Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Could AI Reshape the Global Balance of Power?

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) was established by the US Congress in Fiscal Year 2019 to “advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies by the United States to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.”  A few months ago, the 15 member Commission, - led by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt  and former deputy secretary of defense Robert Work, - released its interim report. The final report is due to be released in March, 2021.  It remains to be seen how the Covid-19 pandemic will impact the final report’s recommendations and release date.

“The convergence of the artificial intelligence revolution and the reemergence of great power competition… threaten the United States’ role as the world’s engine of innovation and American military superiority,” said the interim report in its opening statements.  “How the United States adopts AI will have profound ramifications for our immediate security, economic well-being, and position in the world…  We are concerned that America’s role as the world’s leading innovator is threatened… We know strategic competitors are investing in research and application.  It is only reasonable to conclude that AI-enabled capabilities could be used to threaten our critical infrastructure, amplify disinformation campaigns, and wage war.”

Like the Internet, - let’s remember that ARPANET was started in the late 1960s by the US Department of Defense, - AI is usable for military and civilian purposes.  But, - also like the Internet, - AI is a general purpose technology that can be used for a wide variety of applications, many of them beneficial, but others potentially threatening.

Scenario Planning - Formulating Strategy in the Face of High Uncertainty

“How can we formulate strategy in the face of uncertainty?,” asks Learning from the Future, a recent Harvard Business Review article by Peter Scoblic, in its opening sentence.  Answering this question has never felt more urgent as leaders prepare for the future.  “Even before the Covid-19 crisis, rapid technological change, growing economic interdependence, and mounting political instability had conspired to make the future increasingly murky.”  Uncertainty was already all-encompassing.

“And then the pandemic hit.”

When the present resembles the past, we can calculate the probability of future outcomes by analyzing past historical data.  That’s how insurance companies accurately predict the life expectancy of different people based on age, gender, general health, behavioral traits like smoking and drinking, etc.  But the situation is very different when the present doesn’t resemble the past.  “Uncertainty stems from our inability to compare the present to anything we’ve previously experienced.  When situations lack analogies to the past, we have trouble envisioning how they will play out in the future.”

Military strategists first developed scenario planning in the 1950s to help them envision the impact of a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union, - something that was clearly way beyond anyone’s experience.  The object of scenario planning is to assemble all known facts, trends, and other information and use them to create a number of alternative stories rich in detail, typically three or four, about plausible future outcomes along with the development paths and key events that led to such outcomes.  Altogether, the scenarios should span the scope of possible futures, although the actual future will likely include events from each scenario.

Remote Work is Surprisingly Productive, But For Many… Something Is Missing

What If Working From Home Goes on … Forever?, asks science and technology journalist Clive Thompson in the title of his June 9 NY Times Magazine article.  “The coronavirus crisis is forcing white-collar America to reconsider nearly every aspect of office life.  Some practices now seem to be wastes of time, happily discarded; others seem to be unexpectedly crucial, and impossible to replicate online.  For workers wondering right now if they’re ever going back to the office, the most honest answer is this: Even if they do, the office might never be the same.”

A recent survey found that of the 56% of respondents employed pre-Covid-19, half were working from home, - 35% having recently switched to working from home, while another 15% were already doing so pre-Covid; 37% continued to commute to work, and 10% had been recently laid-off or furloughed.  The survey was  based on two separate national samples of US data, - one which gathered 25,000 responses in early April, and the second another 25,000 responses in early May.

Thompson’s article cites the experience of Accenture, which has around 500,000 employees in more than 200 cities in 120 countries.  Before the pandemic, no more than 10% worked remotely on any given day.  But, by the middle of March, nearly all were asked to work from home.  Employees adapted quickly, said Accenture’s CTO.  The volume of video calls went up by a factor of six while those of audio calls tripled.  Despite having to switch from face-to-face to audio and video interactions, overall productivity actually went up as measured by several metrics.

It’s difficult to judge whether the surge in remote work will last.  “Home life in a lockdown is much harder than usual,” notes Thompson.  “Many workers who live alone are experiencing enforced isolation as an emotional grind… Nearly every parent I spoke to had their fingers crossed that schools and day care would reopen in the fall - at which point remote work might become an option they could choose, as opposed to one they were forced to endure.  Assuming that such a day does arrive, it’s possible that quite a few may elect to continue working outside the office.”

How Will Covid-19 Transform Urban Life?

In Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer, a 2017 article in The Atlantic, urban studies professor and author Richard Florida wrote: “The most important and innovative industries and the most talented, most ambitious, and wealthiest people are converging as never before in a relative handful of leading superstar cities that are knowledge and tech hubs.  This small group of elite places forge ever forward, while most others struggle, stagnate, or fall behind…  They are not just the places where the most ambitious and most talented people want to be - they are where such people feel they need to be.”

Knowledge-intensive industries have long been centered in cities and surrounding metropolitan areas, where they’ve had the most access to a college educated, high skill workforce.  But, - from Milan to New York, - high density, globally connected urban areas have been ground zero for the spread of Covid-19.  Are cities now at risk of losing the superstar status they’ve enjoyed over the past several decades?

This is not the first time we’ve asked this question in the recent past.  In the mid-late 1990s, some predicted that the Internet would lead to the decline of cities, because it would enable people to work and shop from home, be in touch with their friends over e-mail, and get access to news and entertainment online.   But, instead of declining, megacities have continued to generate the greatest levels of innovation and good jobs, and thus attract a disproportionate share of the world’s talent.

Post-Pandemic, Is the World Likely to Become Significantly Less Flat?

“The golden age of globalisation, in 1990-2010, was something to behold,” wrote The Economist in a January, 2019 article.  “Commerce soared as the cost of shifting goods in ships and planes fell, phone calls got cheaper, tariffs were cut and the financial system liberalised.”

Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat became an international best-seller in 2005 by nicely explaining what this new golden age of globalization was all about, including the key forces that contributed to flattening the world, - from the explosive growth of the Internet, open source software and related technologies; to the rise of outsourcing, offshoring and global supply chains.

In 2011 I attended a conference where Friedman was one of the speakers.  He said that we’ve transitioned from a connected to an increasingly hyperconnected global economy since he wrote The World is Flat in 2004.  Many of the companies and technologies that were part of every day conversations in 2011, - Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, smartphones, cloud computing, big data, broadband wireless Internet, - weren’t mentioned in his book because they had not yet been born or were still in their infancy.

The very nature of the global firm was transformed during these same decades.  In The Globally Integrated Enterprise, a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, then IBM CEO Sam Palmisano argued that the modern industrial corporation was now in its third stage of evolution in the way it conducted business around the world.

The Post-Pandemic Enterprise: What Will It Be Like?

In the near term, nations have been mostly focused on surviving the massive disruptions caused by Covid-19.  But, what about the longer term?  What will the post-pandemic new normal be like for societies and economies?  More specifically, how will the pandemic impact the world of business?  How can enterprises leverage the crisis to accelerate their journey toward what most everyone agrees will be an even faster changing future?  As Rahm Emanuel famously said in a 2008 WSJ interview: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

“The future is not what we thought it would be only a few short months ago,” said a recent McKinsey article, From thinking about the next normal to making it work.  “As businesses step into the post-coronavirus future, they need to find a balance between what worked before and what needs to happen to succeed in the next normal.”  The article offers 21 concrete recommendations for succeeding in the next normal, organized into seven major areas.  Let me summarize a few of these recommendations.

Building a More Resilient, Data-Driven Economy

“With each major crisis, be it war, pandemic, or major new technology, there has been a need to reinvent the relationships between individuals, businesses, and government,” wrote MIT professor Alex “Sandy Pentland in the first chapter of Building the New Economy.  Pentland cites two major historical examples.  In the early 20th century, the rise of mass manufacturing led to the creation of regulations governing working conditions and pay, health rules for mass-produced foods, and laws to prevent monopolies that stifled competition.  Then in mid-century, the decades following WWII saw greater access to higher education, racial and gender progress, and increased support for scientific research and medical advances.

“Today we face two simultaneous disruptions: one is the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic shock, and the second is the rise of pervasive digital data, crypto systems, and artificial intelligence (AI).”  The two disruptions are highly interrelated.  Digital technologies have been deployed to fight the global pandemic as well as helping us stay connected as we practice social distancing.

But, these same technologies are also increasing the already high levels of disinformation and fraud, threatening privacy rights with well-meaning public health technology measures, and likely to impact employment as institutions accelerate their embrace of digitization, AI and automation.  “These problems highlight the need to reinvent the ways data and AI are used in all of societies’ civic and government systems, both to guarantee that future pandemics can be handled better and to reinvigorate the economy but also to spread the economic benefits throughout society.”

High resilience in the face of an uncertain, changing environment is the essence of evolution and natural selection.  Building a new post-pandemic economy requires the creation of more agile, resilient systems and institutions to help us better adapt to an unpredictable future and withstand turbulent events like Covid-19.  In a resilient economy, power and decision-making should be distributed among a diverse set of stakeholders rather than concentrated in a few hands.

Why “The Techlash” Is a Threat to Growth and Progress

A few months ago, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) published A Policymaker’s Guide to the “Techlash” - What It Is and Why It’s a Threat to Growth and Progress.  “Does information technology (IT) solve problems and make our lives easier, allowing us to do more with less?,” asks the ITIF report.  “Or does it introduce additional complexity to our lives, isolate us from each other, threaten privacy, destroy jobs, and generate an array of other harms?”

It wasn’t all that long ago that digital technologies and Big Tech were largely seen as catalysts for positive change: the Internet had become a global platform for collaborative innovation; social media was a liberating force, helping democratic uprisings like the Arab Spring; and the smartphone was transforming the lives of people all over the world.

But, the 2010s saw the emergence of what’s come to be called the techlash.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines techlash as “a strong and widespread negative reaction to the growing power and influence of large technology companies, particularly those based in Silicon Valley.”  The term seems to have originated in a November, 2013 article in The Economist, which said that tech elites are turning out to be some of the most ruthless capitalists around, and “will join bankers and oilmen in public demonology.”  By 2018, techlash was one of eight shortlisted entries for OED Word of the Year.

Even When Plans Are Useless, Planning Is Indispensable

“As scientists race to develop a cure for the coronavirus, businesses are trying to assess the impact of the outbreak on their own enterprises,” wrote MIT professor Yossi Sheffi in a February 18 article in the Wall Street Journal.  “Just as scientists are confronting an unknown enemy, corporate executives are largely working blind because the coronavirus could cause supply-chain disruptions that are unlike anything we have seen in the past 70 years.”

Sheffi is Director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics.  He’s written extensively on the critical need for resilience in global enterprises and their supply chains, - including The Power of Resilience and The Resilient Enterprise, - so they can better react to major unexpected events.  Covid-19 is the kind of massively disruptive event he had in mind when he wrote those books.

While learning from historical precedents is always a good idea, recent supply chain disruptions - the 2003 outbreak of SARS in Asia, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, or the 2011 Thailand floods, - were very different from our current pandemic.  Those events were much more localized, lasted a relatively short time, and they mostly impacted supply, not demand.  The impact of Covid-19 is much bigger, affecting consumer demand as well as supply chains all over the world, and likely to last quite a bit longer.  “Today’s supply chains are global and more complex than they were in 2003,” with factories all over the world affected by lockdowns and quarantines.  Apple, for example, works with suppliers in 43 countries.

What History Tells Us About the Accelerating AI Revolution

A few weeks before our lives were turned upside down by Covid-19, I read Technology at Work v4.0, the fourth report in the Technology at Work Series developed by Citigroup in collaboration with Oxford University.  The report includes an excellent chapter on What History Tells Us About the Coming AI Revolution by Oxford professor Carl Benedikt Frey based on his 2019 book The Technology Trap.

Recent AI advances have “sparked much excitement…  yet despite this, most ordinary people don’t feel particularly optimistic about the future,” wrote Frey.  For example, a 2017 Pew Research survey found that three quarters of Americans expressed serious concerns about AI and automation, and just over a third believe that their children will be better off financially than they were.

But, in fact, serious concerns about the impact of technology are part of a historical pattern.  “Many of the trends we see today, such as the disappearance of middle-income jobs, stagnant wages and growing inequality were also features of the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain around 1750.  This was a period of unprecedented technological change but also one of turbulent social and political change.”

An Increasingly Digital “New Normal”

About a dozen years ago, I attended a conference where I was interviewed on stage by then WSJ technology columnist Walter Mossberg.  He started out by asking me about IBM’s near-death experience in the early 1990s, and the subsequent technical and cultural transformation that made it possible for IBM to reinvent itself and survive, while many other IT companies didn’t make it.  In particular, we discussed whether a successful company transformation must be preceded by the kind of major crisis IBM went through.  When it comes to humans, the ancient Greeks certainly thought so, as reflected in their tragedies.

Transformative change is very difficult for established companies.  Over the years, they’ve amassed valuable assets and extensive organizations.  Already consumed with managing their existing operations, they may look at transformative change as more of a threat or distraction than an opportunity, - unless they’re in dire straits and have no other choice, as was the case with IBM.

A serious crisis is an opportunity for companies to focus on the actions needed to survive in a fast changing environment.  As Rahm Emanuel famously said in a 2008 interview with the WSJ: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  In that spirit, how should companies take advantage of the Covid-19 crisis, - arguably the biggest shock the world has experienced since WWII, - to accelerate their journey toward what most everyone agrees will be an increasingly digital future?

The Urgent Need to Strengthen the Nation’s Resilience

Following World War II and the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the US undertook a series of measures to strengthen the resilience of the country.  These included a significant expansion of government support for scientific research in universities and R&D labs, leading to product innovations from the private sector and better weapons from the defense industry, which contributed to making the US the most prosperous and secure nation in the world.

Another important measure was the expansion of educational opportunities, like the GI Bill which offered the nation’s 16 million WWII veterans payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical schools.  By 1956, over 2.2 million had used the GI Bill to attend college or university, and 5.8 million had used it for some kind of job training program.

In the 1950s the government enacted the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, which led to the construction of over 48,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System at a total price estimated at over $500 billion, - the largest public work in America .  The Act had a dual purpose: facilitating the economic growth of the country as well as supporting the country’s defense during a conventional or nuclear war should it be necessary.

And, last but far from least, in the late 1960s the government launched ARPANET, the digital infrastructure that eventually became the Internet.  ARPANET was supported by the Department of Defense to significantly enhance the resilience of the country following a nuclear attack by enabling computers to communicate with each other using a flexible packet-switching digital network.

But, this post-war focus on resilience has significantly waned over the past few decades.  Let me explain.

Blockchain and Public Health Solutions

The Blockchain Research Institute (BRI) is a global think tank dedicated to the strategic implications of blockchain technologies to business, government and society.  On March 26, I participated in a virtual roundtable convened by the BRI to discuss the potential use of blockchain technologies for public health solutions.  The roundtable’s findings and recommendations were released in early April in Blockchain Solutions in Pandemics: A Call for Innovation and Transformation in Public Health.

The report identified five key areas where blockchain could be deployed to fight Covid-19 as well as future pandemics: identity, health records and shared data; just-in-time supply chains; sustaining the economy; a rapid response registry for medical professionals; and incentives models to reward responsible behavior.  In each of these areas, the report presented uses cases where blockchain is already being deployed, and recommended a number of blockchain related public health measures that will help better prepare for future pandemics.  Given the broad scope of the report, I will focus my attention on one area in particular: identity, health records and shared data.

Dealing with a Highly Unpredictable Future

The high degree of uncertainty surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic is one of its most frustrating qualities.  How long will the pandemic last?  When will normal life return?  When will a vaccine be available?  Not only don’t we have definitive answers, we don’t even know how to best frame these critical questions.  The answers we get from the most trusted of experts feel too vague, - their explanations full of caveats and probabilities, - as they should.  How can we start making sense of such an unpredictable future?

It wasn’t all that long ago that we didn’t have much use for probabilities in our daily life, - outside of weather reports, election predictions and baseball.  But that’s all been changing in our complex economy and society.   Probabilities have been playing an increasing role in our work and personal lives given our newfound ability to quantify just about anything.  In all kinds of everyday situations, - from medical diagnoses to financial decisions, - we’ve had to learn to live and make decisions in the messy, uncertain world of probabilities.

