn’t guarantee a relaxing of immigration rules that will allow a free flow of people as well as goods and capital between the two countries. The question is whether the British government, which has veered ever more closely towards a Brexit-fuelled populism at odds with relaxed border controls, will be flexible enough to sign up to this.
Given these issues, are Britain’s hopes for a post-Brexit dividend in Indian trade dead on arrival? Unless Modi’s government starts living up to international standards and honouring his country’s investment agreements with British companies, “Global Britain” may not get much further with India than it has with the US.
A more effective labour market approach to fighting poverty
is still the most reliable way of escaping poverty. However, access to both
jobs and decent working conditions remains a challenge. Sixty-six per cent of
employed people in developing economies and 22 per cent in emerging economies
are in either extreme or moderate working poverty, and the problem becomes even
more striking when the dependents of these “working poor” are considered.
Thus, it is not just unemployment or inactivity that traps people in poverty, they are also held back by a lack of decent work opportunities, including underemployment or informal employment.
Appropriate labour market policies can play an important role in the fight to eradicate poverty, by increasing access to job opportunities and improving the quality of working conditions. In particular, labour market policies that combine income support for jobless people with active labour market policies (ALMPs).
The new ILO report What works: Promoting pathways to decent work shows that combining income support with active labour market support allows countries to tackle multiple barriers to decent work. These barriers can be structural, (e.g. lack of education and skills, presence of inequalities) or temporary (e.g. climate-related shocks, economic crises). This policy combination is particularly relevant today, at a time when the world of work is being reshaped by global forces such as international trade, technological progress, demographic shifts and environmental transformations.
that combine income support with ALMPs can help people to adjust to the changes
these forces create in the labour market. Income support ensures that people do
not fall into poverty during joblessness and that they are not forced to accept
any work, irrespective of its quality. At the same time, ALMPs endow people
with the skills they need to find quality employment, improving their
employability over the medium- to long-term.
New evidence gathered for this report shows that this combination of income support and active support is indeed effective in improving labour market conditions: impact evaluations of selected policies indicate how people who have benefited from this type of integrated approach have higher employment chances and better working conditions.
One example of how this combined approach can produce results is the innovative unemployment benefit scheme unrolled in Mauritius, the “Workfare Programme”. This provides workers with access to income support and three different types of activation measures; training (discontinued in 2016), job placement and start-up support. The programme was also open to those unemployed people who were previously working in an informal job. By extending coverage to the most vulnerable workers, the scheme has helped reduce inequalities and unlock the informality trap.
Another success came through a public works scheme implemented in Uruguay as part of a larger conditional cash transfer programme, the National Social Emergency Plan (PANES). The programme was implemented during a deep economic recession and carefully targeted the poorest and most vulnerable.
Beneficiaries of PANES were given the opportunity to take part in public works. In exchange for full-time work for up to five months, they received a higher level of income support as well as additional job placement help. This approach reached a large share of the population at risk of extreme poverty and who lacked social protection. The report indicates that providing both measures together was critical to the project’s success.
The effects of these policies on poverty eradication cannot be overestimated. By tackling unemployment, underemployment and informality, policies combining income support with ALMPs can directly affect some of the roots of poverty, while enhancing the working conditions and labour market opportunities for millions of women and men in emerging and developing countries.
CPEC vs IMF in Pakistan
International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created just after World War II (WWII) in 1945. The IMF is an organization of 189 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.
Pakistan has been knocking doors of IMF since 1958, and it has been 21 agreements with IMF. Generally, the IMF provides loans at very low-interest rates and provides programs of better governance and monitoring too. But for the last 6 decades, Pakistan has suffered a lot, in terms of good governance. Especially last 2 decades, corruption, nepotism, poor planning, bribery, weakening of institution, de-moralization of society, etc were witnessed. We may not blame the IMF for all such evils but must complain that the IMF failed to deliver, what was expected. Of course, it is our country, we are responsible for all evils, and wrongdoings happened to us. We have to act smartly and should have made the right decision and at right times.
