CFO inside debt and corporate innovation

This thesis examines the importance of CFO incentives on the value maximization of firm. It examines the association between CFO inside debt compensation i.e., CFO pensions and deferred compensation, and investment in corporate innovation. It finds that instead of encouraging innovation, CFO inside debt appears to have a dampening effect on investment in innovation.

The Life Cycle of Corporate Venture Capital

This paper establishes the life-cycle dynamics of Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) to explore the information acquisition role of CVC investment in the process of corporate innovation. I exploit an identification strategy that allows me to isolate exogenous shocks to a firm's ability to innovate. Using this strategy, I first find that the CVC life cycle typically begins following a period of deteriorated corporate innovation and increasingly valuable external information, lending support to the hypothesis that firms conduct CVC investment to acquire information and innovation knowledge from startups. Building on this analysis, I show that CVCs acquire information by investing in companies with similar technological focus but have a different knowledge base. Following CVC investment, parent firms internalize the newly acquired knowledge into internal R&D and external acquisition decisions. Human capital renewal, such as hiring inventors who can integrate new innovation knowledge, is integral in this step. The CVC life cycle lasts about four years, terminating as innovation in the parent firm rebounds. These findings shed new light on discussions about firm boundaries, managing innovation, and corporate information choices.

A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes

Eco-innovations, eco-efficiency and corporate social responsibility practices define much of the current industrial sustainability agenda. While important, they are insufficient in themselves to deliver the holistic changes necessary to achieve long-term social and environmental sustainability. How can we encourage corporate innovation that significantly changes the way companies operate to ensure greater sustainability? Sustainable business models (SBM) incorporate a triple bottom line approach and consider a wide range of stakeholder interests, including environment and society. They are important in driving and implementing corporate innovation for sustainability, can help embed sustainability into business purpose and processes, and serve as a key driver of competitive advantage. Many innovative approaches may contribute to delivering sustainability through business models, but have not been collated under a unifying theme of business model innovation. The literature and business practice review has identified a wide range of examples of mechanisms and solutions that can contribute to business model innovation for sustainability. The examples were collated and analysed to identify defining patterns and attributes that might facilitate categorisation. Sustainable business model archetypes are introduced to describe groupings of mechanisms and solutions that may contribute to building up the business model for sustainability. The aim of these archetypes is to develop a common language that can be used to accelerate the development of sustainable business models in research and practice. The archetypes are: Maximise material and energy efficiency; Create value from 'waste'; Substitute with renewables and natural processes; Deliver functionality rather than ownership; Adopt a stewardship role; Encourage sufficiency; Re-purpose the business for society/environment; and Develop scale-up solutions. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Gestão da inovação no setor público: acumulação de capacidades tecnológicas e os processos subjacentes de aprendizagem: evidências da Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional do Brasil durante o período de 1986 a 2005

Estudo de caso, referente a acumulação de capacidades tecnológicas e aos processos subjacentes de aprendizagem no âmbito da Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional do Brasil - entre 1986 a 2005

Structural change and productivity growth, 20 years later: old problems, new opportunities

Includes bibliography

Un modelo de relación entre los programas de innovación abierta y la creación de valor

En un mundo donde el cambio es constante y cada vez más vertiginoso, la innovación es el combustible que utilizan las empresas que permite su renovación constante y, como consecuencia, su supervivencia en el largo plazo. La innovación es sin dudas un elemento fundamental para determinar la capacidad de las empresas en crear valor a lo largo del tiempo, y por ello, las empresas suelen dedicar esfuerzos considerables y recursos de todo tipo para identificar nuevas alternativas de innovación que se adapten a su estrategia, cultura, objetivos y ambiciones corporativas. Una forma específica para llevar a cabo la innovación es la innovación abierta. Esta se entiende como la innovación que se realiza de manera conjunta con otras empresas o participantes del ecosistema. Cabe la aclaración que en este documento se toma la definición de ecosistema referida al conjunto de clientes, proveedores, competidores y otros participantes que interactúan en un mismo entorno donde existen posiciones de liderazgo que pueden cambiar a lo largo del tiempo (Moore 1996). El termino de innovación abierta fue acuñado por Henry Chesbrough hace algo mas de una década para referirse a esta forma particular de organizar la innovación corporativa. Como se observa en el presente trabajo la innovación abierta es un nuevo paradigma que ha capturado el interés académico y empresarial desde algo más de una década. Se verán varios casos de innovación abierta que se están llevando a cabo en diversos países y sectores de la economía. El objetivo principal de este trabajo de investigación es el de desarrollar y explicar un modelo de relación entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor en las empresas. Para ello, y como objetivos secundarios, se ha investigado los elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, los impulsores 1 de creación de valor, el proceso de creación de valor y, finalmente, la interacción entre estos tres elementos. Como producto final de la investigación se ha desarrollado un marco teórico general para establecer la conexión entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor que facilita la explicación de la interacción entre ambos elementos. Se observa a partir de los casos de estudio que la innovación abierta puede abarcar todos los sectores de la economía, múltiples geografías y empresas de distintos tamaños (grandes empresas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, incluso empresas de reciente creación) cada una de ellas con distinta relevancia dentro del ecosistema en el que participan. Elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta La presente investigación comienza con la enumeración de los distintos elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. De esta manera, se describen los diversos elementos que se han identificado a través de la revisión de la literatura académica que se ha llevado a cabo. En función de una serie de características comunes, los distintos elementos se agrupan en cuatro niveles diferentes para lograr un mejor entendimiento de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. A continuación se detallan estos elementos § Organización del Programa. En primer lugar se menciona la existencia de una estructura organizativa capaz de cumplir una serie de objetivos establecidos previamente. Por su naturaleza de innovación abierta deberá existir cierto grado de interacción entre los distintos miembros que participen en el proceso de innovación. § Talento Interno. El talento interno asociado a los programas de innovación abierta juega un rol fundamental en la ejecución y éxito del programa. Bajo este nivel se asocian elementos como la cultura de innovación abierta y el liderazgo como mecanismo para entender uno de los elementos que explica el grado de adopción de innovación en una empresa. Estrechamente ligados al liderazgo se encuentran los comportamientos organizacionales como elementos diferenciadores para aumentar las posibilidades de creación de innovación abierta. § Infraestructura. En este nivel se agrupan los elementos relacionados con la infraestructura tecnológica necesaria para llevar a cabo el programa incluyendo los procesos productivos y las herramientas necesarias para la gestión cotidiana. § Instrumentos. Por último, se mencionan los instrumentos o vehículos que se utilizan en el entorno corporativo para implementar innovación abierta. Hay varios instrumentos disponibles como las incubadoras corporativas, los acuerdos de licenciamiento o las áreas de capital de riesgo corporativo. Para este último caso se hará una mención especial por el creciente y renovado interés que ha despertado tanto en el entorno académico como empresarial. Se ha identificado al capital de riesgo corporativo como un de los elementos diferenciales en el desarrollo de la estrategia de innovación abierta de las empresas ya que suele aportar credibilidad, capacidad y soporte tecnológico. Estos cuatro elementos, interactuando de manera conjunta y coordinada, tienen la capacidad de crear, potenciar e incluso desarrollar impulsores de creación de valor que impactan en la estrategia y organización de la empresa y partir de aquí en su desempeño financiero a lo largo del tiempo. Los Impulsores de Creación de Valor Luego de identificar, ordenar y describir los distintos elementos presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta se ha avanzado en la investigación con los impulsores de creación de valor. Estos pueden definirse como elementos que potencian o determinan la capacidad de crear valor dentro del entorno empresarial. Como se puede observar, se detallan estos impulsores como punto de interacción entre los elementos del programa y el proceso de creación de valor corporativo. A lo largo de la presente investigación se han identificado 6 impulsores de creación de valor presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. § Nuevos Productos y Servicios. El impulsor de creación de valor más directo y evidente en un Programa de Innovación Abierta es la capacidad de crear nuevos productos y servicios dado que se relacionan directamente con el proceso de innovación de la empresa § Acceso a Mercados Adyacentes. El proceso de innovación también puede ser una fuente de valor al permitir que la empresa acceda a mercados cercanos a su negocio