|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - May/June 2004 / Q&A with Martha Choe - Washington's Point Person for Economic Development and Securing the 7E7 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Q&A with Martha Choe - Washington's Point Person for Economic Development and Securing the 7E7 |
|
|
|
Written On: May/June 2004 |
|
|
|
Martha Choe recently stepped down as Washington's director of the Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), a post she accepted in 1999. Currently, she is coordinating the state's part of the 7E7 project and, later this year, Martha will retire from state government. Prior to becoming CTED director, she served on the Seattle City Council from 1992 to 1999. Prior to joining state government, Choe was vice president of the Bank of California in commercial lending, credit administration, and private banking. She has served as a trustee of Western Washington University.
Q: In the past, you’ve seen economic development efforts come and go. Do you believe the renewed emphasis is permanent?
A: I hope so, and I think the creation of the Governor’s Competitiveness Council and the Economic Development Commission (EDC) will help continue that long-term focus and direction. With a gubernatorial election coming up, that will be the first test for whoever is elected.
Q: What drove the decision to form the EDC? What are you and Gov. Locke doing to insure the work of the commission continues?
A: There was interest in tapping a high level private sector and labor leadership group to sustain a strong economic development focus through changes in the administration and directors of this agency. We examined many other states to study best practices and then to craft something that made sense for Washington, rather than use a cookie cutter approach. Scott Morris, a member of the Competitiveness Council had a keen interest and we helped convene a task force to recommend a commission, which the Competitiveness Council endorsed. He was named by Gov. Locke as the chair of the EDC.
Q: As the point person for Gov. Locke on the 7E7, what were the key drivers in Boeing’s decision to build the new plane at Everett? How important was Boeing’s decision to the state? Does it signal a turnaround in our state’s business climate?
A: The work of the Governor’s Competitiveness Council did a great deal in 2001 to focus on improvements in the state’s business climate. As one of the co-chairs, Alan Mulally helped focus the council on several areas that the state needed to address, such as transportation funding, regulatory reforms, tax issues, and human capital needs. Most of the recommendations have been adopted, and that was a real signal that the state’s business climate was improving.
The actions led by the governor in the 2003 legislative session and approved by the Legislature were key: Transportation funding which will make significant road and infrastructure improvements; changes to the unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation system; and a tax reduction package for the aerospace industry, HB 2294.
In terms of the final decision there were numerous considerations, not all of which I was privy to. But I do know that our proposal was creative, forward-thinking and demonstrated an understanding of what the U.S. aerospace industry, and particularly Boeing, would need to beat Airbus.
There was an incredible team we put together called “Action Washington” that included representatives of the state and local government, elected leaders, economic development professionals, EDC’s, labor, tribes, and the private sector — that team and the work they did were critical to our win.
One of our greatest assets in the state is the quality and productivity of our skilled workforce. Our proposal helps ensure that aerospace workers continue to have the skills necessary to meet the production and assembly needs of the Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner business model.
Q: As you meld the Competitivenes Council’s recommendations with the work of EDC, what are the two or three key strategies our state needs to embrace?
A: First, to be willing to prioritize where we put our resources. It is easier said than done, but we have done considerable research in the clusters of economic activity that will be important to the state’s economic future, and the agency is realigning itself along those clusters. Second, to be clear that industry is the customer and that we need to be responding to and understanding those needs. Third, to be aggressive and proactive in marketing the state.
Q: In the area of trade, what do you see as our state’s key advantages? Disadvantages?
A: We are equidistant between Asia and Europe with a number of natural deep-water ports that serve different parts of the state. Our strategic location and long-time experience trading with Asian and other countries have been key strengths and because of our proximity and relationship to Asia, we are currently and have served as a gateway to Asia.
We are recognized as a leader in innovation, technology, and cultural influence. Boeing, Microsoft and Starbucks are great examples of this and are names recognized worldwide. We can leverage our state’s association with these world-class companies to gain opportunities for other Washington companies.
For example, we are one of the only states in the country that is expanding our presence abroad, thanks to funding from the legislative session last year. We will be selecting a part-time Mexico representative, a new representative in China and a new representative in Germany.
State trade mission bring results. When Gov. Locke led a mission to China last year, we worked with Washington businesses to help them understand how to do business in China. We anticipate over $46 million in sales from that trip alone. Another example is as a result of the governor’s mission to Japan and Korea in 2002, a Korean company will be relocating its headquarters and production facilities to the state. They will start with 50 employees and plan to increase to 300 in the next 5 years.
The disadvantages are that we, as a state, need to do more. We need more opportunities to promote our state in strategic locations around the world. Our overseas expansion is driven by the needs and direct input from business across our state and that’s what guides our actions.
Q: For years, agriculture and natural resources-based industries have been the backbone of our economy and exports. Looking ahead, what needs to happen at the state level for these industries to compete globally in the years ahead?
A: Just as we learned through the 7E7 experience that the future of Washington’s aerospace industry depended on our ability to help Boeing compete with Airbus, we need to continue to find ways to help our other key industries also be competitive. It starts with a solid understanding of the industry’s needs and developing an appropriate action plan. We also know a continued emphasis on worker training and retraining, investments in infrastructure, adequate funding for our research institutions and streamlined permitting to an industry’s success.
Q: Many of our neighboring states and provinces have more aggressive tourism promotional programs. What does our state need to do to be competitive in tourism?
A: First of all, tourism is an important industry to the health of the state’s economy. It contributes $11 billion to the economy each year and supports more than 150,000 jobs directly. Some 28,000 businesses, mostly small, depend on visitors traveling to the state for their livelihood. We have seen some of the greatest growth in rural communities who have embraced tourism as part of their overall economic diversification strategy.
A: Tourism is also a very competitive business with destinations around the world vying for the leisure and business traveler dollar. One only needs to go online or thumb through travel magazines to know how many options a traveler has today.
I would stack our return on investment against any of our competitors. However, destination marketing has also become a very sophisticated and expensive activity and our future success depends on an adequate marketing budget to at least maintain market share. Based on a recent study done of the 13 western states, Washington’s budget ranked lowest at $3.7 million contrasted with Texas who ranked highest at $18.6 million per year.
Q: What’s next for Martha Choe?
A: I’ve always been blessed with opportunities to hold positions that I love and believe I can make a difference. I will be leaving the administration in May and don’t know what is next, but am excited to find out!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
