|
Globalisation
is increasing in its intensity, but most of us are unaware of
its impact until it is too late to realise that we have lost something
that may have been of intrinsic value to us.
I know a student at a rural University studying for an MBA in
tourism management, who commented recently that she was the only
Australian student in the current class.
This, the student said, was not a real problem, but initially
required an adjustment, as it was not anticipated.
The other students came from China, Indonesia, Scandinavia, UK,
USA, and appeared to be studying for one semester in one country,
and continuing their course in another country.
This is probably of great benefit in a course based on tourism,
but there are other factors at work here, including the export
dollars earned by our universities, to help fund the operating
costs of such institutions.
The number of places available for Australian students is also
declining, for you see, the overseas students pay up front, at
a 50 percent higher fee structure.
On the surface, it appears we get better courses and better universities,
but less opportunities for Australian students, as the amount
of government funding for Australian students declines proportionately.
This rural University is also relocating its Business and Tourism
faculty (considered one of the best in Australia) to Sydney, to
further accommodate overseas students.
And this is the nub of globalisation.
The local economy of the town in which the university is located,
is partially disconnected because this major relocation is going
to the City of Sydney, a place which hardly needs further development.
Jobs and opportunities are lost to the rural town, which was the
opposite expectation when the university was first established.
And when it happens, it happens quickly, without thought to the
local social and economic consequences.
Perhaps the
next step (if it hasn't already happened) is the establishment
of campuses overseas, as some Australian universities have already
attempted to do (with a reasonable degree of success).
A system of globalised campuses will obviously generate financial
benefits and academic strengths to those universities first in
the field, and to maintain a steady stream of investment to fund
this expansion, a range of unusual, but friendly, alliance partners
will be needed.
The downside comes when overseas universities begin to compete
with Australian universities, as they establish their own specialist
campuses within Australia, and globally.
Or perhaps this may prove to be of balancing benefit for Australian
students in both cost and opportunity.
The big question
for the moment is, will there be sufficiently trained tourism
managers within Australia to meet the needs of this important
and expanding industry?
On the surface, the answer is no, but as the tourist industry
management job market is becoming more globalised, perhaps the
needs will be met by importing managers.
The question probably should be, will Australians develop a fair
market share of the tourism management global job market?
Pessimistically, I think the answer is no!
So this puts pressure on the domestic job market, leaving only
a range of lower skilled jobs available.
As events
ebb and flow in the global arena, new opportunities open up as
older constructs disappear.
It helps, if as an individual, you are able to suppress your patriotic/nationalistic
feelings in favour of cold/hard economic opportunities.
This is difficult, because the process involves emotional adjustment,
which in turn means that you have to let go of what might have
been to that point, a lifelong tradition.
I cannot help but feel that while globalisation may mean wealth
for those countries actively embracing it, dislocation and alienation
will be the result for those countries and individuals that do
not embrace it.
The concentration of global wealth into fewer and fewer corporate
giants means to me, more control over individuals, and in some
cases, individual countries.
One illustration of this point is the US insistence that our Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme (PBS) be revised as part of an overall trade agreement
between Australia and the US.
This obviously comes from lobbying pressure generated by global
drug companies, to increase their prices in Australia.
The end result of such a decision (if the Australian government
caves in) will be to disadvantage the health of the entire Australian
population, by making the PBS less accessible.
Sure, the Australian and US economies may prosper with a revamped
PBS within a new trade agreement, but the wealth generated is
concentrated within a small group of corporations and individuals.
There does not appear to be a universal benefit for the "little
people".
The point
of this article is to induce a reality check within Australian
pharmacy.
What is happening in the tourist industry can be paralleled in
the pharmaceutical industry, and if it does, will it benefit Australian
pharmacists?
With harmonisation through accreditation processes, would Australia
end up with a net gain or loss of pharmacists, would those pharmacists
ever own their own practice and under what conditions would they
be work as employed pharmacists.
Australia has a history of allowing its best "brains"
to be exported to countries that appreciate their talents.
Will globalisation speed this process up?
What sort of pharmacy system will prevail if our best are not
here to take charge.
Equitable and competitive remuneration systems will need to prevai,l
to halt any export of pharmacists, and to realise a net gain in
human resource.
Have you stopped to consider what elements of globalisation have
already taken hold of your business environment, and by extension,
your private life?
Not only the direct effects, but also the indirect effects.
If you have not looked out on to the landscape, it may be because
you are simply too busy in your dispensary, or are bound up with
various accreditations or continuing education.
Have you considered that all this activity is in itself a direct
result of globalisation?
Globalisation
will not go away, nor as individuals are you able to prevent it.
It is also hard to predict the direction and form it will take,
and it is constantly changing at a faster pace.
What you can do is try to insulate yourself from some of the effects
by making emotional, business and professional adjustments in
advance of the eventual sudden changes that will occur.
Try and work with global changes by first anticipating them and
then turning them to your benefit.
This requires some thinking "out of the square", but
it also requires pharmacists to think about new forms of business
and political organisation, to seek strong and friendly alliances,
and to ensure that a balance is maintained between business/professional
activity and private lifestyles.
Politically, this could mean that the Pharmaceutical Society of
Australia will become the more active and dominant player, as
it is representative of more pharmacists than is the Pharmacy
Guild of Australia.
Businesswise, this may mean a corporate, pharmacy-controlled structure,
allowing more diversity in management and control.
This would also mean fewer, but much larger pharmacies underpinned
with a strong Information Technology base.
Professionally, the development of cognitive services is more
likely to flourish under a strong corporate (pharmacist controlled)
umbrella, capable of generating financially stable contracts to
self-employed consultant pharmacists.
The proviso is that control must stay in the hands of pharmacists,
because open ownership only promises a basic level of professional
development, as shareholder returns have to be maximised.
Also, there is a history of pharmacists having to work under onerous
management directives (with open ownership pharmacies), compromising
professional integrity.
In developing a defensive strategy, initial alliances may need
to be formed with the "enemy".
There is no reason why we cannot learn from stronger overseas
players, with the view to establishing our own Australian global
entities.
The recent Priceline alliance with Australian pharmacists represents
one pathway.
Learn from them, adapt the offering and promote to diverse markets.
The strategy should be to retain as much Australian control as
possible.
Our pharmacy
business and political thinking needs to be adjusted to a global
level.
Are there any pharmacists thinking about developing an Australian
pharmacy franchise that could be grown in other countries?
Some Internet pharmacists have made a global adjustment, but this
development is still in its infancy.
Are there any plans for our political bodies to form working alliances
with similar pharmacy political groups in other countries?
This would be one way of helping to forecast change, and to cope
with adverse effects of global incursions, by sharing information,
strategies and tactics.
The UK official pharmacy organisations would probably benefit
right now with a bit of Aussie assistance, as they are facing
open ownership dominance, if current recommendations are taken
up by the UK government.
To build a
pharmacy structure capable of taking its place in the scheme of
globalisation needs a lot of planning, government assistance,
and an information sharing arrangement with other businesses who
have made the transition.
This means a common vision and purpose, strong leadership and
an action plan for the short term, as well as for the long haul.
Good communications and information, as usual will underpin a
successful process.
Are there
any pharmacists out there ready to debate this urgent and important
issue?
Or are you feeling too frustrated and overwhelmed by what is going
on all around you to even begin to think your way through?
Editor's
Note:
The
following comments were sent to me by an Australian pharmacist
who requested his name and address be kept anonymous. I was wondering
in what context I would run these comments, so I have tagged them
to James Ellerson's article. They do have relevence to his comment
on debating issues of globalisation, and the following is published
therefore, in the spirit of a challenge. Let us hear your opinion
as well.
"Q
Should doctors dispense.
A.
So long as it is within the law.
Then why the fuss?
Well it is called competition.
That is something
retail pharmacy is not used to and does not want.
This is to be expected because competition might take away some
of the icing on the cake.
The final
determinant of the success of competition will be the consumer
who will go to the pharmacy outlet that best suits their needs.
As for "the law" - what is to stop a doctor being in
cohorts with a pharmacist to conduct a PBS dispensing service?
It is no different than a pharmacist being in cohorts with Priceline
in a discount supermarket operation. Maybe service stations will
be next.
Open your
eyes - look around - things are getting different and pharmacy
will have to move with the times and not expect all consumers
to want the same stereotypical pharmacy that predominates the
Australian retail scene."
|
.jpg)
