A Nobel Prize-Like Award For Developing Countries
Here is the text (I've made a few minor clarifications) that I submitted on June 25th, 2017 to the
Global Challenge Foundation's New Shape Prize competition.
My idea in a nutshell: An annual award, given to the developing country showing the most progress in addressing our world's challenges. The award would act as a green light, attracting private investment as the winning country's economic takeoff became all but certain. Beginning with baby steps, then scaled up over the next decade, our award would set up a virtuous cycle that encouraged good governance, normalcy in international relations, and progress in solving global challenges.
.................................................
1. Introduction
We propose:
An independent foundation employing 20-30 experts in sustainable development, with assistance from volunteer curators and commenters, that sponsors a recurring competition of great ambition. We envision our foundation using social media crowdfunding, and eventually philanthropic sponsorship, to offer a scalable, annual prize for nation-state progress in addressing our world's global challenges.
Combined with concomitant private capital seeking a likely return, our initially modest prize leverages prestige to essentially award accelerated economic growth to nation-states whose leaders lay out plans for progress in attaining our goals.
Each year’s winner and runners-up are chosen from an original 10-20 nominees, selected by our foundation’s expert panel for their likelihood of contributing the most to global progress. Progress in addressing our challenges would include decisions to date, but with the emphasis on future commitments. Permanently recorded deliberations surrounding the pros and cons of each nominee are conducted on a website run by volunteer curators. All commenters could vote for their first choice among entries, though volunteer curators, and those whose comments they select, would compose a priority, subset vote. Both rankings (overall and subset) are used to assist our foundation’s experts in making a final decision.
Steps to implementation involve setting a date (2020), referring interested nation-states to in-country and international experts for plan development and implementation, soliciting donations large and small, and implementing publicity. In addition, after-the-fact engagement involves in-country and international publicity, RE: bidding on a prize winner’s proposed projects.
Our foundation would be a self-selected entity whose sole purpose is to adequately address our five global challenges: climate change, over-population, environmental degradation, political violence and extreme poverty. In consultation with its initial founders, and with other experts in the field, our foundation would hire panel members to multi-year terms. Expert panel members, reflecting the world’s diversity, would oversee the disbursement of an annual endowment dividend, split in alternate years between a small and a large amount, a split meant to reward smaller and larger countries, respectively.
Using academic, NGO, governmental, independent, and UN expertise, in conjunction with a more populist, wiki-like deliberative process, allows a final decision that is based on a full, public airing of critiques and possible alternatives, prior to a winning government’s priorities being finalized. Such a process is open to all, yet accentuates knowledge of our subject matter, and the prominence of thorough, objective expertise, since only nominated candidates are considered. Furthermore, it removes the need for much government oversight, not to mention foundation staff.
In general, our model emphasizes
attracting, rather than
forcing, progress. Addressing global challenges is based on natural interests: volunteers curate and vote, experts are recognized, citizens in winning nations are cheered, donors are given naming rights, etc. Our model, in turn, is based on elements drawn from real world examples, namely the Nobel Foundation, the Olympics, the UN, and the typical startup. Furthermore, natural scalability is built in: for example, a nation-state's video entry, meant to appeal to the casual browser, is backed up with a detailed PDF. Likewise, funding begins as a donation by the author to cover the first year’s purse, and, through social media campaigns and philanthropic donations, grows in size to the point where entire economies are pulled out of economic slumps.
Commitments made by participating nation-states are expected to either set an innovative example, or to further the examples set by previous winners: progressive income taxes, dedicated revenues, jobs creation vs. security spending, carbon-free energy investments, etc.
Initially, for 2020, the winner could be a country that has already made considerable progress towards addressing our challenges, while also identifying an ambitious path forward. In subsequent years, winners would be chosen for future commitments, only. By 2030 we imagine the endowment being large enough to support three prizes, one each for Africa, Eurasia and the Americas.
A cautiously optimistic timeline sees a $2.5 billion endowment in ten years. This, we estimate, would cause approximately half our world’s developing countries to seriously address our challenges. This optimism is partly based on winner matriculation, whereby previous winners are ineligible for the next 20 years, leaving room for others. Another reason for optimism: two runners-up are named each year, thus further multiplying the follow-on effect of private investment, which, in our fictional “view from 2030” (section 7) we estimate would be $81 billion over ten years. Our timeline (section 10) imagines a large peace dividend by 2040.
And the choices made in imagining our prize? Section 9 discusses alternatives to various choices, including organizational construct, nominating, and voting. In section 11 we discuss possible alternatives in light of the designated eight criteria, a discussion which covers such issues as diversity, as well as control and oversight mechanisms.
2. Description of the Model
1. Attraction
Attracting good deeds, rather than forcing them, is the key to global progress.
Attraction involves the alignment of common interests; for example, a price that beats others. Force, on the other hand, often means interests at odds; like a bribe that's unavoidable.
Attraction is almost always easier and likelier. This can be seen with successful child rearing; attracting a child's good behavior, rather than forcing a child to abandon the bad.
2. A Model
To create a model for global solutions that attracts compliance as quickly and effectively as possible, we might first look at everyday models and their unique and common elements. We can then select key components from each in building our own.
Competitive sports, business, even love, all start with even playing fields, then see best efforts rewarded.
Taking something from each, we have:
* Sports: The Olympics involve recurring competition — a reason to consistently do one’s best
* Business: when competing, multiple successful parties — more winners
* Love: natural reactions — success that is unstoppable
And, adding one more
* Matriculation — winners are ineligible for 20 years following a victory, which, again, means better odds for those who’ve yet to win
To recap: the 'new shape’ model proposed here is a recurring competition having multiple, matriculating winners, all naturally impelled.
3. Focus, Contestants, Prize
The focus for our recurring competition is alleviating the world's critical challenges:
* Climate Change,
* Overpopulation,
* Environmental Degradation,
* Political Violence and
* Extreme Poverty.
The contestants would of course be the world’s nation-states.
The prize, in its first few years, would be a relatively modest financial boost, backed by the award’s prestige, that attracts follow-on private capital. Eventually, given some success in fundraising, the prize itself would attract participation.
Together, our purse, combined with investments seeking a likely return, would fund a winning country's tentative plans, calculations and commitments, which would constitute that nation’s entry in the competition.
According to the IMF’s most recent World Economic Outlook report, fully 75% of global growth in output and consumption occurs in developing economies and emerging markets. (H/T: CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS). Thus, the prestige from winning would merely act to remove uncertainties in a given developing economy.
Meanwhile, the developed world has recently suffered from dangerously low interest rates, as capital exceeds likely investment. So, adding relative security to investment options in developing countries is unlikely to crowd out possibilities in developed economies, given historically low rates.
And the criteria for awarding our prize? Simple: the degree to which the recognition can do the most good in advancing progress on our five foci.
4. Organizational Structure
First let’s review the organizational structure of notable world bodies, then we’ll identify components that seem the most likely:
A. The Nobel Prize — a nomination format pairing academic expertise with a self-selected foundation
B. The Olympics — a volunteer-based, international body, with in-country representation, that sponsors competition
C. The United Nations — a comprehensive, international body with great ambition
In addition, a fourth:
D. The startup model — an immediate effort using modest resources, hard-scrabble grit, and, often, savvy social media, that, in time, scales financially to encompass larger investments.
Combining these four we select:
The Nobel Prize: expert nominators paired with an independent foundation
The Olympics: a volunteer-based organization that sponsors competition
The U.N.: great ambition
Startup Culture: immediate and scalable, often with a social media outreach that leads to larger investments
To sum up, our suggested organizational structure involves an independent, self-selected foundation that hires experts, who, assisted by volunteers, oversee a competition of great ambition. Our foundation uses social media, and eventually corporate or philanthropic sponsorship, to offer an annual prize for progress in combating global challenges.
5. Nominations and Voting
First, nation-states are grouped into regions: Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas. The goal is to have a winner in each region. Initially, however, funding constraints would almost certainly mean a single global winner.
Second, our foundation’s experts prepare a nominations list of roughly 10-20 countries each year. During the prize's first year or two, nominations are based on invitations to participate. Eventually, the prize would attract submitted entries. Once an entry deadline arrives, submissions are debated by the world at large. This is done on our foundation’s website, where volunteers screen for and highlight thoughtful comments that bring to the fore arguments in favor and against various candidates and options. Highlighted comments are added to a given year’s permanent record.
Third, a vote is held, open to all commenters, to pick the most likely entrant. Each commenter lists their favorite and up to four honorable mentions. A separate tally is also made that only counts curator votes and those whose comments were chosen. Based on these vote totals, and their own opinions, the foundation’s expert panel then picks one winner and two runners-up, who are announced to the world.
All entries are submitted as videos, with links to detailed PDFs describing efforts at ameliorating our five global challenges. Entries showcase efforts already made, those underway, and most importantly, a way forward should government revenues (that is, economic growth) permit. In addition to prospects for economic growth, broad topics would likely include:
* Education,
* Empowering Women,
* Transparency, Democracy, Justice
* Energy / Efficiency
* Environmental integrity
6. Steps To Implementation
A. Set a date:
* Say, a month following the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize announcement
* Perhaps skip another month if our foundation thinks that an earlier date would be unseemly
* The Nobel Foundation decided in 1968, following the establishment of its Economics prize, that no new prizes would be allowed—so, a respectful distance is perhaps called for
B. In the meantime, lay the groundwork:
* In 2018, identify several likely nation-states, and actions they might take
* List a second tier of less likely candidates for subsequent years
* Consult with the countries on these lists, inviting them to participate in the competition
C. Offer referrals to in-country and international specialists:
* Academic experts, NGOs, governmental aid agencies, the UN, World Bank, all could be tapped
* These specialists would assist in developing goals and making proposals to address our five global challenges
* Encourage confidential consultations that are then made public once a government participates
D. Notify in-country organizations of ways they might assist their government on an entry:
* Offer assistance in creating videos laying out national goals
* Build interest in prioritizing a country’s tentative projects
* Create interest in, and facilitate commenting on our foundation’s website when the time comes
E. Identify potential donors:
* Initiate a robust social media presence
* Pair celebrity donors with philanthropic organizations
* Announce a deadline whereby naming rights are awarded to the largest donor on each continent
F. Contact media outlets:
* Describe goals, organizational structure, anticipated timeline, and provide links to crowdfunding platforms
* Ask likely journalists to write longform articles, record video pieces
* Use this in-depth material to approach mass media
7. Fictional Sketch — the view from 2030
In the years 2020 through 2029, the prize grew from a $2.5 million endowment, with a single $100,000 annual prize, in 2020, to include three prizes (one each for Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas) projected for 2030, with an endowment now 1,000 times the original. The actual prize monies (announced as 200 million for the year 2030), have attracted an estimated $81 billion in private capital over the past decade—counting both winners and runners-up. Growth rates for most winners have come close to matching those for China in the early 2000s.
Working closely with in-country and international development experts, winning nation-states devised carefully choreographed, transparent investment plans that sought to curtail the ravages of corruption, hyper-inflation, and amateurism. These plans are the basis for the investment optimism that has followed the award itself. Most plans, in fact, call for a dedicated, transparent, first priority bank account, funded with tax receipts and in some cases, concessions, to ensure accountability and follow-through.
At the center of each plan is a prioritized financing schedule that promises things like:
Climate Change
* rapidly expanding solar, wind and other renewable energy
* ramped up local production of bio-char to absorb Co2 and reinvigorate depleted soils
* subsidized prices for efficient appliances--cooking, lighting, etc.
Overpopulation
* subsidizing family planning services at a nearly 100% rate
* building health clinics to make family planning options easily accessible
* promulgating and enforcing laws relating to women’s rights
Environmental Degradation
* rewarding local communities (financially, and with greater decision-making power) for protecting endangered ecosystems
* halting or slowing obviously unsustainable practices, including the building of new access roads in environmentally sensitive areas
* encouraging citizens to monitor and report sources of unwanted pollution
Political Violence
* raising the percentage of those who attend and graduate from primary, secondary and higher education
* redirecting resources away from security enforcement and towards full employment
* agreeing to far-horizon mediation to defuse and eventually resolve existing intra- and inter-national disputes
Extreme Poverty
* implementing a progressive tax structure
* finding and nurturing the entrepreneurship that will create jobs
* funding social safety net programs
Beyond this core is a prioritized list of investment opportunities to generate the needed financing. Projects are under varying degrees of oversight. Some are straight-up local government-run enterprises, others are privately organized with varying levels of transparency, and local or international consultation. Some involve pre-existing programs with track records and room for expansion, others are vaguely defined opportunities. Following the awarding of our prize, in-country and international business interests are invited to bid on projects. These investment opportunities have fallen into several categories:
* Big Footprint: electric power, water/sewer, internet cable, public transport, common space, urban housing, healthcare, education
* Light Footprint: entrepreneurship contests 1️⃣, micro- and macro-loans (the latter being village-level and based on democratic voting)
* Individual plant requests: usually involving extractive industries, processing / assembly, or highly technical facilities
And finally, several entries have promised a large reduction in security spending—sometimes coupled with a mutual defense alliance with a regional neighbor, posited on a vigorous economy reducing future in-country friction.
What has surprised many analysts is the degree to which the economies of most winning entries lacked the structural underpinnings of development. Either the energy sector, transportation, education, business climate, or security were poor; sometimes several or many of these ‘pre-requisites’ were lacking. By focusing on likely projects that increase employment and generate revenues, then upgrading infrastructure and human capital with those revenues, these ‘unlikely’ winners have proven that an initial success—even in the most discouraging environment, is scalable. This runs counter to the standard approach, in which new infrastructure and/or human capital is the starting point that, hopefully, kickstarts economic growth, despite there being no sparkplug success to build on. 2️⃣
1️⃣ a recent book, Peace through Entrepreneurship, by Steven R. Koltai, Brookings Institute Press, 2016, makes the case for nurturing entrepreneurs in order to tackle the joblessness that expresses itself as conflict.
2️⃣ another recent book, Beating the Odds, by Justin Yifu Lin and Célestin Monga, Jump-Starting Developing Countries, Princeton University Press, 2017, makes the in-depth case as outlined in the above paragraph.
8. A Natural Wish
Financing a project is almost always the hardest part. But our model is based on natural attraction. Donors will find the competition exciting, the public participation commendable, and the project's potential scope satisfying. At each level there's a natural incentive to succeed:
* Volunteer curators, and the commenters they choose become the equivalent of Olympic judges; and all commenters are allowed to vote in a separate tally.
* Our foundation’s experts find satisfaction in organizing our prize.
