According to LKY, however, the Chinese will be patient and persistent. They will keep their head down and smile while they slowly build their strength. Over the coming decades, China will therefore be able to use its economic might rather than military strength to influence its neighbors in Southeast Asia. China is strongly focused on developing its talent pool in order to eventually become 1 in Asia and the world.
By having more talented and educated STEM science, technology, engineering, math professionals, China will be able to out-build and out-compete other nations. As a point of reference, according to the World Economic Forum , in China produced 4. Although the future continues to look bright for China, the country does have some challenges that will limit its growth moving forward, according to LKY.
One of the biggest challenges is the Chinese language, which is difficult for foreigners to learn, and which makes it difficult for China to attract and assimilate talented immigrants. English, on the other hand, is the international language of business and science; educated people from all over the world speak English. The US openly welcomes and integrates talented immigrants from around the world well. Western society prizes the individual, and encourages open debate and questioning of the status quo. These features of Western society encourage the kind of breakthrough thinking that has led to inventions like the steam engine, electric light bulbs, automobiles, airplanes, computers, the Internet, smartphones, and many others.
- The Last Great Senator.
In order to catch up in terms of breakthrough innovation, China will need to overcome its historical culture which does not encourage questioning of the status quo. LKY argues that the US should come to terms with this fact.
And the US should do more to improve its own talent pool and therefore its technological base and economic strength. Invest in educating the native US population, and also retain the open posture that attracts and assimilates talented immigrants. Sign in Get started. Yet, we only seem to realise the significance of this game today. The setting of the ultimatum game is quite simple. A first player is presented with a sum of money. She must decide how much to keep for herself and how much to give to a second player she has no means of communicating with.
If the second player agrees on the split the first player offered, this split becomes effective. If, however, the second player disagrees, neither player gets any money. Beyond the simplicity of the setup, the game is particularly significant because participants quickly understand that its solution lies in the combination of strategic bargaining and fairness.
Human intuition, as well as lab experiments, suggest that while the first player will look to be strategic in her decision, the second player is likely to look for fairness.
- Disenchantment with yesterday’s promises.
- Féte Villageoise Op.20 - Guitar.
- Debate: The rise of the global rejectionist party.
- JSTOR: Access Check!
For instance, the second player should be satisfied with a deal, which would be the fairest possible. But the first player could look to do better, without necessarily damaging her relationship with the second player: Would a deal in her favour be that unacceptable for the second player?
Or a deal? Or an deal? The literature is quite dense on this issue. Even more remarkable, though, is the fact that this is not the outcome that game theory would expect: Refusing would mean giving up on all monetary gains. This experiment suggests though that humans who play this game do not only pay attention to monetary gains, as they also care about non-monetary consequences of their actions.
5 things I learned about China’s rise as a global superpower from Lee Kuan Yew
In the case of outcomes that are repeatedly unfair, the second player may consider that he does not wish this game to played this way anymore and that he needs to demand changes. In particular, if lack of fairness persistently characterises the outcomes of the game in the long run, he may be inclined to reject the proposal, even if that means bearing the cost of not getting any monetary gains in the short run. As hard as these politicians might try to convince public opinion of their good faith through incremental benefits, they will likely fail unless the political climate fosters confidence and consensus.
As a result, the economics of the problem matter far less than its politics, especially when public opinion suspects that some chunks of society will benefit more — and thus, economic and societal inequalities will rise. This is particularly significant when the prospect of secular stagnation — a sustained period of low economic growth and slow gains in real income — is fuelling fears of social demotion across a wide range of countries. Whereas we would expect, looking at domestic data of income growth distribution, to see strong inequalities between the poorest and the richest, the situation at the global level is more complex: In other words, Western middle classes, who only enjoyed very modest income growth, find themselves stuck between two groups, the relatively poorer Asian middle classes and the richest of the world, whose income growth was phenomenal over the period.
While the link between globalisation and income growth is a source of debate among experts, it is noteworthy that this unequal distribution of income growth is a key driver of the rise of the rejectionists. In particular, it validates the two common perceptions that the cases of the UK, the US, France and Colombia discussed above pointed to. First, traditional and mainstream policy recipes are not keeping middle classes safe, namely by guaranteeing their status in the world.
As a result, public opinions feel justified in rejecting the status quo which undermines their survival ability in an increasingly competitive landscape. Second, those who are truly taking advantage of the current business environment are those who are already well off — that is, those with a decisive head start that the less favoured cannot catch up with. This reality is all the more so harder to accept when political change is minimal and when mainstream recipes look like tools designed to preserve the unbearable status quo, that is, in turn, far easier to challenge or even to reject.
In a nutshell, not only is the situation becoming increasingly competitive: This justifies radical change in the eyes of public opinion. The extent to which policymakers will be able to respond to this demand is largely uncertain but will be a crucial factor of success. And the fundamental lesson one could draw from the management field literature is that the only way to deal with these transformative agents is to ultimately disrupt the disruptors so as to regain some control over the global environment.
This is by no means trivial: In the future, policymakers that will be most influential are those who can truly reinvent policy approaches. There are a wide range of policies that would correspond to that goal. Two are discussed below: It is particularly central because this view is perhaps the most widely shared among populists and their followers. It is particularly influential because it serves as a strong justification for protectionism — and, in some extreme degrees, for a nationalistic and anti-immigration agenda.
But if policymakers are seeking to undermine populists, they bear the burden of proof when it comes to refuting these so-called truths. In particular, a rising consensus in the economic literature suggests that automation and technology, not globalisation and free-trade, are the main culprits when it comes job destruction. The real offensive argument that would truly undermine the populist discourse on this topic would point to the fact that while governments have the authority to close borders and curb free trade, they are unlikely to have the power to stop technological change.
Protectionism is therefore unlikely to provide the protection rejectionists are yearning for. Instead, the real response to job destruction may lie far more in protecting individuals rather than jobs, as French Nobel-laureate Jean Tirole has suggested.
5 things I learned about China’s rise as a global superpower from Lee Kuan Yew
In practice, protecting people requires substantial investments in life-long training and in improving labour market fluidity. Disruptive policy in this field would lie in leveraging the amount of information available online — both in terms of content individuals need to master to acquire additional skills and in terms of positions and job openings — to help workers increase their degree of awareness of their employability and what they lack to move forward. The policy or business entrepreneur able to merge Coursera and LinkedIn may achieve far more in terms of improving employment perspectives than any populist or, for that matter, any rational and traditional approach ever would — unless it is the private sector which decides on that merger in a scenario that one could deem far more likely.
The economics of the problem would once again dominate the messy and easy to manipulate politics of it.
When mainstream fail to deliver
That would provide a clean slate to policymakers in their effort to rebuild the broken societal consensus that once constructively mobilised public opinions. Disruptive policymaking, even in democratic societies, even with the appropriate safeguards and safety nets, and even with more empowered individuals, can undoubtedly lead to the same instability that rejectionists have generated. This is particularly true if there is an irreducible share of vulnerable people in society that are especially ill-equipped to face global competition.
Unless policymakers look to compensate them, they are unlikely to undermine the current momentum of rejectionists. Pay to reform would require a shift away from discretionary spending to maintain social peace and keep core constituencies happy, onto another form of discretionary spending, meant to facilitate reforms by twisting the cost-benefit analysis of those that have the most to lose from change.
The first criterion that leads a government handout to take place should be whether or not such a handout can make a reform easier, not how much popularity it will bring. This is the ultimate form of investment in the future considering that it enables governments to remove the remaining obstacles to needed change by helping actors in obsolete industries transition out of an activity and into a newer one.
Ultimately, in order to nudge the most vulnerable who likely have a lot to lose from these reforms and when empowerment is unlikely to suffice, governments can also rely on direct cash transfers. In addition to shifting the cost-benefit analysis of these workers, such measure — or any variant based on other indicators for that matter — would also provide additional social glue to mobilise public opinions around consensus-building projects.
That social glue would lessen the effects of the most divisive debates that have allowed the rejectionist set of mind to emerge. It would be hard to characterise these two examples of disruptive policies — protecting individuals rather than jobs and paying the most vulnerable to carry out reforms — as either progressive or free-market oriented.
To the extent that they are designed to protect people, and vulnerable populations in particular, progressives could justify both on the grounds of necessary redistribution and safety nets.
To the extent that they are designed to empower individuals and to improve the overall ecosystem in which they can thrive, free-market proponents could justify both as well on the grounds that they allow for reforms to happen. In fact, contrary to popular belief, it is not impossible to reconcile empowerment and protection.
But doing so requires far more disruption than established policymakers have been willing to take on in the past. And the question is not whether or not the system can absorb such shocks: The real question lies in determining what upset and disappointed rejectionists turn to next if disruptive policymaking does not occur now. Being Well Together — Manchester, Manchester. In conversation with Emma Butt — York, York. Uber and What The People Want: Available editions United Kingdom. Wikimedia , CC BY German Philosopher Max Weber observed a growing sense of disenchantment among 19th century European elites who were taking their distance with religion in the name of enlightenment, rationality and science.
When mainstream fail to deliver The notion that traditional and mainstream policy recipes are not keeping middle classes safe was at the heart of many political debates and elections in recent months. US president Donald J. Trump, February 24, When rigged rules favour the cheaters What rejectionists take issue with is not simply the problem of possible social demotion: