The Teaching of Commerce: The Role of Enterprise and Wealth Creation in the Global Economy

 The Role of Enterprise and Wealth Creation in the Global Economy

I am going to talk about the Enterprise Education Trust. It has a long heritage, over 30 years, but now includes a number of different organisations within it. The Business Dynamics was founded through 3i, when two people came together, a teacher and, I believe, her brother, who was a businessman. The businessman was bemoaning the fact, 30-plus years ago, that the pupils did not know anything about business and enterprise, and so the teacher said, 'Well, come to the classroom and tell them!' So he did, and they got involved, and now we have about 1,000 companies who provide their managers.

There is the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE), which is more about teaching the teachers; and Achievers International, which is an international version. NFTE is an American idea, based on Wall Street, and it is particularly about disadvantaged kids and schools that look after them. It actually teaches the teachers, and we are the British embodiment of that.

Achievers International is a computer-based scheme, whereby the pupils can trade with pupils in other countries. We launched that just a few months ago, at the German Embassy in London, because the German and British connection on Achievers International is very strong. We had girl pupils, from a school in Hackney and girls from Berlin at the launch, four of each, and you will be interested to know that the German girls were selling our girls German chocolate bars, and one thing which our girls had found they do not have in Germany apparently is Blu-Tack, so they were doing a great trade in Blu-Tack for use in the school and in people's homes. It is a very active project.

The three of those really all contribute to the idea of Enterprise Education, and we reach about 50,000 pupils a year. We also run conferences and various other things like that. I just heard of some successful conferences both in Disneyland and in New York. 

That is the Enterprise Education Trust. It is a charity. I chair the trustees, and David Miller is the chap who does the real work, as the Chief Executive, with his team. So that gives you an idea of where we're coming from.

I am going to be talking about the role of enterprise and wealth creation in the global economy.

We have got to be enterprising, we have got to be risk-taking, and we have got to be risk-taking and enterprising not only here, but around the world.

This is a collation of various presentations, most of which I gave as various lectures at the Royal Society of Arts, which, as many of you will know, is in John Adams Street in London. It is one of the earliest learned societies, founded during the age of Enlightenment by William Shipley. He had five objectives when it was founded. Its full name is the Royal Society of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce, and Arts does not actually mean paintings on the wall. It has its 18th Century meaning of things made by hand, which still survives in the word 'artisan'. Paintings and sculpture were actually known in those days as 'the polite arts', but arts were generally things made by hand. Shipley had a good idea. He had just heard about this thing called 'manufactures'.  He thought this might be useful, might go somewhere, this idea of manufactures, because in 1754 very few things were manufactured - a few pins and whatever, but all the furniture, everything else, was made by hand - but he could see the potential, and commerce of course. So it is really things made by hand, things made by machines, and commerce to pull them together. His the first objective, way back then, was to embolden enterprise, which I think is a wonderful phrase. It was under that sort of heading that these various comments were put together. 

The first set of objectives is to help you to understand better the level of risk we face and how our perceptions can be distorted, and then, when we have done that, I hope you will feel liberated to be even more enterprising than you were before.

We know that there are only two things certain in life, which are death and taxes. Taxes are pretty boring, so I thought I would do death this afternoon!

How many people will die today in the whole world? How likely do you think it is that you will die in the next year, and how much more likely is the average person in India to die in the next year compared to the average person in the UK?

The answer is 175,000. In the world, there are about nearly seven billion people. Of the order of 1% die every year, that is 65 million, and you divide that by the number of days, and you get about 175,000 people dying every day. People's perception of risk is often much worse than the real risk. 

Of course, it does vary around the world, and if one looks at the countries in Africa, sadly, Mozambique, in one of the recent years, had the worst death rate. Then one can look at the European situation, and that goes right down. Our population is 53.4 million, and 536,000 are dying every year. So it is 1%, but what does that mean?  How likely is the average person in Britain to die in the next year?  One in 100. The great room of the Royal Society of Arts holds, almost exactly, 200 people, and only two of them who come to any lecture would not be expected to come back the following year, to be dead.

