Globalisation - again!

Citation

Plimmer, F. (1998), "Globalisation - again!", Property Management, Vol. 16 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1998.11316daa.001

Globalisation - again!

Globalisation ­ again!

Globalisation has been something of a buzz word for some years now and it has been made clear to everyone that we now live and work in a global market for some (but not all) commodities. Investment market reports from around the world are regularly provided by the news media and the inter-relationship between them avidly predicted and analysed in the recent sharp fall in share values.

Within the property profession, we are also influenced by the globalisation of the investment market and, we are told, the increasingly global nature of our clients. Recent press announcements of the mergers and alliances of professional firms are one response to this trend, although I suspect that there is a rather large body of opinion which considers that this is an issue which affects large firms, but not the rest of us.

This attitude does, I believe, reflect the fact that we, as a profession, are reacting to market needs and trends, which is not a bad thing, in itself. However, it fails to recognise the full potential which globalisation offers property professionals, and that is the fact that we can work anywhere in the world; that our skills are in demand globally.

This sounds like a marvellous opportunity for those with the stamina, imagination and courage to relocate to another country or region to face the challenges which globalisation is offering property professionals. But ­ is it so simple?

Most of us achieve our status as property professionals on the basis of academic and/or professional qualifications. These qualifications are derived (in part) from the recognition given by both the public and clients to the "institutions" which award them ­ whether they are university awards or professional diplomas. Unless these qualifications are transportable internationally, the opportunities for us, as individuals, to take full advantage of globalisation are strictly limited.

Like other aspects of our profession, things have moved rapidly over the last 20 or so years. For example, some years ago, I investigated the possibility of taking my professional qualifications to the other side of the world and working in New Zealand. I did not expect to be given the right to practice immediately. I would not have wanted that. I anticipated a period of professional practice, with perhaps a course of study, during which I would learn the legal and technical skills necessary to adapt to New Zealand's professional practice. But I did, however, expect some recognition to be given to my (then) existing academic and professional achievements. I was somewhat shocked to discover that I was, effectively, required to begin my professional education all over again and to complete a four-year undergraduate programme to qualify for the New Zealand professional organisation.

How have things changed? Well, there are two vehicles by which, if I continued to have aspirations of working in New Zealand (or, for that matter, Canada or Australia, for example) my existing qualification (Fellow of The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) would be recognised by the corresponding professional body. True, I would be required only to undergo a period of supervised professional practice and to undertake a limited amount of professional education, considered essential to ensure that I was conversant with the law and practice of that country. These reciprocity agreements, negotiated between various professional organisations allow us to relocate and practice without having to requalify. They recognise our existing professional qualifications and experience and provide protection for the individual, the professional body and the public by requiring a period during which the individual can adapt to the changed professional environment.

These reciprocity agreements are the results of the efforts of individual professional organisations and demonstrate the willingness of our professional representatives to communicate and negotiate on our behalf.

The second vehicle for change comes from regional governments, such as the European Union, which has produced a directive requiring that all member states recognise the essential equivalence of the professional qualifications of its citizens.

In the past, I have written extensively on how the directive operates and how it can be used to allow professionals to have their professional qualifications recognised in other member states within the EU (refer, for example, Gronow and Plimmer, 1992; Plimmer and Gronow, 1990). When it was first proposed in the mid-1980s, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which is part of the free movement of people, was considered by the European Commission as essential if the single European Market was to be achieved.

Since then, a small number of property professionals have used the directive to relocate and, while it may take some decades for the EU to develop the level of "free movement" of people which exists within a national boundary, the fact that the principle of recognising professional qualifications is enshrined in legislation (however complex) must be seen as a welcome opportunity for all professionals who seek to take advantage of our increasingly globalised markets.

However, reciprocity between specified professional institutions and mutual recognition within regional administrations will not allow us access to the world market for our skills. They are both limited in scope. This has been recognised by FIG (International Federation of Surveyors) who, at its recent Congress in Brighton, organised a forum to discuss the issue of a global recognition of professional qualifications.

FIG, which comprises members from professional organisations from all over the world, has discussed the harmonisation of professional qualifications, which would mean, for example, that all land surveyors, regardless of the country in which they qualify, follow a similar academic programme of professional education followed by similar professional training prior to qualification. Harmonisation was rejected by the European Commission as means of achieving the free movement of professionals, because it took so long for negotiations between different professional groups to agree standardised syllabuses. Mutual recognition, which FIG is also investigating, both as it is implemented in Europe and in other areas (for example, within Australia) seems a simpler option to introduce but probably a more complex system to administer.

It is not possible to ignore the potential administrative problems posed by mutual recognition but experience within the EU has demonstrated that with effective communications and goodwill on all sides, the process can work to the benefit of all concerned.

Globalisation of our clients and their markets will not go away, nor will it wait for us to catch up. To meet the challenge and to provide the professional services which areneeded into the next millennium, it is essential that FIGs initiative is encouraged and developed. The effective use of our limited resources and the speed with which our professional world is changing make it vital that we, the professionals' advisers, are able to respond to the challenge ­ globally.

Frances PlimmerReader in Applied Valuation