The New Shape Prize
A European millionaire, Laszlo Szombatfalvy, in 2017, promised $5 million in prize monies to the best new ideas for global governance in confronting the many challenges besetting our planet: climate change, large-scale environmental damage, politically motivated violence (war, civil war, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction), extreme poverty and rapid population growth.
I submitted three ideas by the deadline and have been waiting to read about the winners. Well, here are the finalists, listed in reverse order, as found on the foundation's website (click through and you can read a one paragraph abstract and bio for each, or their entire entry). The winner or winners will be announced in the next few days (I'll update this writing at that time). Following each very brief summary, below, I give my own assessment (an upside and a downside); and at the end I describe my own ideas and why I think they didn't make it to the final round.
#14: Sponsored Loans. Because many development projects in our world can't be funded due to risk (of war, corruption, etc), but are obvious ways forward, enlist billionaires and other wealthy actors to guarantee these loans. Upside: Could have a big impact. Downside: Risk is risk, and nobody wants to lose money.
#13: Social Conditionality in Patents. Make the granting of patents dependent on their being used for social good. Upside: Would reform patents. Downside: Implementation would likely involve grandfathering existing patents, so, small potatoes?
#12: Planetary Condominium. Legal framework for protecting the earth. Upside: Law can be a wronged party's best friend. Downside: Is this practical when half the world lives in societies without a strong legal foundation?
#11: Insurance-based Global Governance. Use the insurance model to confront global catastrophic risk. Countries would pay a premium and be advised on how to avoid risk. Upside: This might actually work. Downside: Either premiums would be massive, or claims would be tightly limited. For example: a $100 billion hurricane that is thought to be aggravated by climate change.
#10: Global Governance by Cooperative Communities. Local communities join together to form a worldwide political entity that votes on initiatives. Upside: The beginning of global government that would spread good ideas, if not take over from nation states. Downside: All but the rich haven't the time for anything but making ends meet.
#9: UN Charter revision. Upside: These are good reforms. Downside: Very unlikely that the powers that be would give up their control.
#8: Evolutionary Organisation. Start a group of local, self-organized people in different parts of the globe that apply for grants to solve local problems, and are guided and assessed by each other and experts. Upside: Encourages local initiative. Downside: Funding would be minimal at outset.
#7: EDGE (Emergent Dynamic Governance Ecosystems) is a many-party coalition of those with proven efforts at well-being that, together, achieve common goals and hold governments and corporations to account. Upside: Good guys get together and force change. Downside: Buzzword salad, anyone?
#6: Tiny Universal Basic Income disbursements, invested. We all get a cut of our taxes to invest in private/public enterprises that return profits to the system. Upside: Popular. Downside: Where does funding come from in all but the richest countries? And what profitable, low-risk investments are not already being met with private funding?
#5: AI -supported bottom up governance and implementation. Upside: Use blockchain and AI to facilitate global governance that takes over from nation-states. Downside: Theoretically, this might work; practically, this might just be a hodge-podge of emerging technologies and concepts.
#4: Outsource UN developmental work. Upside: The UN should stick to policy, not implementation. Downside: Not significant enough, in terms of problem solving.
#3: League of Cities. Upside: Cooperation across boundaries. Downside: Wouldn't this just be a second-best model that compounds the problems of the nation-state with added growing pains?
#2: Club-based model for governance among cities. Upside/Downside: see #3, above.
#1: Blockchain for Global Governance. Blockchain contracts that address global challenges would appear, receive proposals in response, be voted on, and then financed. Upside: A world-wide bulletin board system for identifying and addressing problems. Downside: "Financing by cryptocurrency" isn't how financing is had, it's how it's delivered.
The above is a very brief, skimming description of the finalists based on their one-paragraph abstracts. One can click through and read each of these 14 entries in their entirety (I chose just one to click on). I'm not doing these justice, but I'm not judging. Instead, I'm giving the reader a feel for what passes for new ideas.
Which brings us to my ideas. I'll provide a summary for each that's similar to the above 14, then I'll discuss why I think I didn't make even the semi-final cut, let alone the final grouping:
#1: Rewarding Developing Nation-State Progress. Each year award Nobel Prize-like recognition to a developing country that has done right. Partner with the UN and in-country NGOs to provide advice to all participating nation-states on how they might win. Prize money and recognition would steer governments to do good, while attracting additional, private investment as an imminent economic lift-off for the winner is anticipated. Upside: Immediate and effective in combating global problems. Downside: See discussion below.
#2a: Approximate Democracy. Actual, realistic, direct democracy, that removes petty influence-peddling from politics while giving everyone a voice in shaping policy.
#2b: Experts For Hire. Making facts, truth and expertise central to shaping society. Anyone can take a test, or just follow the discussion in any field. Self-governed expert panels in specific and general fields would be consulted by government, corporations, etc., to provide guidance in each panel's area of expertise.
Upside: Together, 2a and 2b enhance both the promise of self-governance, and the assurance of enlightened expertise, creating a new, integrated model for modern societies: profound people power that has access to the best advice. Downside: see discussion below.
#3: Dramatically Increasing Productivity. My own work experience, being paid an evaluated salary and going home each day once I finish my work, showed me that harnessing efficiencies in one's work life, and splitting the resulting payoff between management and employee, could, I estimate, add 5-10% to the world's economy if the system I enjoy were used around the world. This has only become possible, for the majority of jobs, in the wake of our digital economy, as an objective record of transactions in the workplace is now possible. Strong unions are necessary to make this idea work, but once investors and corporations realize the huge potential jump in productivity (plus improvements in employee morale/health), the changeover would be quick, and there would be no turning back. Upside: An immediate financial boost to the world economy of about 5%, plus increased happiness as participants control their own workflow and can go home early. Downside: see discussion below.
Obviously, I think these are great ideas. They're all comprehensive and practicable. So, why didn't I at least make the semi-finals? Here are the likely reasons, listed in order of probability, with the most likely first:
1. My ideas just weren't that great a fit for this contest. It's hard to admit that one is ill-suited to being the victor. But sometimes that is simply reality. The downside to my first idea, for example, is that the judge might have thought it required annual fundraising by the sponsoring foundation (no fundraising would be required, but this would mean having a lesser impact; note: I promised to donate $100,000 from any prize money to the first year's purse). The second idea's downside is that it is so revolutionary that nobody could be expected to adequately assess it--certainly not a judge with perhaps 5-10 minutes to look into the matter. And my third idea's downside is that, as with the second, it's too "outside the envelope"--as I admitted in the abstract I wrote for each. Only someone like me, who has actually benefitted from a job that encourages efficient work, would understand the potential.
2. My ideas deserve acclaim, but were overlooked. The New Shape contest had 2,702 entries from over 100 countries. All those entries were considered by the contest's panel of regional judges. If I were a judge, the first thing I'd have done would have been to reduce my number of entries from several hundred to perhaps fifty.
A. I'd use an app to scan each entry for educational level (does this writing indicate a lower than high school level submission?).
B. Though I wouldn't do it, a judge could then check footnotes and references (another indication of a highly educated entrant).
C. And, though again I wouldn't do it, easiest of all, a judge could check for credentials (is this someone who's likely to have something important to say?)
In my case, I'd easily pass the first test, as I've checked my own writing level, and it's been college level plus. The second and third possibilities could have been where I tripped up. I used few footnotes and references, as my ideas were mainly based on my own thinking. And though I believe the contest rules suggested anonymity--that is, a separation between entries and biographies--I see that the finalists' bios are available prior to winners being announced (For example: my opinion of the "buzzword salad" entry rose dramatically, once I read the author's bio). If biographical data were looked at in winnowing each judge's workload (perhaps this was necessary, as time ran out), I'd have been one of the first jettisoned, as I don't hail from a prominent think tank, or have a post at a university.
3. My ideas were old school. I'm selective in what I see as promising new technology. While AI, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrencies may prove transformative, I'm not sure enough about them to incorporate their use into my prescriptive thinking. So, since an easy way to winnow ideas would be to look for the latest trends, or at least new ideas that use the latest technology, I probably wouldn't have gotten through that door.
4. My ideas didn't speak to the regional judge for North America. As a first-step winnower, the judge who 'passed' on my ideas may have been looking for more familiar concepts, rather than completely new idas. Thus, areas outside my judge's expertise would have been at a disadvantage; and as I've noted, my second and third ideas, especially, are outside the box.
5. I actually didn't want to win and made my ideas hard to understand. We started out with the likelihood that my ideas just weren't that good a fit. We're ending with the least likely possibility.
And finally, there're some good things about not winning. The ideas themselves, I believe, deserve to be heard. But, I don't need the recognition or extra income that winning would involve. I'm happy with my life, and compared to other contestants who also didn't win, I have no problem with that, personally.
......................................
Update: June 3rd, 2018. We now know the winning entries: #s 9, 5, and 4, above.
Two of these, #9 and #4, address reforms at the UN. #9 suggests a complete overhaul, which would include replacing the Security Council. #4 suggests the UN turn over implementation of various functions to businesses and NGOs, and concentrate on decision-making. Neither has much of a chance of happening in the immediate future, though long-shot advocacy is always welcome; there's always a small chance that a big change could happen in a surprisingly short time.
Our third winner suggests using AI, Blockchain and decentralized decision-making to rewire the world. Like UN reform, the odds are very long that much would happen in the next few years.
Perhaps most interesting is how much of the $5 million purse was awarded. Each of our three winners received a mere $600,000, well below expectations. This has raised eyebrows, in that a minimum $1 million was promised the winner, IIRC, though by having three winners, it could be argued that 'winnings' totaled $1.8 In any case, the generosity of the donor should outweigh any second-guessing. It could be said, however, that the failure to award all $5 million may indicate the jury's general disappointment with the winning ideas (I believe there was a panel of judges to pick winners from among the finalists; if this jury was different from the regional judges who selected semi-finalists and then finalists (I believe they were), any 'disappointment' would be understandable.)
The Global Challenges Foundation has kept the momentum from the contest going by suggesting that those who came to Stockholm for the May 27-29 conference, final deliberations, and announcement, will continue their discussions in preparation for the Paris Peace Conference in 2019. So, perhaps the remaining monies will be disbursed in due time.
Additional tidbits gleaned from perusing the Foundation's Twitter and Facebook:
* Diversity was championed, with the winners, the jury, and the regional judges system, all contributing.
* Congratulations poured in for the winners and the competition. The UN employs a lot of people, so these were perhaps colleagues within the UN community and its circle of friends.
* Outreach to participants was minimal. Perhaps this was best, in that nobody enjoys receiving a dreaded rejection letter. But, one could tell from posts to the Foundation's feeds that not having any feedback on ideas so important to entrants was frustrating, especially for those who put a lot into their ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment