[Music]
[Applause]
ladies and gentlemen
welcome the moderator of the next
session sonia muzikarova
all right so uh good morning ladies and
gentlemen and welcome to this session on
strategic autonomy versus uh global
supply
how to secure value chain is what going
what we're going to be talking about for
the next about 45 minutes
um just on a technical note as
throughout the forum we'll be using
slido to address some of your
most pressing uh questions and we will
be also
engaging with you via live polls so
please join the conversation
you can do that in two ways either go to
live.gobset.org
or you can do it through the official
globsec app
where you'll be able to on the one hand
submit a question but also
upvote one at the end of this session
there will be
a q a um you can
submit your question as i have said via
slido but we can do it also
old school in a physical way there is a
standing mic over there so just please
raise your hand
um and yeah our great panel will answer
answer your question so let me just warm
up here a little bit and open up the
conversation
i think it's safe to say that disruption
has been the late motive of this crisis
it has upended our health systems our
social systems the way we work
live function school our kids but it has
also disrupted
cross-border production processes uh
just in time
manufacturing processes we have seen
delays in the delivery of supply
such as semiconductors microchips in in
manufacturing
sending customers in a waiting mode
as a direct result of that we have been
hearing with
increased intensity and amplitude about
things like decoupling production
processes
from china value chain shortening
localization regionalization even
nationalization of selected strategic
industries
especially in the context of the
so-called
eu strategic autonomy which has been
also resonating throughout the
the forum as a theme and basically
that's the idea of a
stronger more sovereign autonomous and
self-sufficient
europe this has contributed
to some extent uh to a renewed
impetus that globalization is somehow
harmful or if not harmful it's a
sub-optimal model for the global economy
we have been hearing that and that its
prime feature which are the
overstretched cost-driven global value
chains
um increase our vulnerability to
economic shocks
so um these are some of the issues that
i would like to debunk with our great
panel that i will introduce in a bit
today are global value chains as we have
known them
to date over to date over has the
pandemic full-on appended the logic
behind them or are we just
witnessing a sort of transformation
second how should we underpin and secure
global value chains for greater
robustness and resilience and third how
should these aims be
reflected in the policy landscape
so as with the other panels we're in a
hybrid mode today
i will start with our virtual
panelists we have with us today mr
gordon baini who is the partner at
kambelutens
based off of london gordon do you hear
me
yes i hear you very well great thanks um
next we have mr thomas wieser who is the
eu representative to the g7 panel
on economic resilience welcome thomas
and hello to vienna
thanks very much greetings thank you
and next we have mr sebastian mirodo
who is the senior trade policy analyst
from the oecd
normally based off of paris but i
understand today you are not in paris
sebastian
right i'm in seoul in south korea today
all right great and with me physically
to my left
we have mr mikhail krupinski who is a
senior
advisor at warburg pinkus llc
based off of london hi michal and
welcome
all right so let us dive into the
conversation and
lay some groundwork here gordon i will
start with you i would ask you to lay
out and create a map of us
for us of some of the key drivers of
post covet d globalization
and also what are some of the potential
macroeconomic consequences for europe
but also maybe specifically for the
region of central and eastern europe
since we know that this region is very
closely knit
in manufacturing global value chains
please
thank you very much sonia so first of
all the disruption
uh didn't start with covid and i would
be very careful
to base my analysis on on what happens
because of kovid i believe that uh
kovid has not changed the directions and
trends that were
already ongoing in the world what it
means is
it has accelerated significantly those
trends that were pre-existing
one of the most important of such trend
is
a fight against or a return back from
globalization
there are domestic political reasons for
that in many regions in the world in the
united states as we see under the
the emergence of donald trump and trump
in them
as a whole also china's
status in the world is changing from a
pure low cost manufacturer to a much
more complex economic status moving away
from an export-cloud economy
these factors have been pre-existing
kovid there is another even more
important uh
geopolitical shift which is that the
united states now
uh the hegemony the leading role of the
united states in the world
is is very seriously challenged by an
emerging china
this has been a long trend but this is
not realized and that is leading the
world towards
uh less interdependence and more sort of
bifurcation
at the minimum now this is this was the
underlying trend
and globalization has taken a certain
revenge on on
employment and on the politics of these
countries
and what what discovery has accelerated
is the tendency to turn back
from that what is very typical after
there is a global crisis is
always the reaction is to solve the
crisis is always on the shoulders of the
given states nation states or regional
governments
like the eu and that typically means
that the role of the state
is increasing versus the private market
actors this has happened after 2010
and usually this increased role of the
state is
is quite sticky state is not easily
walking back from its strengthened and
augmented position
uh when the crisis adds so it happened
in 2010 and some of it is still alive
and kovid has significantly
strengthened this process of of making
state states
regulation stronger so the practical
consequences for our world is
in the coming years i would expect that
uh state will be more important than
private sectors that's completely
different than the
period between 1998 and 2010.
state more important than private sector
the second is
strategy strategy considerations will be
more important than efficiency
that goes against the super efficiency
just in time deliveries
of the global economy strategic autonomy
will be much more relevant if
if europe realizes that more than 90 of
our
anti-fever appeals paracetamol pills are
coming from india
you may think it's not sustainable uh
and you want to
to bring it home just to give you a very
simple uh example but think
about chips produced in taiwan and and
and the fight for the influence over
over the taiwanese cheap manufacturing
industry which is at the moment
slowing down even car manufacturing just
to say the most obvious thing
so strategy will be more important than
the global
efficiency also in general in general
regulation the power of regulation
will overrule the forces of market much
more
than before we see it in for example tax
changes that were just agreed uh by the
g20 based on the oecd recommendations
but if you think about data regulation
in the world or or climate change
related
regulation these regulations are
sometimes going against the pure
business logic
uh and that uh that is uh that is going
to stay with us for for quite
a while um and that will have an
important
impact on supply chains the so this the
strategy
the politic geopolitical strategy and
the domestic political internal
political considerations will mean
that governments will overrule
the global economy and try to focus on
their regions i expect there will be
three regions
dominantly uh in the world china
and its sir and its world if if china
can
find allies because china in the past
had very big difficulties of of building
long-term standing strategic alliances
the other region
where regionalization of industries and
supply chains were concentrated is the
us
and its world and then there is a big
question and it's a big task for all of
us
is whether europe can still become the
third relevant region
of concentration and focus in the world
in this in this changing world europe's
for the risk the stake for europe is
to stay at the negotiating table
where the rules in the world are set
because there is an old saying in
politics
if you are if you don't sit at the table
you will be on the menu
and that's what europe should avoid
thank you very much uh gordon but still
to push us on this and set the record
straight when it comes to the
macroeconomic picture
we do hear a lot of outcry about supply
chain bottlenecks in the media and so on
but at the same time
the incoming information and data
have been suggesting a very strong
rebound in international trade both in
imports and exports
and not only in one region of the world
for example in
china or taiwan but also across the
board in the u.s
in the euro zone as well which is seems
to be recovering and
faring pretty well so also on top of
this
new information the oecd and other
international organization have been
revising up their
uh global global global forecasts and
other
macroeconomic variables so how do we
actually square this strong trade
rebound with these supposedly
appended global value chains it's to
some extent it's a bit counterintuitive
sebastian can you bring us up to speed
here
yes i think we have to look at the
sequencing and
and what happens in since last year so
when the when the pandemic started
the main concern was really a collapse
in trade
uh many supply disruptions followed by a
deep recession
so the lockdown of the chinese economy
in february 2020
sends a signal that somehow global
production
could come to a halt and at this time
maybe
government in the eu or in the u.s
did not expect to be hit by the pandemic
so the concern was really that
production would be disrupted because
there would be no access to inputs from
asia but the chinese lockdown was
rather short and progressively
all economies were affected by the
pandemic
the pandemic created many disruptions in
trade
in particular in the transport networks
due to the quarantine rules also the
reduction in air cargo
that was supplied through through
passenger flights
but it at the end it's not global
manufacturing that was the most affected
and not asia where somehow governments
on average let's say we're more
successful to contain the pandemic than
government
in the rest of the world so the main
impact of kobe 19 has really been a
shift
in demand not just a reduction or
decrease in demand
there was an important increase in the
demand for for the goods needed to fight
the pandemic
of course medical goods such as a face
mask
ventilators or more recently the
vaccines
but the the lockdowns and the
stay-at-home policies
have also shifted demand from the
in-person services you can think about
the restaurants scattering services
entertainment air racing and so on to
the goods and services you need
when you work from home so such as i.t
goods
e-commerce or delivery services so
global value chains have adjusted
and there was even a trade boom for
these products
in the second half of 2020. we have seen
more trade and more reliance on global
value chains because the in-person
services
that were less demanded are kind of
services because they are services they
are less traded
while the medical products the i.t goods
involve
trade and gvc's so we had an economic
shock we had a recession but we have
this paradox of having more trade but
really
for for a very limited set of products
so today we we can say that gbc's have
been rather resilient in the sense that
they have recovered quickly
even after this extraordinary shock that
was a conv19 so
it confirms what we've seen in the past
for example after the
the earthquake and tsunami in japan in
2011
