Tag Archives: economy

Balanced transition II

At Blunomy, I lead our renewable fuel practice. Sometimes it feels like a forgotten sibling of renewable electricity. Electrification is often the first port of call for decarbonisation, never mind that it is just passing the buck to centralised generation. And then there’s the renewable energy procurement through the certification instrument where there is usually no need for matching the time of generation with the time of use – mostly just reconciliation of the gross amount of energy injected into the grid and what was withdrawn for the user on the same month, sometimes even just for the year.

Yet when it comes to renewable fuels, we hold it up to a higher standard. It needs to be mass balanced and the physical commodity will need enter the tank of the owner claiming the use of the renewable fuel. Book-and-claim makes sense to reduce logistical cost and overall compliance cost but it is deemed not as legit or at least not giving enough confidence.

And then there are all sorts of requirements for the production of green hydrogen, including trying to match the time of hydrogen production with that of the green electricity injection into the grid. You get my drift.

Renewable fuel needs to get started sooner rather than later to move our world away from the trajectory that is going beyond 2-degree Celsius warming scenario. And more often than not, in order to grow something mainstream and to achieve the cost reductions that are necessary for broad adoption, we need to get started at small scale. This means expensive fuel, and we sometimes think with this scarcity, we ought to reserve it for use-cases for which there are no alternative decarbonisation. That is probably not always true because at this stage when the fossil alternatives are still broadly available, it is all about willingness-to-pay and channeling the resources to pay for it.

Elon Musk have been incredibly successful at using the capital markets for this end – to be able to fund the scaling up needed to get the cost down. He also successfully identify plausible markets and use-case to pitch into where the capital he raises won’t seem like it is hanging high and dry – that there are people with money willing to pay for the high-end EVs that Tesla churns, or the satellite-launching services that SpaceX could bring about.

The capital market quite frankly hasn’t been all that kind to the energy or climate transition. I think part of the reason is that there’s often this altruistic motive behind the bulk of the pioneering capital there – not the greed-driven ones. And since the transition has such a reputation of not being the favourite of those sharks, it would seem like there was hardly much money to be made there.

And then there is regulations not really wanting to take the fall for raising cost of living when it tries to push the economy towards lower carbon intensity. All of these serves to drive a very unbalanced transition that is skewed towards technologies and approaches to transition where someone else somehow pays for the transition. Take renewable electricity for example; majority of it is intermittent and so the costs is more on the grid infrastructure – which is typically socialised in many jurisdictions. It’s easier to sell green electricity cheap (solar LCOE!) and then load the costs on the grid investments and let the end-users foot the bill by force in order to remain on the networks.

There isn’t really sufficient system level thinking that is operating at the moment across the world when tackling this issue of the transition. There’s a lot of obsession with asking ‘what is the right answer’ to displace/replace fossil when the question should be more about considering what would be an energy system we want to build, and what are the attributes worth building towards.

Balanced transition

My work in the energy transition over the past decade or so have been about fossil fuel diversification but also about renewables diversification. As the system gets more and more electrified, the point of failures shifts from the end-nodes of the energy consumption system (eg. engines, electrical points, etc.) to the transmission and distribution systems, as well as the point of generation.

This is why energy mix features strongly as something that requires government to plan and determine. Singapore’s power generation fleet is ~95% natural gas and hence there is huge risk in being exposed to international gas supply. So we are technically using a mix of long-term contracts and short-term ones, as well as a mix of piped natural gas and liquefied natural gas.

But that is all fossil. What about renewable power? We have been relying on solar power off the rooftops, the mobile plants on empty plots, and the floating solar on reservoirs and that is great. And then we’re thinking of importing renewables from neighbouring countries, which involves long subsea cables at high voltages to transmit the power to Singapore. In order to use the asset well, it is best that the power transmitted is firm and not renewables so you don’t have to oversize the transmission capacity. So you put batteries for those wind and solar power; and then you also try to import hydroelectricity.

But what happens during the dry season (low water levels and hence low hydro), when there are forest fires and haze that block out the sun’s rays and reduce solar yield?

As we are deep within another season of transboundary haze pollution problem, we notice that the energy transition plans may require greater understanding of risks. If the entire region’s energy that we’re relying upon is mainly solar-based, a severe haze event could reduce power yield and result in supply inadequacy. This is regardless of how much battery power you have in the system because the firming is more to smooth out the volatility and system fluctuations across a day, not to deal with capacity factor or yield reductions.

And this brings me to the argument that we need to make the energy transition with a kind of diversification that we do when we had fossil sources in our energy mix as well. We need to be able to secure different, uncorrelated forms of supply and energy vectors in order to maintain supply resilience and stability, even if that may mean a blow to the price/cost impacts. Take it as an insurance premium of sorts. We are buffering ourselves from having to scramble for just what everyone needs when the crisis happens.

Often, this means importing green fuels. That could be biomethane produced from anaerobic digestion of waste water or other wet organic waste streams. It could also mean biodiesel, renewable diesel, or other biofuels produced from organic residues and waste fats and oils from regional markets. This would help us diversify our sources of energy not just geographically but also the pathways that we are relying on so that we are not at the mercy of an energy crisis whenever there is forest fires.

At the same time, developing demand for biomass residue and putting pressure on valorising biomass waste can change incentives for the plantations and forestry industry. If aggregating the waste, processing it can provide a slight return better than break-even, it might make sense for them to do so rather than burning the waste in the forests or fields. The balanced transition requires more systems thinking.

Developing the market

In my day job, I provide strategy, commercial as well as policy advice particularly related to the energy transition. We aim to support players to make evidence-based decisions and to ground their decisions on proper assessment of risks and the dynamics underlying the operating environment.

One of the big mistakes I have been encountering when it comes to the energy transition is that market players (including government) have this mistaken idea that certain solutions are not viable or possible after trying to get a sense of pricing when a market has not been developed. In essence, price discovery can only take place after establishing a market. We can try to work out the cost of bringing certain products into the market, but that is different from trying to call a tender a have a price discovery process.

Take for example biomethane in Southeast Asia. There are pockets of it already produced, and you would be able to get price quotes for delivery of the products to where you need. Maybe you could also sign a long term contract on a small volume but pricing is going to be high because the players would put in more margins in order to deal with their risks. The lack of liquidity and a fleshed out market leads to distortions in price quotes. Moreover, biomethane being a gas means that transport cost can be a huge portion of the delivered cost if you are situated far from the original source.

Logically, you could put the biomethane into the national gas networks and then distribute it using mass balance methodologies. However, there are issues and questions around gas grid access – the immaturity of regulations around open gas grid access in Southeast Asia makes things a bit more complex and that gets amplified when you consider cross-border trades, and even liquefaction.

Don’t get me wrong, complex markets do exists. The global LNG market is a marvel, and our agrifood supply chains are truly an amazing showing of what the free market does. But these markets took time to develop and have had to go through a process of evolution where the supply is driven by initial demand and the willingness to build infrastructure to support all that.

The same principle applies to cross-border renewable electricity; there is typically a gradual process of working out the infrastructure costs, understanding the approaches towards delivery of the electricity, developing feasibility studies and so on. Having diversified sources is all well-and-good but that works when you are accessing markets that have developed supply available to make these happen.

No matter how sophisticated your price discovery process is; it will not deliver in an environment where the market is under-developed.

Hunger versus desperation

I think it’s great that Edwin & Shulin’s interview/podcast with Steve Chia and Tiff Ang on CNA provoked a whole bunch of discussion. The point that Steve brought up at the beginning of the podcast was that he talked about the need to balance between the aspirations of the nation and the work preferences of the younger generation. Unfortunately, it wasn’t really the conversation they had because the grander picture of Singapore’s economy and market evolution isn’t mentioned.

Jeraldine Phneah actually posted a video discussing some of her take on how these things blew up and it was a really balanced perspective. I like how she gently took a jab at Shulin’s approach to delivering the message when Shulin herself talked about the importance of communication.

Personally, I’m more concerned about the characterisation of what ‘hunger’ is about. A lot of the discussions made it seem like this ‘hunger’ is self-evident but it isn’t. Different people had different interpretation of what hunger is and what it looks like.

For Shulin, it might be more about an attitude, not projecting so much me-first; being willing to stretch and take on learning opportunities as opposed to viewing things outside job scope as a chore or seeing some work as ‘beneath’ a job title. Yet for many others, hunger might look more like desperation; of making sacrifices that are unreasonable, and sucking up to bosses, going all out to please clients or entertain their unreasonable requests, etc. Shulin even posed ‘hunger’ as binary – whether you have it or not. That just probably didn’t seem right.

Tan Min-Liang, the founder of Razer, made a very good point on Linkedin about the younger ones behaving simply as a response to the corporates and employers. Give them the right sense of purpose and the work that they feel they deserve, and they will make the appropriate sacrifices.

Technology has made it possible for people to just keep working non-stop; and at the same time, companies may not have properly adapted technologies to their own business and workflow, and managed their employees poorly in that process. It would only make sense that without the management improvements (with management being stuck in the 80-90s mindset and management style), the company is suffering from actually really poor productivity, of which the younger employees are bearing the brunt of.

So the question now goes back to the employers. Are they hungry enough? Are they hungry enough for the right people and talents to provide the appropriate training, software systems, management and leadership? Shulin mentioned about employers’ lack of flexibility and the corporates limitations in meeting the needs of the current workforce culture. I thought Tiffany helped to voice out some of that employers’ and managers’ grievances about the inability to have the real conversations about work / job redesign. These are exactly the issues that we are not confronting enough in this podcast. I am actually really glad that the younger workforce is forcing employers to rethink their approach.

It will be politically challenging for the government to keep the situation in the way it is and allow the market to simmer and boil a bit so that the culture would shift. To do that, they will need to let businesses struggle with the manpower challenges. But maybe, they need to do just that.

Arguments for renewable fuels

As part of an assignment for an online course, I developed an article arguing for the role of renewable fuels in the low-carbon economy of the future. I reproduce the full final draft here for my blog readers.

Climate change is a real, global catastrophe that needs urgent and immediate action. 2024 marks the first full year of warming above 1.5 deg C, determined by scientists as the climate change threshold. The Paris agreements were designed to ensure that the long-term average temperatures towards the year 2050 do not exceed this threshold. Breaching this threshold portends irreversible ecosystem damage and more dangerous climate conditions worldwide.

A huge part of climate action involves decarbonising our energy systems, which are responsible for nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon emissions. The rapid deployment of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and combined with giant battery energy storage systems and pumped hydro energy storage systems, is supporting the decarbonisation of electricity grids and systems. While they are aiming to displace current fossil fuel-based systems, running on fossil coal, oil and gas, there are severe limitations and significant. Only about 20-22% of final energy consumption takes the form of electricity, which means that direct fuel consumption is still the main approach for the consumption of energy.

The solution to this conundrum is renewable fuels; first in the form of biofuels and, subsequently, a combination of biofuels and synthetic fuels produced through various chemical processes, some of which involve renewable electricity as well. Renewable fuels are not transition fuels. They will continue being carriers of energy in the future and serve as an important decarbonisation solution for industries that need to be supported and scaled up.

Renewable fuels are an essential complement to renewable electricity. Not all energy users are served by the electricity grid. The majority of the transport sector, as well as heavy industries, rely on fuels because of mobility or scale requirements. While battery technologies are catching up and have experienced a phenomenal decrease in costs, there are still operational limitations for many use cases. Long-haul heavy transport, due to its energy consumption and mobility, does not lend itself to battery systems. Therefore, even with electrical power production completely decarbonised, significant energy consumption in fuels will still need to be decarbonised. Renewable fuel represents such a solution that will enable low-carbon aviation, maritime transportation, mining and steelmaking to give a few sectors as examples. These sectors are not going away; they will play vital roles in the low-carbon economy of the future.

Renewable fuel contributes to energy resilience and security for countries and industries. Electricity cannot be stored for the long term across seasons except in pumped hydro storage, which requires specific geological features that are not present everywhere. Producing renewable fuels and storing them enables much longer-term energy storage, which can contribute to energy security in times of instability or when supply disruptions occur within the electricity system. This is because fuels are much more stable and transportable, and energy can be released on demand. For example, data centers’ backup power could be a huge battery energy storage system but without an additional source of energy, the batteries would eventually drain down to zero. Renewable fuel can be continuously supplied to the site, and power operations can be operated continuously.

There may be the view that once everything is electrified, only solar, wind and other renewable power generation sources are needed. As mentioned, renewable fuels provide an essential source of energy for mobility and several other sectors that are challenging to electrify and would still require fuel as a backup and for resilience. Moreover, renewable fuels are molecules used not only for energy but also in other chemical industries as chemical feedstocks. Dealing with climate change will require a shift away from fossil-based chemical feedstocks towards low-carbon ones which can be unlock from renewable fuels.

Recognising the role of renewable fuels in the climate transition is just the first step. The next would be to call upon policy actions, advocacy and industrial adoption to ensure the commercial viability. Renewable fuel technologies are available and established. To get to palatable levels of cost for the market, world-scale production needs to be established. That will require industries and energy users to provide unequivocal support for adoption. This is can only be possible with strong policy action to price carbon emissions, mandate blending and adoption; driving demand expansion serves also to expand production and enable economies of scale necessary to make renewable fuels a cost-effective solution for decarbonisation. The low-carbon future is not possible without renewable fuels; and renewable fuels will not enter the equation without policy action.

Low-carbon Hydrogen

I came across a point made by a supporter of low-carbon hydrogen when others were arguing that green hydrogen should be reserved for hard-to-abate sectors, but not for other sectors that can easily decarbonise through a lower-cost pathway instead. The point was that if low-carbon hydrogen was only going to target the hard-to-abate sector, the market size simply isn’t enough to create the scale necessary to drive down the cost of low-carbon hydrogen.

This comes at a time when we are discovering that some of the sectors that could actually pay for low-carbon hydrogen are those with much lower-cost approaches to decarbonisation (for example, food product or food services companies). So why would they be willing to pay higher price for low-carbon hydrogen? Technically, this is where economics starts to break down. Part of the reason is that the end customers are willing to pay – this is especially possible for consumer products where the agrifood industry may be able to differentiate the introduce the food prepared using low-carbon hydrogen. This is exactly what some Seven cafes in Japan is doing.

And to a certain extent, every industry starts out this way; if solar panels were simply looking to the locations with huge energy demand in the day, and also lots of solar resources for power generation, the market is going to be incredibly small. And certainly insufficient to enable the lower cost from economies of scale. So finding use cases and continually expanding them is important. While it might be admirable to keep trying to create premium products and then price it well, the alternative way of getting economics in your favour is actually to keep innovating on use-cases and focus on growing scale in a way that lowers unit cost. This then allows for further expansion of demand and use which improves learning at manufacturing and drives the cost advantage further.

That is the story of China’s manufacturing rise. And Lidar technology is a great example. The original use case for lidar technology was very limited to very specialised fields where great precision was needed in sensing and mapping physical spaces. It was initially used almost exclusively in military applications and would probably have remained so if not for China entering the picture and driving down costs through sheer manufacturing scale. By pushing down prices to particular thresholds, the mass market use case in EVs and other driver-assistance technologies emerges and serves to expand the pool of demand further.

During the hype of low-carbon hydrogen during 2020-2023, people were expecting that the cost of hydrogen production could be pushed down to such levels. Yet if we examine the value chain and recognise that the opportunity cost of using renewable electricity for hydrogen production, we would see that it was difficult for hydrogen production to compete with electrification as a commercially viable approach for decarbonising a lot of low-heat industrial applications.

An alternative path to commercialising low-carbon hydrogen is needed; and it is more about finding other use cases. It could be locations where fuel is needed to run mobile applications, or where transport of liquid fuels were prohibitively expensive and being able to easily produce it make sense. And finally, one of my favourite approach, which I am sure would be the first early commercialisation pathway: colocating green hydrogen facilities with biogas/biomethane production facilities, producing green hydrogen, then use Sabatier reaction (methanation) to produce e-methane, boosting the overall output per unit biogenic feedstock.

Yet even then, it is still necessary to drive costs down in order to be able to produce a product catering to a large and expanding market. Even for that pathway highlighted, the actual demand possible for a single hydrogen project would be limited by the available biogenic carbon dioxide which is limited by the scale of the biofuel/biogas plant. These are all bottlenecks of the renewable industry that needs to be managed. Wind and solar, especially solar is a lot more disconnected from local supply chain and ecosystems in order to pull off a successful project as they are modular and largely plug-and-play. While it means government have less hard work on creating the supply chain, there is less local benefits reaped or job opportunities created from building out solar facilities than if the market starts looking into biofuels and hydrogen.

Ultimately, the economics of hydrogen requires very strong government collaboration and the actual boots-on-the-ground work of creating the supply chain, infrastructure and delivery mechanisms. To tap into some pockets of willingness-to-pay at the moment would help.

Crowding out

In economics, there is this concept of crowding out when government spending drives out private sector spending because it soaks up available financial capital and drives up interest rates.

In Singapore, I think there is some kind of political and psychological crowding out. We have grown to be a hyper-meritocratic society and we are proud of it, believing that it is the best way of organising ourselves and our systems. And we rarely talk about the injustice perpetuated by the system because we don’t want to undermine this part of the cultural fabric.

Yet we are confronted with the reality of inequality in the society, where students from underprivileged families are expected to be measured and assessed equally before an examination in school with their peers who had better backgrounds and well-resourced parents, tutors and even siblings. How do we respond to that? Do we just say, the system will take care of it?

In many other societies, private charities, foundations and many other organisations step in to help. In Singapore, we almost think that it should be the government’s role. How many of us would think it is a gap worth bridging? How many of us, would think it’s the problem of school teachers, and try to load it on to the public service?

During PM Wong’s National Day Rally speech this year, he talked about some ground-up initiatives and community organisations, giving great examples of how we want to nurture the Singapore Spirit and encourage Singaporeans to step forward to shape the character of our society. He acknowledged that the government cannot force or direct this, but to encourage, recognise and celebrate.

And then he talked about this tension between the government and the people sector:

In many countries, you see such ground-up collective actions because the governments are not working, the governments are ineffective. So people are frustrated at the lack of action and progress. And they step forward to take matters into their own hands.

Singapore is in a different position. No one wants the government to do less. No one wants the government to become ineffective. Instead, we strive to be more efficient and responsive. And there are areas where we believe the government can and should do more – especially to provide stronger social support for those in need.

But it is not just about what the government does – and we certainly do not want to end up as a society where people rely solely on the government. It is about all of us – government, businesses, workers and unions, community groups and civil society – doing our part. All coming together for the good of Singapore and our fellow citizens. And moving forward together as one.

I think there will never be a straightforward way to demarcate, ‘this is the government’s job, this is private organisations’ job, this is the community’s role’. In many societies, cooperatives and community organisations provide many services – especially in more rural regions.

These organisational forms and structures could supplant and take up ‘market space’ (as new businesses may not be able to compete or provide similar services commercially since these organisations are already providing them effectively), or even ‘political space’ because government cannot claim credit for having achieved some of those social outcomes.

As a society, thinking about the sort of soft cultural institutions and the hard organisations, we might have to decide what kind of mix we want to form a society where we all have a stake in it and not just rely on a formal government structure. The way we have developed, where people are constantly moving around, uprooting themselves to get on the property ladder, not having a particular sense of belonging to a geographical community has made it harder to foster a sense of ownership or belonging to a group. It has also encourage a lot of selfish-thinking where people are just figuring out what rules or tricks they could follow on the path to prosperity and self-enrichment.

How can we help our citizens reclaim that responsibility and stakeholdership towards the Singapore society? How can we do that in a manner that continues to maintain our unity as a nation, and strengthen our identity as Singaporeans?

Political culture

Woke Salaryman recently posted this comic article in response to comments towards a previous post about workplace ‘politics’. I really like the realism, the clarity and conviction behind their work. I think it is great that they call out the naivety of those who thinks that they can be ‘above’ politics at work but I’m writing this post because I want to add a more nuance layer to the conversation.

I think Singapore, by and large, have always been sensitive to overt kinds of politicking because of the way politics have been portrayed in our history. We take a more superficial view of what politics mean, as though it is all bad and about behaving in deceptive or conniving, self-serving ways.

And in the workplace, we default to thinking that the virtuous approach is simply to bury head and work hard. That can be a great start in a small working team or organisation where visibility isn’t really a problem. It also works well when productivity, key work metrics are not contentious. Then politicking can seem like it’s all about bootlicking, gossiping and acting in the worse, socially destructive ways.

Politics, which is derived from greek words meaning ‘affairs of a city’ is fundamentally relating to governance and interactions between fellow beings living in the same environment, subject to different constraints and influences that are interdependent on one another in the community. The relationship-building, social interactions, tussle for power, influence or mind-share are all part of it. In a workplace, where we are all coming together to achieve something together, it takes effort and the meta-layer of ‘work’ to organise everyone together.

Work today has evolved and become increasingly complex; it is hard to measure individual effort easily, and particularly challenging to identify precisely what the right skillsets are to progress to the next level. It is ultimately the ability to organise others and persuade them to work together that produces value as opposed to working and contributing directly.

There is a role for politics in all of lives, and maybe Singapore needs to build a culture of politcal-awareness and also encourage citizens to appreciate the positive role it can play in society, workplaces. And we may all also learn the right social, emotional intellect needed to handle tricky situations. With the geopolitical climate of the world today, Singapore needs to cultivate more brilliant diplomats than ever before. How else to do so than to help our people recognise the value of such work to the survival and success of a city state nation.

Driven by inspiration

If you think that Singaporeans were motivated by fear to build up our country in early days of nationhood, think again. There wasn’t really all that much to fear because we didn’t have much to begin with. This narrative that we had no resources, we had to rely on our manpower, and our ingenuity, that’s all true but it wasn’t translating into fear for our forefathers. We had it wrong to think that Lee Kuan Yew fearmongered two generations of Singaporeans into the building up a metropolis we have today.

I believe the early Singaporeans were driven by inspiration – the ‘against all odds’ was possible because it was well worth a shot. We didn’t have much to lose; and there was everything to gain on the table. We had institutions to build, and a new identity. How exciting! And of course, we do not slacken, we are not complacent, because we were not there yet – we were limited only by our ability to envision the future and inspire our countrymen towards it.

Fast-forward today, we seem to think that we managed to achieve all that we did out of fear. We think it was ‘kiasuism’ (fear of losing) that drove us. Probably not. What was there to lose anyways; and yes we are competitive because we want to win, not because we are afraid of losing. Being afraid of losing only happens when you have won at least once. And we did win, more than once, and we begin to hold on to our victories and achievements more than our vision of the future. And in fact, this vision of the future morph, and then slipped.

Consider this press release by the Singapore government in November 1988, there seem to be a clear policy and longer term strategy underpinned by a theoretical framework of the economy. There was a deep understanding of what it means for our economy to grow and the structure by which it is expected to grow with. But without a clear sense of vision for what we want to build Singapore into, we will fall into the trap of just trying to push certain figures up indefinitely.

Ten years ago, in 2015, Ravi Menon sketched out some kind of economic vision for the future framed in a retrospective 100th year anniversary speech for Singapore in 2065. It is brilliant and perhaps reflects Ravi’s aptitude for such high level strategic thinking and visioning. If we look at the decade of performance that took place after the speech was made, I’d say things have not been kind to the world and Singapore in terms of geopolitics. That’s perhaps something Ravi did not anticipate and would not have been expected to identify as a challenge for Singapore.

In the next five decades, our nation will be confronted with lots of geopolitical challenges and turmoil in the world; our economy will require more radical thinking and transformation than the country has ever had to go through. But we can only get through it with inspiration, not fear. We can only be driven by the desire to create a future we want to live in, rather than to react to the world’s situation with the classic ‘bo-pian’ attitude that we might find more common amongst our people.

Climate startups

Whether it’s climate tech or climate or sustainability startups, I’ve been encountering them recently. Of course, they are just startup companies, looking to find a product-market fit and then scale their business. There is a massive distraction in today’s market where you could grow a business out of making grant applications and putting together plans, where you try to get funding to take off.

This sounds a lot more like research in academia than the economics of a free market. While government is hoping to drive the development of good climate solutions, they are still tapping on the market where it failed, doing so through what they believe are ways to keep things market-driven when they have actually replaced the market and allowed the grant application processes to pick winners.

The challenge is that the winners picked through a grant application process are not going to be the type who wins in the market. These are firms who would have scrutinized the fine print, delivered on arbitrary KPIs and proxies that some bureaucrat came up with in his or her office. And these schemes are just distracting time, money and resources away from the startups towards satisfying governance requirements. After all, ‘it is taxpayers’ money”

The work of growing a new industrial ecosystem isn’t easy and I’ve spent considerable part of my career thinking about ecosystems, value chains, bottlenecks in developing an industry. If the government can give some demand assurance perhaps for a specific project, or product that the customer would be able to use or satisfied with, then it could help. And very often, if politicians want to be able to make claims about having supported one particular development then things becomes more difficult, not easy. When economic support is driven by a desire for narratives rather than allowing the stories to emerge from a system that is created, you can get a poorly specified policy.