No event since World War II’s end has had as profound a global impact as COVID-19. The pandemic has triggered a public health and economic crisis on a scale unseen in generations, and exacerbated systemic problems such as inequality and great-power posturing.
The only acceptable response to such a crisis is to pursue a “Great Reset” of our economies, politics and societies. This is the time to re-evaluate the sacred cows of the pre-pandemic system, but also to defend certain long-held values. The task that we face is to preserve the accomplishments of the past 75 years in a more sustainable form.
In the decades after World War II, the world made unprecedented strides toward eradicating poverty, reducing childhood mortality, increasing life expectancy and expanding literacy. Today, international cooperation and trade, which drove the post-war improvement in these and many other measures of human progress, must be maintained and defended against renewed skepticism of their merits.
At the same time, the world must remain focused on the defining issue of the pre-pandemic era: the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the digitization of countless economic activities.
Technological advances have given us the tools that we need to confront the current crisis — including through the rapid development of vaccines, new treatments and personal protective equipment. We need to continue to invest in research and development, education and innovation, while at the same time building protections against those who would misuse technology.
However, other shibboleths of our global economic system need to be re-evaluated with an open mind. Chief among these is the ideology of neoliberalism.
Free-market fundamentalism has eroded worker rights and economic security, triggered a deregulatory race and ruinous tax competition, and enabled the emergence of massive new global monopolies.
Trade, taxation and competition rules that reflect decades of neoliberal influence must be revised. Otherwise, the ideological pendulum — which is in motion — could swing back toward full-scale protectionism and other economic strategies that are “lose-lose.”
Specifically, we need to reconsider our collective commitment to “capitalism” as we have known it. Obviously, we should not do away with the basic engines of growth. We owe most of the social progress of the past to entrepreneurship, and to the capacity to create wealth by taking risks and pursuing innovative new business models.
We need markets to efficiently allocate resources and the production of goods and services, particularly when it comes to confronting problems like climate change.
However, we must rethink what we mean by “capital” in its many iterations — whether financial, environmental, social or human. Consumers do not want more and better goods and services for a reasonable price, but rather they increasingly expect companies to contribute to social welfare and the common good. There is both a fundamental need and an increasingly widespread demand for a new kind of “capitalism.”
To reconsider capitalism, we must reconsider the role of corporations. An early exponent of neoliberalism, the Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman believed (quoting former US president Calvin Coolidge) that “the business of business is business,” but when Friedman pioneered the doctrine of shareholder primacy, he did not consider that a publicly traded company might not only be a commercial entity, but also a social organism.
The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated that companies that invested in strengthening their long-term vitality have been better equipped to weather the storm. The pandemic has hastened the shift toward a stakeholder model of corporate capitalism, following the US Business Roundtable’s embrace of the concept last year.
However, for more socially and environmentally conscious business practices to stick, companies need clearer guidelines. To meet that need, the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council has developed a set of “stakeholder capitalism metrics” so that businesses can get on the same page when it comes to assessing value and risks.
If the COVID-19 crisis has shown us anything, it is that governments, businesses or civil-society groups acting alone cannot meet systemic global challenges.
We need to break down the siloes that keep these domains separate and build institutional platforms for public-private cooperation. Equally important, younger generations must be involved in this process, because it is inherently about long-term progress.
We must also expand our effort to recognize the diversity of backgrounds, opinions and values among citizens at all levels. We each have our individual identities, but we all belong to local, professional, national and even global communities with shared interests and intertwined destinies.
The Great Reset should seek to lend a voice to those who have been left behind so that everyone who is willing to “coshape” the future can do so. The reset that we need is not a revolution or a shift to some new ideology. Rather, it should be seen as a pragmatic step toward a more resilient, cohesive and sustainable world.
Some of the pillars of the global system need to be replaced, and others repaired or strengthened. To achieve shared progress, prosperity and health requires nothing more — or less.
Klaus Schwab is founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs