Assignment: Innovation Business Brief

Order Description
Assignment: Innovation Business Brief
Please, dear covers all the points in number (1-2-3-4-5) and especially in number (4) and which are including (A-B-C).
Please dear, covers each point in rubric because is very important to I get the high degree.
Moreover, please dear look at pages 77 and 78 of the textbook at the end of these pages.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is for you to think critically about the importance of innovation throughout business life on a global scale.

Overview
You will have read in your textbook that Hill addressed the concept of innovation as it relates to global business. He discussed three principles of innovation that have to do with economic growth, the need for a market economy, and the necessity of property ownership.
Action Items
1. Review the grading rubric (below) for this assignment.
2.Review what Hill wrote about innovation on pages 77 and 78 of the textbook:
o Innovation and Entrepreneurship are the Engines of Growth
o Innovation and Entrepreneurship require a Market Economy
o Innovation and Entrepreneurship require Strong Property Rights
3.Identify a company (Toyota) that you feel is innovative or began as an innovative endeavor. This can be any company that you know about, one that you work for or have worked for, or one that you research to become familiar with.

Note: You must know or have learned enough about the company (Toyota) and its history of innovation or current innovative practices to write about it in this brief. (Find attached).
4.Prepare a 3-page brief about innovation with respect to this company(Toyota):
A- Describe how this company (Toyota) is innovative or began as an innovative endeavor.
B-Describe what innovation you would now propose for the company (Toyota) and explain your rationale for the proposal you make.
C-Describe the implications your proposal would have internationally.
5. Support your work with references to your readings.

Submission Instructions
Upload your document for grading using the Submit tool.

Grading Criteria
See the grading rubric for details: 0 – 35 points.

Innovation Business Brief Rubric

Total 35 points
(Criteria)
Describes the company (Toyota) and its innovation.
(Proficient)
Accurately describes how the company (Toyota) is innovative or began as an innovative endeavor. ( 5 points).
(Criteria)
Presents the innovative proposition and justification
(Proficient)
Presents and describes an innovation in sufficient detail to help the reader clearly see the possibility; the student explains his/her rationale for the proposal made. ( 10 points).
(Criteria)
Described implications of the innovation
(Proficient)
Described with clarity and succinct depth the international implications of the proposed innovation. ( 10 points).
(Criteria)
Integrates established international business principles into the discussion.
(Proficient)
Consistently does a good job of integrating established international business principles into the discussion. ( 5 points).
(Criteria)
Synthesizes relevant information and materials to provide evidence of critical thought.
(Proficient)
Consistently and effectively synthesizes information, which provides strong support to main ideas. ( 5 points).

pages 77 and 78 of the textbook
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ARE THE ENGINES OF GROWTH
There is substantial agreement among economists that innovation and entrepreneurial activity are the engines of long-run economic growth.5 Those who make this argument define innovation broadly to include not just new products but also new processes, new organizations, new management practices, and new strategies. Thus, the Toys “R” Us strategy of establishing large warehouse-style toy stores and then engaging in heavy advertising and price discounting to sell the merchandise can be classified as an innovation because it was the first company to pursue this strategy. Innovation and entrepreneurial activity help to increase economic activity by creating new products and markets that did not previously exist. Moreover, innovations in production and business pro- cesses lead to an increase in the productivity of labor and capital, which further boosts economic growth rates.6 Innovation is also seen as the product of entrepreneurial activity. Often, entrepreneurs first commercialize innovative new products and processes, and entrepreneurial activity provides much of the dynamism in an economy. For example, the U.S. economy has benefited greatly from a high level of entrepreneurial activity, which has resulted in rapid innovation in products and process. Firms such as Google, Cisco Systems, Dell, Microsoft, and Oracle were all founded by entrepreneurial individuals to exploit new technology. All of these firms created significant economic value and boosted productivity by helping to commercialize innovations in products and processes. Thus, one can conclude that if a country’s economy is to sustain long-run economic growth, the business environment must be conducive to the consistent production of product and process innovations and to entrepreneurial activity.
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP REQUIRE A MARKET ECONOMY
This leads logically to a further question: What is required for the business environment of a country to be conducive to innovation and entrepreneurial activity? Those who have considered this issue highlight the advantages of a market economy.7 It has been argued that the economic freedom associated with a market economy creates greater incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship than either a planned or a mixed economy. In a market economy, any individual who has an innovative idea is free to try to make money out of that idea by starting a business (by engaging in entrepreneurial activity). Similarly, existing businesses are free to improve their operations through innovation. To the extent that they are successful, both individual entrepreneurs and established businesses can reap rewards in the form of high profits. Thus, market economies contain enormous incentives to develop innovations.
In a planned economy, the state owns all means of production. Consequently, entrepreneurial individuals have few economic incentives to develop valuable new innovations, because it is the state, rather than the individual, that captures most of the gains. The lack of economic freedom and incentives for innovation was probably a main factor in the economic stagnation of many former communist states and led ultimately to their collapse at the end of the 1980s. Similar stagnation occurred in many mixed economies in those sectors where the state had a monopoly (such as coal mining and telecommunications in Great Britain). This stagnation provided the impetus for the widespread privatization of state-owned enterprises that we witnessed in many mixed economies during the mid-1980s and that is still going on today (privatization refers to the process of selling state-owned enterprises to private investors).
A study of 102 countries over a 20-year period provided evidence of a strong relation- ship between economic freedom (as provided by a market economy) and economic growth.8 The study found that the more economic freedom a country had between 1975 and 1995, the more economic growth it achieved and the richer its citizens became. The six countries that had persistently high ratings of economic freedom from 1975 to 1995 (Hong Kong, Switzerland, Singapore, the United States, Canada, and Germany) were also all in the top 10 in terms of economic growth rates. In contrast, no country with persistently low economic freedom achieved a respectable growth rate. In the 16 countries for which the index of economic freedom declined the most during 1975 to 1995, gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of 0.6 percent.
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP REQUIRE STRONG PROPERTY RIGHTS
Strong legal protection of property rights is another requirement for a business environment to be conducive to innovation, entrepreneurial activity, and hence eco- nomicgrowth.9 Both individuals and businesses must be given the opportunity to profit from innovative ideas. Without strong property rights protection, businesses and individuals run the risk that the profits from their innovative efforts will be expropriated, either by criminal elements or by the state. The state can expropriate the profits from innovation through legal means, such as excessive taxation, or through illegal means, such as demands from state bureaucrats for kickbacks in return for granting an individual or firm a license to do business in a certain area (i.e., corruption). According to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Douglass North, through- out history many governments have displayed a tendency to engage in such behaviour. Inadequately enforced property rights reduce the incentives for innovation and entrepreneurial activity—because the profits from such activity are “stolen”—and hence reduce the rate of economic growth.
The influential Peruvian development economist Hernando de Soto has argued that much of the developing world will fail to reap the benefits of capitalism until property rights are better defined and protected.10 De Soto’s arguments are interesting because he says the key problem is not the risk of expropriation but the chronic inability of prop- erty owners to establish legal title to the property they own. As an example of the scale of the problem, he cites the situation in Haiti, where individuals must take 176 steps over 19 years to own land legally. Because most property in poor countries is informally “owned,” the absence of legal proof of ownership means that property holders cannot convert their assets into capital, which could then be used to finance business ventures. Banks will not lend money to the poor to start businesses because the poor possess no proof that they own property, such as farmland, that can be used as collateral for a loan. By de Soto’s calculations, the total value of real estate held by the poor in Third World and former communist states amounted to more than $9.3 trillion in 2000. If those as- sets could be converted into capital, the result could be an economic revolution that would allow the poor to bootstrap their way out of poverty. Interestingly enough, the Chinese seem to have taken de Soto’s arguments to heart. Despite still being nominally a communist country, in October 2007 the government passed a law that gave private property owners the same rights as the state, and significantly improved the rights of urban and rural landowners to the land that they use (see the accompanying Country Focus for details).