Probabilities are inherently hard to grasp, - especially for an individual event like the weather or an election.  “People understand that if they roll a die 100 times, they will get some 1’s,” wrote David Leonhardt in a 2017 NY Times column.  “But when they see a probability for one event, they tend to think: Is this going to happen or not?  They then effectively round to 0 or to 100 percent…  And when the unlikely happens, people scream: The probabilities were wrong!”

Measuring the Effectiveness of Social Distancing Policies

One of the most interesting projects in the MIT Connection Science group I’m affiliated with is The Atlas of Inequality.  The project, - led by visiting professor Esteban Moro and professor Alex ‘Sandy’ Pentland - uses aggregated anonymous geolocation data from digital devices to estimate where different groups of people in US cities spend their time.  Over time, the project will be expanded to cities around the world.  The data show the significant income inequality among people in those cities, not just by neighborhoods as you’d expect, but also in the restaurants, stores and other places beyond their neighborhoods which they visit every day.

A couple of weeks ago, the Atlas research group started to apply their geolocation data and methods to analyze the effectiveness of the social distancing policies adopted in the New York metropolitan area in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.  These policies include school closures, bans on non-essential gatherings, limiting restaurants to take-out orders, and strict stay-in-place measures.   There’s no way to empirically measure the impact of these social distancing measures in real time on the spread of Covid-19.  You can only measure their impact retrospectively, or simulate what might happen in the future based on past data.

However, you can empirically address a key set of important question: how have these social distancing policies changed mobility and social behavior?; how does social distancing behavior vary across the New York metropolitan area?; how does the behavior vary across the variety of demographic groups in the NY metro area?; and overall, how well are people following these social distance measures?

The 2019 Artificial Intelligence Index

AI has emerged as the defining technology of our era, as transformative over time as the steam engine, electricity, and the Internet.  While still in its early stages, AI is already reshaping the economy, society, our personal lives and the very nature of work, with much more to come as the technology and applications mature, including the scientific research necessary to anticipate and fight future pandemics.  But, what’s the current state of AI and where is it heading?

To help address these important questions, the annual Artificial Intelligence Index was created under the auspices of the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, - guided by a Steering Committee of experts from academia and industry, and in collaboration with a number of sponsoring partners and data contributors.  The AI Index aims to “provide unbiased, rigorous, and comprehensive data for policymakers, researchers, journalists, executives, and the general public to develop a deeper understanding of the complex field of AI.”

Now in its third year, the 2019 AI Index Report was released this past December.  So was the associated 2019 AI Index Data, which includes three times as many data sets as the 2018 edition.  The report  comprises nine chapters.  Let me summarize a few of its highlights.

The Coming Era of Decision Machines

“Artificial intelligence (AI) is the pursuit of machines that are able to act purposefully to make decisions towards the pursuit of goals,” wrote Harvard professor David Parkes in A Responsibility to Judge Carefully in the Era of Prediction Decision Machines, an essay recently published as part of Harvard’s Digital Initiative.  “Machines need to be able to predict to decide, but decision making requires much more.  Decision making requires bringing together and reconciling multiple points of view.  Decision making requires leadership in advocating and explaining a path forward.  Decision making requires dialogue.”

In April, 2017 I attended a seminar by University of Toronto professor Avi Goldfarb on the economic value of AI.  Goldfarb explained that the best way to assess the impact of a new radical technology is to look at how the technology reduces the cost of a widely used function.  For example, computers are essentially powerful calculators whose cost of digital operations have dramatically decreased over the past several decades.  Over the years, we’ve learned to define all kinds of tasks in terms of digital operations, e.g., financial transactions, word processing, photography.  Similarly, the Internet has drastically reduced the cost of communications and of access to all kinds of information, - including text, pictures, music and videos.

Viewed through this lens, the AI revolution can be viewed as reducing the cost of predictions.  Prediction means anticipating what is likely to happen in the future.  Over the past decade, increasingly powerful and inexpensive computers, advanced machine learning algorithms, and the explosive growth of big data have enabled us to extract insights from all that data and turn them into valuable predictions.

Given the widespread role of predictions in business, government and everyday life, AI is already having a major impact on many human activities.  As was previously the case with arithmetic, communications and access to information, - we will be able to use predictions in all kinds of new applications.  Over time, we’ll discover that lots of tasks can be reframed as prediction problems.

The Long-Term Future of Work and Education: Three Potential Scenarios

“Experts differ widely in their predictions about how technological innovation will change the labor market, but they all see a need for changes in education,” write British professors Ewart Keep and Phillip Brown in  a recently published article, Rethinking the Race Between Education and Technology.  While experts don’t generally agree on much, they’re pretty much of one mind when it comes to the growing importance of skills and education in our 21st century digital economy.

Every past technological transformation ultimately led to more jobs, higher living standards and economic growth.  But, as a number of recent studies concluded, to ensure that this will indeed be the case, our emerging knowledge economy should be accompanied by the expansion of educational opportunities for everyone.

While noting that this is the most likely scenario for the next 10 - 15 years, Keep and Brown also consider two potential longer-term scenarios.  Perhaps AI will lead to even more pervasive and fundamental transformations in the nature of work, making it difficult for even those with a college or higher education to find a good job.  Beyond that, some have suggested that in the more distant future we might see an even more radical, science-fiction-like transformation: the end of work as we’ve long known it.

The authors argue that considering such a spectrum of possibilities will help us better prepare for what’s essentially an unpredictable future.  In that spirit, their paper discusses three different labor market scenarios: labor scarcity, job scarcity, and the end of work.

The Evolution of the Social Contract in the 21st Century

“Life has changed substantially for individuals in advanced economies in the first two decades of the 21st century,” notes The social contract in the 21st century, a new report by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).  “In many ways, changes for individuals have been for the better, including new opportunities and overall economic growth…  Yet, the relatively positive perspective on the state of the economy, based on GDP and job growth indicators, needs to be complemented with a fuller assessment of the economic outcomes for individuals as workers, consumers, and savers.”

The report takes an in-depth look at the changing economic outcomes for individuals between 2000 and 2018 in 22 advanced countries, - 16 European ones, Japan and South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, and Canada and the US.  In aggregate, these countries constitute 57% of global GDP. 

The report closely examines the evolution of the social contract, that is, “the arrangements and expectations, often implicit, that govern the exchanges between individuals and institutions.”  Its overriding finding is that the social contract has changed considerably in the 21st century, with individuals having to assume greater responsibility for their economic outcomes.  Opportunities for work and employment rates have risen significantly, but outcomes vary considerably across socioeconomic groups and geographies.  While many have benefited from this evolution, those in the bottom 60% of the income distribution are facing significant economic challenges, leading to an uncertain future and a general loss of trust in institutions.

The report analyzes the evolution of the social contract by looking at the changing outcomes for individuals as workers, as consumers, and as savers.  Let me summarize the findings in each of these three categories.

Can Democracy and Free Markets Survive in the Coming Age of AI?

Can technology plan economies and destroy democracy? is the provocative title of an essay in the end-of-2019 issue of The Economist.  “The success of market- and semi-market-based economies… has made the notion of a planned economy seem like a thing of the past.”  But, given all the data that can now be gathered by billions of smartphones and 10s of billions of sensors, - with many more to come, - could our increasingly intelligent and powerful AI systems “replace the autonomous choices on which the market is based?… And if technology can outperform the invisible hand in the economy, might it be able to do the same at the ballot box when it comes to politics?” 

As we’ve already seen, AI applications “can provide not just data on what people want and will tolerate, but also the means to manipulate those desires.  When such means are available to actors within or outside a state the struggle to gain, or for that matter retain, a democracy which reflects a genuine popular will might become even harder than it is.”  Could this all mean that free-market economics and liberal democracy will become obsolete over the coming century?

These questions were often raised and repeatedly tested throughout the 20th century, as various governments attempted to redesign their economies and societies in accord with what were believed to be scientific laws.  But, most such schemes, especially those carried out by authoritarian states, ended up as complete failures.  And some went tragically awry, - like Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union and Mao’s Great Leap Forward in China, - both of which brought death and disruption to millions.

