Athletes' villages from the Summer Olympics. Top: Mexico City, 1968. [Photo from Official Report of the Olympic Games] Middle: Seoul, 1988. [Photo by Kyu Sung Woo Architects Inc.] Bottom: Athens, 2004. [Photo by Takis Gavrilis & Partners]
Since the inception of the modern Olympics in 1896, host governments have used the games to make a statement about their cities’ place in the world. Hitler turned the 1936 Berlin Olympics into a platform for Nazi propaganda, and the 1980 and 1984 Olympics, in Moscow and Los Angeles, were proxy sites for the Cold War. In recent decades, mayors have touted global sporting events as a form of urban development: a way of strengthening local industries, enlarging the tax base and subsidizing investment in public infrastructure. While signature stadiums like Beijing’s Bird’s Nest (Herzog & de Meuron, 2008) and London’s Olympic Stadium (Populous, 2012) grab the headlines, the urban form of the Olympic Village is often overlooked.
In the early Olympiads, there was no need for official athlete housing. Only 241 competitors took part in the 1896 Athens ceremonies — a far cry from the 17,000 expected in London this summer. At the 1928 Amsterdam games, athletes were accommodated in spare rooms in boarding houses and aboard ships. The first Olympic Village was built in 1932, in the Baldwin Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles, but it was dismantled after the games and virtually no trace survives today. Not until the 1952 Olympics in Helsinki did host cities began to plan and develop permanent structures for housing athletes. Typically, the buildings were converted to private residences after the games were over, although some became public housing. The mid-century villages are still recognizable, even as their urban contexts have undergone dramatic transformations.
A turning point in the arc of Olympic planning efforts came in 1992 in Barcelona. The city’s strategy of using the games to catalyze urban development projects provided such a spectacular return on investment that every host city since has attempted to replicate it, with mixed results. Boosterism often drowns out the concerns of social justice activists who say Olympic funding supports elite projects over the public good. In Barcelona, for example, the city council abandoned a promise to convert Olympic Village units to subsidized housing. [1] This year, as the Olympics return to London for a third time, Prime Minister David Cameron hopes to cash in: "From tourism to business, sport to investment, we are determined to maximize the benefits of 2012 for the whole country." Exactly how this vision will pan out is uncertain, but that hasn’t slowed the elaborate redevelopment plans already underway for the 2016 games in the Barra da Tijuca district of Rio de Janeiro.
2013년 9월 16일 월요일
GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS
Harvard Business Review
The Harvard Business Review has one goal: to be the source of the best new ideas for people creating, leading, and transforming business. Since its founding in 1922, HBR has had a proud tradition as the world's preeminent management magazine, publishing cutting-edge, authoritative thinking on the key issues facing executives.
HBR's articles cover a wide range of topics that are relevant to different industries, management functions, and geographic locations. They focus on such areas as leadership, organizational change, negotiation, strategy, operations, marketing, finance, and managing people. While the topics may vary, all HBR articles share certain characteristics. They are written for senior managers by experts whose authority comes from careful analysis, study, and experience. The ideas presented in these articles can be translated into action and have been tested in the real world of business. Proposals for articles demonstrating fresh thinking that advances previous knowledgewhose practical application has been thought through in clear, jargon-free languageare those most likely to meet our readers' needs. When evaluating an idea, our editors often look for two things firstwhat they call the aha!How compelling is the insight?and the so what?How much does this idea benefit managers in practice?
The best way to inquire about HBR's potential interest in a topic is to prepare a proposal. It can be submitted by mail or electronically and should answer the following questions:
What is the central message of the article you propose to write (the "aha")? What is important, useful, new, or counterintuitive about your idea? Why do managers need to know about it?
How can your idea be applied in business today (the "so what")?
For which kinds of companies would the idea NOT work well? For which kinds of companies would it work especially well? Why?
What research have you conducted to support the argument in your article?
On what previous work (either of your own or of others) does this idea build?
What is the source of your authority? What academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on?
It need not be long and it certainly need not be written in question-and-answer format. The important point is to cover the topics the questions raise.
Then please write a two-to-three page (500-750 word) narrative outline laying out the structure of your article and describing each important point in a separate paragraph. Give us a sense not just of the ground you will cover but of how the logic will flow. Please illustrate your points with real-world examples or provide one extended, detailed example.
Some of the questions we will ask ourselves when evaluating your proposals are:
Is this idea new? If not, does it offer a new and useful perspective on an existing idea?
What is it based on? What are its antecedents?
Did it persuade me?
Did I find it interesting? Would HBR readers find it interesting?
Does it address an issue that matters to managers?
Could it be put into practice?
Is the author trying to sell the reader something? To use the insights in the article, would the reader need to consult the author?
Are there good illustrations? Have I seen the same company examples used to illustrate a multitude of other models, theses, or points of view?
Where are the holes in the thinking?
Each issue of HBR contains both feature articles and departments:
Each feature is an in-depth, rigorous presentation of a significant advance in management thinking and its application in the real world of business. These articles help business leaders establish an intellectual agenda for discussion - and change - within their companies.
Each issue also has a spotlight section which includes feature articles on a particular topic.
Idea Watch is the opening section of the magazine that focuses on new ideas and research in progress. It is largely data driven and highly visual. The section leads with a timely piece, about 1,000 words with accompanying visuals, that represents a thought-provoking, often surprising new idea in business. Shorter pieces, about 200 to 600 words with accompanying data visuals follow. Each month we'll also ask a researcher to "Defend Your Research" for research that includes surprising, sometimes counterintuitive findings. Each month also features a two-page information graphic called "Vision Statement" which presents an immersive, visual representation of business and management data and ideas.
The Big Idea features one article on a profound, up-and-coming idea which could have groundbreaking repercussions in the world of business.
The Globe features one article in every issue on - and, usually, from - countries outside the US. These articles are either macro or micro-focused, but they will all be of practical relevance to senior executives the world over.
How I Did It is a first-person account by a CEO of the inside story of a tipping point moment or decision for his or her company. The goal of How I Did It is not a rose-colored view of a past glory, but rather a peer forum for CEOs to share experiences learned the hard way.
The HBR Case Study is a fictional account of a business dilemma with advice from several experts suggesting how to solve that dilemma.
Managing Yourself explores new ideas about the personal development of managers and leaders.
Life's Work is a short interview with an extraordinary figure from the worlds of art, science, sport, and politics about his or her career, focusing on decisions, challenges, and experiences that resonate for business leaders.
A word on attributions: HBR has its roots in the world of academic journals, where detailed citations are de rigueur. HBR articles should be similarly punctilious about giving credit to all direct quotations, paraphrased statements, and borrowed ideas. To improve the flow of the prose, we prefer to incorporate attributions into the text whenever we can. In the meantime, please be sure we understand exactly which ideas, and what language, are yours and which ones are drawn from someone else. We would rather see source notes than not, for example. Then, if your submission is accepted for publication, we will work with you to determine which sources need to be cited and in what way.
In addition, please tell us about any financial relationship you may have with companies cited in the proposed article. We need to know if you have a consulting relationship, for example, or if you serve on a board of directors.
Nearly all HBR articles undergo extensive editing and rewriting, and HBR typically holds copyright on the finished product. Authors continue to own the underlying ideas in the article.
Please e-mail your proposal to hbr_editorial@hbr.org or mail it to Christine Jack, Harvard Business Review, 60 Harvard Way, Boston, MA 02163.
If you think your idea is better suited for a blog post, please peruse our web guidelines for the HBR Blog Network and follow the instructions you see there.
HBR deeply appreciates the time and energy required to prepare a proposal for our publication, and we are grateful to you for that investment. We are always looking for new sources of solid, useful ideas that can improve the practice of management. Because of the volume of submissions we receive, we are not able to respond substantively to every one, but we do read them all closely, and we will do our best to respond within six to eight weeks. We thank you again for your interest.
The Editors
Register today and save 20% off your first order! Details
When working on a challenging task — writing a speech, preparing an important presentation, or developing a new idea — it's helpful to get feedback from others. Do they think it's any good? In what direction do they think you should take it? But sometimes, too much feedback can drown out the most important opinion: your own. If you feel like you're getting too much input or are no longer sure what you think of your own work, take a break from the feedback. Decide what you think. This will build your confidence and trust in yourself. Once you've articulated and refined your own perspective, reach back out to your trusted advisors to get theirs.
Writing today—a report, memo, or email—must be short if you want people to read it. But succinctly expressing yourself can be tough. Here are three ways to trim your writing and say what you want in fewer words:
Refine it. Take a hard look at the structure of your writing. Only include sections that are necessary to support your points.
Consider an informal tone. Just because you're writing a report doesn't mean you need to be formal. Writing like a bureaucrat makes you use longer words and a complicated sentence structure. Adopting a more informal tone often helps you be direct and concise.
Cut and then cut more. Look over your document sentence by sentence. If a sentence doesn't serve an important purpose, get rid of it.
Writing experts emphasize the importance of using as few words as possible to deliver your message. The evolution of technology has supported this trend toward brevity; see tweets, status updates, and text messages as examples. But we may have gone too far. Sometimes messages that are too brief sacrifice clarity and leave out crucial information. When crafting your next message, choose clarity over brevity; include all relevant information and be sure it is logically organized. This is as true for PowerPoint presentations and research reports as it is for emails. Being brief is important but not at the risk of being misunderstood.
In business today, readers are time-pressed, content-driven, and decision-focused. To write effectively, remember that they want simple and direct communications. Here are three tips for giving readers what they want and need:
Avoid complex phrasing. Writing elegantly is not important; delivering smart content is. Let the message stand out more than your language.
Be concise. Many memo writers get hung up on "flow." But flowing sentences tend to be long and dense. You don't need choppy sentences, just hardworking ones that deliver content concisely.
Skip the jargon. Jargon can be a useful way to communicate among experts, but you should never use jargon if it's meaningless, if you don't understand it, or when your audience isn't familiar with it.
In business writing, you get points for clarity, not style. Instead of trying to wax poetic about your division's plans for the next 60 days, just make your point. Here are three ways to do that:
One idea per paragraph. Novels hold several complex ideas and emotions in a single paragraph. In business writing, limit your thoughts to one per paragraph. When you have another suggestion, thought or idea, start a new paragraph.
Put your point in the first sentence. Don't entice your readers with background information and build-up. No one has time for that. Make your primary point first. Then go into supporting detail.
Make it "scannable." Few people read every word in an email. Use headers and bullet points so that your audience can quickly scan your message and understand your point.
[중앙일보 이상묵] 우리나라 과학 정책을 한마디로 표현하라면 '중간 진입 전략'이 아닌가 싶다. 과학에 투자해 결실을 보기까지는 많은 시간과 비용이 든다. 투자한 나라가 결실을 본다는 보장도 없다. 그래서 이 말은 과학 전반에 대한 투자는 미국 같은 선진국이 하도록 맡겨 놓고 우리는 옆에서 지켜보고 있다가 돈이 될 만한 분야가 나타나면 그때 집중적으로 투자해 상대보다 먼저 상품화하자는 뜻이다. 약삭빠르다 하겠지만 우리 같은 후발 주자에게는 어쩌면 적합한 전략일지도 모른다. 실제로 반도체를 비롯해 상당수의 우리나라 기업이 이렇게 해서 성공했다.
그런데 문제는 과학기술 발전이 이런 의도대로만은 되지 않는다는 점이다. 게다가 이런 단타성 정책은 지적 호기심과 진정성을 바탕으로 체계적으로 발전돼야 할 과학을 단순히 먹고사는 것의 해결 수단으로 전락시켜 보편적 가치로서의 중요성을 망각시킬 수 있다. 예전에 우리나라 과학기술계 원로 한 분의 강연을 들을 기회가 있었다. 그분은 연구를 '새로운 자연현상을 밝혀내는 것(창의성)이냐, 아니면 당장 우리 생활에 직접적인 도움을 주는 것(실용성)이냐'에 따라 나눈 파스퇴르의 4상한(Pasteur's quadrant)을 소개했다. 이 도표에는 또 각 구간을 대표하는 과학자들이 표시돼 있었다. 창의성이 높은 구간에는 원자의 구조를 발견한 닐스 보어, 실용성이 높은 구간에는 토머스 에디슨, 그리고 실용성과 창의성이 모두 높은 구간에는 세균학의 아버지이자 각종 백신을 발명한 루이 파스퇴르가 자리 잡고 있었다(그림).
당장 먹고사는 게 중요하니까 응용과학에 집중할 수밖에 없다는 논리와 함께 대학은 기초과학에, 정부출연 연구소는 응용과학에 힘써야 한다는 말은 어제오늘의 이야기가 아니다. 사실 많은 정부출연 연구소의 모체가 된 한국과학기술원도 1960년대 외국 기술을 베껴 와서라도 우리 기업들에 도움을 주고자 만들어졌다. 즉 '에디슨형' 연구를 위해서였다. 하지만 경제 규모가 커지면서 이제는 필요한 연구개발은 기업 스스로 할 수 있게 됐고, 그 바람에 출연연구소가 할 일이 많이 줄어들었다. 그래서 정부는 요즘 그들에게 '파스퇴르형' 연구개발을 독려하고 있다. 기초과학에 인색한 이유는 보어의 연구가 비록 창의적이었지만 실생활에 도움이 되기 시작한 것은 거의 100년이 지난 오늘날 나노기술이 각광받은 뒤였기 때문이다. 아무리 정부지만 100년 뒤까지 내다보고 과학기술에 투자할 수는 없다는 것이다. 다소 이해는 간다.