IMF also dictates its terms and condition or programs like: devaluation of local currencies, which causes inflation and hike in prices, cut or draw-back of subsidies on basic utilities like fuel, gas, electricity, food, agriculture etc, which causes cost of life rather higher for local people, cut on development expenditures like education, health, infrastructure, and social development etc, which pushes the country even more backward. IMF focusses only on reducing expenditures and collection of taxes to make a country to meet the deadlines of payments. IMF does not care about the development of a country, but emphasizes tax collections and payment of installments on time, to rescue a country from being a default.
While CPEC is an initiative where projects are launched in Power Generation, Infrastructure development under the early harvest program. Pakistan was an energy trust country and facing a severe shortage of Electricity. But after completion of several power projects under CPEC, the shortfall of electricity has been reduced to a great extent. One can witness no load shedding today, while, just a few years back the load shedding was visible throughout the country for several hours a day. Several motorways and highways have been completed. Gwadar port has been operational partially. Infrastructure developments are basic of economic activities.
Projects under CPEC has generated jobs up to 80,000. CPEC was the catalyst to improve GDP by around two percent during 2015-2018. CPEC has lifted the standard and quality of life of the common man in Pakistan. CPEC was instrumental to move the economic activities and circulation of wealth in society. Under CPEC, early harvest projects, 22 projects have been completed at the cost of approximately 19 billion US dollars.
It is understood that early harvest projects were heavy investment and rather slow on returns. But, these projects have provided a strong foundation for the second phase, where Agriculture, Industrialization and Social Sector will be focused. Return on Agriculture and Industrial produce is quick and also generates more jobs. The second phase will contribute toward the social development of Pakistan as well as generate wealth for the nation. Pakistan’s agriculture sector has huge potential as cultivatable land is huge, workforce is strong and climate is favorable. Regarding Industrialization, Pakistan is blessed with an abundance of mines and minerals. The raw material is cheap and the labor cost is competitive. Pakistan has 70% of its population under the age of 40 years, which means an abundance of the work force. Pakistan’s domestic market is 220 million and the traditional export market is the whole of the middle-east and the Muslim world.
The major difference between the CPEC and IMF is that CPEC generates wealth, while IMF focuses on tax collection and reducing the developments and growth. China is the latest model of developments in the modern days, China is willing to replicate its experience with Pakistan for its rapid development.
Guterres: We must do everything possible to avoid global ‘fracture’ caused by US-China tensions
Tensions around global trade and technology continue to rise and the international community needs to “do everything possible” to prevent...
Imprisoned ISIS Wives and Children Have Nowhere to Run To, Nowhere to Hide
The guards have said if the war comes close, then they will leave here,” a Western ISIS wife texted me...
St. Regis Hotels Debuts On Venice’s Esteemed Grand Canal
St. Regis Hotels & Resorts today announced the debut of The St. Regis Venice, located steps away from Piazza San...
Indian Mujahideen, IS and Hizbul Tahrir: Breeding ground for terrorism in South Asia
India Today dated October 8, 2019 has made the startling revelation `The Special Cell of the Delhi Police, probing an...
AMLO’s Failed State
Mexico’s challenges since transitioning from the hegemonic rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) 19 years ago have remained numerous...
New Target: Cut “Learning Poverty” by At Least Half by 2030
The World Bank introduced today an ambitious new Learning Target, which aims to cut by at least half the global...
African financial centres step up efforts on green and sustainable finance
When we talk about climate change and sustainable development, the continent that is often highlighted as facing the greatest socio-economic...
Americas2 days ago
When Democracy Becomes the Problem: Why So Many Millions Still Support Donald Trump
East Asia3 days ago
Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea
Africa3 days ago
The Impact of Xenophobic Attack on Nigerians
Southeast Asia2 days ago
China-Indonesia relations are expected to grow during Jokowi’s second term
Intelligence2 days ago
Strategy of Cyber Defense Structure in Political Theories
East Asia3 days ago
China & Nepal working towards a genuine good-neighbour tie
Newsdesk2 days ago
World Economic Forum 50th Annual Meeting in Davos: Defining Stakeholder Capitalism
Economy2 days ago
A more effective labour market approach to fighting poverty