all the fluids in thailand the same year
so we have to understand that resilience
is not about avoiding disruptions
because
whatever you do you will face crisis but
it's about
recovering quickly but the type of
disruptions that the gbc's
are still struggling with today are not
so much about
inputs not delivered but simply the the
challenge of uh
increasing production you know it was a
story at the beginning of the pandemic
for face mask
it's still the story today for the
vaccines and beyond medical products
that it was mentioned it's also
the issue with semiconductors now but to
quickly
ramp up production i really believe you
need this global value chain when
if you think about the vaccine they are
really a gbc story with cooperation
among different films in different
countries it would not have been
possible to develop these vaccines so
quickly
and to produce them at a large scale
without a global production but of
course it's still not enough
so there are policy questions
but i would think that the alternative
and relying less on gvcs would have put
us
in a worse situation than where we are
now
thank you very much uh sebastian turning
now to my
only physical panelist and partner in
crime
mikhail you're an advisor to a global
private equity firm
and your mission centers on building
durable companies with sustainable value
when you square this objective of
building durable companies with
what we have seen on the global value
chain front but also
with the macro picture that we have
discussed that has been presented
how do you square this do global value
chains actually require a major overhaul
to achieve this mission
yeah thank you very much sonia and maybe
before i
i respond directly to the question let
me make a couple of comments
my perspective is also a perspective of
someone who was at the
the board of the world bank during the
past global financial crisis this crisis
was different
because it was self-inflicted with
lockdown to a big degree
and the response was different but but
first
of all as uh prime minister
belnae was saying i think what we saw
last year
is nothing new it's just a reflection of
economic reality
where you do have a lot of regions in
the world that simply
are no longer strong in terms of
manufacturing
what we saw was a big surge in demand
and
in my personal view a
delayed policy response and a delayed
response
from many governments in terms of uh
making sure that the medical supplies
are there
you know this reminds me there was a
quite a bit a small scandal in
switzerland
where they ask a 21 year old person
who actually delivered most a lot of
medical equipment to
some of the governments in europe i said
you know how come did you do that and he
was saying i was just watching tv
in december of 2019 and i saw people
wearing masks in china
and i come to a conclusion that this
will come to europe and that's why
i bought quite a bit big shipment so
what happened was
many of the governments simply didn't
see it and and that's why there was this
panic effect
which for me also speaks to the fact
that you do not have
uh proper coordination and as we all
know
all of us who studied eu
um we do not have proper coordination
and policies in terms of
health current security on the eu level
and what we have seen is to a big degree
the eu going from one extreme to another
which is uh you know moving from a
deficit of supplies to a surplus
moving from a deficit of vaccines to
surplus of vaccines
etc etc but i think the impact
will be profound um unfortunately it was
it was to a big degree self-inflicted
the panel is not about the rationale of
lockdowns my view is after chinese
lockdown
there was no other way for governments
not to introduce lockdowns but bear in
mind
that this huge stage state intervention
which is unparalleled it's much bigger
than during the global financial crisis
in terms of people saying you know 15
trillion pump into the global economy
which certainly led to a bubble of
everything
asset price bubbles last year as we also
with
you know all across the board this will
lead to increased inflation as well as
inequality
going forward and particularly in what
we call
uh western where europe and um and the
us
of course the travel is it was to a big
big degree
uh self-inflicted now two last points
and i answer your question
um so first of all what does it mean
mean for europe i find an increased
rationale for for coordination
in terms of healthcare policies because
you did see
you know vans being stopped on borders
of eu countries
which very much spoke to the lack of
proper solidarity in europe secondly for
central eastern europe i think it's
actually good news
because when i talk to investors is
first of all
you know we are here in the part of the
world where we think it still makes
sense to manufacture
which is a good thing and not everyone
thinks this way in the world
and secondly people
people it's it's you know it's all we
all have well short memories
but many investors ask themselves
questions in terms of
how how they allocate capital uh
particularly those who invest and can
allocate in manufacturing
in manufacturing globally and apart from
you know where it makes sense from a
cost perspective a more
diversification approach is actually at
play
which i think will mean increase
investments in this part
in this part of the world so i think it
is
it is positive and now to answer your
question of course i think
i think what what will be happening is
every rational
business person will be taking a view
around
around the business continuity
around the uh durability
of existing business models for all
companies
so i think all businesses are affected
and whenever you analyze a business you
run a business you have to take a view
and say
what if it happens again right so we do
have
events which are sort of fat tail
bear curve events but they do happen and
i think
it's uh it's in this regard it is a
lesson for everyone and it is a lesson
also for
for investors thank you very much uh
switching gears now a little bit
from um the business side to the policy
side and this is a question for thomas
uh thomas from your viewpoint as a eu
representative to the g7 panel on
economic resilience a very
pertinent uh role for this debate
can in your view global value chains be
redesigned for greater resilience and
what's the role of policy here
both perhaps national regional
and global not an easy question but
necessary
thanks very much sonia and i think it's
good that you don't frame it in the
context of the pandemic
because just as an example as far as we
know the evergreen didn't get stuck in
the suez canal
because it had contracted the virus but
for
other reasons and the effects were of
course
quite spectacular and
when we were looking at reasons
and police possible policy responses
we have remarked that most global value
chains have shown
a fairly significant resilience and
dynamism also
during the pandemic but that
the recent events have highlighted the
gap
in our collective risk identification
mechanisms and in the resilience
of certain sectors which are critical
to public goods such as health or
security
or uh environment
and uh because there has been a lack in
risk
identification uh there was a
significant lack in preparedness
so uh many of
many countries and i think the g7 are at
the forefront there
many countries uh are having a critical
look
at their national approaches on how to
address these challenges
uh there is of course always the danger
as already mentioned
uh that you tried to solve the last
crisis and not the next one
even though everybody is saying uh next
prices will be different we don't know
where it's coming from but nevertheless
the approaches tend uh to piggyback
uh on uh solutions found uh over the
last crisis but
uh the point is uh that true
uh resilience uh in the view of the
panel
uh which just reported to g7 leaders
true resilience does arise from reliable
and diverse and co-dependent global
supply chains
and that presupposes of course a high
degree
of openness a high degree
of underwriting fair degrees
of competition and that is why
one shouldn't now panic
and move to policies of trying to
duplicate each and every potentially
critical sector
in every part of the world
but there are certain sectors where
there is a convergence of criticality
on the one hand public goods that i've
mentioned
and vulnerability on the other hand
now where do these vulnerabilities stem
from
some of them have already been mentioned
and i think we need to make the
distinction a very clear distinction
between manufacturing sectors and
service sectors especially new
technologies
and in manufacturing indeed we have seen
for reasons of politicization
of trade weaponization of trade
a ticking up not least under the form of
president trump a ticking up
of protectionist measures
we have seen the
issue that systemic convergence
which was the hope of many when china
joined the wto
systemic convergence has not come about
but has
rather shown we have rather seen
systemic
divergence and therefore
fair degrees of fair conditions of
competition with state-owned
enterprises have more and more
moved to the forefront of discussions
and this will be exacerbated
as we move into policies which are
necessary
i.e carbon pricing how can we live
in a world where there is no uh globally
agreed principle of carbon pricing
it will lead to certain border measures
which inevitably
will give rise to tensions that's as far
as
manufacturing is concerned but on new
technologies
i see a significantly more pronounced
trend
on decoupling not least because of the
monopolistic market structures that are
inherent in many of these sectors
the issue of data privacy the issue of
data governance
and who is the driving force
behind developing standards and rules
and that is the clear the clearest
danger
that i see to a
jointly run governed
rules based international global open
trading system namely
uh that we move uh into an era where
there might conceivably even uh be two
sets of standards and
that would be uh lethal it might start
from uh the area of new technologies
but inevitably it would morph over into
trade
in goods and some other services
so what can one uh do
i think one needs to one
recognize that these systemic
divergences
and differences will persist for the
foreseeable future
and one somehow has to find an
algorithm on how to coexist
and compete peacefully with each other
without shutting down
the globalized trading system that has
benefited
all of us we need a better
uh national and better international
mechanisms and for
to identify risks uh build for example
common vulnerability
indicators and methodologies share best
practice
and we need a forum that provides for
policy coordination in times
of in critical times that ensures
a comparatively free flow of critical
goods
and services so
therefore all things hang together uh
there is a
this provides another strong strong
rationale
uh for overhauling the wto
a strong rationale for overhauling of
course uh the w
uh ho but if we look at supply chain
resilience proper and that is what this
panel is about
uh we suggest that one focuses on three
critical areas
for now health critical minerals
and semiconductors and
one needs to branch out build out
from the g7 from the g20
to reach as many other countries as
possible
so as to build up global uh uh
chain resilience if you so want policy