그런데 재미난 것은 창의성도 높지 않고 실용성도 명확지 않은 연구를 '다윈형'으로 분류한 것이다. 사실 다윈은 거대한 실험을 한 것도 아니고 단순히 자연에 대한 면밀한 관찰을 통해 『종의 기원』을 썼다. 논리적 사고와 함께 관찰과 실험은 과학의 근본이다. 그리고 우리가 원하든 원하지 않든 실제 대부분의 연구가 여기에 속하며 초기에는 그 연구가 얼마나 실용적인 가치를 창출할지 일반적으로 알 수 없다. 마침 올해가 다윈 탄생 200주년이어서 전 세계에서 많은 행사가 열리고 있다. 타임지는 진화론을 '인류가 생각해 낸 최고의 아이디어'라고 했고 그 파급 효과는 생물학을 뛰어넘어 모든 학문 영역에 미치고 있다. 중간 진입도 중요하겠지만 그런 분야를 돈이 안 된다는 이유로 폄하한다면 과학의 본질을 제대로 이해하지 못하는 잘못된 정책이라고밖에 할 수 없다.
World coffee prices are at their lowest level for 30 years, having fallen by 50% in three years. And yet, coffee prices remain high in shops and cafes. BBC News Online explains why.
Why are world coffee prices low?
World coffee prices are low because there is an oversupply of coffee, the world's second most valuable commodity after oil.
Many coffee growers across the developing world have produced too much coffee which they have simultaneously released into the world market.
The global supply is estimated to be about 8% above demand, according to Oxfam.
This has depressed world prices.
Why have the coffee exporters flooded the market?
Coffee producing countries used to control the supply and the price of coffee, in accordance with the International Coffee Agreement.
But in 1989, coffee exporting states failed to agree on quotas.
This happened partly because countries that never used to produce coffee begun to grow the crop, thus adding to an already mature market.
Subsequently, many countries flooded the market with reserve coffee that had previously been held back to keep world prices high.
At the same time, consumers' demand for coffee fell in many parts of the world, in part due to competition from other drinks.
So world coffee prices halved and have remained volatile ever since.
Was this break-up of the coffee-makers' cartel good news for coffee drinkers?
Not immediately: It took four years for the supermarkets to slash the price of coffee, and then only by 20%.
And when prices bounced back in 1994, up 50%, the retail price rose immediately and stayed high despite another fall in world prices in 1995.
Are the supermarkets ripping off consumers?
If only it was that simple.
From bush to supermarket, some coffee beans can change hands as many as 150 times.
Most coffee farmers sell their coffee beans to local coffee dealers who will transport and store the coffee beans until they sell it on, sometimes to other dealers.
The processing and handling of green, or raw, coffee adds 50% to its price, according to estimates by the Fairtrade Foundation which works for a better deal for coffee producers.
Much of this goes towards paying for transport, storage and handling costs.
Then, as part of the exporting process, freight and insurance will add about 10% before an importer takes over.
So what happens after the coffee arrives in the UK?
The importer, which is usually a major trading company, will then incur port and customs charges before the coffee moves to a large coffee roasting company.
In the UK, where many people prefer instant coffee, the coffee beans go through a costly spray-drying or freeze-drying process.
Alternatively, the coffee is roasted and ground to make filter coffee.
Only then will the coffee tins and jars be filled, labelled and transported to the supermarket shelves or to the coffee shops.
Along this long chain, everybody will take a cut of the profit.
But why are coffee prices in the supermarkets and cafes stable while world coffee prices fluctuate?
Many of the expenses incurred - for example taxes, customs charges and wage costs to coffee roasters - are fixed.
The fixed costs account for a large proportion of the price paid by consumers in the UK, while the fluctuating world price for coffee is but a small part of the total.
In addition, the big coffee processors, like for example Kraft, Sara Lee, Procter & Gamble and Nestle, will hedge their risks using financial futures contracts, and this will stabilise the prices they pay for green coffee.
So what are the reasons for the fluctuation in world coffee prices?
When the supply of coffee is great, the world price of coffee falls, sometimes to levels below the actual cost of growing coffee.
Many farmers then go out of business, or they stop growing coffee to grow something else instead.
Consequently, the world supply of coffee falls, and prices rise again.
Once again, this makes it worthwhile for farmers to produce coffee instead of other crops.
As they do so, the supply rises and prices fall again.
In other words, coffee is a cyclical crop.
Are there other factors that influence the level of world coffee production?
Sometimes storms, a late frost, crop disease, war, exchange rate fluctuations or other unpredictable events can force coffee farmers out of business.
While at other times, centralised political decisions to produce more or less will affect output levels.
Small farmers are often encouraged to grow more coffee by governments eager to boost their exports earnings.
These governments are sometimes encouraged by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to produce more.
Is this bad advice?
Seen in isolation, it is probably good advice.
But if many countries and many farmers are advised to produce more when coffee prices are high, the end result is invariably a slump in world coffee prices caused by a dramatic oversupply of coffee on the world market.
Coffee traders in the financial markets are also often blamed for causing the world coffee price to fluctuate by placing speculative and sometimes market-moving bets on tomorrow's prices in the financial futures market.
What are the consequences for coffee producers?
Many countries rely heavily on their coffee exports as a source of foreign currency.
Coffee can make up about three-quarters of some countries' exports earnings.
Between seven and ten million farmers make a living from growing coffee.
Many of them are working on small farms which are unable to cope with downturns and too weak to take advantage of the good times.
The Economist explains
Why are coffee-growers unhappy?
COFFEE has many devoted drinkers. Its appealling aroma and caffeinated kick mean that 83% of all American adults drink it, 63% of them on a daily basis, according to a survey from the National Coffee Association. Yet despite the strong demand for coffee, some suppliers are unhappy. In Brazil, which produces a third of the world's coffee beans, farmers are striking over falling prices and burning sacks of coffee in protest. Why are coffee-growers feeling the strain?
There are two main varieties of coffee bean: arabica and robusta. The former, which accounts for around 60% of the world's crop, is considered superior and fetches higher prices; the latter is a hardier crop, resistant to leaf rust, but has a more bitter taste. Most of the beans produced in Brazil are of the arabica variety. But these beans now fetch around $106 a 60kg bag, less than half of what farmers could get for them a couple of years ago. Farmers in Colombia and Ethiopia, who also produce arabica beans, are suffering too. The reason is that production of coffee, and of cheaper robusta beans in particular, is booming. Vietnam has gone from growing almost nothing a decade ago to producing 25m bags of robusta beans a year today. The result is an oversupply of coffee.
This hurts producers of arabica in particular, for several reasons. First, consumption in the developed world—American, European and Japanese drinkers consume more than half the world's coffee—is flat, and the recession has squeezed the profits of big food companies such as Nestlé and Kraft. They have taken to blending cheaper robusta beans into their products to maintain their margins, causing the price of robusta to fall more slowly than that of arabica. In the developing countries such as China, Indonesia and Brazil, meanwhile, where the emerging middle classes are discovering the joys of coffee and the market is growing by around 5% a year, robusta is the bean of choice. To make matters worse for arabica growers, falling prices have been accompanied by rising costs: coffee is still largely picked by hand, and wages are rising fast in Brazil and Colombia. Many Brazilian and Colombian farmers invested to boost production of arabica in response to the high prices of 2011, which has added to the oversupply and further depressed prices. And good weather in Brazil means that this year's crop has turned out to be unexpectedly large. That is why Brazil's farmers are striking, and are demanding more protection, in the form of fatter subsidies, from the state.
Farmers who grow arabica beans tend to be specialists, and do not plant other sorts of crops (which is the usual way for farmers to insulate themselves from volatile prices for a particular crop). Prices for sugar cane, a potential alternative, are also low. Aficionados' demand for the fanciest coffees, which fetch higher prices, is healthy, but for farmers to move upmarket takes time and expertise. Indeed, discerning coffee drinkers are also feeling the pinch, because the Central American countries where the finest coffee is grown, including Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, have been hit by leaf rust, which could wipe out 30% of this year's crop. So even while arabica beans fetch low prices on commodity markets, the price of the fanciest beans is going up. A storm in a teacup it ain't.
Coffee prices
Brewed awakening
Plenty of coffee, too few drinkers
Mug’s game
NOT everyone appreciates the pungent smell of roasting coffee. Just ask the authorities in Brazil, who have been faced with farmers burning bags of beans and chanting slogans borrowed from recent nationwide protests to demand fatter state subsidies. The farmers are upset by falling prices: their beans now fetch around $106 a 60kg bag, a four-year low and less than half what they could get a couple of years ago. A reversal looks unlikely soon.
A third of the world’s coffee is grown in Brazil. Along with other countries that mainly cultivate the tastier and pricier arabica-bean variety, it faces two problems. First, the traditional markets for their wares are saturated. Growth in Europe, America and Japan, which between them glug over half the world’s coffee, is flat. Second, in places like China, Indonesia and Brazil itself, where coffee is an affordable luxury for the middle class, the market is growing by around 5% a year. But these drinkers are filling their pots with cheaper robusta beans—what Kona Haque of Macquarie dubs the “emerging-market coffee”.
Strong demand for entry-level coffee—40% of the world’s coffee crop is now robusta beans—has enabled Vietnam to go from almost nothing a decade ago to producing 25m bags today (see chart). Worse still for arabica producers, the recession in Europe has hit demand and squeezed profits for roasters. These processors, including big food firms such as Nestlé and Kraft, have responded by blending cheaper robusta with arabica. As a result robusta prices have not fallen as fast as arabica. Even so, the narrowing gap between them has not yet prompted beancounters to reintroduce the costlier variety.
Nor is the supply of arabica beans likely to fall. In response to the high prices of 2011 Brazilian farmers invested heavily in new acreage and improved yields with better husbandry and more fertiliser. High prices also convinced Colombian farmers to replant many coffee plantations with more productive bushes. What’s more, the bumper harvest of 2012, an “on” year for Brazilian coffee bushes, should be followed by an “off” year as the bushes’ yields naturally fall after their exertions. Yet good weather means that even this year’s “off” crop is a bumper one, with the prospect of another “on” year to come.
Low arabica prices are accompanied by rising costs. Coffee is a labour-intensive crop; picking is still largely done by hand. Wages in Brazil and Colombia are rising fast and production costs are above prices. Planting other sorts of crops, the usual response to agricultural boom and bust, is not an option. Prices for sugar cane, a potential alternative, are low. Coffee is mainly grown on small plots by farmers who have known nothing else.
Consumers ought to benefit from low prices, but discerning drinkers will still be disappointed. Demand for the fanciest arabica beans is healthy, as the global proliferation of coffee chains shows. Much of the finest coffee is grown in Central America in places such as Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. That region has been hit by leaf rust, a fungal disease, which could destroy 30% of the crop this year. Cutting back plants to deal with it is set to hit production next year, too. For the tastiest coffee, there is no chance of a cheap shot.
미국의 소고기 및 돼지고기 산업에 있어 옥수수는, 비록 전체 생산비에서 차지하는 비중이 가장 높은 것은 아니지만 사료 구성에서 가장 높은 비율을 차지하는 매우 중요한 요소로 그 가격의 영향력은 아주 크다. 미국은 세계에서 가장 큰 옥수수 수출국으로 미국의 옥수수 가격은 직접적으로는 전세계로 수출되는 옥수수 수출가격에 영향을 미치지만 간접적으로는 미국의 소고기 및 돼지고기 수출 가격에도 적지 않은 영향을 미치는 것이 사실이다.
옥수수 가격에 영향을 미치는 요인은 다양한데, 그 중에서도 축산사료, 에탄올 생산, 그리고 옥수수 수출 수요가 가장 큰 요인으로 작용하고 있다. 미국농무부(USDA)의 세계 농산물 공급 및 수요 보고서(World Agricultural Supply and Demand Report)에 따르면, 옥수수 기말재고는 약 6억7,500만부셸(bushel)로 3주치 공급량이 채 안되는 것으로 추산된다. 이는 지난 해에서 이월된 재고분이 7주치 공급량에 육박하는 것과 비교해볼 때 극히 적은 양이다.
구체적인 수치를 살펴보면, 올해 미국의 에탄올 생산에의 옥수수 사용량은 약 50억부셸이 될 것으로 예상되는데, 이는 미국의 옥수수 전체 생산량 약 120억4,470만부셸의 40퍼센트를 차지한다. 축산물 사료와 부산물에의 사용량이 약 51억5,000만부셸, 그리고 수출량이 19억5,000만 부셸이 될 것으로 예상된다. 기록에 따르면 올해 봄 미국의 옥수수 파종면적은 2차 세계대전 이후 두번째로 많은 약 9,100~9,200만에이커(acre)를 기록했다. 이는 지난해의 약 8,820만에이커 대비 3.2~4.3퍼센트 증가한 수치로 지난 2007년에 기록된 최고치인9,350만에이커에 이어 두번째로 높은 기록이다. 또한 올해 옥수수 생산량은 세번째로 많은 양이 될 것으로 예상되는 데 반해 기말재고는 앞서 언급한 다양한 수요증가로 인해 1995/96년 이후 가장 적은 양이 될 것으로 추산된다.
기말재고량이 4억2,600만부셸로 3주 반 정도치 공급량 정도에 그쳤던 1995/96년에는 그 이유가 그 해 옥수수 작황이 좋지 못했던 것이 주 요인이었다. 그에 반해 그 해가 주기상으로 소 사육기반 확장기로 소 사육두수가 최고치를 기록했었기 때문에 옥수수 가격은 상한가를 기록했고 반면 축산물 가격은 기록적으로 낮았었다. 이에 미국의 축산업계는 고통의 시간을 겪어야 했고 1995/96년 이후 다시 사육기반 붕괴기가 도래했고 그 때가 미국의 축산업에 있어 가장 힘든 시기였다.
올해는 다른 해와 매우 다른 양상을 보이고 있는 것이, 소고기와 돼지고기, 그리고 보유를 위한 소의 수요가 강세를 보이고 있고 이로써 향후 미국의 사육기반이 확장될 것이라는 전망을 해볼 수 있겠다. 즉, 현재와 같이 시장이 불안정하고 모든 물가가 급등하는 상황에서 그러한 수요 증가는 축산업자들에게는 그만큼 위험부담이 따르고 자본이 많이 요구될 수밖에 없기 때문이다.
현재의 부족한 옥수수 공급량은 가격상승으로 이어질 수밖에 없고 그만큼 옥수수 사용량이 제한적일 수밖에 없는 상황에서도 미국 축산업계의 옥수수 수요는 견고하다. 이는 미국의 소와 돼지는 옥수수를 먹어야 하고 다른 가능한 대체제가 거의 없다는 것을 의미한다. 그와 동시에, 고유가로 에탄올 가격이 상승하고 따라서 에탄올 생산자들의 손익분기점도 동반 상승하게 되므로 그만큼 풍부해진 자금력으로 축산업자들에 비해 상대적으로 옥수수 구매력이 높을 수 밖에 없으며 미국의 축산업자들은 이러한 점을 우려하고 있는 것이 사실이다.
높은 옥수수 가격이 생산비 상승에 따른 축산물 가격 상승으로 이어진다면 소비자들의 구매의사가 그만큼 감소하게 되는 것은 분명한 사실인데, 미국은 현재 실업률이 8.8퍼센트에 달하고 있고 국가 사회보장제도에 따라 푸드스탬프(Food Stamp, 무료 급식권과 유사한 지급카드)를 받는 인구가 기록적으로 높은 수치를 보이고 있는 가운데, 외식업계와 소매업계에서도 소비침체에 반한 축산물 가격 상승으로 힘든 시기를 겪고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 미국산 소고기와 돼지고기의 수출수요가 견고하게 강세를 보이고 있는 점은 미국의 축산업계에는 희망적인 영향이 아닐 수 없겠다.
전세계 걸쳐 특히 소고기의 공급량이 부족한 지금, 미국의 축산업계의 사육두수가 언제쯤 본격적인 확장기에 접어들까 하는 의문이 여기저기에서 제기되고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 미국의 높은 생우 가격은 사육업자들로 하여금 사육두수 증가의 동기를 부여할 수 있는 충분한 근거가 되지만 생우 가격이 상승한 만큼 사료 가격이 상승한 것은 그러한 동기를 억제하는 반대요인으로 작용하고 있는 것 또한 사실이다. 미국의 소고기 산업은 광활한 목초지에 근거하는데, 즉 어미소는 생애 전기에 걸쳐 목초지에서 생활하며 송아지가 이유할 때까지 송아지와 함께 목초를 먹는다. 송아지가 이유를 하면 대부분이 비육장으로 옮겨져 성우가 될 때까지 대부분 옥수수로 이루어진 사료를 먹게 된다.
미국의 이러한 소 사육시스템에서, 옥수수 가격이 상승한다는 것은 소가 비육장 밖에 머무는 시간이 그만큼 길어진다는 것을 의미하는데, 하지만 이또한 비육장 밖에 목초지 조건에 얼마나 호의적이냐에 따라 유동적이다. 이러한 점을 볼 때, 일반적으로 소의 경우 사육 상황에 따라 옥수수 가격 상승에 대처할 수 있는 선택의 폭이 돼지에 비해서는 넓다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 돼지의 경우는 생산시스템이 소에 비해 사료 급여 시기와 선택의 폭이 제한적일 수밖에 없다. 반면 그렇기 때문에 보다 풍부한 단백질 공급원이 될 수 있는 장점이 있다. 2011년 3월 현재 미국의 돼지 사육두수는 전년에 비해 소폭 증가해 안정세를 보이고 있는데, 이후 추가적으로 증가할 지의 여부는 향후 옥수수 가격의 상승분을 돼지 가격의 상승으로 상쇄할 수 있는 수요 환경이 되느냐에 달려있다고 할 수 있겠다. 업계에 따르면 향후 단기적으로는 어느 정도 수익이 있을 것으로 보이나 올해 하반기부터 2012년까지는 여전히 시장상황이 불투명할 것으로 예상된다.
2011년 1분기 미국의 소고기 및 돼지고기 생산량은 전년 대비 각각 3퍼센트와 2퍼센트 증가하였다. 생산량 증가와 동시에 수요도 동반 증가함에 따라 도매시장에서 초이스급 소고기 컷아웃(지육혼합) 평균 가격은 전년 동기 대비 18퍼센트 상승하였고 돼지고기는 22퍼센트 상승하였다. 한편, 소비자들의 수요 약세로 소매시장에서 소고기와 돼지고기 가격은 10퍼센트와 15퍼센트 각각 상승하는 데 그쳤지만, 구매 가격이 높아지면 판매 가격도 그만큼 높아질 수 밖에 없기 때문에 향후 소매 가격 상승률은 더 높아질 것으로 예상되며 이것이 소비를 더욱 위축시키는 순환 작용이 될 것으로 업계에서는 우려하고 있다.
올해 가을부터 시작되는 2011/12년도의 옥수수 생산량을 예상해보자면, 미국의 옥수수 파종면적은 9,220만에이커로 2010/2011년 대비 5퍼센트, 2009/2010년 대비 7퍼센트 증가할 것으로 보인다. 만일 예상대로 된다면, 2007년에 이어 또다시 2차 세계대전 이후 두번째로 높은 수치로 기록되게 된다. 물론 여기에는 기간 중 특히 미국 중서부 지역의 저온 다습한 기후에 대한 예측이 모두 고려되긴 했으나 예상치 못한 기후변화가 생긴다면 실제 수확량은 기대보다 적어질 수 있다.
한편, 대두의 경우 2011/12년도 파종면적은 2010/11년도 대비 1퍼센트 감소한 7,660만에이커가 될 것으로 예상된다. 만일 예상대로 된다면, 대두파종면적 역시 역대 세번째로 높은 수치를 기록하게 된다. 대두의 경우 특히 남아메리카의 생산량이 워낙 많을 것으로 예상돼 옥수수처럼 급격한 상승세를 보이지는 않았다. 하지만 미국의 중서부 지역의 사료업자들은 옥수수와 대두를 번갈아서 재배함에 따라 두 곡물의 가격 상관관계는 향후 재배 작물의 선택에 큰 영향을 미치게 된다. 지금시점에서 미국의 사료업자들은 대두에 비해 옥수수의 수익성이 상대적으로 우수할 것으로 전망하고 있다.
미국의 옥수수 생산량에는 많은 불확실성이 존재하고 다른 어떤 산업보다 축산업은 그만큼 높은 비용으로 움직이고 있으며 언제나 예측 불가능한 불안정한 시장상황이 핵심요소로 작용한다. 더 나아가, 미국의 국가경영적자와 고물가가 지속되는 가운데 정부의 에탄올 산업 지원을 둘러싼 많은 논란이 있는 것이 사실이다. 미국 정부의 에탄올 정책, 기후, 수출 그리고 소 및 돼지 사육두수 등 이 모든 것이 미국 축산물 생산량과 생산비용에 영향을 미치는 옥수수 시장에 영향을 미치는 요인인 것이다.