Innovation and National Security in the 21st Century

“Countries that can harness the current wave of innovation, mitigate its potential disruptions, and capitalize on its transformative power will gain economic and military advantages over potential rivals,” was the top finding of the Innovation and National Security Task Force which was commissioned by the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) to assess the current state of US technological innovation.  The Task Force noted that leadership in innovation, research and technology since World War II has made the US the most secure and economically prosperous nation on earth.

“Today, this leadership position is at risk,” the Task Force warned.  Federal support and funding for R&D has stagnated over the past two decades.  “Washington has failed to maintain adequate levels of public support and funding for basic science.  Federal investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP peaked at 1.86 percent in 1964 but has declined from a little over 1 percent in 1990 to 0.66 percent in 2016.”

The US has successfully responded to technological competition in the past.  Sputnik was a tipping point in the space race with the Soviet Union during the cold war, leading to, among other things, a significant increase in the number of graduate student fellowships in STEM disciplines, of which I was personally a beneficiary.  Another prominent example is the strong economic competition from Japan in the 1980s, which the US fended off a decade later with our leadership in the Internet and other major digital innovations.

The Puzzling Economic Impact of Transformative Technologies

“General purpose technologies (GPTs) are engines for growth,…” wrote Erik Brynjolfsson, Daniel Rock, and Chad Syverson in The Productivity J-Curve, a working paper recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).  “These are the defining technologies of their times and can radically change the economic environment.  They have great potential from the outset, but realizing that potential requires larger intangible and often unmeasured investments and a fundamental rethinking of the organization of production itself.”

As we’ve learned over the past two centuries, there’s generally been a significant time lag between the broad acceptance of a major new transformative technology and its ensuing impact on companies, governments and other institutions.  Even after reaching a tipping point of market acceptance, it takes considerable time, - often decades, - for these new technologies and business models to be widely embraced across economies and societies, - and for their full benefits to be realized.

In her 2002 influential book, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, economic historian Carlota Perez wrote that since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve had a major technological revolution every 60 years or so.  First was the age of machines and factories in the latter part of the 18th century.  This was followed by the age of steam, coal and iron in the early to mid 19th century; electricity and steel around the 1870s-1880s; and automobiles, oil and mass production in the early decades of the 20th century.  Then came the computer and communications revolution in the latter part of the 20th century, ushering the transition from the industrial economy of the past two centuries to our present digital economy.

According to Perez, the economic transformations accompanying these technologies are composed of two distinct periods, each lasting roughly 20 to 30 years.  First comes the installation period when the new technologies emerge into the marketplace, entrepreneurs launch many new startups, and venture capitalists encourage experimentation with new business models. This is then followed by the deployment period, when the now well accepted technologies and business models become the norm, leading to long-term economic and productivity growth.

The State of Financial Health Around the World

The Gallup Global Financial Health Study was published in May of 2018.  The study is based on a survey of over 15,000 people in 10 different countries.  Conducted by Gallup in partnership with the MetLife Foundation and the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the study aimed to develop two key financial measures: how secure do people feel around the world, and how much control and influence they believe they have over their financial situations.

“The degree to which people perceive they are in control of and can influence their financial situation is an important and complementary dimension under the umbrella of financial health,” said the study.  While researchers have developed valuable measures of financial inclusion and financial literacy, data on financial security and control have never existed before.  Such financial measures should help organizations and countries around the world make evidence-based decisions on how to improve the ability of people to lead more financially healthy and secure lives.

The countries in the survey spanned the gamut from highly advanced to developing economies.  The ten countries, and their approximate GDP per capita in $1000s, are: the US ($58), UK ($43), Japan ($42), South Korea ($37), Greece ($37), Chile ($27), Colombia ($24), Vietnam ($14), Bangladesh ($6.3), and Kenya ($3.6).

The study defines financial control as “the extent to which people perceive they are in control of and can influence their financial situation - an important and complementary dimension within the umbrella of financial health.”  Financial control is composed of four key variables: locus of control -  having power over events in one’s life; resilience - ability to come up with solutions to small financial shocks; self-efficacy - extent of influence over future outcomes; and autonomy - having decision-making power.

The Increasing Demand for Hybrid, “T-Shaped” Workers

A recent article in The Atlantic used the USS Gabrielle Giffords to illustrate the important changes taking place in the US Navy, - and in the world of work in general.  After discussing various features of its advanced design, the article noted that the ship’s most futuristic aspect is its crew.  “It was designed to operate with a mere 40 souls on board - one-fifth the number aboard comparably sized legacy ships and a far cry from the 350 aboard a World War II destroyer.  The small size of the crew means that each sailor must be like the ship itself: a jack of many trades and not, as 240 years of tradition have prescribed, a master of just one,” noted the article.  Due to increasingly sophisticated technologies and the high cost of personnel, the USS Gabrielle Giffords is among a new class of Navy ships that’s turned away from specialists in favor of so-called hybrid sailors who are able to handle multiple tasks and rapidly acquire new skills.

The replacement of highly specialized workers with problem-solving generalists who are able to handle and quickly learn new tasks has been taking place across a wide variety of  occupations and industries.  Increased productivity and lower costs, i.e., doing more with less, are some of the reasons for this change.  But, the increased complexity of products, applications and systems, and the unanticipated problems that often follow are other important reasons.

The concept of hybrid or T-shaped workers was first introduced around 25 years ago as a metaphor to describe the kind of individuals that the Navy and many other organizations are looking for.  The vertical stroke in the letter T represents a depth of skills and expertise in one or more specific fields; the horizontal bar implies broad multidisciplinary and social skills, as well as the ability to collaborate with experts across disciplines to jointly solve complex problems.

Impact of AI on Government - Opportunities and Challenges

A few weeks ago I wrote about Leveraging AI to Transform Government based on a 2018 report by the Partnership for Public Service and the IBM Center for the Business of Government.  The report illustrates how government is using AI by describing four use cases being pursued by different agencies.  In 2019, the Partnership and IBM collaborated on two additional reports, Assessing the Impact of AI on the Work of Government, and Building Trust, Managing Risks.

This first report is focused on the impact of AI on the federal workforce, based on an analysis of the jobs and tasks most susceptible to automation, as well as on roundtables and interviews with over 40 AI experts.  The overriding conclusion is that, over time, AI will have a deep impact on how government works.  More than 80 different federal occupations, employing over 130,000 workers, are likely be significantly transformed, including 30,000 in the Treasury Department, 16,000 in Defense, and 5,000 in Transportation, as well as a variety of occupations in independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Government Publishing Office.

In particular, AI will have a major impact in three key areas: the transformation of the federal workday, the potential for personalized customer service and the increased importance of technical and data skills.  Let me summarize the findings and recommendations in each of these areas.

The World is Facing a Period of Digital Disorder

“Geopolitical competition and government regulations are poised to remake the digital economy,” notes the global consulting firm A.T Kearney in Competing in an Age of Digital Disorder, - a recent research report.  “The global technological landscape is currently being reconstructed, subjecting the once-free and unfettered transfer of data across borders to new and greater digital walls.  Terms such as the ‘splinternet’ and a ‘digital cold war’ are becoming ubiquitous, forcing companies everywhere to shift strategies on everything from procurement to customer engagement.”  Or, in a nutshell, the world is in a period of digital disorder.

According to the report, the first stage of the world’s digital transformation started in the early 1990s, with the advent of the commercial Internet and the World Wide Web.  Over the next 25 year, advances in digital technologies, big data and a wide variety of applications have led to sweeping economic and societal transitions.  Over 50% of the world’s population, almost 4 billion people, had Internet access by 2018, a nearly fourfold increase since 2001.

This initial period of explosive growth, light government regulation, and what the report calls digital order, was followed around 2016 by a period of digital disorder.  Governments are now intensifying their regulatory activities in an attempt to maximize the upsides of the digital economy while mitigating its downsides.  At the same time, governments are pursuing national policies and escalating global competition to take the lead in emerging digital technologies, particularly in AI and 5G wireless networks.  “As a result, a global battle for technological supremacy in the 21st-century digital economy is heating up, raising the risk of competing technological standards and creating the potential for an ‘islandized’ digital environment.  Altogether, these actions are creating a digital disorder that is becoming more difficult for companies to navigate.”