The next question was: how much more likely are you to die in India than you are in the UK? The average person in India to die than here is 0.9%. That is because they are younger. Young people don't die. So these things are all not what you have expected, and that is just a very simple way of showing how perceptions of risk are so often different from what people believe. Indeed, until you understand these very simple figures, putting the news in context, when there is another plane crash or there is swine 'flu or whatever, unless you sort of have a concept of how the whole thing is, how do you know whether that is a big or small incident'

Of course, there are various ways of dying. You can drive and smash the car - that gets rid of quite a few. If you don't, if you take it safely, or you think you are, you can go on a train. That is not guaranteed to be foolproof and trains do their thing. Of course, you can fly, but we read a lot about the problems of flying. Even if you don't do any of those things, when you just go about your normal life all sorts of things can happen to you.

In England and Wales, about 1,500 people a day die. There are two ways of dying, in very simple terms: internal, which is a medical issue, of whatever sort - something goes wrong with you; or external, outside intervention, such as collision, accident, murder, poisoning, whatever. So the next question really is: what proportion of deaths are internal and what external; and then we will look at what are the consequences for deploying public resources.

Our of the half a million people who die every year, it is only 16,000 who die from external causes, but it is of course those which dominate the newspapers and the television and the radio, and therefore people get an impression that it is much higher. Indeed, if we think of great rooms, 3%, that's one in 3,000, so we would have to put 15 great rooms together, each with 200 people in them, and the probability is that only one person in all those 15 rooms, one in 3,000, will actually die from external causes in the next year. That is something that is not usually in anybody's thinking.

However, we have also to look at the public policy consequences of this mismatch, and it is obviously not all just about statistics when you get to the politics and the public policy. We, sadly, learnt that very strongly at the Royal Society of Arts, because one of our staff was killed in the terrorist outrages on 7/7, a very nice young lady, Carrie Taylor. We did whatever we could with her family, condolences, etc. and planted a tree in her honour, but obviously nothing could bring Carrie back. When you get that conjunction of a personal incident with those statistics, that is where public policy becomes much more difficult, because what has to happen is to balance the national statistics against the personal tragedy, and it very much depends on perceptions, because one death, or in that case, 52 deaths, can fill the newspapers full for days, if not weeks; but when you get the wrong perceptions, and this is obviously very much related to enterprise, when you get the wrong perceptions, you normally get the wrong answer. 

Examples are school trips. School trips are pretty safe things but sadly, occasionally, a pupil is hurt or even killed on a school trip. It makes very big news, and therefore teachers and school authorities are very loath to take children on trips.

Rail safety investment: When a train crashes, killing somebody, it hits the news hugely, so we are currently spending about £20 million per perceived saved life on the railways to safety improvement, signalling, etc. whereas there are many road safety schemes, with about £1 million per perceived saved life, which are not going ahead.

I should actually say, under rail safety, another interesting statistic is about 300 people are killed on the railways every year, not as passengers, but as suicides. The average for passengers is 5 to 10, and some years none. By far the biggest cause of death on the railways is suicide. It is almost one a day. I knew the chap who is Chairman of Network Rail and he had to sadly write to all the families when this happened, and it is obviously traumatic also for the train drivers.

Moving on to the Dangerous Dogs or Handgun Acts. There were two different Government parties in power, but in both cases, there was a huge overreaction to the publicity. Similarly, with financial services regulation, there is a tremendous propensity to regulate, lots of boxes to fill in, whereas Robert Maxwell probably never filled in the boxes he should have done truthfully.

Why is all this happening? A lot of it is because of the media. This is not to blame the media. This is just a fact of how it operates. Because, historically, we obtained a lot of information from our community - the local shopkeeper, the local vicar, whoever it might be. We lived in a little village or town, we observed what happened, and we knew when somebody had died or whatever, but most of them obviously died from natural causes and people understood that. Now of course, it is very different, because the media will tend to highlight the dramatic rather than the undramatic.

The media is now very fragmented, very competitive, and very keen to get the best stories as they perceive them, on the front page. Journalists tend to be trained in words and not in numbers, and if you have been involved with any story that has appeared, you will often find it is actually the numbers that are not well represented, and that can be very misleading, because in the end of course it is the numbers that are going to generate the risk. 

An example is air crashes. We know air crashes, wherever they happen in the world, tend to get a good position in the newspapers, but they do not, for balance, say that every day four million people fly in a commercial aircraft, that there are actually 25,000 commercial aircraft in the world, and they spend about a third of their time in the air, so at any one time there are 8,000 of them buzzing around up there, which is much more of a miracle than when the occasional one crashes; but because the bad news is highlighted, that is the impression that is given.

Sadly, that is also true of business, because it is when companies crash, when they have a problem, that they tend to get in the newspaper. That gives pupils and many other people the wrong impression of business: not that the great majority of business are most of the time creating wealth, but that, occasionally, there is some scandal or fraud or misdirected strategy that causes a problem.

Another simple example of how things are misreported: there was a headline, 'Ibuprofen can raise risk of heart attack.'  You will see, in the second paragraph, 'a study'' etc. ''increases the chances of an attack by almost a quarter.'  This scared a lot of people, and it is mainly older people who take Ibuprofen, for arthritis and things like that. A lot rushed down to the doctor or stopped taking the stuff, because that sounded pretty grim. If you go to the penultimate paragraph though, it says, 'For Ibuprofen, the study suggests there will be an extra heart attack for roughly every 1,000 patients,' and actually the risk had gone up very, very slightly, from about 0.8 to one per 100,000 or whatever. So although it was true that the risk had gone up by a quarter, the risk, even at the higher level, was vanishingly small and much less than many other risks.

Now, all of this tends to be exacerbated by grief. Grief plays a large part in this, and it is good graphic stuff. The politicians vie with each other to provide the best sound-bite, and the stories can often run a lot. So all those pressures are on the political system, but what we have to always be aware of is the law of unintended consequences, that the actions of people, and especially of Government, always have effects that are unintended.

I saw an example of this when I was at the Cabinet Office 10 or so years ago. There was a tragedy called the Lyme Bay tragedy, where four children drowned on a boating expedition in Lyme Bay. It was the result of a series of things that happened, but it made very big headline news, and of course the families concerned were very badly hit by the death of their children, and they started a campaign, basically a 'something must be done' campaign. The Health & Safety Executive looked at it and said it was essentially a freak accident. They could not see any sort of thing that was particularly wrong. The campaign continued, so other bodies looked at it, including the Government, and they concluded that, oh no, this was a freak accident. But, in those days, John Major had a very small majority in the House of Commons, and one of the Conservative MPs in that area I guess thought it would do him some good with his local constituency, and so he put forward a Private Members' Bill, that all such places should be licensed. Because the Government was weak and it got a lot of support from the national newspapers, in the end, the Bill went through, and set up a licensing agency for all of these places. 

At the time, the estimate was there were about 1,500 places that provided various adventure-type holidays, mountaineering, hill climbing, boating, etc. As a result of the licensing, many of them just could not face the bureaucracy, or the cost of the bureaucracy, and a significant number of them closed down. So in fact, the consequence of that has been that millions of school trips and adventure holidays for children have not now taken place that otherwise would have done, and the number of lives saved, of course one cannot know, but in fact, the industry had a very good safety record before that incident.

The Duke of Edinburgh had a very good quote on this. He is the President of the Royal Society of Arts. 'However, genuine accidents do happen, and it is important to differentiate between incidents which are due to lack of knowledge and experience, and those which are genuinely unforeseeable accidents. There is naturally an emphasis on the risks inherent in all adventurous activities, but this needs to be balanced against the risks of not being allowed to take part. We should take into account the consequences to young people of not being exposed to any form of physical challenge. It can result in a lack of fitness and resistance to disease, to obesity. It can lead to the choice of alternative thrills, such as drugs, drink and crime, and it can lead to alienation from the family and to becoming unsuitable for employment. The question that the safety-obsessed need to answer is: are the risks in adventurous activities more acceptable than the risks of the alternatives?'

I hope that gives you an idea of how, from a public policy point, it works, but in fact it works very similarly in a business way as well, because you have perceptions, you may do some work and due diligence, but there are always pressures about what to do, and often pressures not to do things. So just think, what is risk, and really, it is an evaluation of the costs and the benefits of an activity. Do you stay at home, or do you take the risk of going out and being run over? Do you go mountain climbing because you like the views? Or do you spend your time and effort trying to develop a new idea and turn it into some sort of enterprise? Risk-taking implies a possible loss. It is inherently failure-prone. If it was not, it would be called sure-thing taking, but it is not called sure-thing taking'it is because there is a possibility of failure. Of course, there is a variability in the outcome, and the higher the risk, the greater the likely return. If you do something that nobody else is doing and you succeed, that is really good, but obviously, the higher the risk, also the greater the variability from one outcome, because if you can only climb the mountain once and you fall off, then clearly that is not a good thing.

That translates into learning, because why do we take risks? If there is a chance of failure, why do we do it? Why don't we just all lead a very steady simple life, sit at home, presumably without electricity or steps or anything like that, and just be very safe?only eating food that our poison-taster has already had? The reason we take risks, essentially, is to expand our level of experience. That can either be physical, like the adventure holidays, or intellectual. You can think through things, new theories. Scientists have lots of new theories, some of which are proven to be true, and many of which fall by the wayside or are better developed by others. This is also true, of course, about artists.

If you have more risk, it gives a larger pool. If there are more people taking more risks, then there is a bigger amount of activity taking place. There is obviously the possibility of a problem, with a lot of people taking risks, with the new enterprises or whatever it may be, but there is also the probability of something new coming forward, because with more people who take a risk, it increases the number of samples. There is a large gain in experience, either from the success or the lack of success, and it brings advances when somebody is successful.

In the education system, enterprise and learning, we, the Enterprise Education Trust, bring business to life for students. We do a lot of research with pupils and students, kindly donated normally by NOP, the opinion poll people, who organise it for it on a pro bono basis. When you ask them, 66% say they have a pretty vague knowledge of the world of work and enterprise, and 42% see the world of work as scary. It does confirm, as with public policy, they get most of their stereotypes from the media. It is estimated that about 30% of murders on television are by businessmen or on the orders of businessmen. It gives an inaccurate picture of business, because if and when they watch the news - and that is about the only place that business features - the only thing they really see are the ones that have gone bankrupt or the chap who is going to jail, for whatever reason, and as I said earlier that is a very small proportion of the whole group.

An interesting way of looking at this is through art, art and uncertainty. Norman Foster, the architect, said, 'Creativity and arts are troubled by aversion to uncertainty.' If you do not want to experiment, if you do not want to try something new, then you are not going to make much of an advance. If one thinks of all the artists over the years, the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of artists that have tried to make a difference, to try and find a creative leap, very few of them have been a  great success. Often, they have not even been deemed to be a success until they are dead. Lots of them have died penniless. But they took the risk to really make a difference, and if you don't have lots and lots of people trying to make a difference, then in you don't get any difference made, you do not get any advance. 

Picasso saw that. He said, 'success is dangerous. One begins to copy oneself. It is more dangerous than to copy others. It leads to sterility.' So if we all just keep going on doing the same thing all the time, we really do not make any advance, and if we don't, the really big risk is the risk of no risk. Roosevelt said, 'The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.'

On the positive side, Mark Twain said, 'Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things you did not do than by the ones that you did do, so throw off the bow line, sail away from the safe harbour, catch the tradewinds in your sails, explore, dream, discover?'  That's the positive side, and that is the sort of message we try to get across. Because there are risks in companies, but there are risks in big companies as well as small ones. Of the top 25 US companies in 1900, by 1960 only two were still in that group, a 3% drop per annum. We tend to think of big companies as the corporate womb and a very safe sort of environment, but in fact, over time, they are not, and the time over which they are not is decreasing, because of the 10 best ones in 1960, only three were in that category by 1985, a 5% dropout. One of the most famous management books of the 1980s was In Search of Excellence, by Peters & Waterman, and that was in 1982, and by 1984, Business Weekhad a front cover entitled 'Oops!' They reckoned 14 had already fallen off their pedestal in two years, so that is a 15% drop per annum. So people may think it is easier to go into a big company, but even there, the risks exist.

Back in the 1980s, I did a buy-out of the food companies of Cadburys Schweppes to form a company called Premier Brands - they were a 'roll call' of the brands from the supermarket.  'We took that on, it worked well, I'm pleased to say, but there were still risks inherent in any business activity. We were almost brought down by a paperclip at one stage, because a well-meaning person in the office that sent out the invoices to the supermarkets so we could get our money managed to paperclip together the invoice to Sainsbury with the invoice to Kwiksave, which meant that Kwiksave got all the prices that we were charging to Sainsbury! We were fortunate that, in almost every case, the prices to Kwiksave were cheaper than the ones to Sainsbury, but had the paperclip gone the other way, to Sainsbury, it would have been a complete and absolute disaster. So things can happen, even in brilliantly run companies!

But Darwin was right: the fittest survive. This is of course the 200thanniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication ofOrigin of Species. The fittest survive;  but you have to decide, we have to be able to pass on, when we are teaching and learning, how to gauge these things.

Robert Heller, the management writer, has a way of looking at this, a watery analogy, and he says if you go down to the sea and just go swimming in shallow water, well, that's pretty safe stuff, but it will not really get you very far; but if you are the heroic navigator, who goes off to the promised land somewhere, you have every chance of great success, but clearly, you have to plan carefully, you have to try and think about what might happen, take the right supplies with you, and it may well be that you drown en route, but if you don't, then what you achieve will almost certainly be better than splashing around in shallow water.

Entrepreneurs, they think the unthinkable, but then they do it. A lot of people think the unthinkable, but the real test is whether people do go off and do it. But even in the world of enterprise, it is hard to know what is right, what is wrong, what it is you should do. 

About the biggest study there has been of venture capital was one in the States over the period of 1987 to 2000, which was a pretty good time - '87 was the crash, 2000 things were in great shape, $114 billion worth of transactions'  Only about 15% produced really good returns, despite all the expertise that was applied in choosing the companies to invest in, and 50% produced small or negative returns. So the best due diligence can still not accurately spot the winners.

If you were the bank manager and an unconventionally dressed young man came in to see you, what would you think? Do you think that would be a good investment? Yes would be the right answer if it were a young Bill Gates! Had you lent him $1,000 or whatever, you would be doing jolly well! Appearances also can be deceptive. 

What we have to tell people is that success cannot be easily predicted. Many are called, but few are very successful. Like exploration, like setting down a whole row of artists, at the beginning, we cannot gauge success. That applies really to all new ideas and projects, not just in business, but in charities, in Government, wherever else you look, because really, we have to get across the message that risk is an inherent part of progress. Even Bill Gates does not get it all his own way.

Theodore Roosevelt had another good quote: 'It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man, and I'm sure it includes 'the woman', - who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, because there is not effort without error and shortcomings. But who does actually strive to do the deed, who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself on a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'

The second part of this talk is looking at the global economy, and the global economy clearly needs help. We have been talking about the Western world, about a billion people, but the other nearly six billion people clearly live in different circumstances, with different concerns. This is one area, in terms of education, which often appeals to pupils in terms of good thinking, because if we look at the GDP per capita between the Western (that is America, North America, Australia, New Zealand is called the Western in this), Europe and ex-USSR, Latin America, Africa and Asia, you can see the huge discrepancies between the per capita GNP: about eight times. In the West, we have now appliances and cars, large houses, international travel, clubs and hobbies. We dominate global organisations by influence, control, immigration, and generally, at whatever level, have a pretty good time.  But the poor: two billion people have no water or sanitation; 11 million children die annually from treatable diseases; fluctuating commodity prices; movement to the towns; corruption; harsh laws; and cultural change. One of the ways in which I think that is most graphically shown is health expenditure. In the one billion, it's $2,700. For the six billion, it's $71. So what are the ways to develop? Well, essentially there are three: charity; aid, which is Government; and trade.

In charity terms, the total charitable giving from the developed to the developing is about $20 billion a year. The US is by far the biggest, we are about a billion dollars, and a total of about 20 billion. In terms of aid, Government redistribution, taking taxes in and then putting it out as foreign aid, that is about 80 billion. But trade, using the invisible hand and enterprise, merchandise exports, even without services, from those three areas - Asia, Latin America and Africa - are 2,450 billion, something like 30 times as much as all the aid.

If we think about charity, that is obviously a good thing, no way to knock it, many good people doing good things, but it is, sadly, quite small. Individual projects may do well, and they will certainly bring a benefit to a particular community or whatever, but in the scale of the six billion, it is, sadly, very little.  It works out to a very small amount, the 20 million, over six billion people.

