Ever since coming up with the solution of abandoning countries in favour of global and very local governance, my head has been spinning about how it might work. But what has become clearer in my mind is the basic belief that it would work, or at least be a major improvement on what we have today.
I have started reading political statements and news articles in a different way. Never before has I realised that nations and their apologists did so much damage. Look out for policies defined in a national interest that are plainly against a global interest and arguably against the interest of the citizens of the subject country too. There are everywhere. Some are blatant – just read the obituaries for Kim Jong Il. Others are more subtle – look at the statements of European leaders around their recent summit. The worse an argument is, the more likely it is to be sold using a justification of national interest, and we fall for it!
So am I advocating a sort of big brother super-state? Well, I hope not. Though I have started to look again at one of the countries I had the privilege of living in during the 1990’s, namely Sweden. The place had a collectivist feel which I found strange at the time. Districts of cities had a lot of power, and people clubbed together readily on basic things. As an example, a typical apartment block had a common room in the basement for laundry, thereby saving electricity, freeing space in kitchens and creating social contact all at the same time, at the cost of a bit of time and planning.
Then the Swedish state was more intrusive than I was used to. We all had personal numbers and identity cards, and information about each other was readily available to all, for example income and tax records. Taxes were high, and very progressive, but then services were excellent too. My favourite example concerned affordable childcare facilities, whereby parents could both work while raising children. Also, people worked hard, but their hours showed a good balance between work and family.
Of course Sweden is also famous for its environmental leadership – with a clear understanding of common goods - and its generous overseas aid. Ten years ago, capitalists scoffed at the Swedish model, but they seem to have fine-tuned it a little now to promote growth and innovation a bit more. They tried a Tobin tax, but found that alone it was too costly. Even while I was there, the arguments against innovation seemed thin – as an example Swedish IT was always leading edge – but now the economy has become a leader again overall.
So Sweden may be a good model for future global governance. Lots of local democracy, within an accepted system of benign global rules. It is feasible. It even works to an extent in isolation, so imagine its power if everyone played by those rules.
What might those rules look like?
Start with the universal declaration of human rights, maybe strengthened a little with statements about gender equality and rights of children. After abolishing countries, we can also add in a right for full freedom of movement and residence. We just have to accept transparency in our affairs.
Next, create an economic policy for the world. Common goods, such as forests and natural resources, are owned commonly. One central bank runs a global monetary and fiscal policy with a single currency. Goals are full employment, global balance sheet (common resource) growth, stable prices including asset prices, a declining GINI coefficient, and fair outcomes for each generation. Taxes would focus on production and on redistribution.
Much tax would be collected or be immediately reallocated locally, to communities of say 100,000-500,000 people. Health, education, housing, policing and social care would be managed locally, and communities could also raise tax on property and consumption. Where I am struggling in the extent to which communities should be regulated. I want competition at this level, but not at the expense of human rights and wider goals. Ideally, there are a set of big rules about freedom of movement and human rights, but everything else would be the subject of local democracy. But a part of me would intervene too much. Why not outlaw smoking? Or gambling? This part gets tricky.
Companies would be registered and regulated globally, with no need for subsidiaries. Shareholders and workers would have lots of rights to prevent greed, and communities would encourage companies to locate in their areas. Careers are managed by individuals, with much freedom of movement, personal education and personal pension plans, and the right to variable working hours and styles.
There would need to be a lot of transition arrangements, but the EU experience shows that these can be managed.
There is a second type of community. We all have a residence community, but we are also free to join communities of interest as well, for example religions or languages. And families of course. This way traditions can be maintained and sensitivities can be managed, at least in theory.
Am I mad? Does this sound like communism, or at least collectivism? We all know what happened to communism, its inherent flaws. Would this system reduce corruption, ore make it worse? Would it stifle development? I don’t really know. But I do know we could eliminate armies and secret police. We could solve the current crisis in an instant. Climate change would be resolved. The millennium development goals would be achieved, indeed exceeded.
What about the people? Could we survive without our nations? For this one, look at football. When there are clubs, we don’t really care too much about countries. My guess it would be the same with governance, that given the chance to support a local team of people we identified with, together with other communities of global interest, we could easily dispense with the nation.
The sad thing is, I don’t think we are ready to try. We have all been brainwashed, and our elites have too much to lose. Even the most noble live experiment of pooling resources, the EU, is collapsing rather than thriving.
But I’ll continue reading articles and statements with my new lens. Try doing the same, you may reach the same conclusion.
Now I’ll retire to read my Christmas treat, the Economist. I’ve only read two special articles so far and already I’m captivated, the comparison between Martin Luther and Facebook was simply brilliant.
Happy Christmas and a healthy and peaceful 2012.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
After Democracy - The World of John Lennon
Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.
How did countries come about? Originally we were individuals, then loose groupings, then tribes. The people who grouped us into countries were Kings, or Priests, or Landowners, all looking for ways to legitimise their established advantages. It enabled laws (initially on things like slavery and surfdom), taxes and tithes, trade, and borders – to keep people in, and to keep people out.
Now we need laws, and taxes. And we benefit from trade. But most of the rest of that list only do harm to development. And what if the good bits – laws, taxes and trade – could be managed within a single global country? Why not?
The start of this line of thinking was to look at the mess democracy is currently making. Democracy itself is not the problem – indeed it seems better than other systems – but we have allowed it to become misused.
A lot of this is about language, and the use of language to pursue tribal goals (for the modern day Kings of course). Democracy becomes associated with freedom. What sort of freedom? In some countries freedom becomes associated with God, a God who somehow is on our side.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but this is almost akin to fascism. Freedom is a relative concept, applicable only to insiders and within defined boundaries. How can we espouse freedom when we invade others, build fences, lock up so many citizens, allow an explosion of inequality, and allow our establishment to peddle lies?
Good concepts have been taken over for tribal ends here. It was interesting this week to read that Egyptians are not hankering for democracy and freedom, but for dignity and justice. These are better goals, and the system should be shaped to deliver those goals, rather than be the goal itself.
So what system best delivers dignity and justice? I think I would add a third goal, something about development - a sustainable positive evolution of living standards. That is a bit wordy, but it covers things like health (eg. infant mortality) and other such progress.
Let us learn from other systems that have lasted to course. Families can be functional or dysfunctional, but their strength is their compact self-support mechanism. A lot of our dignity comes from our family, at least when it works well. Families distribute blessings with some justice, and protect the weak.
Churches have perpetrated some of the worst evils on the world over the centuries. But, at their heart and when well-run, they promote values supporting dignity and justice. They help our sense of belonging, distribute blessings, and make us humble.
Companies allow development through innovation. They rape the world’s natural resources and have little sense of sustainability, and, unchecked, can lead to terrible inequality. Yet I would argue the best run companies do more good than harm. And we know that families, Churches and governments would have struggled to give us the internet or modern medicines. So let us embrace them.
So what about countries? Unlike companies, they rarely evolve. Few people change country, few countries perish or merge. Unlike families, their system of redistribution is inefficient, and, unlike Churches, their values are almost always tribal. If you doubt that, just look at David Cameron this week, defending a national interest over a greater good, and a national interest based on a parasitic sector of the economy driving shameful inequality, no less.
Elsewhere, we have Belgium that took 500 days to form a government, Greece and Italy where bankers have taken over, a USA where Gingrich might become president. And let us not just knock the West. Russia, DRC, or Venezuela or hardly role models. China has at least managed the macro-economics a bit better, but at the expense of dignity and justice.
No, countries, you are the weakest link, goodbye. Imagine what might have happened in Durban if everyone had not been constrained by tribal economic or political interests. Europe has got itself in trouble over the Euro, but let us celebrate the single market and Schengen as the wonderful drivers of dignity, justice and development that they have been.
Most of the economic mess comes from imbalances between countries. Each country tries to optimise its own affairs, and it is the structural imbalances that have resulted that led to the system clogging up. A single currency and central bank, like the Euro but backed up by a fiscal framework, could respond as required. Global austerity would never be needed. Globally, we could also have a balance sheet as well as a current account, with scarce assets valued, and, for example, a carbon price.
What I would propose is a global governance for global issues, run by technocrats using universal principles. We need one currency, one central bank, one monetary and fiscal framework, one energy framework, one supreme court and so on. There would be free movement for all, a single competition framework for business, and no trade restrictions. Then, within that framework only, allow communities to form and run their affairs using democracy, with powers to raise taxes. Using modern technology, we could change our chosen teams easily, thereby facilitating good competition. Things like health and education implementation, rubbish collection, police and fire and so on could all be managed very locally.
Great changes like this have traditionally only followed wars. This morning I looked up the visionary fourteen points of US president Woodrow Wilson in 1918, which sadly became watered down by inter-country rivalry. In the late 1940’s, we did a bit better, with some sort of UN, a global declaration of human rights and the Marshall plan. Sadly, as always happens, the existence of countries has meant we have backtracked from there ever since.
So there is little chance of a such a change without another war. The Economist this week had a chilling comparison of the current global economy and policies to the 1930’s. Hopefully, this one won’t need a war to sort out. But we can dream, like Lennon. Next exercise will be to dream up fourteen points for today, as a sort of global charter
How did countries come about? Originally we were individuals, then loose groupings, then tribes. The people who grouped us into countries were Kings, or Priests, or Landowners, all looking for ways to legitimise their established advantages. It enabled laws (initially on things like slavery and surfdom), taxes and tithes, trade, and borders – to keep people in, and to keep people out.
Now we need laws, and taxes. And we benefit from trade. But most of the rest of that list only do harm to development. And what if the good bits – laws, taxes and trade – could be managed within a single global country? Why not?
The start of this line of thinking was to look at the mess democracy is currently making. Democracy itself is not the problem – indeed it seems better than other systems – but we have allowed it to become misused.
A lot of this is about language, and the use of language to pursue tribal goals (for the modern day Kings of course). Democracy becomes associated with freedom. What sort of freedom? In some countries freedom becomes associated with God, a God who somehow is on our side.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but this is almost akin to fascism. Freedom is a relative concept, applicable only to insiders and within defined boundaries. How can we espouse freedom when we invade others, build fences, lock up so many citizens, allow an explosion of inequality, and allow our establishment to peddle lies?
Good concepts have been taken over for tribal ends here. It was interesting this week to read that Egyptians are not hankering for democracy and freedom, but for dignity and justice. These are better goals, and the system should be shaped to deliver those goals, rather than be the goal itself.
So what system best delivers dignity and justice? I think I would add a third goal, something about development - a sustainable positive evolution of living standards. That is a bit wordy, but it covers things like health (eg. infant mortality) and other such progress.
Let us learn from other systems that have lasted to course. Families can be functional or dysfunctional, but their strength is their compact self-support mechanism. A lot of our dignity comes from our family, at least when it works well. Families distribute blessings with some justice, and protect the weak.
Churches have perpetrated some of the worst evils on the world over the centuries. But, at their heart and when well-run, they promote values supporting dignity and justice. They help our sense of belonging, distribute blessings, and make us humble.
Companies allow development through innovation. They rape the world’s natural resources and have little sense of sustainability, and, unchecked, can lead to terrible inequality. Yet I would argue the best run companies do more good than harm. And we know that families, Churches and governments would have struggled to give us the internet or modern medicines. So let us embrace them.
So what about countries? Unlike companies, they rarely evolve. Few people change country, few countries perish or merge. Unlike families, their system of redistribution is inefficient, and, unlike Churches, their values are almost always tribal. If you doubt that, just look at David Cameron this week, defending a national interest over a greater good, and a national interest based on a parasitic sector of the economy driving shameful inequality, no less.
Elsewhere, we have Belgium that took 500 days to form a government, Greece and Italy where bankers have taken over, a USA where Gingrich might become president. And let us not just knock the West. Russia, DRC, or Venezuela or hardly role models. China has at least managed the macro-economics a bit better, but at the expense of dignity and justice.
No, countries, you are the weakest link, goodbye. Imagine what might have happened in Durban if everyone had not been constrained by tribal economic or political interests. Europe has got itself in trouble over the Euro, but let us celebrate the single market and Schengen as the wonderful drivers of dignity, justice and development that they have been.
Most of the economic mess comes from imbalances between countries. Each country tries to optimise its own affairs, and it is the structural imbalances that have resulted that led to the system clogging up. A single currency and central bank, like the Euro but backed up by a fiscal framework, could respond as required. Global austerity would never be needed. Globally, we could also have a balance sheet as well as a current account, with scarce assets valued, and, for example, a carbon price.
What I would propose is a global governance for global issues, run by technocrats using universal principles. We need one currency, one central bank, one monetary and fiscal framework, one energy framework, one supreme court and so on. There would be free movement for all, a single competition framework for business, and no trade restrictions. Then, within that framework only, allow communities to form and run their affairs using democracy, with powers to raise taxes. Using modern technology, we could change our chosen teams easily, thereby facilitating good competition. Things like health and education implementation, rubbish collection, police and fire and so on could all be managed very locally.
Great changes like this have traditionally only followed wars. This morning I looked up the visionary fourteen points of US president Woodrow Wilson in 1918, which sadly became watered down by inter-country rivalry. In the late 1940’s, we did a bit better, with some sort of UN, a global declaration of human rights and the Marshall plan. Sadly, as always happens, the existence of countries has meant we have backtracked from there ever since.
So there is little chance of a such a change without another war. The Economist this week had a chilling comparison of the current global economy and policies to the 1930’s. Hopefully, this one won’t need a war to sort out. But we can dream, like Lennon. Next exercise will be to dream up fourteen points for today, as a sort of global charter
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
My Favourite Course
I’m still thinking about what to do with democracy. Somehow, the main problem is that the concept of a country has become outdated. It is far too small an entity for some modern challenges, yet far too big for others. We have a vote, but only within this out-of-date bounadry. Keep the votes, but change the structure. More to follow.
In the meantime, I was gratified to read an article in this week’s Economist about Harvard’s MBA. They want to change the basis of syllabus and teaching away from one based on case studies towards more direct field experience. Hooray, I say.
The article brought back happy memories of a course I did at Shell in the mid 1990’s. That course has stayed with me, as the most fun and the most beneficial I ever did. I still use the lessons today.
The whole basis of the course was that we were split into teams of about four, and sent out as consultants to a small business for two weeks. The time spent with the small business was interspersed with some classroom content. At the climax of the course we had to present our ideas for our small business – to our teachers and the managers of the small business itself.
This was a neat idea. Once a year Shell took out an advert in a trade magazine looking for volunteer small businesses to accept raw consultants. It was potentially a good deal for them, as they got some fresh insights and at least some cheap labour for a couple of weeks, for free.
I was blessed in the business I was assigned to. My team worked with a Jewish butcher from the east end of London. They had a processing factory near Smithfield incorporating a tiny office, and a shop in Golders Green. The employed maybe twenty staff, and, like most small businesses, most of the leaders came from the same family.
We had such a laugh. The family really welcomed us. Their own relationships and business practices were bizarre and funny. The boss was constantly doing deals on his mobile phone (a new gadget at the time) and played a passing impression of Topol from Fiddler on the Roof. It was an insight into a totally unfamiliar world for us, and a privilege to be included. I will always remember doing a price survey and market research among the Jewish housewives of the Golders Green road.
I recall that one challenge the business faced was about the weekly cycle. Smithfield only had its best value meat on Friday, in time for weekend shoppers. During the winter, the firm had to buy meat, get it blessed by a Rabbi, process it and distribute it to stores, all before sundown, when Jews have to stop working. You don’t get that sort of challenge in MBA text books – yet it mirrors something very realistic for many businesses.
In the end, I think we gave the family something of value, though I have doubts whether they implemented any of it, such was the impulsive nature of the boss. But the gain for our team was immense. And the reason we gained so much was because the course directors sent us into the field and did not get in the way.
A case study is almost always from the point of view of the CEO, with defined parameters. Field studies expose a broad canvas of human actors with human issues. Just like real business.
A case study can be solved at leisure, in the time of the students. A field study has to respond to the tempo and distractions of the client. Just like real business.
A case study is constrained by a classroom. Field studies show the squalor and primitive conditions most real businesses operate in. For a load of pampered Shell kids, that was perhaps the biggest realisation of all. Real business is not usually like Shell business.
A case study has a financial and a strategic element. Only a field study can show up conditions where the cash needed to pay the wages the next week is the dominant consideration, yet somehow the business has to drive forward in that environment. Just like real business.
In a case study students have to convince learned professors of their ideas. In a field study, students have to gain credibility and influence among real decision makers, often with very different world views. Just like in real business.
Altogether, a field study offers potential a case study can only scratch at. So why has it taken so long to move from case studies? Well, the professors mainly. The former approach allowed them to show off their brilliance in the classroom. It allowed them to re-use material time after time. There was little risk of students coming up with angles and challenges that other students had not brought up before.
In a field approach, the professor cedes control. In a way, the professor becomes like another student, trying to understand the subject company and fit its challenges to familiar models. Hard work, that. And perhaps beyond the skills of most of the cosseted professors out there.
So well done Harvard, I applaud you, and I look forward to the day when a field based approach is standard practice and MBA students can emerge so much better qualified as a consequence. It doesn’t surprise me that Harvard professors required convincing before accepting this new experimental approach, and no doubt they will find other reasons to slow it down. But my guess is that this is the start of a whole new way of teaching MBA’s. And not before time. After all, some trainer at Shell thought of it twenty years ago.
In the meantime, I was gratified to read an article in this week’s Economist about Harvard’s MBA. They want to change the basis of syllabus and teaching away from one based on case studies towards more direct field experience. Hooray, I say.
The article brought back happy memories of a course I did at Shell in the mid 1990’s. That course has stayed with me, as the most fun and the most beneficial I ever did. I still use the lessons today.
The whole basis of the course was that we were split into teams of about four, and sent out as consultants to a small business for two weeks. The time spent with the small business was interspersed with some classroom content. At the climax of the course we had to present our ideas for our small business – to our teachers and the managers of the small business itself.
This was a neat idea. Once a year Shell took out an advert in a trade magazine looking for volunteer small businesses to accept raw consultants. It was potentially a good deal for them, as they got some fresh insights and at least some cheap labour for a couple of weeks, for free.
I was blessed in the business I was assigned to. My team worked with a Jewish butcher from the east end of London. They had a processing factory near Smithfield incorporating a tiny office, and a shop in Golders Green. The employed maybe twenty staff, and, like most small businesses, most of the leaders came from the same family.
We had such a laugh. The family really welcomed us. Their own relationships and business practices were bizarre and funny. The boss was constantly doing deals on his mobile phone (a new gadget at the time) and played a passing impression of Topol from Fiddler on the Roof. It was an insight into a totally unfamiliar world for us, and a privilege to be included. I will always remember doing a price survey and market research among the Jewish housewives of the Golders Green road.
I recall that one challenge the business faced was about the weekly cycle. Smithfield only had its best value meat on Friday, in time for weekend shoppers. During the winter, the firm had to buy meat, get it blessed by a Rabbi, process it and distribute it to stores, all before sundown, when Jews have to stop working. You don’t get that sort of challenge in MBA text books – yet it mirrors something very realistic for many businesses.
In the end, I think we gave the family something of value, though I have doubts whether they implemented any of it, such was the impulsive nature of the boss. But the gain for our team was immense. And the reason we gained so much was because the course directors sent us into the field and did not get in the way.
A case study is almost always from the point of view of the CEO, with defined parameters. Field studies expose a broad canvas of human actors with human issues. Just like real business.
A case study can be solved at leisure, in the time of the students. A field study has to respond to the tempo and distractions of the client. Just like real business.
A case study is constrained by a classroom. Field studies show the squalor and primitive conditions most real businesses operate in. For a load of pampered Shell kids, that was perhaps the biggest realisation of all. Real business is not usually like Shell business.
A case study has a financial and a strategic element. Only a field study can show up conditions where the cash needed to pay the wages the next week is the dominant consideration, yet somehow the business has to drive forward in that environment. Just like real business.
In a case study students have to convince learned professors of their ideas. In a field study, students have to gain credibility and influence among real decision makers, often with very different world views. Just like in real business.
Altogether, a field study offers potential a case study can only scratch at. So why has it taken so long to move from case studies? Well, the professors mainly. The former approach allowed them to show off their brilliance in the classroom. It allowed them to re-use material time after time. There was little risk of students coming up with angles and challenges that other students had not brought up before.
In a field approach, the professor cedes control. In a way, the professor becomes like another student, trying to understand the subject company and fit its challenges to familiar models. Hard work, that. And perhaps beyond the skills of most of the cosseted professors out there.
So well done Harvard, I applaud you, and I look forward to the day when a field based approach is standard practice and MBA students can emerge so much better qualified as a consequence. It doesn’t surprise me that Harvard professors required convincing before accepting this new experimental approach, and no doubt they will find other reasons to slow it down. But my guess is that this is the start of a whole new way of teaching MBA’s. And not before time. After all, some trainer at Shell thought of it twenty years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)