Bold predictions based on intuition are rarely a good idea. Then-British education secretary Margaret Thatcher in 1973 famously said that the UK would not have a woman prime minister in her lifetime. IBM president Thomas Watson declared in 1943 that there was “a world market for perhaps five computers.” And, when movies with sound made their debut in 1927, Warner Brothers’ Harry Warner asked: “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”
At a time when four powerful forces are disrupting the global economy, upending most of our assumptions, such pronouncements on the future, shaped by intuition based on the past, are even more likely to be wrong. Each of these four “great disruptions” is transformational on its own, and all are amplifying the effects of the others, producing fundamental and unpredictable changes on a scale the world has never seen — and that will prove our intuition wrong.
The first great disruption is the shift of economic activity to emerging-market cities. As recently as 2000, 95 percent of the Fortune Global 500 was headquartered in developed economies. By 2025, nearly half of the Fortune Global 500 companies will be based in emerging economies, with China home to more of them than the US or Europe.
Cities are at the vanguard of this shift. Nearly half of global GDP growth from 2010 to 2025 will come from 440 emerging-market cities, many of which Western executives may not even know exist. They are places like Tianjin, a city southeast of Beijing with a GDP that is practically on par with Stockholm’s today — and could equal all of Sweden’s by 2025.
The second great disruption is the acceleration of technological change. While technology has always been transformative, its impact is now ubiquitous, with digital and mobile technologies being adopted at an unprecedented rate. It took more than 50 years after the telephone was invented for half of US homes to have one, but only 20 years for cellphones to spread from less than 3 percent of the world’s population to more than two-thirds. Facebook had 6 million users in 2006; today, it has 1.4 billion.
The mobile Internet offers the promise of economic progress for billions of emerging-economy citizens at a speed that would otherwise be unimaginable. It also gives entrepreneurial upstarts a greater chance of competing with established firms.
However, technological change also carries risks, especially for workers who lose their jobs to automation or lack the skills to work in higher-tech fields.
The third disruption is demographic. For the first time in centuries, our population could plateau in most of the world. Indeed, population aging, which has been evident in the developed world for some time, is now spreading to China and soon will reach Latin America.
Thirty years ago, only a few countries, home to a small share of the global population, had fertility rates substantially below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. In 2013, about 60 percent of the world’s population lived in countries with sub-replacement fertility rates. As the elderly increasingly outnumber working-age people, pressure is building on the labor force, and tax revenues, needed to service government debt and fund public services and pension systems, are diminishing.
The final disruption is the world’s increasing interconnectedness, with goods, capital, people and information flowing ever more easily across borders. Not long ago, international links existed primarily among major trading hubs in Europe and North America; now, the web is intricate and sprawling. Capital flows among emerging economies have doubled in just 10 years, and more than 1 billion people crossed borders in 2009, more than five times the figure in 1980.
The resulting challenges — a host of new and unexpected competitors, volatility stemming from faraway places and the disappearance of local jobs — are already overwhelming workers and companies. Of course, this interconnectedness also offers important opportunities; but an implicit bias toward the familiar is impeding the ability of workers, firms and even governments to take full advantage of them.
This is especially true for companies. According to McKinsey research, from 1990 to 2005, US companies almost always allocated resources on the basis of past, rather than future, opportunities. Firms that succumb to such inertia will probably sink, rather than swim, in the new global economy.
However, some firms will adapt, taking advantage of unprecedented opportunities to remain agile. Instead of, say, building a new headquarters, renting a storefront, or purchasing a restaurant — traditional requirements that demanded large amounts of up-front capital — they can open a satellite sales office, create an online store, or launch a food truck. Flexibility and responsiveness will enable such firms to thrive.
The pace and scale of the current economic transformation is undoubtedly daunting, but there is plenty of reason for optimism. Inequality may be on the rise within countries, but it has dropped dramatically among them. Nearly a billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty from 1990 to 2010; another 3 billion will join the global middle class in the next two decades.
In 1930, at the height of the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes declared that the standard of living in “progressive economies” would increase four to eight times over the subsequent 100 years. His prediction, which was regarded as hopelessly Pollyannaish at the time, has turned out to be correct, with the improvement likely to be at the top of his projected range.
Keynes, unlike many of his contemporaries, recognized the forces at work in the economy, adjusted his thinking, and, crucially, was not afraid to be optimistic. We must do the same.
Richard Dobbs, James Manyika, and Jonathan Woetzel are directors of the McKinsey Global Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers