A couple of years ago The Futures Company collaborated with the Institute of Development Studies on an ambitious futures project which was designed to understand the possible futures of a post-crash global economy, and then to identify impacts for development. One of the conditions of the tender was – unusually – that we subsequently write up the work for academic publication, and the paper we wrote for the journal Foresight has recently been commended as one of the best papers in the journal during 2011. In turn, this means that it’s available for open download until 10th October from the website of the publishers, Emerald.
The client for the project was a British government department, and the sponsor within the department was sure that he didn’t want the scenarios to be developed using the mainstream 2×2 double uncertainty method. I was fairly sure about this as well; for one thing, I didn’t believe – given that the scope of the scenarios was the entire global economy – that the 2×2 would produce sufficient nuance, and secondly, I knew from experience that while it is possible to translate 2×2 scenarios into soft models, just about, the translation can be messy.
For our part of the work (on which I worked with my colleague Joe Ballantyne), therefore, we used a ‘light’ version of morphological analysis – largely for reasons of time – substituting a form of pattern analysis for computer-based analysis. In turn this meant that Andy Sumner of the IDS, the paper’s third author, was able to draw out the main elements that linked the national economies to the global economy and categorise them.
I’m proud of the paper, which I think describes well the way that a fairly complex futures process, done quite quickly, was able to drive insight and improve our anticipation of the future. In the few days before the window closes: enjoy.
A few years ago Citigroup (yes, it’s a bank) came up with the notion of ‘plutonomy‘ to describe the way the economy was going. It was a neologism, of course, but one that needed little or no explanation.
But even three years after the financial crash, we’re still seeing that ethos and that economy on our streets and in our public realm.
There’s still commentary coming out on the riots and their aftermath almost faster than I can read it and reflect on it, but in the next two posts I’m going to try to pull together some of the better commentary on the English riots last week. The first post will look at the immediate circumstances of the riots, and the second one at some of the wider contexts.
As the Greek financial system lurches from one brink of collapse to the next, it’s worth trying to identify what we know about the current state of the Atlantic financial crisis that broke in 2008. In summary, I think it is this: the present approaches to dealing with debt will fail until the banks take losses as well. And that needs financial and social innovation.
Here’s a thought. One way into several of the policy issues dominating British news headlines – from the future of the national health service, to the Southern Cross catastrophe, to the funding of higher education – is to look at them through the lens of Jane Jacobs’ distinction, in her book Systems of Survival, between systems based on territory (‘guardians’) and systems based on exchange (‘traders’). Most human societies need both. But when we get the distinctions between them blurred, breakdown and corruption follows.
Suddenly, with the turn of the decade and the latest World Economic Forum opening, we’re awash with projections of how the world economy might look in 2050, produced by economists, and each as implausible as the other. Two, from HSBC and PwC (both open in PDF) offer similar (and improbable) views of a hugely expanded global economy to 2050. But they also seem to assume that the future will be a lot like the past.
The recent transfer of the ownership of Liverpool Football Club from two unsuccessful American millionaires to another group of Americans tells us something about the state of English professional football, but led me to more interesting questions about how and why societies should impose limits on ownership. This goes far beyond football, and the answer seems to be when the value generated by the organisation is primarily social; this value should not be open to private appropriation. It seems increasingly clear that ownership is going to become one of the contested issues of the coming decade. In this post I am going to try to take some case studies to tease this out.
I’ve not been able to blog recently – a mix of work commitments and being away – but I’m delighted to say that during that time the article I wrote with Hardin Tibbs on the global financial crisis has been published in the Journal of Futures Studies. We argue that to understand the financial crisis, it’s necessary to look across multiple timescales, and at the same time. There’s a short-run story about the financial sector, going back thirty-forty years, which is also bound up with a technology story; there’s a longer-run story about energy, which goes back to the development of oil as a significant energy source in the early 1900s; and there’s another – more long-term – story about the end of modernity, a story which started being told around 350 years ago. Each of these suggest a system running up against its limits, and each of them on their own could have caused the crisis. The global scale of the crisis was because these different systemic stories started to interact. And looking at it in this way, it is clear that the crisis isn’t over yet.
One of the pleasures of blogging is that the dialogue which it sometimes provokes, and my recent post reflecting on the health care vote and the apparent breakdown of ‘normal’ political processes produced a couple of thoughtful responses which seemed to me to take the discussion on. My Futures Company colleague Walker Smith suggested to me from North Carolina that the Republican Party was being squeezed by four concurrent trends which were all disadvantageous to them, while closer to home my sometime collaborator Ian Christie puts US politics in the wider context of responses to globalisation. With their respective permissions, I’ve used large parts of their emails to me in the post that follows, paraphrasing lightly.
No sooner had I posted earlier this week about the iPad and Carlota Perez’ model of long-term patterns of technology innovation and investment than I opened Strategy + Business to discover that the venture capitalist and technology analyst Mark Stahlman was also using her model to predict that good times are, well, just around the corner. Very good times, to judge from his Bowie-esque title: ‘A New Golden Age’.
There are some good things about his piece in s+b. It’s a very clear description of Perez’ thinking, and the diagram of the Perez’ S-curve is far better designed than the one I used in my post – clean and clear.
And there are some not so good things, especially when he gets to the futures part of his article.