resilience
and for me that is one of the lessons
which i take from looking at
around europe there has been over the
years and over the decades
a uh progressively weakening
of the capabilities capacities
of the public sector very many uh
of the administrations have been
woefully
uh unprepared and very very
unprofessional
so a strengthening of the quality of
public
administrations de-politicizing them
would be of the essence and
uh i'm afraid that the present
sentiment uh in many parts of the world
but unfortunately also in europe
uh is not for de-politicizing and
professionalizing these sectors
but without that the next crisis uh will
be
uh will have just as hard ahead as the
last pandemic
thanks sonia thank you very much uh
thomas for this
reach account i think we have built a
very nice groundwork here
uh first talking about the driving
factors behind the globalization
uh then discussing the current picture
the macro story here
and then some of the private sector and
policy
responses i would like to pause here and
launch uh slido actually our first poll
so if that could uh come up on the
screen
uh and i would love for you and our
virtual
audiences as well to engage and
answer the multiple choice question the
most effective coping strategy
multinational
firms should use to minimize future
disruptions such as the kovid 19
pandemic
of their supply is and you have four
options
shortening and streamlining their value
chains
diversifying their supply base going
from global to regional
concentrating their sourcing regionally
and the no systemic step can word of a
disruption of such skill and scope
it'd be great if you could weigh in
on that we'll wait a couple of minutes
and we should see some
first responses
um hopefully on the screen
great so um it seems to be pretty clear
our audiences think that diversifying
the supplier base of multinational
companies
is the most sensible approach
uh but let's let's have our panelists
weigh in here uh on that turning
to sebastian again speaking of coping
strategies you and your colleague
sebastian
uh have published an interesting paper
and also an article
on vox eu i believe debunking
uh two qualities of value chains one is
resilience and another one is robustness
uh
what is the difference and should they
both be
targeted by by on the one hand supply
manager managers on the other hand by
policy how does this fit into the
overall debate and picture
yeah so you can have different
definitions of resilience but
a common definition you find in
particular in the business literature
it's the capacity to
recover quickly after some some
large-scale disaster
uh so in this sense gbc's have been
resilient that's
the experience of the of the pandemic
but resilience in this sense does that
mean that you you avoid disruptions or
shortages
just that it takes a shorter time to to
recover or to solve the issue so
for some essential goods and here you
can think about the electricity or
medicines or access to telecommunication
networks
it may not be enough just you know to
recover quickly
there should be some continuity of
supply and this is what we
we call robustness the capacity to
continue to produce during
a crisis i mean firms can can also work
on their robustness and it can also be
an objective for supply chain managers
in particular when when this continuity
of supplies is important for their
consumers
but i think that as thomas explained the
there is certainly here maybe a role for
governments
to help firms to ensure the continuity
of supply through specific
regulations uh in particular addressing
maybe
the cost and the economic incentives uh
to
for for films to be in a position to
continue to supply during the crisis
it can be also through stocks buys
strategic stockpiles you know just to
provide the goods
uh while waiting for films to to recover
you can think also about contingency
plans
specific agreements between governments
and firms that some film will switch
to the production of essential goods
during a crisis so i think an important
lesson from kovind 19 is that in the
future government should be
better prepared uh and again
really along the lines of what thomas
explained look at different risk
scenarios have some indicators on
bottlenecks vulnerabilities in supply
chains
and this is something the g7 has been
working on with some reports drafted by
oecd
and oecd and other international
organizations together with government
we will certainly continue to draw
lessons
identify best practices uh and see in
particular how
international cooperation can bring this
kind of
robustness in value chains
thank you very much uh sebastian i
actually had a lot more questions for
our speakers but we have less than 10
minutes left
so i'll just do one last question very
quickly uh
one minute uh each of you and my
question is against the backdrop of this
eu debate on strategic autonomy and
perhaps greater
self-sufficiency can this be europe's
opportunity going forward can europe win
from all of this for example
by i don't know reshoring parts of
production home through technological
advances
or something similar maybe uh mikhail
starting uh with you can this be
europe's opportunity
no no sure i i think and i you know
sebastian just alluded to that
i think the argument that says we are
investing in people
we are training specialising vaccines
doctors we are investing
in technologies for ventilators and
pharmaceuticals and in the end we cannot
in times of stress when people are dying
we cannot actually
impose anything on those companies i
think it is a valid argument
and you did see it in eu you saw it with
the largest pharmaceutical companies and
ventilator producers in switzerland
uh during during the the the
pandemic and i think we have to remember
european corporates are the biggest
investors
european companies are the most
international companies of all companies
in the world
um by any standards and and i think in
this regard if there is this
in-depth reflection i think it it does
indeed
uh pose uh
a a a big chance it is it is i think it
is a chance
having having said that um you cannot
solve um problems new problems with old
methods
and very much to to the point it was
made by thomas is
you know is this lack of institutional
capacity lack of
you know an ability to react very
quickly and in this regard i would very
much be in favor of a
of a new recovery plan which is more
bottom top the top bottom
because you know you you should not
you should be really able to to see
from bottom top what are the real
problems it seems to me that the new
policies are
a little bit much top bottom in this
regard in terms of
policy response recovery okay great
thank you for the beep
yes uh thank you um very quickly thomas
one minute and then gordon and then we
move to the q a
for me it's uh uh quite clear uh what
uh the next generation eu can and should
do
uh is uh to uh have
significant institutional reforms and
not just be
something where you invest and that is
how we will become
more resilient and each and every uh
government will have to do that by
itself but i see very few governments
uh where politics is willing to let go
of the principle
of independent professional and high
quality
administrations thank you
gordon
i think the eu could be coming out well
but there will be a k-shaped recovery
not just among industries and and
companies but among nations and regions
around the world and whether europe will
be on the downward
part of decay or the upward part of the
cave will depend on whether we can
forget about our previous policy of
strategic naivety
and replace it with enlightened
self-interest and realize that
we have to be a bit more carnivore and
less herbivore in a world where every
every other major region and trading
partner or
economic or political partner is
behaving much more
assertively so that means
we need to create europe as a europe's
biggest offer
in in this competition globally is its
market is its 450 60 million people
very high value market we have to be
more selective of how we offer this to
others but we should
push for cooperation because that's our
self-interest
but we also have to market is not enough
strength in this global
political competition we need to bring
up our foreign policy
and the two-states foreign policy has to
get tools by a defense policy
and uh we also need to change the whole
fiscal setup of the eu we need much more
fiscal
uh coordination at the european level
and we have to able to
protect our industries ultimately for us
europeans to keep our european
way of living in the next century europe
is
noah's ark which can help us to survive
the flood of
global rebalancing but whether this ark
floats or sinks depends pretty much on
the next 10 years actions
thank you very much uh to all of our
excellent panelists
um i don't see any questions uh
submitted via slido so i would maybe ask
our
live our physical audiences and maybe we
can do it old school if you can
raise your hand if you have any
questions anyone in the room
there's a standing mic don't be shy
i i think we covered all the topics we
covered all the grounds right didn't we
oh maybe we were not controversial
enough i don't know
or maybe that uh still no questions via
slido
okay let's do something else uh i will
ask
my producer to pull up the second poll
and maybe people can weigh in there
this is a word cloud poll and
it says please describe in one word the
first thing that comes to mind and also
that is
most all-encompassing what recent
turbulence in cross-border production
means for the future of the european
economy so we would have
our audiences to weigh in on the same
questions that we have posed to our
speakers
so it can be anything resilience
autonomy dependence winner loser
stronger weaker
whatever comes to mind it would be great
if if you could engage and we
we should see some um
results on the screen what our audiences
think uh these developments mean for the
future of the european economy
all right we see flexibility
progress opportunity decreased
influence
all right progress is the most uh
typed in term to describe what it means
for the future of the european economy
okay well that's not bad at all if it's
opportunity
all right uh great i would hereby
um conclude today's session uh
we have looked at several layers of
how to secure value chains we took stock
of the d
globalization drivers the macroeconomic
picture
discuss whether building durable
companies requires a major
global value chains overhaul and also
how can policy help
underpinning uh resilience of global
value chains we also discussed some
coping strategies um and pondered
whether recent developments are indeed
europe's opportunity going forward thank
you very
much uh for the great panel for their
insights and also
uh to our audiences for not so lively
discussion i might say
i might say but uh for the nice
engagement in the
live polls and stay tuned for the theme
surrounding economic uh recovery on the
globstech website and social media
next up we have in habsburg at 12 15
a session called big tech and european
regulations and right now
in this room we will be live streaming
maria theresa stage with a session
geopolitical europe at crossroads
western balkans in the post covet 19
era with ministers of foreign affairs
from croatia macedonia and slovenia
so thank you very much thank you thank
you very much
you