Join Us | Print Page | Sign In
Emerging Fellows
Group HomeGroup Home Blog Home Group Blogs

Superposition and Frosting a Cake

Posted By Administration, Monday, July 2, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Adam Cowart is one of our Emerging Fellows, and this is his seventh article written for the program. In it, he compares superposition to innovation. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the APF or its members.

We previously challenged what is truly innovative versus sub optimization in some shape or form. We can now delve deeper into assumptions about innovation today. If we start with standpoint theory and situated knowledge, we can drill down a little deeper to reach the concept of situated imagination. Situated imagination contends that knowledge is dependent upon our location: physically, economically, and socially, among other situating coordinates. Thus, imagination is an amalgamation, an alchemy of self and collective conditions, which influences not only meaning but the concept of the “not-yet real”, in the words of Jean Paul Sartre.

In order to “do different things” we must be able to “think differently”. Therefore, moving beyond sub optimization first requires an acknowledgement of what we could call “Situated Innovation”. Situational innovation, the phenomenon of innovation being inherently connected to a particular observer or group of observers, is perhaps the most significant hidden cost in the global economy. Exercises in empathy can help to re-situate the observer, but typically this is done in a manner that is inherently sub optimizing.

While our discussion has largely revolved around the issue of space (across silos, organizations, and countries), time is another dimension in which we sub optimize. The most obvious example of this is shifting the burden of climate change onto future generations. But the issue also manifests in, for example, inter-generational organizational issues. Consider the sub optimization of the past. While not as obvious as the impact on the future, consider the many cost-benefits and projects built around past projections of the future, now the present. By sub optimizing within the present, we underutilize the past, which can have ripple effects into the future. Decisions are forgotten, goals are lost and abandoned. For every idea that survives, countless others falter at some point. A Darwinian perspective on ideas and past innovations is nothing more than permission to hold a bias towards old ideas.

Finally, beyond the space and time, is matter. Agential realism, and spacetimemattering, a theory developed by Karen Barad, provides another perspective on matter and meaning in innovation activities. Agential realism, at its core, is about the inherent entanglement of all things. Any act of observation creates the “agential cut” in which we include some things, and exclude a number of other possibilities. This temporary “cut” allows us to view a chunk of a thing, matter, in isolation, in order to gain a greater understanding of the thing we wish to observe. Hence, our observations of the world are inherently performative. Here, too, we see the challenge of innovation and the limits to our innovative capacities. Observationally, we must isolate an object as either a thing or process. By doing this, we ignore its connected (here, entangled) state of being.

Think of it like this: You are making a cake. Typically, you would wait until it cooled and then frost the whole cake. However, once this particular cake has cooled, you can no longer observe the cake as a whole. You see a piece of the cake and cut out that piece, cover it in frosting, and return the piece to the cake. Then you go about trying to find other pieces of the cake. Unable to see the whole cake at once, you are left with cutting, frosting, returning. In all likelihood, you will only frost a small portion of the cake. Even if you somehow manage to cut off and frost every piece of the cake, it will look more than a little strange! Later that evening, most guests at the party, blessed with the ability to observe the whole cake at once, will agree this is a far from optimum cake. Rather, the cake looks like it was made by Frankenstein.


© Adam Cowart 2018

Tags:  economics  innovation  realism 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Redesigning Society for Prosperity

Posted By Administration, Sunday, July 1, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Daniel Riveong has written his fourth installment in our Emerging Fellows program. Here, he explores the evolving concept of prosperity. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

We are at a critical juncture in our understanding of prosperity. We no longer have an unshaken belief that prosperity is based on economic development or industrialization. The United Nations’ Strategic Development Goals (SGD) have helped reassess the belief that prosperity is mainly an economic goal. These goals have expanded our definition of prosperity towards a holistic improvement of well-being, such as in health, education, nutrition, et cetera.

As we begin to free ourselves from a GDP-focused view of prosperity, we are gaining greater freedom to design society for a more holistic approach to prosperity. To explore these new possibilities, we should revisit indigenous views towards social values, commerce, community, and governance. Indeed, we can draw from a few readily available examples.

In the Andean region of South America, Ecuador and Bolivia have reimagined their social contracts by integrating the concept of Buen Vivir into their constitutions. Buen Vivir (“good living”) is the Spanish phrase for a worldview shared among Andean peoples. While it has no single definition, Buen Vivir emphasizes collective well-being that is in harmony with nature and also culturally sensitive. This concept was integrated into the Ecuadorian constitution in 2008 and later in Bolivia in 2009.

Both countries have interpreted Buen Vivir in different ways. The Ecuadorian constitution guarantees a healthy and an economically balanced way of living. This includes granting nature legal rights that can be enforced through the court system. In contrast, the Bolivian constitution views Buen Vivir through the lens of social justice and political-economic redistribution. The harmony of Buen Vivir is achieved through limiting land ownership size and elevating the political power of village and indigenous communities.

Indigenous concepts not only offer more holistic visions for social contracts but also alternative ways of thinking about work and capitalism. The Igbo people of Nigeria have created a system of apprenticeship that focuses on entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency. It’s more than an education system; it’s a unique venture capital system. In the Igbo tradition, children, usually after primary school, are sent to work for an owner of a trade or shop for 5 to 10 years. At the end of the apprenticeship, owners are obliged to help the apprentices set-up their own businesses (called a “settlement”). This apprenticeship model offers a different way to think about business, economics, and education. The Igbo tradition ensures inter-generational equity through enabling entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency.

While we can find many sources of inspiration from the Global South, we need to understand how they can work, be re-interpreted, and scaled in different societies and contexts. The different Ecuadorian and Bolivian approaches to Buen Vivir is one example of the challenges of interpretation. In the case of the Igbo apprenticeship, we need to imagine what a regulated, digitalized, and scaled-up version of this apprenticeship could look like. Now that we have greater freedom to rethink society, these are the exciting new challenges we must focus on.


© Daniel Riveong 2018

Tags:  development  economics  prosperity 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Welcome to Earth, the Sub-Optimized Planet

Posted By Administration, Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Adam Cowart is one of our Emerging Fellows, and this is his sixth article written for the program. In it, he explores the potential of sub-optimized ecosystems. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the APF or its members.

What role can – or will – innovation play in the future of the real economy? To begin, let’s start with the simplest definition of innovation. Innovation is “creating results by doing new things.” The “doing new things” part is fairly self-explanatory on the surface. It is the process of doing something in a way in which it was not previously done. Although, often, we may have done something, then stopped doing it, then started doing it again either aware or unaware of having done it in the past. But the “creating results” piece of the definition is less clear. What, precisely, is a result? A positive outcome? And, if so, a positive outcome for whom? We can say that, today, an innovative result is one in which we either save money, make money, or provide some sort of social or environmental good. But are those the results we should be aiming for? Do we care, or even understand, how these results impact and influence other components of the global system? And, for our purposes here, how will our definition of “results” evolve in the future? The point here is not to focus on types of results reporting, such as triple bottom line or happiness index-type measurements. The purpose here is on the deeper structural challenges to “real” innovation.

There is no question that what we might call “innovation-offset” occurs across a system or multiple subsystems. How often does an innovation in one area generate an offsetting process inefficiency or product redundancy in another? Put another way, if you innovate in one area, to the detriment of another area, are you really innovating at all? And how would you even know?

Two common terms used to describe this phenomenon are sub-optimization and shifting the burden. Sub-optimization commonly refers to silo-type thinking within an organization. This leads to non-value added activities, redundancy, or diminished returns. Shifting the burden, on the other hand, is a term generally meant to describe a tendency to focus on resolving surface-level, symptomatic issues, pushing costs and negative externalities onto others.

What we might call “sub-optimization ecosystems” are now a vital part of the real economy, not only the maintenance of them, but the perpetual attempts to circumnavigate them. By focusing on the self-interest of the firm at the expense of the larger system, we are inherently sub-optimizing. We ostensibly innovate within a department, across a division, across a firm, across an industry, across multiple industries, then across whole economies. There is no escape.

Our attention has been focused on what we can call the migratory patterns of money. How its shapes and structures tend to manifest. And here, we see a profitable innovation ecosystem, where activity and expenditure is its own reward. But wait, isn’t innovation inherently messy? An iterative process of trial and error. “Fail fast to succeed sooner”?

Consider what percentage of global GDP is dedicated to activities that solve problems by creating new problems elsewhere. Cycles of pointless zero-sum innovation. At a time of complexity, instead of adopting the tools of social innovation and systems change, we have doubled down on the mercurial dark arts of sub-optimization, masked as real innovation.


© Adam Cowart 2018

Tags:  economics  environment  innovation 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Do we need new levers to close infrastructure investment gaps?

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Daniel Bonin‘s fourth post in our Emerging Fellows program concerns infrastructure investment gaps. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

Forecasts suggest that infrastructure investment gaps are here to stay, especially when it comes to transportation and electricity. How can we close these gaps by 2050? The World Economic Forum distinguishes three major levers: (a) reduce demand, (b) build new infrastructures and (c) optimize existing infrastructures. There may be two additional important levers on our way to 2050 that stem from the growing connectedness of people and intelligent things paired with self-executing contracts (i.e. smart contracts). The first lever is novel pricing models for infrastructure usage or, more exactly an “intelligent user charges principle”. The second lever relates to effective altruism movement, the idea of identifying areas where one additional Euro can create the most impact.

Today, we are used to all kinds of pricing structures to pay for products and services. Product purchase, freemium models, flat rates or pay per use are part of everyday life. There is a second class of pricing structures that benefit from the growing connectedness and powerful algorithms. These have just started to become a normal part of life. There is Uber’s surge pricing that is based on market demand levels. Contingency pricing, which is common in the manufacturing or energy sectors, conditions the amount to be paid on the performance of the contractor. Any Mac user who tries to book a flight should be familiar with differential pricing, pricing based on the type of customer. So why shouldn’t we pay a dynamically adapted price for each time we “consume” infrastructures? Think of paying a certain amount of money per kilometer travelled? We could be reimbursed for travelling during off-peak hours or pay extra to have priority during peak hours. Depending on how the fuel economy of our car ranks compared to the median fuel economy or whether we share a ride or not, we would pay a dynamic price per kilometer travelled. And who has not yet dreamed about punishing the SatNav for inefficient routing? There could even be subsidies to foster the adoption of new environmentally friendly technologies. What about subsidies for vehicles that pro-actively improve the air quality in cities or discounts for socially disadvantaged families? The possibilities are endless and so are the synergies. If we track the kilometers we travel, we could also identify the roads that are working at a particularly high level of capacity utilization and allocate maintenance and expansion investments accordingly. This is similar to effective altruism, which tries to identify areas where a certain amount of money can generate the largest societal impact.

This may sound like Sci-Fi, but if we take all the buzz around the Internet of Things, distributed ledgers like Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence seriously, why shouldn’t the intelligent charge principle and effective altruism be feasible? Yes, there are various obstacles. For instance, we would need to quantify and balance a tremendous number of aspects. There are ethical questions like how should eligibility for discounts be calculated? Is it OK to favour densely populated areas and how can we make sure that infrastructures with low capacity usage are not side-lined? All these are questions and trade-offs that we need to find answers to in any case amid budget constraints. I believe that both, user charge principle and effective altruism driven infrastructure planning can help to find fairer answers and pose the right questions.

Another argument for why we need to consider both levers is, that on our way to a more sustainable world, certain trends undermine the ability of our existing infrastructure funding mechanisms to function properly. Firstly, we will need a lot of resources to roll out an intelligent transport and energy infrastructure. Secondly, E-mobility and mobility services with lower vehicle ownership have a negative impact on today’s infrastructure funding mechanisms. While E-mobility and more efficient transport systems reduce externalities and perhaps even infrastructure demand, they also reduce revenues from fuel taxes. The impact of E-mobility is even more far-reaching as this new paradigm will increase the investment needs for our energy grids. With lower private car ownership due to mobility as a service paradigm, countries with historically high motorization rates will see their tax revenues from car registration dwindle. In order to secure a steady monetary stream for infrastructure maintenance and expansion, we need to establish a policy that links taxes to the actual usage of infrastructures. These examples also raise another question: with all that change in terms of way of living and technology until 2050, do we overestimate future infrastructure demand or does Jevons paradox hold true? I will try to address this question in the next post.


© Daniel Bonin 2018

Tags:  economics  infrastructure  technology 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Literacy for the Year 20018

Posted By Administration, Monday, June 4, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Monica Porteanu has written her fifth installment in our Emerging Fellows program. Here, she explores the evolving meaning of the word literacy. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

At its origin, the term “literacy” meant “the ability to read and write.” Although it was first recorded in the 19th century, coinciding with the beginning of the industrial era, specialists have studied its evolution starting from much earlier times. One of the ways they have tracked literacy was through signatures on marriage certificates. When discussing literacy and the industrial revolution, economic historians such as E.G. West, note that “the evidence on literacy and schooling is interdependent.” His study suggests that “literacy specialists usually describe figures of schooling as ‘indirect evidence’ of literacy. Schooling specialists, meanwhile, regard literacy as ‘indirect evidence’ of schooling.”

With the transition from the Industrial to the knowledge era, the term has evolved to convey the message of “competence or knowledge in a specific area.” For example, in addition to reading and writing, organizations such as OECD discuss numeracy and financial literacy. Futurists advocate for future literacy. Others address health or science literacy, with reading and writing is now considered fundamental literacies.

What does it mean for the era we are in? Arguably, we are still attempting to understand what that is. The knowledge era seemed to have been first identified by Peter Drucker, in 1959, when he introduced the concept of the knowledge worker. Today, the term seems more relevant as ever. Some suggest that 2018 belongs to the era of the humans or the Anthropocene, while the World Economic Forum points to the fourth industrial revolution. Eras, nevertheless, seem to be better defined after the fact. Literacies, however, seem to prepare us for what’s to come. Asking what these literacies are, regardless of how we choose to name an era, seems timely. Today’s literacy types include technological and informational competencies, which have been essential for a while now. Such a trend appears to continue, but for how long could it last? With the current aims of developing systems that are highly usable by humans, will there continue to be a need for deep technological literacy?

What might the literacies for tomorrow look like? Would they still be interdependent with schooling, as noted for the industrial era? How could one prepare for a future when the current rate of change is high already?

While possible but unknown tomorrows unfold in our imagination, they still have two things in common: (1) they are uncertain; and (2) preparing for them is ambiguous. At the same time, most of us have difficulties dealing with ambiguity. In fact, social psychologist Geert Hofstede has identified “uncertainty avoidance” as one of the six dimensions of culture. His study across about 100 nations, reveals that globally, the human comfort with ambiguity sits, on average, at about 36%. The other 64% of the time, humans seem to prefer to control the future. The higher such preference is, the more rigid the codes of beliefs, behaviour, and intolerance are.

But how could one control the future? At best, we can prepare. Getting ready for next year seems attainable with current competencies. Bracing for five years from now would include a multitude of assumptions, and potentially competency changes. How about ten years out? Or fifty? The longer the time horizon, the more we seem to joke about and care less how far ahead we talk about. At the same time, such a view would encourage us to switch our thinking beyond what we know today.

In this context, let’s say, the year is 20018, eighteen thousand years ahead of now. What literacies would prepare us for 20018? By that time, we could be back to an agrarian era, or become Martians, or non-existent altogether. Who knows? Breathing might become the literacy of those times. What would prepare us for such eras, seems to be our ability to deal with the ambiguity awaiting us. Shouldn’t we think about ambiguity as critical literacy? How might such literacy be developed?

Some might argue that ambiguity develops during critical thinking or resilience practice or training events. The same event though still sets the expectations for a determined outcome by the end of it, such as earning a grade, job, or advancement. Others might point to life events or religion as good teachers of ambiguity.

Overall, the current schooling system cannot train us to be at ease in ambiguous environments. So do most of existing societal dimensions, including economics, politics, and governance. Isn’t it the time to address that?

© Monica Porteanu 2018

Tags:  economics  education  politics 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The End of a (Virtual) Way of Life

Posted By Administration, Monday, May 21, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Adam Cowart is one of our Emerging Fellows, and this is his fifth article written for the program. In it, he explores the virtual spaces where we currently base our economy.

10,000 years ago, our economies were largely mobile and borderless. We roamed, we hunted, we foraged. One of the earliest clashes of economic models was when land ownership and borders, spurred on by the Agricultural Revolution, disrupted the nomadic lives of a decreasing proportion of the population. From the earliest evolutionary days of humanity until now, hunting and gathering was the dominant societal and economic model for approximately 90% of our history. Today, nomadic peoples number around 40 million.

Parallels between nomadic hunter-gatherer societies and contemporary, Generation X knowledge workers were made in the late 90’s. But these observations were more often than not quirky, meant to emphasize a “new” way of working. Not to mention participate in a bit of generational bashing that has not evolved a whole lot now that it is being applied to millennials.

Foraging societies are typically characterized as not placing value on fixed resources (i.e. land), are collective, typically non-hierarchical societies with immediate-return economies. They derive benefits from their activities immediately, not in a delayed-return economy where benefits from activities occur over a period of time and are often associated with property rights of some sort.

Virtual foraging is such an innate activity that we do not even consider it as such – no different than our nomadic ancestors. We “search” the web for what we are looking for, we hunt, and we roam across countries and worlds. While traditionally this has meant searching for food, what real difference is there between finding food and finding information that can be utilized in such a way as to monetize that information and purchase food? Virtual foraging and knowledge work is not typically an immediate-return economic environment, but the other characteristics of a foraging society are evident in the form of non-hierarchical groups without fixed resources, exploring open spaces.

Much has been written about censorship and net neutrality. There is still a very strong assumption that the virtual world is an open, borderless world. But as we increasingly migrate – and colonize – virtual spaces, will this continue? The bulk of the conversation has been at the micro level. We typically point to Big Brother-type influencers. Nefarious government organizations monitoring and censoring us, or corporations manipulating us. The issue is never us – it’s someone else. At the macro level, we see echoes of our old ways of living and working. Vast open plains, forests, and oceans. A limitless world for us to wander and forage within. And the relatively brisk pace at which we have begun to colonize, divide, and weaponize this space.

We have an unnerving ability to replicate our collective behaviors across time and space. It took thousands of years to erect barriers and borders on earth, and less than 20 years to begin the process in the virtual world. This is our capitalist model in its truest form: find or create space, break it up into pieces, monetize those pieces, move on. Capitalist free “safe spaces” have been created, but the walls erected around them, like all walls, don’t last for long. That capitalism is a relatively recent phenomenon in human existence is both reassuring and frightening.

What else is left? Creating or finding more space. Making the intangible tangible. Taking the unreal and making it real. If it is unmonetized, monetize it. When the first group of settlers head for Mars, it should not surprise anyone if one of those settlers has already incorporated a new business. “Martian Fencing Ltd.” You know, just in case.

© Adam Cowart 2018

Tags:  economics  technology  virtual reality 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Nationalism: The Byproduct of the Nation-State

Posted By Administration, Friday, May 11, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

David Roselle‘s third post in our Emerging Fellows program concerns the changing face of the nation-state. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

How do nations produce a society that will develop a shared sense of identity around a fictive narrative of citizenship? This is, and has been, the challenge for the nation-state. Leaders of nation-states deploy nation-building strategies to create unity by spreading nationalist consciousness to form a social order. This may mean relying on linguistic tools like symbols, mottos, or anthems to create an identity for the nation. These tools are reinforced through both the mundane of daily life — schools, newspapers, pop culture — and through the extreme of war and hardships.

Nation-building is challenging, however, in postcolonial nation-states or countries with high-ethnic fractionalization. High-ethnic fractionalization means a nation-state’s demographics are comprised of societies with different ethnicities, languages or religions. This is true for many, postcolonial nations in Africa (Tanzania .953, DRC .933) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia .766) whose borders were drawn without regard to local knowledge. Denmark (.128) and South Korea (.004), on the other hand, have low level of fractionalization. The quoted numbers speak to the probability that two people picked at random will not share the same ethnicity. For example, a score of .953 implies a 95.3% likelihood that two, random, Tanzanians will not share the same ethnicity – Tanzania has over 120 distinct ethnicities.

Nationalism forms as a byproduct of the nation-state’s architecture. The modern ideology has become an effective vehicle for nation-building. Scholars identify two forms of nationalism: liberal (or civic) nationalism in which collective bonds are formed through shared values of non-xenophobic tolerance and liberty; and ethnic nationalism in which collective bonds are formed through shared ethnicity, language and territory. One bond is by choice (liberal) while the other is congenital (ethnic).

Understanding these two forms of nationalism is essential to make sense of current and future geopolitics. France and the United States are credited with forming the modern, liberal nation-state through their revolutions against monarchies centuries ago. However, in this last presidential election, both countries experienced a strong pull towards ethnic nationalism where it nearly won out in France – with National Front Marine Le Pen’s de-demonization campaign to soften her father’s nationalist ideology – and where it did win in the United States. President Donald Trump used the slogan “Make America Great Again,” to activate ethnic-nationalist populism to appeal to the majority despite the US’ high-ethnic fractionalization. President Trump ostensibly sought to undermine liberal nationalism by uniting anti-globalist, ethnic nationalists to scapegoat the “other”, which has subsequently ostracized Muslims, African-Americans and Central American immigrants.

The future of the nation-state must reconcile with nationalism while understanding the nature of mass migration and globalization. While certain nation-states thrive, many do not. Syria, Yemen and Nicaragua continue to see their populations disperse across boundaries for survival. This large-scale migration caused by religious wars, political corruption and organized crime triggers the defensiveness in nationalist thinking to reject and assign migrants as ‘others’.

As globalization matures, we must wonder how strengthening transnational, economic network flows between global, urban centers will trigger nationalist reactions as new relationships transcend citizenship. Moreover, nation-states must anticipate for the latent disruption posed by climate migration. This leaves unanswered: how will nationalism react to the next surge of human flow?


© David Roselle 2018

Tags:  economics  nations  politics 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The crypto-cowboys and the Wild West

Posted By Administration, Friday, May 4, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Nichola Cooper‘s fifth post in our Emerging Fellows program explores crypto-currencies. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

In 2013, conference attendees were watching a panel as a young, unassuming, chap describes his idea for an alternative method of capital finance: “…a protocol on top of Bitcoin. It’s going to have new features X, Y, and Z on top of Bitcoin, and here’s who we are and here’s our plan, and here’s our Bitcoin address, and anybody who sends coins to this address owns a piece of our new protocol.” This chap is J.R Willett, who launched the first ICO, of Mastercoin (now called Omnicoin).

The beauty of the Initial Coin Offering as a method of raising capital is found in its simplicity. If you have an idea for a project and need some seed funding. Instead of following the well-trodden path of venture capital and handing over a stake in your project, an ICO allows you to attract community backing without being burdened by the red-tape involved in traditional capital-raising exercises like Initial Public Offerings.

In other words, an ICO is like an IPO except, instead of purchasing a ‘share’ in a business, you are purchasing a ‘token’ in exchange for an agreed bitcoin/Ether value. It is exceptionally popular; growing from 7 ICOs in Q1 of 2017 (US$28m raised in total) to a total of 480 so far in 2018, having raised over US$2.2b for blockchain-based start-ups.

In an unregulated market, the relative ease of conducting an ICO has created a marketplace described by crypto-investors as analogous to the “Wild West”, where the unsophisticated easily fall prey to hoaxes, cloned websites and ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes. Telegram, one of the largest ICOs to date, raised US$830m during pre-sale, but not without fake websites trying to scam crypto from unwise investors.

The equal chance of making or losing a lot of money has attracted regulators’ interest. China and South Korea placing sweeping bans on ICOs and sending the value of cryptocurrencies into freefall. The US Securities and Exchange Commission and ASIC in Australia have warned, regardless of the terminology used, the sale of digital coins may be regulated as securities, meaning operators must comply with local reporting legislation, including maintaining a register of investors.

The outlook for ICOs remains promising, notwithstanding the volatility of the crypto-market. Registration isn’t compulsory, the set-up costs are low and investors rely on the tokens appreciating in value. A successful ICO is predicated, however, on the quality of the advisory team and provision of sound legal advice. That advice now includes the broad reach of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Enforced on 25th May 2018, organisations that fall foul of compliance face potential fines of up to 4% of turnover or EUR20m.

Few people, apparently, realise the jurisdiction of this regulation. The GDPR doesn’t only harmonise privacy laws within Europe but applies to organisations processing data relating to EU subjects. As a Londoner based in Australia, if I participate in KarmaKoffee Melbourne’s ICO, for the sake of illustration, they are not only obliged to comply with securities regulation but, soon, privacy regulation too.

I wonder how many people will be caught unawares by this?


© Nichola Cooper 2018

Tags:  Bitcoin  cryptocurrency  economics 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Universal Basic Income: A Tool to Reimagine Human Dignity?

Posted By Administration, Thursday, May 3, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Daniel Riveong has written his third installment in our Emerging Fellows program. Here, he explores the possibilities of governments implementing a universal basic income. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

Since the late 1990s, there has been an explosion in excitement around the idea of universal basic income (UBI). As of April 2018, there are UBI pilots underway in parts of Canada, the United States, Netherlands, Spain and other countries. While the concept was previously popular among policymakers in the 1970s, today’s interest in UBI has been driven by increasing anxiety over inequality and the threat of automation, especially among Western countries. For the Global South, UBI could be a useful tool to challenge our ideas about labor, poverty, and dignity and help us imagine alternatives.

The concept of UBI is less radical in the Global South as countries like Indonesia, El Salvador, and Brazil already has extensive conditional cash-transfer programs (CCT). Brazil, for example, is home to Bolsa Família one of the most famous conditional-cash transfers, which provides qualifying poor families cash-aide in return for school attendance. UBI differs from CCT in that is supposed to be both universal and unconditional. It is less open to political favoritism, corruption, and avoids debates over defining poverty.

For much of the Global South, the promise of UBI – rather than a bulwark against automation or inequality – is as a powerful tool to alleviate poverty. The assumption here is that the lack of income is a major source of poverty. At its most utopian, UBI is an attempt to decouple the myth that a dignified life – a life of security, health, and education – requires labor-derived income. Further, if we can decouple dignity from labor then we can also challenge the need for endless economic growth.

To spin this the other way, if dignity is not dependent on labor and an economy driven by growth then from what path? Answering this question, there are proposals for a Universal Basic Services (UBS): universal access to housing, food, healthcare, education, and efficient government services. Government policy focus on UBS could a framework for accomplishing the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which also focus on ending poverty through better access and better quality of services. Additionally, by focusing on access to services over income, it would help support the movement to shift away from GDP as the leading indicator of welling being.

For the Global South, where such access may not be as robustly supported by the government, universal access to services may be more critical than receiving an unconditional income from the government. Indeed, a set basic monthly income may pale in comparison to housing cost, where the cities of the Global South – such as Hanoi or São Paulo – rank among the most unaffordable in the world.

Together, UBI and UBS are powerful concepts that could multiply the number of possible futures. Given the correct set of larger supporting policies, these policies can encourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and innovation to reimagine capitalism as a tool to maximize an individual’s opportunities rather than maximize corporate growth. More powerfully, however, by asking us to disaggregate labor, income, and dignity it may help pave the creation of new post-capitalism alternatives.


© Daniel Riveong 2018

Tags:  economics  politics  society 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Surveillance capitalism and the liberal democracy

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Updated: Monday, February 25, 2019

Nichola Cooper‘s fourth post in our Emerging Fellows program explores privacy, trust, and social media. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

When Mark Zuckerberg was designing The Facebook in 2004, he was staggered that people were willing to share their personal data, “they just submitted it, I don’t know why, they just trust me – dumb f**ks”.

Well, those “dumb” people have just realised what Facebook harvests and monetises personal data for in the Cambridge Analytica shenanigans. Zuckerberg is contrite, of course, that’s this thing; apologising for a “breach of trust.” But, users don’t really trust social platforms anyway. Their upset is probably because they didn’t see this coming. It’s the advertisers Zuckerberg is really apologising to. Facebook’s business model relies on users sharing content and being receptive to advertisers’ messages. As the mantra goes: “if the service is free, you are the product”. Judging by the #deletefacebook and #faceblock campaigns, people don’t want to be a product.

Of course, widespread abandonment of social media is unlikely. In a globalised world we need a way of connecting, so regulators are starting to act. On 25 May, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect which will shift the balance of power from the company to the user and Facebook will need to watch their step. Article 25 – privacy by design – addresses how privacy protocol redesign should be interpreted: proactively. Yet, given Facebook’s history of asking for forgiveness over permission, users might be forgiven for expecting future privacy breaches despite regulatory controls.

Looking forward, there remain serious concerns about the future of democracy. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office is investigating 30 organisations – including Facebook – as part of its inquiry into the use of personal data and analytics for political purposes. The UK’s final European Commissioner for security, Sir Julian King, writing to the European Commission that Cambridge Analytica’s psychometric profiling during the Vote Leave Brexit Campaign was “a preview of the profoundly disturbing effects such disinformation could have on the functioning of liberal democracies”, asking for plans to manage social media companies in preparation for the European political campaigns of 2019. Emmanuel Macron supports Sir Julian, promising to ban fake news during election campaigns. It follows Malaysia. One of the first countries in the world to put an Anti-Fake News bill before parliament which will penalise those who create or circulate fake news with 10-years imprisonment or a fine of up to 500,000 ringgit (£90,000).

Then there are Comcast and Verizon to worry about. After the US Congress extended the same data-gathering practices to internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, US consumers are concerned about their role as internet gatekeepers. The risks of exploiting personal data are far higher, beyond unsolicited book recommendations. Several companies are holding the length and breadth of your entire digital footprint. Take China as an example; from May, Chinese citizens with poor “social credit” may be banned from public transport for up to a year based on what they buy, say and do.

We are at a critical juncture where the sociopolitical consequences of surveillance capitalism can get much better, or much worse. Can we afford to not pay attention?


© Nichola Cooper 2018

Tags:  economics  politics  privacy 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 6 of 8
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8