* In-country and international development experts that are introduced and/or reconnected to participating nation-state governments receive capstone recognition for their area of expertise.
* Citizens of each year's winning nation cheer on, celebrate, then make way for others in the competition; meanwhile, their country's success encourages neighboring peoples to take a second look, and runners-up to continue giving their utmost.
* Envy, even nationalism, are aligned with the global good.
* Super donors on each continent receive naming right recognition. Subsequent donors have the advantage of seeing the project bear fruit, and so jump on a bandwagon that's already delivering success and excitement.
* And finally, each year’s two runners-up receive nearly as much recognition as the matriculating winner—minus the prize money. This multiple winner model, taken from the business world, multiplies the contest’s effect manyfold.
9. Debating Alternate Organizational Structures
We've laid out what we consider the most likely way forward, summarized in the Abstract section.
Along the way, we've made key choices. Here are arguments for and against those choices, including alternatives that we rejected:
1. Attraction Rather Than Force. Perhaps economic self-interest is passé; if not, our economic, competitive focus is the most likely path forward (see Argumentation section).
2. Choosing A Model
Once we've decided that our model’s engine will be a competition based on aligned economic self-interest, where do we turn next? As with much in life, existing, successful models will often point in the right direction. The key, of course, is in knowing what to adopt, and what to discard.
In our case, we look at sports, business and love, and choose to make our competition recur (the Olympics), to enable multiple winners (business), to highlight natural interests (love), and to matriculate the successful. All of our choices increase the odds for our participants, thus maximizing participation and success, which constitute our model's ultimate goals.
Are there additional ways by which these ends are furthered? If so, they can be added to the mix during implementation. For example, one can imagine a media campaign focused on the winning country that is put together in the days prior to announcing the successful candidate. Travel information, a few select videos, a timeline for inviting business participation, then coordination with government officials immediately following the announcement.
3. Identifying Focus, Contestants and Prize. No choices here.
* Our five worthy foci have been selected for us
* Choosing nation-states to be our contestants is obvious
* And a monetary prize speaks to our original choice of economic self-interest.
Since proposing an economic contest is in no way original, and any other entries proposing a similar contest may also focus on a private sector follow-on effect, we might note here that what sets our proposal apart are ideas like ‘matriculation’, multiple winners, and a scalable design, all of which greatly increase the likelihood that our model's efforts reach our timeline goals.
4. Selecting An Organizational Construct
What would a successful organization look like? Let’s examine alternatives to each choice in bold:
"
an independent, self-selected foundation that hires an expert panel, which, assisted by
volunteers, oversees a competition of great ambition. Our foundation uses social media, and eventually
corporate or philanthropic sponsorship, to offer an
annual prize for progress in combating global challenges”
*
independent, self-selected foundation: We feel the most likely way forward is for an existing, independent foundation to add our annual competition to its other initiatives. This avoids the search for principals, the need for start-up funding, and the time necessary to come together as an organization. In the long run, would progress be likelier if a foundation were created from scratch, with our competition as its only mission? Would people be even more eager to donate if our foundation were a coming together of A-list personalities? Would the game-changing big donations this might engender be worth the extra year or two of planning and amalgamation? And what about controls on decision-making? And should we be more specific as to our foundation’s organization?
First, the beauty of a scalable structure is that A-list personalities, for example, can be added, and could conceivably convince our foundation’s board to spin off the competition into a single-mission entity. So, a good many questions can be answered once organizing has commenced.
Second, an existing foundation will have its own structure and controls.
And third, we are thus free to make timeliness our only major concern.
*
volunteers: A semi-wiki, open forum model was chosen due to the cost of the alternative; paying content curators may in the end be necessary, but it would divert significant resources. An open forum model also means that much of the oversight that would otherwise be done by government officials, can instead be done in public, with criticism occurring before any on-the-ground project implementation.
*
scalable: There is a danger in aiming too high or too low. Trying to raise too much money means a plan that's like all the others: in the end unworkable, or too time-consuming. So, in the prize's first few years, progress is generated almost exclusively by private monies seeking a profit.
Not being ambitious enough, however, is also problematic. For example, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, run by the US government, is a bit similar to this proposal, but is not only hampered by micromanaging, ill-defined qualifying and categorizing, burdensome record-keeping, and a focus on what 'has been' rather than on what ‘could be’, but, most importantly, its potential is capped by its budget. Foreign aid, according to polls, is consistently the least popular US government expenditure. Meanwhile, a scalable startup model, like our prize, can begin the first year with a $100,000 award, bestowed on a winner who has already shown the way forward, while also committing to something more. In a decade’s time, our model points to an endowment that regularly pulls nation-states out of poverty. Eventually, the prize could impel nearly all governments in making progress towards our goals.
*
corporate or philanthropic sponsorship: Encouraging individuals to donate their fortunes is the obvious answer. This, as opposed to corporate sponsorship, which would involve secondary motives and implied endorsement. And yet attracting the last 50% of nation-states--those whose leadership has an important stake in holding onto power—would be easiest with a large upfront prize such that hangers-on, business interests, and the well connected within a given nation-state find themselves forcing change. In that case, the ideal shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and any corporate sponsorship should be greeted with unfazed enthusiasm. After all, time has a way of focusing attention on the good: Rhodes Scholars, for example, are revered, even though their award could remind us of white-rule Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).
*
annual prize: Perhaps another time frame would be preferable, though we don’t think so. Goals that are ambitious are hardly served by an every-other-year, let alone an every-fourth-year initiative. On the other hand, publicity, nominations, video production, debating the merits, curating, voting, all take time. And those are the visible activities. There would also be fundraising, consultation with outside experts, and behind-the-scenes action used to coax nation-states into participating. So, an annual prize should be about right.
Since our ultimate determinant is that the winning entry be the likeliest to make the most progress towards alleviating global challenges, a densely populated, or geographically large nation-state would outweigh in importance those that are smaller. Thus, prize amounts should probably alternate from year to year. If one year the amount is 50 million, while the next it is 500 million, smaller countries would be more likely to make progress with the former prize, and bigger nation-states, the larger amount. In fact, because prizes will almost certainly be smallish in the first few years, the very first year should almost certainly involve invitations with this factor in mind.
Of course there is the obvious question: Why have a contest in the first place? Why not forgo the competition, and instead award monies in exchange for the furtherance of our goals? Because fundraising, for one, would almost certainly be more difficult under this alternative. The follow-on effect from private capital in the wake of a win would also be more difficult to trigger without the prestige of having won an annual prize. Deliberations on the foundation website would be less intense, and probably less transparent, without a formal process. So, it is our opinion that the drama of a competition represents superior modeling in this case.
5. Nominating and Voting
Here we encounter the most uncertainty: three
regions, a 10-20 country
nominee list, an
experts panel,
debating video entries,
curators and commenters who vote,
narrowing the nominee list, and
the final pick.
*
regions: Wouldn’t it make more sense to group countries by development level, or even by size? Our thinking here is that however divisions are made, they should be easily grasped and definitive. Africa, Eurasia and the Americas meet these criteria. If, instead, divisions are based on development level, then where are lines drawn, and which class is a given country in, and who decides? As for divisions based on size, objections are similar. Is a heavily populated country in the same class as a geographically large nation-state? Continent-based classes have none of these problems.
(Note: the Americas would include Pacific islands).
*
nominee list: While our process is bound to be a mix of both objective factors (statistical comparison) and those that are subjective (voting), it's important that the initial nominee list be objectively based, thus making it the province of our expert panel. Winnowing the list can then reflect elements of both popular opinion and statistical comparison as found in the curated comments on the foundation’s website.
*
experts panel: An odd number is advisable, though otherwise, any manageable number could be used. We propose 20-30. And what about time constraints for a panel of only 20-30? There are studies, proposals, agendas, and comparative statistics that already exist. It is the lack of funding and direction that hold them back. Because much of the work has already been done, it is often the case that identifying the relevant studies and comparisons, then presenting the case in a new light, rather than starting from scratch, is what is on the table.
Can we imagine the likeliest selection process for our expert panel? Again, we can propose multi-year hiring, world embracing diversity, and consultation with varied stakeholders, but the likeliest path is up to our foundation’s best judgement in pursuing its mission.
*
debating video entries: What about the use of video, rather than text? Video is generally easier to experience, especially with integrated text and audio (allowing translation). In all likelihood, however, videos would act as attractive portals, and would last a mere few minutes, containing a link to a more comprehensive text that is used in deliberation.
*
curators and commenters: The aim here is to enable broad participation, while at the same time identifying the most thoughtful comments. This process brings specific strengths and weaknesses to the fore, resulting in deliberation, but without the impossible volume and distraction that would occur without a filter.
Because a subset of public voting is composed of select commenters, the hegemony of more populated nation-states (with more potential voters), is a possibility, though the fact that the foundation’s experts have the final say can be expected to remove any untoward effect. If our prize’s prestige were to increase to where this problem were judged acute, an obvious fix would be to adjust the previously mentioned sliding scale (one year a small prize, the next large) based on a formula taking into account population.
*
narrowing the nominee list: Although placing the initial nominee list under our foundation’s control will eliminate most concerns (one problem being national boosterism), the final selection of a winner would be done by the foundation, thus ensuring the case for objectivity. Perhaps a computer model could be fed data which would assist in rendering a final choice.
And what about a completely objective approach? Wouldn’t it be possible to access comparative data on nominee country progress, add in each entry’s commitments, and compute a winner? Besides the focus on past actions, rather than future direction, and the amount of subjectivity necessary when inputting, the obvious problem is that emphasizing 'objective' statistics would almost certainly encourage selective data gathering in nation-states eager to win. Plus, the wiki-like nature of our website proposal will almost certainly elicit just such attempts at objectivity, as the case is made for one or another country.
*
the final pick: First, should our foundation’s expert panel retain a final say over each year’s prize winner? Yes, though it could be argued that there’s no need for a final stage in the narrowing process, given that our proposal combines popular and expert input.
Second, what would our foundation’s expert panel look like? Probably something like the Global Challenges Foundation panel formed to address GCF’s Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 (see www.globalchallenges.org and view the report's personnel profiles--the report has 27 authors from around the world).
Third, the possible weak link for the foundation would most likely be the selection process it uses to empower content curators. One can easily imagine a best case scenario in which the most worthy are given responsibilities, but how does one ensure a best case when contributors are only volunteering? The field’s altruistic atmosphere, the public input used in winnowing, plus the experience of other wikis, all suggest that this would rarely be a problem.
10. Steps To Implementation
And finally, our agenda’s tentative timeline:
2018: December 2018 sees a clear path defined, with an expert panel in place, candidate countries contacted, consultants referred, and the first crowdfunding deadline announced (Note: the first year's prize, for 2020, is bankrolled by a donation from this New Shape Prize entry, should it be a winner).
2019: August 2019 sees nation-states creating plans, goals and videos. August also sees a second crowdfunding deadline targeting the naming of the foundation, with a drawing of donor names. Each donor’s name (or beneficiary name) might receive as many chances to win as $10 donations ($100 = 10 chances), ten are drawn, and the foundation chooses one for itself. Philanthropic donations, meanwhile, compete to name the prize itself, with the largest receiving that honor.
Meanwhile, a multilingual website for public deliberation is designed, curators are chosen, and an early-bird nominee is used to test the system. Other nominees are soon added to the website, and deliberations officially begin. About six months later, voting occurs.
2020: The first prize is awarded. A third crowdfunding deadline, if necessary, should coincide with the publicity the first award ceremony generates. The goal would be raising monies for 2021. Hopefully, by this time, philanthropic donations have created a cascading effect that establishes an endowment to fund future years.
2021-2025: Prize monies are still relatively modest.
2026-2030: The prize monies offered are now as appealing as the prestige had in winning. Large nation-states are drawn into the mix.
2031-2035: The prize splits into three, one each for Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas, as the endowment continues to grow.
2036-2040: The prize’s ambitious nature has been realized. The competition resembles World Cup football in the enormous passion, attention and participation generated.
Beginning in 2041, 2020’s winner is again eligible.
2041-2045: An enormous peace dividend over the past decade has enabled the prize to split yet again into regional prizes.
11. Argumentation, demonstrating the model's Soundness
Overview
Choosing the ‘attraction’ model most likely sets this submission on a unique path. Most contest entries are likely to involve adjustments to the UN, attempts at world government, efforts to collect an international tax, increased monitoring and reporting of threats to stability, or the use of some new social media platform.
And while the more ambitious of these may be superior ideas, once implemented, the organizational magic required in making that happen seems to us to be too unlikely. Mainly, this is due to the clash of interests that accompany any effort to ‘herd cats’, as the saying goes. We refer to this clash of interests, or the alternative to ‘attraction', as ‘force’, in that multiple parties are invariably at odds. We instead opt for a model that impels action and compliance based on economic self-interest; thus, attraction.
Are there ways to ‘attract’ cooperation, other than with our proposal's primarily economic focus?
* By using a clever social media campaign? There are many organizations working to fast-track global solutions, and we can be sure social media is a tool used by nearly every one. So, what are the chances that yet another cause might break through when so many others haven't? How many ‘one weird trick’ novelties are there to generate traffic to a site, for example?
* By appealing to religion? If the Holy See, for instance, can’t effect major change, that route would seem unproductive.
* By signing onto a political covenant? Even if there's agreement on a desired end, the organizational muscle required to effect change would still likely be too heavy a lift. After all, the UN has been working on these issues for ages, but without the acceleration that is needed.
What about alternatives to our attract vs. force dichotomy? It's true that we could identify a 'collective self-control' model, for example, halfway along the attract/force continuum. We can imagine a multilateral treaty, for instance, banning an obvious danger. While worthy endeavors, such efforts almost invariably lack an enforcement mechanism to rein in rogue states (force)—which can result in indeterminate delay. Plus, most treaties fail to address the economic distress that is often at the root of anti-social behavior (the lack of attraction). By contrast, becoming wealthier and better-educated almost invariably integrates developing countries into a global normalcy that then limits any untoward tendencies. So, while a collective self-control model may be our best bet to date, it takes us only halfway there.
The Competition's Eight Criteria (italicized)
1.
Core Values. Decisions within the governance model must be guided by the good of all humankind and by respect for the equal value of all human beings.
We see two instances in our proposal where absolute equality could conceivably be in question:
A. Our foundation will choose experts in sustainable development to, first, nominate participants in our competition, and then, second, pick a winning nation-state. We feel that this will pose no problem, assuming that race, gender, and ethnic diversity are well respected.
B. Again, our curators, though volunteers, could be considered unrepresentative if no effort is made to select from all global constituencies. Our foundation’s charter would be dedicated to avoiding such an issue. Plus, the multi-lingual nature of our website should itself work towards diversity.
Conclusion: We are fully confident that a foundation tasked with global development will be adequately representational.
2.
Decision-Making Capacity.
Decision-making within the governance model must generally be possible without crippling delays that prevent the challenges from being adequately addressed.
Here, our proposal shines:
A. There needn’t be any impediment. In fact, if anything, our timeline is too ambitious.
B. Our fundraising schedule, on the other hand, is of course a guess as to what will happen. But, our proposal is based on natural attraction, is compelling, and has a dramatic flow to it.
Conclusion: Any model will always require a leap of faith as theory meets praxis. A model that is well designed should involve a timeline that only requires careful steps along a short, likely path.
3.
Effectiveness.
The governance model must be capable of handling the global challenges and risks, and include means to ensure implementation of decisions.
Again, our proposal meets these criteria:
To illustrate how our model is expected to handle the five global challenges, we might imagine the following fictional scenario for the year 2027, several years before the prize splits into three:
……………………..
2026’s prize of a mere $50 million was awarded to a small Indian ocean country off the coast of Africa. 2027’s prize was $350 million and was claimed by a southwest Asian nation.
For '26, prize monies will go towards rural medical clinics. Then, following a similarly successful pattern from years past, the myriad in-country and international business partners bidding on our winner’s highest priority projects, will begin work on several (funded, in part, by a mining concession). Projects have included an entrepreneurship contest, two new schools, and a new courthouse. Plans have also been drawn up to offer solar arrays, efficient lighting, and electric cookstoves at 95% off the standard price, once enhanced tax revenues from increased GDP will allow (a percentage of revenues has been promised as a set-aside for these priorities). Furthermore, our winner in ’26 promised to set an example by implementing a more progressive income tax, coupled with several projects that would benefit those likely to pay the tax’s higher rates: upgrades to roads and port facilities.
Additional projects in subsequent years promise the dedicated revenue stream be directed to establishing and staffing a marine sanctuary to restore stocks of a particularly sought-after fish, and the building of a modern sewage treatment plant in the capital.
2027’s prize of $350 million was awarded to a moderately populated, and geographically sizable Arab nation. Prize monies will go towards a large-scale demonstration project: combining micro-solar with water-from-air extraction to nurture fast-growing trees that turn degraded land into productive, drip-irrigation farms using bio-char and greenbelts to achieve agroforestry. The effect will be to turn eroded farmland and semi-desert into CO2 absorbing, and food producing regions, all while finding land and employment for an increasing population.
2027’s winner also arranged for far-horizon arbitration to settle an intra-national dispute, and has accepted external security offers from a neighbor, and an international power, in order to redirect resources away from security, and instead focus on employment, using existing tribal councils as a way for development projects to be debated, voted on, and built with local labor. All elections, while run by local authorities, will have invited observers to authenticate results. Locally nominated projects will be discussed beforehand in the presence of local government representatives who will, in turn, undergo training in group dynamics, including respecting tradition, encouraging women’s voices, preserving environmental assets, etc.
A third innovation, that may have clinched the prize for our winner, was a dedication to strive towards carbon-free status in its energy sector, using both large-scale and household solar/battery technology for what will be an ever increasing percentage of its electricity needs.
.………………………..
The above is a fictional description that assumes a $2.5 billion endowment, which we think is neither too optimistic, nor too pessimistic. But imagine what one donor could accomplish. An endowment that is merely ten times the above, or $25 billion, would have nearly every nation-state taking notice, making preparatory changes, following the example of neighbors with early successes, and causing perhaps half the world’s developing nation-states to submit very aggressive entries. A country with a GDP of as much as $250 billion could expect to be jolted out of an economic downturn, just by winning the prize. A nation like Eritrea, for example, with a GDP of roughly $10 billion, could conceivably be enticed out of its political straitjacket (by those surrounding the country’s leadership) after watching a neighboring country benefit greatly from winning.
And what about enforcing the implementation of promises made. Extra money, and economic growth in general, are in some ways an end in themselves. As we have said, the wealthier and better educated a country, the more likely it is to be part of global normalcy. Furthermore, there are bound to be examples of countries that, due to a change in leadership, for example, have broken promises, withdrawn from agreements, and suffered the consequences: a degree of economic and/or political isolation, likely followed by negative growth and instability. Their example would, however, almost certainly inspire others to avoid such a fate.
Conclusion: Because the model we employ, attraction, eschews force, and instead draws participants to solutions, and is unquestionably aligned--assuming our five global challenges are correctly identified--we are confident in our proposal’s effectiveness.
4.
Resources and Financing.
The governance model must have sufficient human and material resources at its disposal, and these resources must be financed in an equitable manner.
The example set by the Global Challenge Foundation in its most recent annual report: Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 is the kind of comprehensively staffed endeavor that our proposal envisions. As for financing, a model based on natural attraction is, as previously mentioned, compelling, and exudes excitement in the drama of its unfolding. We thus have every confidence in our supposition that this proposal is the best way forward. Our model is also ambitious, which in itself hopefully will, in no small part, account for our fundraising goals proving attainable.
Though unlikely, we might anticipate a worst-case scenario by noting what little harm experimenting with this model would cause, even if the competition’s prize--as a substantial sum--lasts but a single year or two. If financing is underwhelming, the competition, sans purse, or sporting a nominal prize, would almost certainly carry with it modest prestige, at least enough to be partly effective in meeting our goals. So, there is little harm in trying.
Of course there is always the possibility that material resources would be more forthcoming, and greater by several factors, if our foundation were replaced with an international governing body, or group of affluent countries that could afford to pool monies. This is certainly possible. But, as noted in our mention of the US government's Millennium Challenge Corporation, taxpayers do not like paying for other countries' projects. Plus, decision making is easily bogged down by disagreements between principals over ego and strategy. And there is nothing to stop our foundation from taking on additional partners or even turning over operations at a later date.
Conclusion: Sufficient human and financial resources would be likely, though not certain, if our model were put into effect.
5.
Trust and Insight.
The trust enjoyed by a successful governance model and its institutions relies on transparency and considerable insight into power structures and decision-making.
Suffice it to say that public deliberations, permanently recorded, are as transparent as possible. Is an institution similar to the Global Challenge Foundation to be trusted? Because our proposed foundation would be giving away a prize, there is no reason to suspect selfish intent. Moreover, those who donate to make the prize possible can find no possible ulterior motive behind a public deliberation process, especially one that promises to treat continental groups of nation-states as equals.
Likewise, empowering experts is the essence of ensuring maximum effectiveness.
Conclusion: Trust and insight would not be concerns.
6.
Flexibility.
In order to be able to fulfill its objectives effectively, a successful governance model must contain mechanisms that allow for revisions and improvements to be made to its structure and components.
Because our proposed foundation is independent, it has ultimate flexibility. For example, if it were determined that volunteer curators were unavailable, a decision could be made to adjust finances so as to afford modest payment. Or, if the foundation were to decide that the nation-state receiving the most votes was not the most worthy, it could instead rely on the choice arrived at by our curators and select commenters. Or, it could select what would ordinarily be a runner-up as its winner, if it felt strongly enough.
Conclusion: Flexibility would not be an issue.
7.
Protection against the Abuse of Power.
A control system must be in place to take action if the organization should overstep its mandate, e.g. by unduly interfering with the internal affairs of nation-states or favouring the special interests of individuals, groups, organizations, states or groups of states.
Except for choice of development experts (the foundation’s decision-making body)—if they were all Europeans, for example--there are no conceivable ways for the foundation to overstep its mandate. And if the unimaginable happened, it would tend to dry up finances, rather than to damage the rights of individuals or groups of states.
Could we imagine a control system that would act as a potential check on our proposed foundation’s decisions? Certainly. Our model could direct that a public body make the decisions with which our foundation is tasked. But experts in their field are better suited than are politicians, who have many other important duties.
Conclusion: If a control system were thought necessary, our foundation’s decisions could be overseen by a public body. We do not recommend such a step.
8.
Accountability.
It is a fundamental requirement of a successful governance model that it perform the tasks it has been charged with, and the governance model must include the power to hold the decision-makers accountable for their actions.
Since our model is based on benevolence, this requirement seems hardly necessary. If, however, our proposed foundation’s organizing charter weren’t enough to satisfy this criterion, that charter could contain an emergency provision whereby a relatively disinterested governing body were necessarily involved in endorsing the choice of a winner—say, the Swedish parliament, if the Global Challenge Foundation, for instance, were the organizing body.
Conclusion: Again, we do not feel this is a problem.
Overall Conclusion
These criteria have, in general, not applied to our proposal, due to its not being part of a ‘collective self-control’ model, let alone a ‘force’ model. We have, however, tried to address the criteria, since they are of course worthy guardians of success.
.............................
To sum up, we feel it best to employ a model that relies on ‘attraction’, thus avoiding questions of trust, accountability, and enforcement.
There is really only one criterion that carries some risk: delay. We have identified an endowment of $2.5 billion after ten years, as neither too optimistic nor too pessimistic. Likewise, we think approximately half of the world’s developing nation-states would be redirecting their energies as they aspire to win our foundation’s prize. Each year would see a winner and two runners-up identified. After 10 years, that is approximately 10-20% of the world’s developing countries (those who were runners-up one year would likely win soon thereafter).
The question is, then, are these just a few feel-good demonstration projects that constitute a mere drop in the bucket relative to our global challenges? We believe that, no, not only is an alternative path forward lacking, but that having a majority of developing nation-states strive to address our world’s challenges in ten years time is a medium probability timeline we can embrace.
And what about the developed world? Most likely our global challenge list will prove relatively easy to address for countries with the means to do so. It is those with little means, and an otherwise bleak future, that most likely need our attention.
