Despite massive need for flat-pack furniture following the earthquake, Christchurch didn't manage to get an Ikea.* And there's yet no Ikea anywhere in New Zealand.
Last month, Christchurch people got mad that a Wendy's wanted to serve beer.
Meanwhile, Winnipeg's Ikea serves beer and wine.
* Trading on the iPredict market on whether there would be a Christchurch Ikea went as high as 18%. But Simon Bridges said we can't have iPredict any more, so I suppose there can't be a contract on whether we'll ever get an Ikea. So we're as bad as Manitoba on the predictions-market front now.
Showing posts with label Ikea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ikea. Show all posts
Monday, 30 November 2015
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Ikea-based globalization measures
This week's inbox brought a new "Index of Globalization" measure. New Zealand fared a bit worse than I expected - 78.3 points, well outside of the top 15, so I had a peek at the sub-indices.
Thirty-seven percent of the aggregate figure comes from "Social Globalization"; thirty-one percent of that figure is a measure of "cultural proximity" [11.5% of the overall score], forty-five percent of which is "Number of Ikea (per capita)". So that's a five percentage point reduction in New Zealand's overall score because we have no Ikea.
The highest "Cultural Proximity" score was Singapore, 2001: 97.4. New Zealand scored a 50.2; if we went from zero Ikea per capita to the top of the scale, we'd then have scored a 95.2. So it's not particularly puzzling that NZ scored very very badly on this measure.
You could say it's pretty silly to base 5% of a measure of overall globalization on the number of Ikeas in a country. But not having Ikeas does signal something relevant either about local demand or about how local planning authorities treat international firms, the latter likely as consequence of domestic competitors lodging anti-competitive complaints through the RMA about effects on traffic.
We also score relatively poorly in Political Globalization, undoubtedly affected by the smallish number of countries that reckon it worthwhile keeping embassies here and by that we participate in relatively few UN Security Council Missions. I'm less than convinced we ought to worry much about either of these.
But I was surprised that New Zealand scored poorly on measures of trade restrictions. If phytosanitary restrictions count as "hidden import barriers", then that could perhaps account for it. But our mean tariff rate is very low, taxes on international trade are a trivial part of current revenue unless they count excise-equivalent duty on imported alcohol and tobacco collected by Customs NZ as being tax on international trade, and there aren't really any capital account restrictions.
If I hear back from KOF on why they scored NZ poorly on trade restrictions, I'll update.
Thirty-seven percent of the aggregate figure comes from "Social Globalization"; thirty-one percent of that figure is a measure of "cultural proximity" [11.5% of the overall score], forty-five percent of which is "Number of Ikea (per capita)". So that's a five percentage point reduction in New Zealand's overall score because we have no Ikea.
The highest "Cultural Proximity" score was Singapore, 2001: 97.4. New Zealand scored a 50.2; if we went from zero Ikea per capita to the top of the scale, we'd then have scored a 95.2. So it's not particularly puzzling that NZ scored very very badly on this measure.
You could say it's pretty silly to base 5% of a measure of overall globalization on the number of Ikeas in a country. But not having Ikeas does signal something relevant either about local demand or about how local planning authorities treat international firms, the latter likely as consequence of domestic competitors lodging anti-competitive complaints through the RMA about effects on traffic.
We also score relatively poorly in Political Globalization, undoubtedly affected by the smallish number of countries that reckon it worthwhile keeping embassies here and by that we participate in relatively few UN Security Council Missions. I'm less than convinced we ought to worry much about either of these.
But I was surprised that New Zealand scored poorly on measures of trade restrictions. If phytosanitary restrictions count as "hidden import barriers", then that could perhaps account for it. But our mean tariff rate is very low, taxes on international trade are a trivial part of current revenue unless they count excise-equivalent duty on imported alcohol and tobacco collected by Customs NZ as being tax on international trade, and there aren't really any capital account restrictions.
If I hear back from KOF on why they scored NZ poorly on trade restrictions, I'll update.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Ikea for Christchurch
Remember back in 2008 when RMA considerations stopped an IKEA from opening up in Wellington? They would have been too popular, ruled the RMA boffins - the traffic would have been too bad to let them open. One wonders how much lobbying by Ikea's crappy NZ overpriced furniture competitors was involved. As a side note: if you're moving to NZ, fill up whatever space is left in your shipping container with IKEA flat packs, then sell them here on TradeMe for double the price.
Anyway, Susan suggests an excellent idea. If Gerry Brownlee is a one-man zoning-and-regulation-overruling machine, let's get an IKEA for Christchurch. Stuff the RMA processes where IKEA competitors wail and moan about lost amenity value or increased congestion. Now's the time to do it.
Lots of us need to buy new stuff due to quake damage. Gerry could designate a pile of land around the airport as being some new business development zone such that farmers could easily sell out to folks wanting to put the land to higher valued uses. It's in the shadow of flight paths, so they've not wanted to allow it for subdivisions. An IKEA would fit in just nicely.
Gerry, make it so. I'm hungry for some meatballs with lingenberries. Please tell IKEA that no red tape stands in their way if they want to open in Christchurch in the next year.
IKEA: if you've any kind of Google Alerts on your name and Gerry doesn't get in touch, and if you were still at all interested in a New Zealand location, now's the time to move. Please? Please!
Susan gets the credit on this one - her excellent idea.
Anyway, Susan suggests an excellent idea. If Gerry Brownlee is a one-man zoning-and-regulation-overruling machine, let's get an IKEA for Christchurch. Stuff the RMA processes where IKEA competitors wail and moan about lost amenity value or increased congestion. Now's the time to do it.
Lots of us need to buy new stuff due to quake damage. Gerry could designate a pile of land around the airport as being some new business development zone such that farmers could easily sell out to folks wanting to put the land to higher valued uses. It's in the shadow of flight paths, so they've not wanted to allow it for subdivisions. An IKEA would fit in just nicely.
Gerry, make it so. I'm hungry for some meatballs with lingenberries. Please tell IKEA that no red tape stands in their way if they want to open in Christchurch in the next year.
IKEA: if you've any kind of Google Alerts on your name and Gerry doesn't get in touch, and if you were still at all interested in a New Zealand location, now's the time to move. Please? Please!
Susan gets the credit on this one - her excellent idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)