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
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his