State and other organizations offering export assistance
State and other organizations offering export assistance
STATES ACROSS THE NATION ARE NOW RAPIDLY IMPLEMENTING EXPORT SUPPORT programs in great variety, realizing that their exporters and industries need more help than can possibly be expected from the federal government. Report after report has confirmed that the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) programs are not all they might be. Among the major industrialized nations, the United States spends the least per capita to promote exports. Canada spent $21.44 per citizen in 1987, an amount that was 18 times the United States figure of $ 1.20. Whether analyzed in Gross National Product (GNP) on exports in dollars, or by figures based on the population, the answer is the same. Besides the budget problems, there have been organizational and planning problems. These problems became more acute as the budget became more restricted and the costs of the overseas posts grew as the relative value of the dollar fell. Many legislatures, as well as public and private sector export interests, are working to improve this picture. Perhaps it will improve, but it is not realistic today to expect that it can be fully solved in view of budgetary restraints.
In view of this, it is fortunate that the states and other units of government have stepped into the void. Virtually all of the states report some level of export support and a large number have very elaborate programs. In fact, the combined state budgets for export promotion now exceed that of the DOC. A survey taken in 1988 indicated 33 states had significant permanent office representation in 89 foreign locations, and the number continues to rapidly grow.The means by which states help exporters are sometimes as inventive as they are varied. For example, Michigan is noted for diversifying its economic development efforts to multi-county community organizations called Community Growth Alliances (CGA). There are now 39 such CGAs and export assistance has been introduced into 16 of them that have a sufficient business base to support the effort. All of the CGAs use state matching funds combined with funds raised at the local level.
California's program is often noted and observed for its ambitious international program. The program includes the Office of Export Development and the Export Finance Office under the California World Trade Commission. In addition to its research, advocacy, and legislative observance, it includes liaison activities at both the state and federal level. California has currently five overseas offices, as well as a separate program for agriculture.
Many of the smaller states are equai±/ active. Maryland, for instance, offers export promotions, export finance, and foreign offices. Reviewing states with finance programs, there appears to be little or no correlation between an active program and the state's ranking in terms of export dollars.
This state level interest comes none too soon. The Small Business Administration (SBA) reports that 90,000 firms now export and that this number is expected to double by 1995. Many will be disappointed by unanticipated problems and the lack of research or even knowing where to look for reliable answers. These firms will need help at the local level. It makes sense that states are in a position to buttress our national export effort by focusing on the special needs of their particular geographical, industrial, and economic communities. Many states are looking into opportunities for regional cooperation among themselves. This especially applies to smaller states or specialized programs such as export financing. The New England Governor's Conference approved creation of a Regional Export Trade Strategy in 1990.
STATES ACROSS THE NATION ARE NOW RAPIDLY IMPLEMENTING EXPORT SUPPORT programs in great variety, realizing that their exporters and industries need more help than can possibly be expected from the federal government. Report after report has confirmed that the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) programs are not all they might be. Among the major industrialized nations, the United States spends the least per capita to promote exports. Canada spent $21.44 per citizen in 1987, an amount that was 18 times the United States figure of $ 1.20. Whether analyzed in Gross National Product (GNP) on exports in dollars, or by figures based on the population, the answer is the same. Besides the budget problems, there have been organizational and planning problems. These problems became more acute as the budget became more restricted and the costs of the overseas posts grew as the relative value of the dollar fell. Many legislatures, as well as public and private sector export interests, are working to improve this picture. Perhaps it will improve, but it is not realistic today to expect that it can be fully solved in view of budgetary restraints.
In view of this, it is fortunate that the states and other units of government have stepped into the void. Virtually all of the states report some level of export support and a large number have very elaborate programs. In fact, the combined state budgets for export promotion now exceed that of the DOC. A survey taken in 1988 indicated 33 states had significant permanent office representation in 89 foreign locations, and the number continues to rapidly grow.The means by which states help exporters are sometimes as inventive as they are varied. For example, Michigan is noted for diversifying its economic development efforts to multi-county community organizations called Community Growth Alliances (CGA). There are now 39 such CGAs and export assistance has been introduced into 16 of them that have a sufficient business base to support the effort. All of the CGAs use state matching funds combined with funds raised at the local level.
California's program is often noted and observed for its ambitious international program. The program includes the Office of Export Development and the Export Finance Office under the California World Trade Commission. In addition to its research, advocacy, and legislative observance, it includes liaison activities at both the state and federal level. California has currently five overseas offices, as well as a separate program for agriculture.
Many of the smaller states are equai±/ active. Maryland, for instance, offers export promotions, export finance, and foreign offices. Reviewing states with finance programs, there appears to be little or no correlation between an active program and the state's ranking in terms of export dollars.
This state level interest comes none too soon. The Small Business Administration (SBA) reports that 90,000 firms now export and that this number is expected to double by 1995. Many will be disappointed by unanticipated problems and the lack of research or even knowing where to look for reliable answers. These firms will need help at the local level. It makes sense that states are in a position to buttress our national export effort by focusing on the special needs of their particular geographical, industrial, and economic communities. Many states are looking into opportunities for regional cooperation among themselves. This especially applies to smaller states or specialized programs such as export financing. The New England Governor's Conference approved creation of a Regional Export Trade Strategy in 1990.
Comments
Post a Comment