tradicional, es decir satisfaciendo nuevas necesidades de sus clientes existentes o de nuevos clientes en otro mercado. § Disponibilidad de Tecnologías. La disponibilidad de tecnologías es un impulsor en si mismo de la creación de valor. Estas pueden ser tanto complementarias como de apalancamiento de tecnologías ya existentes dentro de la empresa y que tengan la función de transformar parte de los componentes de la estrategia de la empresa. § Atracción del Talento Externo. La introducción de un Programa de Innovación Abierta en una empresa ofrece la oportunidad de interactuar con otras organizaciones del ecosistema y, por tanto, de atraer el talento externo. La movilidad del talento es una característica singular de la innovación abierta. § Participación en un Ecosistema Virtuoso. Se ha observado que las acciones realizadas en el entorno por cualquiera de los participantes también tendrán un claro impacto en la creación de valor para el resto de participantes por lo tanto la participación en un ecosistema virtuoso es un impulsor de creación de valor presente en la innovación abierta. § Tecnología “Dentro--‐Fuera”. Como último impulsor de valor es necesario comentar que la dirección que puede seguir la tecnología puede ser desde la empresa hacia el resto del ecosistema generando valor a partir de disponibilizar tecnologías que no son de utilidad interna para la empresa. Estos seis impulsores de creación de valor, presentes en los procesos de innovación corporativos, tienen la capacidad de influir en la estrategia y organización de la empresa aumentando su habilidad de crear valor. El Proceso de Creación de Valor en las Empresas Luego se ha investigado la práctica de la gestión basada en valor que sostiene la necesidad de alinear la estrategia corporativa y el diseño de la organización con el fin de obtener retornos financieros superiores al resto de los competidores de manera sostenida, y finalmente crear valor a lo largo del tiempo. Se describe como los impulsores de creación de valor influyen en la creación y fortalecimiento de las ventajas competitivas de la empresa impactando y alineando su estrategia y organización. Durante la investigación se ha identificado que las opciones reales pueden utilizarse como una herramienta para gestionar entornos de innovación abierta que, por definición, tienen altos niveles de incertidumbre. Las opciones reales aportan una capacidad para la toma de decisiones de forma modular y flexible que pueden aplicarse al entorno corporativo. Las opciones reales han sido particularmente diseñadas para entender, estructurar y gestionar entornos de múltiples incertidumbres y por ello tienen una amplia aplicación en los entornos de innovación. Se analizan los usos potenciales de las opciones reales como complemento a los distintos instrumentos identificados en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. La Interacción Entre los Programas de Innovación Abierta, los Impulsores de Creación de Valor y el Proceso de Creación de Valor A modo de conclusión del presente trabajo se puede mencionar que se ha desarrollado un marco general de creación de valor en el entorno de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Este marco general incluye tres elementos fundamentales. En primer lugar describe los elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta, en segundo lugar como estos programas colaboran en la creación de los seis impulsores de creación de valor que se han identificado y finalmente en tercer lugar como estos impulsores impactan sobre la estrategia y la organización de la empresa para dar lugar a la creación de valor de forma sostenida. A través de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, se pueden desarrollar los impulsores de valor para fortalecer la posición estratégica de la empresa y su capacidad de crear de valor. Es lo que denominamos el marco de referencia para la creación de valor en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. Se presentará la idea que los impulsores de creación de valor pueden colaborar en generar una estrategia óptima que permita alcanzar un desempeño financiero superior y lograr creación de valor de la empresa. En resumen, se ha desarrollado un modelo de relación que describe el proceso de creación de valor en la empresa a partir de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Para ello, se han identificado los impulsores de creación de valor y se ha descripto la interacción entre los distintos elementos del modelo. ABSTRACT In a world of constant, accelerating change innovation is fuel for business. Year after year, innovation allows firms to renew and, therefore, advance their long--‐term survival. Undoubtedly, innovation is a key element for the firms’ ability to create value over time. Companies often devote considerable effort and diverse resources to identify innovation alternatives that could fit into their strategy, culture, corporate goals and ambitions. Open innovation refers to a specific approach to innovate by collaborating with other firms operating within the same business ecosystem.2 The term open innovation was pioneered by Henry Chesbrough more than a decade ago to refer to this particular mode of driving corporate innovation. Open innovation is a new paradigm that has attracted academic and business interest for over a decade. Several cases of open innovation from different countries and from different economic sectors are included and reviewed in this document. The main objective of this study is to explain and develop a relationship model between open innovation and value creation. To this end, and as secondary objectives, we have explored the elements of an Open Innovation Program, the drivers of value creation, the process of value creation and, finally, the interaction between these three elements. As a final product of the research we have developed a general theoretical framework for establishing the connection between open innovation and value creation that facilitates the explanation of the interaction between the two. From the case studies we see that open innovation can encompass all sectors of the economy, multiple geographies and varying businesses – large companies, SMEs, including (even) start--‐ups – each with a different relevance within the ecosystem in which they