In particular, firms are now facing a growing backlash against the increasing digitalization of the economy and society.  In the past, the technology industry was largely seen as a positive societal force, enabling billions around the world to rise out of poverty and lead more productive lives.  Today, by contrast, Big Tech is being challenged on a host of issues, including the dissemination of false and damaging information, the rising inequality between the digital haves and have-nots, and the growing number of cyberattacks, theft of personal data and identity fraud.  “In the United States alone, identity fraud increased 8 percent in 2017, victimizing 16.7 million people and resulting in theft from consumers of $16.8 billion.”

Leveraging AI to Transform Government

“AI has the potential to help address many of our country’s pervasive problems and advance our safety, health and well-being,” said The Future Has Begun, a report on the impact of AI on government by the Partnership for Public Service and the IBM Center for the Business of Government.  “That promise has great potential to transform government.”

 “The most challenging problems AI may help us solve - from fighting terrorists to serving vulnerable populations - will involve government.  More immediately, though not less consequentially, AI will change the way public servants do their jobs.  Because of the impact AI could have on how governments ensure our safety and further our well-being, government leaders are likely to play a significant role in dictating future directions for AI.”

To illustrate how government is using AI, the report is focused on four concrete use cases being pursued by different agencies.  In-depth interviews were conducted with 14 people from 10 organizations, including the various government agencies involved, as well as their collaborators in non profits and universities.  Let me briefly summarize each of these four case studies.

The MIT Work of the Future Report

“The world now stands on the cusp of a technological revolution in artificial intelligence and robotics that may prove as transformative for economic growth and human potential as were electrification, mass production, and electronic telecommunications in their eras,” said the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future in its recently released interim report.  The final report will be issued after conducting additional research over the next year.

The Task Force was convened in the spring of 2018 by MIT President Rafael Reif to address what may well be the most critical question of the digital economy: as emerging technologies raise aggregate economic output and the wealth of nations, will they also enable people to attain higher living standards, better working conditions, greater economic security, and improved health and longevity?

The report’s overriding conclusion is that the likelihood that AI and automation will wipe out major workforce sectors in the near future is exaggerated.  However, we’ve already seen important reasons for concern, especially the rising polarization of employment and wage distribution over the past few decades, which has disproportionately benefited high-skilled professionals while reducing opportunities for mid- and low-skilled workers.

“[A] critical challenge is not necessarily a lack of jobs, but the low quality of many jobs and the resulting lack of viable careers for many people, particularly workers without college degrees.  With this in mind, the work of the future can be shaped beneficially by new policies, renewed support for labor, and reformed institutions, not just new technologies. Broadly, the task force concludes, capitalism in the U.S. must address the interests of workers as well as shareholders.”

How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources

“We have finally learned how to tread more lightly on our planet.  It’s about time,” writes Andrew McAfee in the Introduction to his new book, More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources - and What Happens Next.   McAfee is Co-Director of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy and a Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as a prolific writer of books and articles.

“For just about all of human history our prosperity has been tightly coupled to our ability to take resources from the earth,” he adds.  “So as we became more numerous and prosperous, we inevitably took more: more minerals, more fossil fuels, more land for crops, more trees, more water, and so on.  But not anymore.  In recent years we’ve seen a different pattern emerge: the pattern of more from less.”

What led to the emergence of a more-from-less pattern?  The book provides a provocative answer to this question.  The most important forces responsible for the change are technological progress and capitalism.

The Future of Work in the US: A Tale of Multiple Americas

The US economy looks good by almost any measure.  Unemployment is at historical low levels, forcing employers to raise wages and become more aggressive about hiring and training workers.  There are more job openings than unemployed people to fill them.  Inflation remains low.  A number of recent studies have concluded that over the next decade, our technology-based economy will create a significant number of new occupations which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation.  Not only is the US economy doing well in the present, but despite our increasingly smart machines, automation fears appear to be unfounded.

Why then are so many Americans so anxious about the future?  Why do they feel left behind despite our growing economy?  Why is the country so polarized?

A recent McKinsey report, The Future of Work in America: People and place, today and tomorrow, sheds light on these very important questions.  For the past several years, McKinsey has been conducting research on the impact of automation technologies on the future of work at a national level.  This new report is radically different, based on a detail analysis of more than 3,000 US counties and over 300 cities.

Overall, the study found that while in aggregate the country is doing well, there are actually multiple Americas, each with widely different economic patterns and on sharply different trajectories, some of which are doing quite well and face an exciting future, while others are not in good shape and risk falling further behind.

The report is organized into five main sections, and includes a number of tables, graphs and maps.  Let me summarize the key findings of each of the sections.

The Digitalization of the American Workforce

“Over the past half century, wave after wave of digital innovation has ensured that digitalization - the diffusion of digital technologies into nearly every business and workplace and pocket - has been remaking the U.S. economy and the world of work,” said the Brookings Institution in Digitalization and the American Workforce.  The digitalization of everything has both increased the potential of individuals and societies while contributing to widespread anxiety about its impact on jobs and economic inequalities.  “And yet, for all of the evidence that big changes are underway, surprisingly little data exists to track the spread of digital adoption.”

The Brookings report quantified the spread of digitalization by analyzing the changes in the digital content of 545 occupations between 2002 and 2016 based on O*NET, the most comprehensive data on US occupations sponsored by the US Department of Labor.  O*NET includes highly detailed, task-level information on hundreds of occupations, and includes quantitative measures of knowledge requirements, skills, tools, education, training and work activities. In addition, the report collected information on the occupations’ particular industries, pay, growth rates, geographical locations and distribution across educational and demographic groups.

Each of the 545 occupations, - which encompassed 90% of the US workforce, - was assigned a digital score between 0 and 100 based on the required digital skills.  High digital occupations are those with scores over 60.  They include software developers - with a score of 91; computer system analysts - 79; and financial managers, - 61.  Medium digital occupations scored between 33 and 60, and include lawyers - 58; automative service technicians - 55; office clerks - 55; and registered nurses - 55.  Low digital occupations have a score below 33, and include security guards - 31; restaurant cooks, - 18; construction laborers - 17; and personal care aides - 14.

The (Updated) Purpose of the US Corporation

In September of 1997, the Business Roundtable (BRT), - an association of CEOs of major US companies, - issued a Statement on Corporate Governance which argued that “the paramount duty of management and of boards of directors is to the corporation’s stockholders; the interests of other stakeholders are relevant as a derivative of the duty to stockholders.”

Last week, the BRT released an updated statement on the Purpose of a Corporation which moves away from it’s previous commitment to shareholder primacy to now emphasize a “Commitment to All Stakeholders” and to “An Economy that Serves All Americans.”  This new statement, which was signed by almost 200 CEOs, now places shareholder interests on the same level as the interests of all its other stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, and communities.

The recent BRT statement has received mostly positive coverage. “Top CEOs Say Companies Have Obligations to Society.  Business Roundtable urges firms to take into account employees, customers and community,” said the WSJ in its article’s headline.  Speaking of the change, Fortune noted that over the past decade “Capitalism, at least the kind practiced by large global corporations, was under assault from all sides, and CEOs were getting the message loud and clear…  Capitalism, it seemed, was desperately in need of a modifier.”  The only note of discord I came across was the response of the Council of Institutional Investors, which expressed concerns that the BRT statement “undercuts notions of managerial accountability to shareholders.”

I applaud the BRT statement.  “This is great,” I thought when first reading it, followed by “what took you so long?”  Given the suffering brought upon so many Americans by the 2008 global financial crisis, - the worst since the Great Depression, - restoring trust in business and in our capitalist economic system should have been a top priority for corporate leaders.  To help appreciate why it’s taken the BRT over a decade to affirm that companies have obligations to society, let’s take a look at the prevalent economic and political context of the past 50 years.

The Challenges of Automation in a Fast Changing Economy

“Technological innovation should be embraced,” notes Automation and a Changing Economy, a recently published report by The Aspen Institute.  “Automation has been a largely positive economic and social force, and looking forward,   automation will be necessary to feed, house, and raise the living standards of a growing and aging population.” 

But, “While it is important to note that automation’s overall, long-run effect on the economy has been positive - more jobs, more growth, higher living standards - this does not negate the disruptive impact of automation on individuals and communities, which results from displacements, changing skill needs, and income inequality.”

The report is divided into two sections: The Case for Action, which explores how automation impacts the economic security and opportunity of American workers, and Policies for Shared Prosperity, which outlines a policy agenda for addressing automation’s challenges and opportunities.  Let me summarize the key conclusions and recommendations in each of the report’s two sections.

Free-Market, Free-Trade Capitalism at a Crossroads

The global economy has undergone considerable change over the past few decades.  Results have been mixed.  On the positive side, the digital revolution has significantly improved the quality of life of billions around the world.  Technology advances like the smartphone and wireless Internet, and the economic development brought about by globalization have led to the dramatic decline of extreme poverty around the world.  However, these benefits have been accompanied by major dislocations in labor markets, benefiting workers in low-cost developing nations while severely impacting workers in advanced economies.

The promise of technological progress and globalization as drivers of growth and prosperity has been a reality for many, but it’s also created winners and losers within nations, leading to rising economic inequality and fueling the rise of populism in countries around the world.  What’s going on?  I believe that part of the answer to this very important question can be found by exploring the evolution of free-market, free-trade capitalism over the past couple of centuries.

Adam Smith, the 18th century Scottish economist and philosopher, is the father of free market, free trade capitalism, and one of the major figures of The Enlightenment.  In the The Wealth of Nations, considered the first modern work of economics, he explained that in a free market, an individual pursuing his own self-interests tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole, and that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right results by a so-called invisible hand.

The past 200 years have seen many variants of capitalism.  They’re all generally based on the private ownership of the means of production, their operation for profit, and the accumulation of capital.  Neoclassical economics, first formulated in the 19th century, led to a laissez-faire model of capitalism, based on the premise that given all relevant information people will make rational decisions, markets on their own will achieve the right results, and government interventions, - e.g., regulations, subsidies, tariffs, - are almost always a bad idea.

Faith in neoclassical economies was shattered in the 1930s by the Great Depression, giving rise to Keynesian economics, named for British economist John Maynard Keynes.  His pragmatic, mixed model of capitalism, based on a predominantly private sector economy but with an appropriate role for the public sector, dominated economic thinking for the next four decades.

Is the Digital Revolution At Last Shaking Up Banking?

Digital transformations have generally followed three distinct stages.  First comes the use of IT to improve the productivity and quality of back- and front-end processes.  Distribution is next, leveraging the universal reach and connectivity of the Internet for online transactions and access to information. Finally, the transformation reaches a tipping point when technologies radically change the business model and user experience, leading to a fundamental disruption of the industry.

While such a digital journey is ultimately inevitable, the pace varies widely across industries.  The IT industry has been the most disrupted, - often by its own digital creations in a kind of sorcerer’s apprentice scenario.  Over my long career, I’ve seen many once powerful IT companies done in by technology and market changes, and either disappear altogether or become shadows of their former selves.

Beyond IT, few industries have felt the impact of digital forces like media.  In less than two decades, the global recorded music industry has lost over half its revenues, while the drop in newspaper advertising revenue in the US has been even steeper.  Retail has also undergone major changes with the rise of e-commerce, as has telecommunications with the transition to mobile phones.  How about banking, which has long been a leading user of information technologies?

The May 4 issue of The Economist addressed this question in a special report on Banking and Technology, with several articles on the subject.  “Over the past two decades people across the world have seen digital services transform the economy and their lives,” said its lead article.  “Taxis, films, novels, noodles, doctors and dog-walkers can all be summoned with a tap of a screen.  Giant firms in retailing, carmaking and the media have been humbled by new competitors.  Yet one industry has withstood the tumult: banking.”

But, adds The Economist, “technology is at last shaking up banking.”  Two major forces are driving this shake-up: the dramatic growth of digital payments in China and other Asian countries; and the rise of mobile banking in the West, especially among young digital natives.

The Economic Value of Digital Identity

Identity plays a major role in our everyday life.  It’s the key that determines the particular transactions in which we can rightfully participate as well as the information we’re entitled to access.  Think about going to an office, getting on a plane, logging on to a website or making an online purchase.  We generally don’t pay much attention to the management of our identity credentials unless something goes seriously wrong.

For much of history, our identity systems have been based on face-to-face interactions and on physical documents and processes.  But, the transition to a digital economy requires radically different identity systems.  In a world that’s increasingly governed by digital transactions and data, our existing methods for managing security and privacy are proving inadequate.  Data breaches, large-scale fraud, and identity theft have become more common.  In addition, a significant portion of the world’s population lacks the credentials needed to participate in the digital economy.  Our existing methods for managing digital identities are far from adequate.

A few weeks ago, the McKinsey Global Institute released Digital Identification: A key to inclusive growth, a comprehensive report at over 100 pages that examined the state of digital identities around the world.  The report analyzed the value creation potential of good digital IDs for individuals and institutions, as well as the potential risks and challenges.  McKinsey’s analysis was informed by nearly 100 concrete uses of digital IDs in seven countries: Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, the UK and the US.

The Evolution of Work in Urban Labor Markets

A few weeks ago I heard a very interesting keynote by MIT economist David Autor at the annual conference of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy.  The talk was based on his recently published paper Work of the Past, Work of the Future.

Professor Autor started his talk by noting that over the last four decades, the US and other industrial economies have seen a remarkable rise in wage inequality by educational attainment, with the earnings of the most-educated increasing, and the earnings of the least-educated falling in real terms.  Since the 1980s, the earnings of those with a four year college degree have risen by 40% to 60%, while the earnings of those with a post-college education have risen 80% to 100%.  At the same time, the earnings of those with a high school education or less have fallen among men and barely changed among women.

At the same time, the supply of educated workers in the US has vastly increased.  From the 1960s to the present, the share of the labor force with college or post-college degrees rose from 12% to 39%,  while the share of those with some college rose from 13% to 28%.  But the share of those with a high school degree or less fell from 75 to 33%.  Based on the law of supply-demand, one would expect that the wages of college-educated workers would have fallen in recent years because there are so many of them, while the wages of those with a high school education or less would have risen because they are a significantly smaller share of the labor force.  But, as we well know, this has been far from the case.

Autor addressed this seeming paradox in his keynote by analyzing a number of potential explanations.  Eroding union penetration, falling minimum wages, and the rise of China, India and other low labor-cost countries have certainly contributed to the wage erosion of non-college workers.  But his main focus was the changing structure of work in the US and other advanced economies, as well as how these changes have unfolded across different geographic regions, from low density rural areas to high density cities.

A Novel Method for Measuring the Value of Free Digital Services

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the basic measure of a country’s overall economic output, based on the market value of all the goods and services the country produces.  Most measures of economic performance used by government officials to inform their policies and decisions are based on GDP figures.  But, concerns have long been raised about the adequacy of GDP-based measurements given the major changes that’ve taken place in economies around the world over the past several decades.

GDP is essentially a measure of production.  While suitable when economies were dominated by the production of physical goods, GDP does not adequately capture the growing share of services and increasingly complex solutions that characterize advanced economies.  Nor does it reflect important economic activity beyond production, such as income, consumption and living standards.

In 2008, a Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress led by Nobel-prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen was convened to look at the limits of GDP as an indicator of economic performance and progress.  “What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted.” noted its report.  The Commission recommended complementing classical measures of GDP and economic production with additional measurements that captured people’s well being, as well as factoring in measurements to help reflect the evolution of the economy into the future.

Over the past decade, a new set of concerns have arisen with the rise of the Internet-based digital economy.  How do you measure the value of the increasing amounts of free information goods available over the Internet, including Wikipedia articles, Google maps, Facebook interactions, smartphone apps and You Tube videos?

Once Lumbering, Now Innovative Incumbents Hit Their Stride

Last year, IBM’s Institute for Business Value published Incumbents Strike Back, a global C-suite study based on survey data from over 12,800 executives from 112 countries,  including CEOs, CFOs, CMOs, COOs, CIOs, and CHROs.

“Two decades after the Internet became a platform for transformation, we’re still wondering how it all might turn out,” notes the report.  “The signals aren’t always clear.  Today, winner-take-all organizations are on the rise, but collaborative ecosystems are flourishing as well.  Even in industries where competitive concentration is increasing, innovation hasn’t – as would be expected – flatlined.”

Overall, respondents were evenly divided on whether the key to the future are established markets or new ones.  But they stand in close agreement on two areas:  68% of executives said that their organizations will emphasize customer experience over products, and 63% said that they will continue to expand their networks of business partners.

There was also general agreement on the top external forces that will have the greatest impact in the 2-3 year timeframe: 69% said market factors such as increased competition and changing customer preferences; 63% said technological factors; and 61% said people skills, reflecting the increased importance of talent and ideas.

AI and the Evolution of History

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the event I attended on February 28 to celebrate the launch of MIT’s new Schwarzman College of Computing, - MIT’s strategic response to the rise of artificial intelligence, - a technology that will reshape “geopolitics, our economy, our daily lives and the very definition of work” in the decades to come.  The all-day celebration featured talks and panels on a wide variety of topics, some focused on innovative applications of AI technologies, others on the challenging issues raised by these powerful technologies.

A few weeks later I wrote about one of these challenging issues, the impact of AI on our social interactions, based on the talk by MIT professor Sherry Turkle on Rethinking Friction in Digital Culture, and a related article by Yale professor Nicholas Christakis on How AI Will Rewire US.

I now want to discuss the interview conducted by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman with former US Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger at the February 28 event.  The interview, - which can be seen in this video, - was based on a June, 2018 article by Dr. Kissinger in The Atlantic, - How the Enlightenment Ends: “Philosophically, intellectually - in every way - human society is unprepared for the rise of artificial intelligence.”

The Third Wave of the Digital Economy - Promises and Challenges

“The next wave of digital innovation is coming.  Countries can welcome it, prepare for it, and ride it to new heights of innovation and prosperity, or they can ignore the changing tide and miss the wave,” writes Robert Atkinson in The Task Ahead of Us.  Atkinson is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a think tank focused on science and technology policy.

We’re now entering the third wave of the digital economy, says Atkinson.  The first was based on personal computing, the Internet, Web 1.0, and e-commerce.  The second brought us Web 2.0, big data, smartphones and cloud computing.  The emerging third wave promises to be significantly more connected, - including higher bandwidth and a wide variety of devices; more automated, - with more work being done by machines while integrating the physical and digital worlds; and more intelligent, - leveraging huge volumes of data and advanced algorithms to help us understand and deal with our increasingly complex world.

“Building and adopting the new connected, automated, and intelligent technology system will lead to enormous benefits globally, not least of which will be robust rates of productivity growth and improvements in living standards.  Moreover, these technologies will help address pressing global challenges related to the environment, public health, and transportation, among others.”

We’re in the early stages of this third wave.  5G, IoT, robotics, AI and other promising technologies are being embraced by early marketplace adopters, but their full-scale impact is still 5 to 10 years away.  We’re in a period not unlike the late 1980s, when it was clear that IT was on the brink of a major transition, but the Internet revolution didn’t arrive until the mid-1990s.

What Might Work Look Like in 2030?

A number of recent studies have taken a close look at the the future of work over the next 10 to 15 years.  For example, a December, 2017 report by McKinsey examined which jobs will likely be displaced by automation through 2030, as well as which jobs are likely to be created over the same period, based on data from 46 countries.

McKinsey’s overall conclusion was that a growing technology-based economy will create a significant number of new occupations which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation.  However, “while there may be enough work to maintain full employment to 2030 under most scenarios, the transitions will be very challenging - matching or even exceeding the scale of shifts out of agriculture and manufacturing we have seen in the past.”

Another report, The Changing Nature of Work, - published by the World Bank in October, 2018, - concluded that our problem is not that there won’t be enough work in the future.  The key problem is that, in many countries, the workforce isn’t prepared for a fast unfolding future. Neglecting investments in human capital, - i.e., the sum total of a population’s health, skills, knowledge, and experience, - will dramatically weaken a country’s competitiveness.

Let me now discuss Eight Futures of Work Scenarios and their Implications, a white paper published in January, 2018 by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).  The paper considered eight distinct scenarios on what work might be like by 2030, based on different combinations of three of the most impactful and uncertain variables affecting the future of work: the rate of technological change; the evolution of learning in the workforce; and the magnitude of talent mobility across geographies.

AI and our Social Interactions

I recently wrote about the event I attended on February 28 to celebrate the launch of MIT’s Schwarzman College of Computing.  This new interdisciplinary College is MIT’s response to the rise of artificial intelligence, - a profoundly powerful technology that will likely reshape our economy, society and personal lives in the decades to come.  But, attaining AI’s broad potential will require not only a continuing slew of technological innovations, but equally important research on the challenges our society must get ready for, including ethical issues, workplace disruptions, and human interactions.

The event included keynotes and panels on a wide variety of topics. One of the talks I found most interesting was Rethinking Friction in Digital Culture by Sherry Turkle, MIT Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology.

In her many writings and seminars, - including her 2011 best-seller Alone Together, -  Professor Turkle has long been warning about the impact of technology on our social interactions.  “Most of us here today were introduced to the idea of friction free as a really good thing,” she said at the start of her keynote.  “It’s an aesthetic of engineering efficiency, so why shouldn’t it be a really good thing?”  This idea that technical things should be friction free and smooth easily bleeds into other domains. “Efficiency becomes aspirational - in politics, in business, in education, and in our thinking about relationships.”

She cited a few examples of the kinds of friction free interactions she’s come across in her research on technology and social relationships.  People of all ages have told her that they prefer to text rather than talk, - even when interacting with a colleague in the next cubicle or office.  People have said to her that they prefer to text their spouse rather than have a face-to-face conversation.  Friction free, she explained, “is usually tied up with a hope for greater efficiency and less vulnerability.”

Globalization in Transition

I recently read two interesting reports on the state of globalization in 2019, one by The Economist, the second by the McKinsey Global Institute.  They both agree on the facts, - globalization and global trade have been undergoing considerable changes since the 2008 global financial crisis.  But, they differ in their explanations of the reasons for the changes.

“The golden age of globalisation, in 1990-2010, was something to behold,” notes The Economist in its overview article, The steam has gone out of globalization.  “Commerce soared as the cost of shifting goods in ships and planes fell, phone calls got cheaper, tariffs were cut and the financial system liberalised.”

But now, we’ve transitioned to a so-called Slobalisation era.  “Globalisation has slowed from light speed to a snail’s pace in the past decade for several reasons.  The cost of moving goods has stopped falling.  Multinational firms have found that global sprawl burns money and that local rivals often eat them alive.  Activity is shifting towards services, which are harder to sell across borders: scissors can be exported in 20ft-containers, hair stylists cannot.  And Chinese manufacturing has become more self-reliant, so needs to import fewer parts.”  Finally, we have the well-publicized trade wars and tariffs of the past two years.  All in all, the “rules of commerce are being rewritten around the world.”

The Productivity Paradox: Digital Abundance and Scarce Genius

Despite the relentless advances of digital technologies, productivity growth has been declining over the past decade.  Investment and interest rates have remained low, and income has continued to stagnate for the majority of workers in the US and other developed economies. The world seems to be stuck in a period of slow growth and no one is quite sure what’s causing this apparent contradiction.

Opinions abound.  Harvard economist Larry Summers has argued that secular stagnation is the reason behind this unusual situation, caused primarily by a reluctance of companies to invest and of consumers to spend, with the ensuing excessive savings acting as a drag on economic growth.

Some contend, - most prominently Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon, - that over the past few decades there’s been a fundamental decline in innovation and productivity.  Perhaps our current technologies, advanced and exciting as they might be, aren’t as transformative as the technologies from the period between 1870 and 1970, when we experienced high productivity growth and a rising standard of living. 

Demographic change, namely, the declining population and labor force growth around the world, is another potential cause for slow economic growth.  The global labor force grew at an average of 1.8% per year between 1960 and 2005, but since then it’s been growing at just 1.1% per year, and it’s already shrinking in a number of countries, including Japan, Germany and China.

Another possible explanation, - advanced by Erik Brynjolfsson, Daniel Rock, and Chad Syverson in AI and the Modern Productivity Paradox, - is that the paradox is primarily due to a time lag between technology advances and their impact on the economy.  We’ve been living in a time of major transformative technologies, - the Internet, smartphones, IoT, big data, AI - whose deployment and impact on productivity growth are still lagging.

While technologies may advance rapidly, humans and our institutions change slowly.  Moreover, the more transformative the technologies, the longer it takes for them to be embraced by companies and industries across the economy.  Leading edge firms are already benefiting from these advances, but most are still in the early learning stages.  Translating technological advances into productivity gains requires major transformations in business processes, organization and culture, - and these take time.

Impact of an Aging Population on Economic Growth and Automation

The world has been stuck in an era of slow economic growth over the past decade.  Top economists and policy makers have proposed a number of explanations for the economic slowdown, but in the end, there’s no consensus on the reasons, on how long the slowdown will likely last, or on what to do about it.

Economic growth has two main components, productivity growth and the growth of the labor force.  One potential theory for our stagnant economic growth is demographics, namely, the rapidly declining population and labor force growth around the world.

The current world’s population is 7.7 billion.  The UN Population Division estimates that global population will reach 9.8 billion with a growth rate of 0.5% in 2050, and will peak around 2100 at roughly 11.2 billion with a growth rate of 0.1%.  Other projections estimate that the population will grow slower, peak at 9.4 billion around 2070 and then decline to around 9 billion in 2100.  Some project that after reaching a peak of 9 billion, the world’s population will decline back to today’s levels, - around 7 billion, - by 2100.

Japan and a few other countries are already experiencing population declines.  The US population is currently around 330 million, and is projected to reach 390 million in 2050 and 450 million in 2100.  While the US birthrate hit a historic low in 2017, the population has continued to grow due to immigration.  The US growth rate is 0.71% including immigration and 0.43% without.

The global labor force grew at an average of 1.8% per year between 1960 and 2005, but since then it’s been growing at just 1.1% per year.  The labor force is still growing in some developing countries like India, Nigeria and the Philippines, but it’s already shrinking in China, Japan and Germany.  In the US, the labor force is growing very slowly, - 0.5 percent per year over the past decade, compared with 1.7 percent from 1960 to 2005.  Given the continuing decline in fertility rates in most parts of the world, the global labor force is expected to slip further in the coming decades.

The New, Interdisciplinary, MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

A few months ago, MIT president Rafael Reif announced the launch of the Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing in an e-mail to the MIT community.  “This new College is our strategic response to a global phenomenon – the ubiquity of computing and the rise of AI…” wrote President Reif.  “To state the obvious, AI in particular is reshaping geopolitics, our economy, our daily lives and the very definition of work.  It is rapidly enabling new research in every discipline and new solutions to daunting problems.  At the same time, it is creating ethical strains and human consequences our society is not yet equipped to control or withstand.”

The new College of Computing is made possible by a $350 million foundational gift from Stephen Schwarzman, - chairman, CEO and co-founder of Blackstone, one of the world’s leading investment firms.  The gift is part of a  $1 billion commitment to reshape MIT to help it better address the continuing advances in technology in our 21st century digital economy, as well as their many applications , - both the exciting opportunities and the difficult challenges.

The College is envisioned as an interdisciplinary hub across all five of MIT’s existing schools: Engineering; Science; Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences; Architecture and Planning; and the Sloan School of Management.  This MIT News announcement succinctly summarized the key objectives of the new College:

• reorient MIT to bring the power of computing and AI to all fields of study at MIT, allowing the future of computing and AI to be shaped by insights from all other disciplines

• create 50 new faculty positions that will be located both within the College and jointly with other departments across MIT - nearly doubling MIT’s academic capability in computing and AI

• give MIT’s five schools a shared structure for collaborative education, research, and innovation in computing and AI

• educate students in every discipline to responsibly use and develop AI and computing technologies to help make a better world; and

• transform education and research in public policy and ethical considerations relevant to computing and AI.

Is Blockchain Now Transitioning to a More Mundane and Useful Era?

Blockchain was created around a decade ago as the public, distributed ledger for the Bitcoin cryptocurrency.  Most everyone agrees that it’s a truly brilliant architecture, built on decades-old fundamental research in cryptography, distributed data, distributed computing, game theory and other advanced technologies.  When it first came to light, blockchain had no broader goals beyond supporting Bitcoin.  But, as was the case with the Internet and World Wide Web, blockchain soon transcended its original objectives.

In 2016, blockchain made the list of the World Economic Forum’s Top Ten Emerging Technologies.  The WEF report compared blockchain to the Internet, noting that “Like the Internet, the blockchain is an open, global infrastructure upon which other technologies and applications can be built.  And like the Internet, it allows people to bypass traditional intermediaries in their dealings with each other, thereby lowering or even eliminating transaction costs.”

That same year, blockchain made its first appearance in Gartner’s yearly hype cycles, where it’s remained for the past three years.  In 2017, Gartner noted that “blockchain might seem like it’s just around the corner.  However, most initiatives are still in alpha or beta stage… Long-term, Gartner believes this technology will lead to a reformation of whole industries.”

In a recent article in the MIT Technology Review, associate editor Mike Orcutt succinctly summarized the current state of blockchain: “In 2017, blockchain technology was a revolution that was supposed to disrupt the global financial system.  In 2018, it was a disappointment.  In 2019, it will start to become mundane… After the Great Crypto Bull Run of 2017 and the monumental crash of 2018, blockchain technology won’t make as much noise in 2019.  But it will become more useful.”

Despite All the Bad News that Surround Us… Is the World Actually Getting Better?

The World is Getting Quietly, Relentlessly Better is the title of a recent WSJ article by its chief economics commentator Greg Ip.  “If you spent 2018 mainlining misery about global warming, inequality, toxic politics or other anxieties, I’m here to break your addiction with some good news: The world got better last year, and it is going to get even better this year,” writes Ip in his opening paragraph.  “Poverty around the world is plummeting; half the world is now middle class; and illiteracy, disease and deadly violence are receding.  These things don’t make headlines because they are gradual, relentless and unsurprising.”

Ip’s article is mostly based on data insights from Our World in Data, a comprehensive website that quantifies the evolution of our global living conditions over the past few centuries.  Our World in Data (OWID) is an initiative of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development, led by economist Max Roser at the University of Oxford.

OWID analyzes longitudinal data on how the world has been changing over decades and centuries, as well as explaining the causes and consequences of those changes in its accompanying articles. It makes extensive use of visual aids, including interactive graphs and maps, to present its analyses and insights.  Its content is organized into 15 main sections:  population, health, food, energy, environment, technology, growth & inequality, work & life, public sector, global connections, war & peace, politics, violence & rights, education, media and culture, -  each of which further includes a number of subsections.

Let me summarize just a few of the key trends in the OWID website.

The Business Value of Resilience

The Industrial Revolution was “as much about process innovations that reduced waste and increased productivity as it was about the application of new technologies,” wrote Roger Martin in a recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) article, - The High Price of Efficiency.  Martin is professor and former dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, as well as an accomplished writer.

The belief that efficiency is fundamental to competitive advantage has turned management into a science, - taught in every business school on the planet, - whose objective is the elimination of waste, - whether of time, materials, or capital.

“Why would we not want managers to strive for an ever-more-efficient use of resources?,” asks Martin.  Of course we do.  But, an excessive focus on efficiency can produce startlingly negative effects.  To counterbalance such potential negative effects, companies should pay just as much attention to a less appreciated source of competitive advantage: resilience,  - “the ability to recover from difficulties - to spring back into shape after a shock.”

“Think of the difference between being adapted to an existing environment (which is what efficiency delivers) and being adaptable to changes in the environment.  Resilient systems are typically characterized by the very features - diversity and redundancy, or slack - that efficiency seeks to destroy.”