If you look at Government aid, from the 2004 figures, you can see where the money comes from, and you can see the percentage of GNP. Indeed, only the Netherlands and Sweden reached the UN objective of 0.7%, and the others are pretty weak. The UK is now increasing that figure. The Government has committed to increase that figure, and is making some increase in the 0.36. But if you look at it per capita, dividing it by the number of people, it is fluctuating but around the order of $10 per person. So again, it is not going to make much difference. It peaked at about 1990, because a lot of aid was linked to the Cold War, and giving money to various countries by the two sides to encourage political allegiance, and since the end of the Cold War, one of the consequences is in fact the level of aid has gone down.

Trade is really where the big numbers are, and that is not just a capitalist view. Oxfam said, in one of their reports, 'If Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by 1%, the resulting gains in income could lift 128 million people out of poverty.' In Africa alone, this would generate $70 billion, approximately five times what the continent receives in aid, and that is just a 1% difference.

Of course, the playing field should be level, and capitalism works when everybody is working to the same rules, when there is some form of regulatory framework that applies to all the players. Sadly, we do not have that in these situations. Things like agricultural subsidies: rich countries spend about a billion dollars every day on agricultural subsidies. 800 million people live on less than a dollar a day. We have tariff barriers - imports of commodities, textiles, and other exportable items are restricted or surcharges, and these barriers cost developing countries 100 billion a year, more than they receive in aid. Of course the Doha round has been going on for eight years, with no conclusion, to try and deal with this issue, but the countries just will not agree, and Europe is as guilty as anyone. It is really Europe and America which are the big spenders on agricultural subsidies and won't do the necessary deals.

Intellectual property, drugs, seeds, genetics, those sorts of things, are very much protected, and the charges do not reflect the ability to pay. One or two of the drug companies have recently agreed to provide drugs at marginal cost rather than at full recoupment cost for their R&D, if it is additional sales, but it still is an issue.

Despite this, and despite the current recession, the last 20 years have been the most amazing time for lifting people out of poverty. Everybody knows the story of China, in India, there has been, over a shorter period, beginning to be significant growth, and in many other countries, things have moved forward. If one looks forward now, one just takes some very simple assumptions, that our population, the Europe and ex-USSR population, is pretty static or going down - the Western offshoots (as I say, North America, Australia, New Zealand), going up slightly, Latin America and Africa going up quite a lot, and Asia, a little. Those figures are fairly certain figures, unless there is a huge catastrophe or something. 

The GDP per capita growth figures are obviously much less certain, but if one looks at long term trends, one can say we might be 1.5% in real terms, the Americas 2%, Latin America and Asia 3, and Asia 5, and if you multiply those two together, you get a GDP growth. If you do that, you can plot the proportion of global GDP through the ages. Back in the year zero, Asia was about 80% of the world's GNP or GDP. The Western offshoots, of course, there was nothing there much-a few Red Indians and that was it, or Aborigines or Maori. Europe was there, and Latin America and Africa had their best time; the Aztecs and the ruins in Zimbabwe and things like that. But Europe gradually got better, after 1000, through to about the 1970s. Obviously, America took off, from 1820 onwards, with the building of the railways. Asia just lost it, so by 1950, they had dropped from 80% to only 20% of the world GDP. Since then, they have moved back upwards. By 1998, they were up to 40%, and much of that was to do with Japan, but also China coming in. But the power of compound arithmetic is such that Asia will be back to somewhere like 75% by 2050, and the other three groupings will each be around 10%.

That does show what trade is doing. There are tremendous opportunities for enterprise still in the world, and this sort of message can really help the pupils and the students and whatever to see the real benefits of the invisible hand, the approach of organising business, of having sales, of having marketing, of having all the things which we have in businesses.

In conclusion, we have to get over the message that risk-taking is core to progress. We often do not know all the facts, and indeed cannot know the facts about the future. We must disentangle the truth from the perception if we are going to make good decisions. Governments, and other authorities, often have to do something, but we all need to be aware, not only Governments, of the law of unintended consequences. Most of the businesses or whatever activity we are involved in are very complex organisms, and if we push in one place, or change in one place, almost certainly, it will have an effect somewhere else. We also need to demonstrate, quite clearly, that enterprise works across countries. If you believe in free enterprise within a country, you should expect that it works across countries and continents. So, we need to foster enterprise, or, as Shipley said, embolden enterprise,

© Sir Paul Judge, 19 May 2010