participate. Elements of an Open Innovation Program We begin by listing and describing below the items that can be found in an Open Innovation Program. Many of such items have been identified through the review of relevant academic literature. Furthermore, in order to achieve a better understanding of Open Innovation, we have classified those aspects into four different categories according to the features they share. § Program Organization. An organizational structure must exist with a degree of interaction between the different members involved in the innovation process. This structure must be able to meet a number of previously established objectives. § Internal Talent. Internal talent plays a key role in the implementation and success of any Open Innovation program. An open innovation culture and leadership skills are essential for adopting either radical or incremental innovation. In fact, leadership is closely linked to organizational behavior and it is essential to promote open innovation. § Infrastructure. This category groups the elements related to the technological infrastructure required to carry out the program, including production processes and daily management tools. § Instruments. Finally, we list the instruments or vehicles used in the corporate environment to implement open innovation. Several instruments are available, such as corporate incubators, licensing agreements or venture capital. There has been a growing and renewed interest in the latter, both in academia and business circles. The use of corporate venture capital to sustain the development of the open innovation strategy brings ability, credibility, and technological support to the process. The combination of elements from these four categories, interacting in a coordinated way, makes it possible to create, enhance and develop value creation drivers that may impact the company’s strategy and organization and affect its financial performance over time. The Drivers of Value Creation After identifying describing and categorizing the different elements present in an Open Innovation Program our research examines the drivers of value creation. These can be defined as elements that enhance or determine the ability to create value in the business environment. As can be seen, these drivers can act as interacting points between the elements of the program and the process of value creation. The study identifies six drivers of value creation that might be found in an Open Innovation Program. § New Products and Services. The more direct and obvious driver of value creation in any Open Innovation Program is the ability to create new products and services. This is directly related to the company’s innovation process. § Access to Adjacent Markets. The innovation process can also serve as a source of value by granting access to adjacent markets through satisfying new needs for existing customers or attracting new customers from other markets. § Availability of Technologies. The availability of technology is in itself a driver for value creation. New technologies can either be complementary and/or can leverage existing technologies within the firm. They can partly transform certain elements of the company’s strategy. § External Talent Strategy. Incorporating an Open Innovation Program offers the opportunity to interact with other organizations operating in the same ecosystem and can therefore attract external skilled resources. Talent mobility is a unique feature of open innovation. § Becoming Part of a Virtuous Circle. The actions carried out in the environment by any of its members will also have a clear impact on value creation for the other participants. Participation in a virtuous ecosystem is thus a driver for value creation in an open innovation strategy. § Inside--‐out Technology. Value creation may also evolve by allowing other firms in the ecosystem to incorporate internally developed under--‐utilized technologies into their own innovation processes. These six drivers that are present in the innovation process can influence the strategy and the organization of the company, increasing its ability to create value. The Value Creation Process Value--‐based management is the management approach that requires aligning the corporate strategy and the organizational design to create value and obtain sustained financial returns (at least, higher returns than its competitors). We describe how the drivers of value creation can enhance corporate advantages by aligning its strategy and organization. During this study, we were able to determine that real options can be used as managing tools in open innovation environments which, by definition, have high uncertainty levels. Real options provide capability for flexible and modular decision--‐making in the business environment. In particular, real options have been designed for uncertainty management and, therefore, they may be widely applied in innovation environments. We analyze potential uses of real options to supplement the various instruments identified in the Open Innovation programs. The Interaction Between Open Innovation Programs, Value Creation drivers and Value Creation Process As a result of this study, we have developed a general framework for value creation in Open Innovation Programs. This framework includes three key elements. We first described the elements that are present in Open Innovation Programs. Next, we showed how these programs can boost six drivers of value creation that have been identified. Finally, we analyzed how the drivers impact on the strategy and organization of the company in order to lead to the creation of sustainable value. Through an Open Innovation Program, value drivers can be developed to strengthen a company’s strategic position and its ability to create value. That is what we call the framework for value creation in the Open Innovation Program. Value drivers can collaborate in generating an optimal strategy that helps foster a superior financial performance and a sustained value creation process. In sum, we have developed a relationship model that describes the process of creating value in a firm with an Open Innovation Program. We have identified the drivers of value creation and described how the different elements of the model interact with each other.

Organizational ambidexterity and corporate entrepreneurship : the differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal processes

Most corporate entrepreneurship studies have focused on either innovation, venturing or strategic renewal making comparison between the antecedents of all three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship difficult. Moreover, studies on corporate entrepreneurship hardly address organizational antecedents, while simultaneously managing and organizing CE and mainstream activities has been seen as a major challenge for incumbent firms. Our findings show that organizational ambidexterity has strong and differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal. We find, for example, that innovation is affected by horizontal integration, while strategic renewal is significantly influenced by integration on top management team level.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

Open source innovation in physical products : advantages and disadvantages, a corporate perspective

A better understanding of Open Source Innovation in Physical Product (OSIP) might allow project managers to mitigate risks associated with this innovation model and process, while developing the right strategies to maximise OSIP outputs. In the software industry, firms have been highly successful using Open Source Innovation (OSI) strategies. However, OSI in the physical world has not been studied leading to the research question: What advantages and disadvantages do organisations incur from using OSI in physical products? An exploratory research methodology supported by thirteen semi-structured interviews helped us build a seven-theme framework to categorise advantages and disadvantages elements linked with the use of OSIP. In addition, factors impacting advantage and disadvantage elements for firms using OSIP were identified as: „h Degree of openness in OSIP projects; „h Time of release of OSIP in the public domain; „h Use of Open Source Innovation in Software (OSIS) in conjunction with OSIP; „h Project management elements (Project oversight, scope and modularity); „h Firms. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) values; „h Value of the OSIP project to the community. This thesis makes a contribution to the body of innovation theory by identifying advantages and disadvantages elements of OSIP. Then, from a contingency perspective it identifies factors which enhance or decrease advantages, or mitigate/ or increase disadvantages of OSIP. In the end, the research clarifies the understanding of OSI by clearly setting OSIP apart from OSIS. The main practical contribution of this paper is to provide manager with a framework to better understand OSIP as well as providing a model, which identifies contingency factors increasing advantage and decreasing disadvantage. Overall, the research allows managers to make informed decisions about when they can use OSIP and how they can develop strategies to make OSIP a viable proposition. In addition, this paper demonstrates that advantages identified in OSIS cannot all be transferred to OSIP, thus OSIP decisions should not be based upon OSIS knowledge.

Profitability and the poor: corporate strategies, innovation and sustainability

Based on empirical evidence, the article looks at the implications of private sector participation (PSP) for the delivery of water supply and sanitation to the urban and peri-urban poor in developing countries, with particular reference to Africa and Latin America. More precisely, the article addresses the impact produced by multinational companies’ (MNCs) strategies, in light of the pursuit of profitability, on the extension of connections to the pipeline network. It does so by questioning the assumptions that greater private sector efficiency and innovation, together with contract design, will enable the sustainable extension of service coverage to low income dwellers. The strategies of the major water MNCs are considered both in relation to the global expansion of their operations and the adjustment of local strategies to commercial considerations. The latter might result in identifying proWtable markets, modifying contractual provisions, attempting to reduce costs and increase income, reducing risks and exiting from non-performing contracts. The evidence reviewed allows for re-assessing the relative roles of the public and private sectors in extending and delivering water services to the poor. First, the most far reaching innovative approaches to extending connections are more likely to come from communities, public authorities and political activity than from MNCs. Secondly, whenever MNCs are liable to exit from non-profitable contracts, the public sector has no other option than to deal with external risks aVecting continuity of provision. Finally, market limitations affecting MNCs’ ability to serve marginal populations and access cheap capital do not apply to well-organised, politically led public sector undertakings