Comments 32

应对全球4.0

Nov 5, 2018 Klaus Schwab

日内瓦—二战后，国际社会开始一起构建共同未来。现在，国际社会必须再做一次。全球金融危机以来，全球复苏缓慢而不均，全球社会有很大一部分感到不满和愤怒，不但针对政治和政客，也针对全球化和它所制成的整个经济体系。在不安全和沮丧遍布的时代，民粹主义吸引力日盛，成为取代现状的替代方案。

但民粹主义的叙事会省略——甚至混淆——两个概念之间的重大差异：全球化（globalization）和全球注意（globalism）。全球化是一种由科技和思想、人和商品流动带来的现象。全球注意是一种强调新自由全球秩序高于国家利益的意识形态。没有人能够否认我们生活在一个全球化的世界中。但是否我们的所有政策都应该是“全球主义的”，则颇可商榷。

毕竟，这场危机引发了对我们的全球治理结构的重要质疑。越来越多的选民要求从“全球势力”手中“夺回控制权”，在需要合作的世界中恢复主权成为一项挑战。我们决不因为保护主义和民族主义政治而降经济分比起来，而必须构建公民与领导人之间的新的社会契约，让所有人在国内获得足够的安全感，保持经济基本对世界开放。如果失败的话，社会结构的不断分崩离析可能最终导致民主的崩溃。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 32 in all 32 Comments on this article

Jack kessler Jan 11, 2019

IP ownership and control are at the heart of so many things now, from digital-based industries to universities and general education and to entire sectors of medicine & law & science, politics, entertainment, finance... and certainly to the economic systems and inequities of that... Little good generalized attention has been paid to that control, so far, yet as we all have seen recently in political headlines IP already wields great power. It must be studied carefully.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack kessler Jan 11, 2019

I am very glad to see your inclusion here of IP / Intellectual Property -- that seems to be the very heart of the new industrial paradigm, which I've seen characterized most often as a shift from The Industrial to The Digital revolutions, here in the digital-minded USA -- "whoever controls the IP" controls much here now... perhaps too much...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack kessler Jan 11, 2019

"To determine the public good, we first must identify the root causes of inequality" -- who, exactly, is "we" -- this is the political question, and it needs precise definition -- re-definition, if the postwar late-1940s institutions are to be abandoned now... and if "Asia" now is to be included, as it really was not included then...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack kessler Jan 11, 2019

You are writing here of what we in the US call Nationalism and Isolationism, I believe -- your "protectionism and nationalist politics" -- these are old and ought to be very-familiar evils, to all of us. I am not sure that the current abandonment of multi-lateralism and inter-nationalism, or perhaps trans-nationalism, ought to be pursued any further -- such a course always has led to to nationalism and isolationism, in the past, as so often it has in the US, and in Europe. We need "a new social compact", as you say, perhaps, but that must have a solid structure: both efficacy and validity, as Kelsen used to say.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
e.mushinski @days.ag Jan 2, 2019

The systems of health are the drivers for others. Our DAYS.exchange healthcare sharing platform have a solution, to be presented at Davos annual meeting. Invite to collaboration. As Mr Schwab wrote: "The changes that are underway today are not isolated to a particular country, industry, or issue. They are universal, and thus require a global response. Failing to adopt a new cooperative approach would be a tragedy for humankind"
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Armin Schmidt Nov 16, 2018

My old (end '16) proposal still applies. It is found in my biography section.

I propose to supercharge democracy with a new bipolarity for all social scales, from family to global, and with roots in every human's life.

a moral pole: main objective: trying seeming best for all
an existential pole: main objective: trying seeming subgroup liberation

"trying seeming best for all" can be aimed for on all social scales,
"trying seeming subgroup liberation" can be aimed for on all social scales as well

If both political poles all over the world fractally match, voluntary political cooperation might become way more easy. And political experiments might become way more translatable. Supercharging. Maybe even China could be vowed to the simplicity and efficiency.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wim Roffel Nov 11, 2018

There has always been globalization. A century ago the world was already highly integrated. And the only effect was that - when an economic crisis came along - everyone tried to beggar his neighbor.

What has changed is the extent to which the "free trade" doctrine has become an absolute truth. That has clouded the fact that people still want to control the economic fate of their country - as should be their democratic right.

https://nation-building.blogspot.com/2018/11/globalization-is-threat-not-insurance.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Niklas Monrad Nov 9, 2018

Is this a roundabout way of saying, that too many people lack the cognitive abilities (or in other words: are too dumb) to be of value in a highly technical society that will need programmers and engineers, so we need to ensure that they are instead trained to take care of the highly skilled ones when the latter get old? Because we know that one day soon, we are facing the prospect of a flood of unemployables that previously held jobs (and to some extent still do) working the land, the mines, the factories, driving trucks and taxis and other lowly jobs ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Robinson Nov 7, 2018

I also believe that both "globalization" and its sister, "globalism," are on the decline – not the new-reality. We somehow briefly forgot the fundamental importance of "nations," which exist within "borders" and which defend those borders, and who have the sovereign right to establish laws that are binding within them. We also forgot the fundamental importance of retaining domestic manufacturing capability, so that each sovereign(!) nation trades with other nations for mutual benefit, not out of there being no alternative.

In my opinion, both "globalization" and "globalism" have badly failed us all, by pushing a brand of international relations that is naturally exploitative, not strengthening. They are neither sustainable nor mutually beneficial nor fault-tolerant. Mature international relations must be all of these things. Globalists made many pretty promises but delivered on none of them.

Donald Trump offered sage advice when he said, "America First!" and when he went on to say that he expected every country to say the same with regard to themselves. Nations must deal from a position of strength, not weakness. If they do not put their own self-interests first, no one else will. If they do not invest first in themselves, even when someone "will sell for less, always," they will have no strength to draw on when adversity strikes. Only when they themselves are strong and autonomous will they have anything of merit to offer to other nations. Every country must come to the negotiating table with the same understanding: "My-Country First!" Prepared and willing to craft a deal, but only a good one.

We drank too-deeply of "globalism juice" before we realized it was poisonous. Negotiators (around the world!) who should have known better created some spectacularly awful agreements that will take years to set aright.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nigel southway Nov 6, 2018

This is another one of these.. "let’s just tweak the old failing globalization model and continue with the wealth transfer" ... NOT .... nothing short of a full lock down on globalization with fierce nationalism, strong borders, reduced and balanced trade and capital controls will do..
- Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 6, 2018
  
  You say "let’s just tweak the old failing globalization model and continue with the wealth transfer" is only under the planet of the Dark Globalization and DeGlobalization with the PLAN of The Wealth of Nations of the Fourth industrial Revolution, not so by leapfrogging to my VISION on another planet of the Bright Globalization of The Wealth of Globalization.
  - nigel southway Nov 6, 2018
    
    another planet?
    - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 6, 2018
      
      “Another planet” is where most of you all are, because Margaret Thatcher’s push the neoliberalism comet of The Wealth of Nations in orbit. Then The Computing Big Shift force pushed it under a Marketing Myopia to the Dark Globalization to get all of you far away from reality and in response to the low trust in national leaders and experts a new even worst independence force emerged for DeGlobalization “… nothing short of a full lock down on” the Dark “globalization with fierce nationalism, strong borders, reduced and balanced trade and capital controls will do.”
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 6, 2018

All is not plain sailing! Globalisation is not the problem, globalisation existed, in one form or another throughout the ages, the problem is "Inequality". At long last, the former Fed Chair, J. Yellen admitted yesterday that Inequality is the problem and the solution for it is full time employment and nothing but, meaning a good standard of living for the citizens with good value jobs. If Davos is sincere, which it can never be, finding and implementing solutions to inequality would be a good start.
- Mike Robinson Nov 7, 2018
  
  I respectfully dissent: while we have always existed in a "global economy," until quite recently countries did protect themselves first and put themselves first. They participated in a "global economy" but did not view it as "global government." Furthermore, there was always "inequality."
  
  I think that we need to re-remember that sage advice about "those who consider price alone." We chased-down the cheapest labor we could find, and either exploited it where it was, or brought it to our countries (displacing our own citizens) and ... exploited(!) them, once there. We tore down our factories and "put up a parking lot."
  
  Until, finally, we see it for what it is: "this isn't working, and what is more, it never will." The once-mightiest nations on Earth have become flaccid, and vulnerable. Clearly, this is a fundamental error.
  - M M Nov 8, 2018
    
    Dear Mike Robinson
    
    Globalisation or globalism are very subjective terms. Some people like to "reinvent the wheel" by forgetting that the wheel has already been invented. You seem to contradict yourself in both your arguments herein, on the one hand you are against globalisation but you recognise that it cannot be untangled due to various treaties, agreements, business and other inter tangled interests. Migration always existed throughout the ages, nothing new, it just got out of control in the last decade or so due to government policies, demographic changes and the supply and demand forces in the market place mainly the high demand for cheap labour and this to counter the threat in the rise of China and other countries as one example. Trump has one agenda and one agenda only, and this agenda is called and written all over it "Trump". "America First" does not come anywhere near it. The advocates of anti globalisation (and I am not saying globalisation is perfect), are advocating the return of many countries, first and foremost the US, to the dark ages. Do you know how much electricity the US imports from its neighbours? And this is only one example which I suggest you research because the answer to it is easily obtainable! One must move away from empty rhetoric and focus on real and workable policies that impact directly or indirectly on people's daily lives and globalisation is not one of them.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe S54 Nov 6, 2018

The bottom line is simple. Rising inequality, political unrest and rejection of the existing "international order" (which no one voted on) in developed countries are the result of access to cheap foreign labor on the part of employers, facilitated by trade and immigration policies that exist for the sole benefit of employers, to the detriment of the people in their own countries. They pay foreign workers less, and then pocket the savings. Meanwhile, people in developed countries can't find decent jobs that pay well, have no stability or security, and in exchange get slightly cheaper goods. The "global elite" think they should be happy with that. They aren't. Ask anyone whether they would rather have a higher salary and higher prices (and then choosing whether to buy, save or invest), or have a low salary they can barely get by on, but have cheaper flatscreen TVs. You will not get the answer you want. The devaluation of labor has been the goal of all policy by "international institutions" for at least 25 years. The people have finally caught on. It's over.

These "international institutions" also draw equivalence between a totalitarian communist dictatorship in China, and hard-won democracy in the West. As long as the money is flowing, who cares about anything else?

Just a heads-up for you: you will not get away with pawning it all off on technology and "economic forces beyond your control". We see the foreign workers being shipped in to work for nothing. We have to live with them in our neighborhoods. You don't. You just profit from it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Nov 5, 2018

The present political upheavals are no joke. They're building to a full strength wave of regressive right-populist-authoritarian governments in Democracies across the west and beyond. Brazil just joined this unfortunate pattern. The US of course, but we are still in denial about it, hoping it's just a bad dream from which we'll wake up with tomorrow's election, if we're lucky. France is going to have another encounter with it. Germany is holding on but not all that firmly - what will happen after Merkel?

Should an attempt to get a clear-headed understanding of this phenomenon be **THE** top subject of the current Davos? you bet.

And it isn't 4IR. It's very much a consequence of 2IR/3IR, not sure how we are counting here. But the IR which involved the dismantling of welfare functions of western governments, to facilitate free movement of capital and low-end labor activity (regardless of whether or not the labor itself crossed borders), and the associated deregulationist fantasies, which i think have now been put to rest but unfortunately too late.

Shining lights of 4IR such as the next Uber or Apple or Tesla will not solve this problem. It is an old fashioned issue of the tension between democracy and distribution of wealth. Good enough techniques to resolve it exist going back to 1IR and 2IR. A futuristic economic vision, while a worthwhile and valuable thing, is not directly relevant to the slow-motion but very powerful crisis that is in full swing.

Back to basics -- the traditional compromises offered by social democracy -- and refraining from choosing the most self-sabotaging (but deregulationist) figureheads in government -- is what is called for. The two issues are tightly intertwined. It defies logic that democracies can support authoritarian regimes in the imperial periphery (reality check - refer to recent J. Sachs piece), and not have the patterns of behavior that we apply to the active edges of our civilization come back home.

Unmanaged, the future is not at all bright. The crude instincts of businessmen are predictable -- If faced with a hard choice between democracy and economic stability, they will choose economic stability -- and form and alliance with whichever authoritarian they find "least bad". Everyone will recognize that this is a myopic choice, but noone will dare stand in the way of the crowd (speaking here not of the crowd of lumpenproles, but the B-school crowd, who are equally conformist and manipulable - the basics of human social imperatives are simply modulated up to a more refined level).

