We tend to think of development, in its wider sense, as being a straight line, a linear process. A group of decision-makers gets together and sets long-term strategic objectives. The present situation is assessed and compared to these objectives. A set of specific interventions or investments is defined to achieve these strategic objectives, together with budgets, timelines, performance indicators, etc.
The same process which applies to companies applies to a similar extent to governments. The notorious Soviet 10-year plans, or Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” were examples of long-term plans. The
Yet reality often presents major challenges to the realisation of such plans, particularly when we find ourselves in an era of disruptive political, economic, and technological change, as we find ourselves now. The bipolar system which characterised the Cold War and emerging end of the short-lived unipolar system, in which American provided an economic and security guarantee, are upon us.
What is multi-spectrum competitiveness? This is the ability of government, economic and civil society actors to successfully and coherently implement a specific vision of development. The Chinese model of export-led technological development with political authoritarianism is one such example. The Russian model of state domination over energy and mineral resources is another.
So competition is clearly one element which affects long-term plans. If you are not able to predict and rapidly adjust to competition, yet you accept the rules of the competitive game, then clearly you risk failure. What are some others?
A third major disruptor has been the demographic change, both in terms of incoming immigrant populations, as well as the ageing and eventual retirement of the baby-boomer generation. This disruption will affect everything, from the languages you hear in the workforce, to training curricula employed, to different sets of priorities and incentives, to compensation levels and social security contributions.
Here, we tend to recognise the symptoms of the problem, but we appear very unwilling to do anything about their root causes and longer-term consequences. Let’s take the simple definition of the nation-state, which in
There are myriad other sources of change, or disruption. These include environmental and energy change to changing consumer preferences. They include rapid, containerised transport and its impact on the supply chain. They include violent acts of religious or political protest one the one hand, or government failure on the other.
The point is that we live in an era where change is perhaps the one constant we should be planning our lives, companies and societies to accept and to integrate. But at the same time, in
Policy-making is usually riven by fundamental conflict: the Minister of Finance is trying to reduce
a. The protection of its airspace and territory from Turkish incursion or immigrants crossing over from
b. The reunification of
c. The protection of its perceived history and heritage in face of a pathetic reinterpretation of history by a small Balkan state, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).
Regrettably, none of these priorities help Greece master the transition from its previous economic model, one driven by oligarchic, paternal private and state companies which monopolised their specific segments, and one in which the Greek economy is fundamentally open and unprepared for the onslaught of foreign-manufactured goods and services, and in which the Greek society, economy and workforce cannot compete.
I do not, of course blame
So, it appears that we are confronted with a double paradox:
a. On the one hand, our government and companies are not able to develop coherent plans for the future, which model both a successful development track, but also the risks it might involve;
b. On the other hand, our government and companies are so locked into a single mindset, so that even when they receive a clear, unambiguous signal of a major competitive change or threat, they are unable to respond.
Over the past five years, we have received multiple such signals on the horizon: a rising and unsustainable debt; an incompetent and stagnant public sector; a deteriorating environment; a dangerous reliance on a few economic sectors; an unhealthy dependence on a subsidy culture; pervasive corruption; declining educational standards; declining public health, for instance child obesity and diabetes; and many others. And yet, it would appear we have done next to nothing about them.
If a government, a company, an economy or a society can no longer take sufficient active steps to prevent or mitigate current problems while preparing for the challenges of the future, then a fundamental question is raised: does this entity have the right to survive? Nature and human history is full of examples of organisms, populations, civilisations, or societies that have not adapted, and which have failed and disappeared. This need not be a catastrophe: the theory of natural selection is based on it.
Yet I can’t help wondering, as I watch the news every evening. Why do we expect that our pathologies will allow us to continue making the same mistakes indefinitely?
No comments:
Post a Comment