The COVID-19 pandemic and the myriad crises it spawned could finally start to recede this year. However, even in that best-case scenario, a tsunami of new challenges — from the failure of climate action to the erosion of social cohesion — is within sight. Addressing them requires leaders to adopt a different governance model.
When our institutions are well governed, we pay little attention to them. They are simply invisible infrastructure supporting the economy and virtually all aspects of the social order. “Good enough” governance in the second half of the 20th century enabled income growth and social peace.
However, many people today have lost faith in their leaders. Faced with mounting risks and our collective failure to address them, we have started looking for culprits. Some point the finger at inept political leaders, others blame “Davos Man” CEOs, and a desperate, growing minority sees an elite conspiracy behind the current doom and gloom.
Illustration: Mountain People
The truth is more complicated. At the heart of our failure to foresee and manage global risks — not only climate change and deepening social divisions, but also the re-emergence of infectious diseases, debt crises, and inadequate technology regulation — lies an unresolved problem of global governance. Our institutions and their leadership are no longer fit for purpose.
We tend to view history as a series of big, earthquake-like events, but the degradation of global governance was mostly a case of gradual erosion.
In the Governance 1.0 period immediately after World War II, public and corporate governance were marked by the rule of the “one man” — the elected or unelected “strong leader” and the “boss.” This type of leadership worked well in a society where the cost of information was high, hierarchical power and management functioned relatively smoothly, and technological and economic advances benefited almost everyone.
The Governance 2.0 model, which emerged at the end of the 1960s, affirmed the primacy of material wealth, and coincided with the rise of the economist Milton Friedman’s “shareholder capitalism” and progressive global financialization. The new managerial class, accountable only to shareholders, reigned supreme and had global reach. While the 2008 global financial crisis dealt Governance 2.0 a serious blow, its narrow vision continued to prevail until the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The brutal social and economic shock inflicted by COVID-19 ushered in Governance 3.0. Crisis management currently dominates decisionmaking, with leaders focusing on operational thinking and showing a relative disregard for possible unintended consequences. This short-term, trial-and-error approach has led to haphazard management of the pandemic and its socioeconomic fallout.
When the pandemic ends, we will need a new governance model. Governance 4.0 would differ from its predecessors in several fundamental respects.
First, it would replace today’s short-term crisis management with long-term strategic thinking. A focus on current problems such as the pandemic, socioeconomic crises and people’s mental health must be complemented with action to tackle climate change, reverse biodiversity loss and environmental damage caused by human activity, and address related social challenges such as involuntary migration.
Second, Governance 4.0 must replace the tunnel vision and top-down approach that prevailed in the past. We live in a highly complex and interconnected world, not a linear one with few discontinuities. That also means the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder in society must change. Business can no longer ignore its social and environmental impact, while government can no longer act as if it alone has all the answers.
Third, the emphasis on a narrow conception of economics and short-term financial interests must cease. Instead, the primacy of society and nature must be at the core of any new governance system — whether for business or government. Finance and business are vitally important, but they must serve society and nature, not the other way around.
The world has changed, and public and corporate governance must change with it. Today, major structural shifts such as the Fourth Industrial Revolution and climate change are disrupting every industry and center of power. Technologies such as blockchain are replacing centralized and hierarchical organizations with decentralized, autonomous entities, while social, economic and digital inequities are increasing.
For now, many leaders remain stuck in the shareholder-capitalism mentality of Governance 2.0, while some societies still favor the strongman leadership and structure of Governance 1.0. As long as COVID-19 remains a threat, the crisis mentality of Governance 3.0 would continue to dominate boardroom and Cabinet discussions.
However, many leaders are already thinking and acting like pioneers for a new age of governance. They include business executives advocating for environmental, social, and governance metrics, and political leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi breaking down boundaries. Above all, young people are demanding a better future.
Those still using the governance playbooks of previous eras criticize such leaders for not staying in their lane. However, we should welcome leaders who, navigating largely uncharted territory, act outside of their narrow interests as trailblazers, and argue for specific action to fight climate change and address social injustice.
The best gauges of responsible and responsive governance today measure the extent to which leaders embrace and consent to stakeholder responsibility over shareholder responsibility. Although the measurement of stakeholder accountability is still in its infancy, the development of consistent metrics would enable us to judge whether leaders are taking a broader view of their roles and responsibilities.
The 21st century could bring many unprecedented challenges. If we want our children and grandchildren to look back at the progress we made with the same satisfaction that we felt at the end of the 20th century, then our governance model must evolve.
Klaus Schwab is founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
Recent media reports have again warned that traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies are disappearing and might vanish altogether within the next 15 years. Yet viewed through the broader lens of social and economic change, the rise and fall — or transformation — of industries is rarely the result of a single factor, nor is it inherently negative. Taiwan itself offers a clear parallel. Once renowned globally for manufacturing, it is now best known for its high-tech industries. Along the way, some businesses successfully transformed, while others disappeared. These shifts, painful as they might be for those directly affected, have not necessarily harmed society
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesman Justin Wu (吳崢) on Monday rebuked seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers for stalling a special defense budget and visiting China. The legislators — including Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), Yeh Yuan-chih (葉元之) and Lin Szu-ming (林思銘) — attended an event in Xiamen, China, over the weekend hosted by the Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association, where they met officials from Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO). “Weng’s decision to stall the special defense budget defies majority public opinion,” Wu said, accusing KMT legislators of acting as proxies for Beijing. KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲), acting head of the party’s Culture and Communications
RSS