Panic is of course not the answer either... but a hard look at the lessons of the issues of political economy in 1IR/2IR, which never went away, is very much appropriate.
- stephan Edwards Nov 6, 2018
  
  Problem is the Davo's crowd has more interest in what is best for them (and Their bottom Lines) then what is best for the people in general. Most of them have made it pretty plain by their actions they could care less about the new version of serfs and peasants. They have made many a sound byte and many pretty speeches. BUT WHEN HAVE THEY CHANGED A SINGLE THING? I grant you some things are well beyond their control. But they haven't (For all their speeches) Changed a single thing within their control. All it is is Public Relations they don't actually want change. The current set up is doing them just fine thank you. The big problem is and unless it can be resolved? you can talk of new global standards, new social contracts, new norms,standards and policies all you want. IT IS IRRELEVANT!!! The only people in a position to change things for the most part like the current setup just fine. The only people actually interested in changing things at a leadership level are the people of the far right and far left. If history is any guide and I personally think it is. The time is ripe for a man on Horseback. A new Napoleon, Frederick the great or Gustavus Adolphus, or if we are unlucky a new Hitler. The problem is... Men on horseback usually spill a lot of blood. Unfortunately the pigs at the trough have NO interest or inclination to change things. So all this talk about new paradigms new social contracts it's all pie in the sky by and by. Designed to keep the peasant quiet.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Joe S54 Nov 6, 2018
  
  Here's the problem with the moldy center-left. People don't want welfare. They want good jobs that pay well. And that is how you get better distribution. When employers are forced to reinvest capital in their own countries, and pay people what they're worth, it happens naturally. Tax-and-spend government redistribution is a proven failure. Restricting immigration and balancing trade will make it happen the right way, to the benefit of all, with a growing economy driven by increased consumer spending, increased revenue, and then again increased pay. It is a virtuous circle that works, when there isn't a hole in the bottom of the ship - and that hole is economic foreign policy, i.e. trade and immigration, or "globalization". The US has been losing 3% of GDP year after year in trade deficits, and has effectively had open borders on top if it. It is simple supply and demand. When you greatly increase the supply of labor, you reduce its price (pay). That is the bottom line of everything.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Robinson Nov 5, 2018

"With all due (dis?-)respect," I politely dissent with Mr. Schwab in his opinion that we have somehow "ushered in a 'new' economy" which "demands 'new' forms of [implicitly: "world"] governance."

In my opinion, "Globalism" is merely an archetype of its predecessor, "Communism," and it is doomed to fail for the same reason: it is supported by "idealism," not oh-so human "reality."

The reality of Communism turned out to be: "comfortable dachas for Mr. Gorbachev, squalor for East Germans."

The reality of Globalism is: "'We Sell for Less, Always™,' but unemployed buyers still can't afford it."

. . . But also: exploitative "immigration cum non-immigrant-visa" practices whereby exploitable people are brought in to displace citizens, but continue to be exploited once they arrive. ("Indentured Servitude all over again, the US 13th Amendment d'damned.")

= = =

Sometimes, it really does pay to remember that our "global" economy is still made up of "sovereign nations," and that this foundation is utterly vital. I assert that, just as "Communism" failed by neglecting the importance of diversity -within- a country, "Globalism" fails by neglecting the importance of diversity -between- them.

"Globalism" tries to convince us that "nations do not matter," but as a corny old country song says, "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." A far more sustaining alternative is this one: "<My-Country> First!" If every party to an international negotiation stubbornly identifies himself with a particular country, and fights on behalf of that country in a negotiation that is known and expected to finally end in compromise, THEN(!) the outcome will be worth its salt.

Today, our lives are fairly stuffed with international treaties that are ... quite frankly ... unsalvageable. And IMHO we have only our "globalism" to blame.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Olga Butorina Nov 5, 2018

Thank you very much for the article. "To move from a narrative of production and consumption toward one of sharing and caring" is a good formula to be remembered. Evidently, we all need new ethics to make trust and collaboration more important than prestige and pleasure.
- nigel southway Nov 6, 2018
  
  naaaa
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Nov 5, 2018

"...pessimists will argue that political conditions are standing in the way of a productive global dialogue about Globalization 4.0 and the new economy..."

I am your quintessential pessimist, and I would not say that "political conditions" are the defining problem at all. What worries me is that the *comprehension* of the next set of theories/solutions about societal organization will run away from the mass of humanity because they will (a) be outsourced to algorithms (b) be too complex to be understood.
What I mean is, imagine the next Das Kapital etc, is produced by a combination of Einstein, Gödel and von Neumann. The number of people out of the whole of humanity capable of comprehending what they had to say is probably no greater than 100k. Corbyn wouldn't come close, but nor would Kissinger do much better - they simply wouldn't have the maths.
- Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 5, 2018
  
  Are you able to read and understand my first two comments? Was yours the fourth comment and there are at least five comments now?
  
  Did people understand Steve Jobs‘ VISION behind his proposals on the iPod, iTunes, iPad, iPhone? Should anyone need to consider "What worries me is that the *comprehension* of the next set of theories/solutions about societal organization will run away from the mass of humanity because they will (a) be outsourced to algorithms (b) be too complex to be understood" in order to vote in an election after a Path Creator of the Bright Globalization had shown, for example, in the USA, the EU, the UK, Spain, or even the State of California, a true democracy people were not expecting but love?
  
  That’s was what actually happened after the American Revolution in 1776. Many other countries used the Framework Change in the USA as a Pattern Change for their nation. The difference with today is that was based on a system architecture didn’t have an explicit systems architecting act, like the one I architected for the Wealth of Globalization.
  - Prashant Kotak Nov 6, 2018
    
    Jose, I read through your comments and your medium post. Apologies, but I can't say I understand your lines of reasoning. Am I right in thinking that your stance is essentially quasi-religious? That would explain my lack of comprehension, because I have never been very good at following religious arguments.
    - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 6, 2018
      
      Thanks PRASHANT. With “I can't say I understand your lines of reasoning,” you have given me the opportunity to try to make myself understood, not just to you, but to the great majority of potential leaders. Non leaders are dealt the way Steve Jobs did it.
      
      My reasoning is not religious. It is mostly systemic, which adds synthetic structural explanations able to deal with VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) as opposed to analytic behavioral explanations of science unable to deal with VUCA. The source of many of my thought experiments is Alvin Toffler's book The Third Wave, which is synthetic, not analytic.
      
      The Second Wave is the Industrial Civilization which had already serve its useful purpose when Margaret Thatcher convinced the world that under VUCA there was no alternative to neoliberalism. Using the systemic perspective I had envisioned that the Industrial Civilization was no longer useful for society as a whole. As the world has become highly interdependent the independent mindset of The Wealth of Nations that's followed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution is wrong headed, because the future is no longer a continuation of the past.
      
      As can be seen next the interdependent mindset of The Wealth of Globalization will benefit society as a whole. Behind all this there is a communication Big Shift from Printing to Computing, which was led by Steve Jobs to transform a few industries, while some people said the he did this with a Reality Distortion Field. But that's the wrong interpretation. He was the person to become a global business leader of The Wealth of Globalization.
      
      It s actually national political leader managing (not leading) global issues, under a global leadership vacuum, that are distorting reality, which is summarized after the fact with the principle "Realities are more important than ideas." To support that, please consider my June 2011 post "How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership ( https://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-cross-thin-line-from-arrogance.html )." Now we know who the arrogant are.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Nov 5, 2018

For "wider engagement and heightened imagination", see:
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/20/ai-offers-a-unique-opportunity-for-social-progress

For a 'good time', imagine Klaus locked in a medieval stock in front of the cathedral in old town Geneva, his rolled "blueprint for a shared global-governance architecture" protruding from his back pocket, pending implementation.
- Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 5, 2018
  
  As wider engagement under The Wealth of Nations is not emerging from the majority of the people, please take a look in my first comment at wider engagement under The Wealth of Globalization the way Steve Jobs did it.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 5, 2018

In the very small #GlobalDebout movement, that follows my bottom-up “global governance architecture,” under my vision of The Wealth of Globalization ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/theres-nothing-so-powerful-as-thewealthofglobalization-whose-time-has-come-97f37ade9038 ) mindset, I agree with Klaus Schwab that “The changes that are underway today are …universal, and thus require a global response.”

I must disagree, however, with the “global governance architecture” top-down PLAN he suggests to “draft a blueprint” with the Fourth Industrial Revolution mindset of The Wealth of Nations, that he says “will require two things of the international community: wider engagement and heightened imagination.”

My vision that only needs the second thing is a #Jobsism (after Steve Jobs) proposal of heightened imagination to help emerge the Path Creator of the Bright Globalization (the others will be Path Finders maybe with wider engagement), which #GlobalDebout is not expecting but will love, for example, with the first successful referendum, of the:

50 states of United States of America

28 members of the European Union

4 countries of the United Kingdom (not a second Brexit Referendum)

17 Autonomous Communities of Spain
- nigel southway Nov 6, 2018
  
  You are on another planet?
  - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 6, 2018
    
    Thank you Nigel. "Low trust in national leaders and experts explained ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/low-trust-in-national-leaders-and-experts-explained-ceb073401f29 )" the global leadership vacuum of the last three decades.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.