Don Tapscott's Blog, page 17

Best Advice: Leave the Executive Fast Track to Become an Entrepreneur

Thirty-five years ago (yep, that sure dates me), a colleague dragged me kicking and screaming away from my fast-track executive career to join her in launching our own company. At the time, I was deeply anxious — worried this would end up being the biggest mistake of my career. It turned out to be the best professional advice I’ve ever had.

It’s an amazing story, actually. In the late 1970s, I was hired as a researcher at Canada’s Bell Labs (Bell Northern Research) in Toronto. Our group was trying to figure out how “internetworked computers” used by professionals and managers could change “knowledge work” and the nature of organizations. I got to collaborate with some of the most knowledgeable people in this area in the world at the time, including the great digital pioneer Douglas Engelbart — who invented word processing, the mouse, and hyperlinks (among other things.)

Our group conducted the first-ever controlled experiments about the impact of technology on knowledge work. Half the office worked the old way — with telephones, typing pools, manual calendars, filing cabinets and the corporate library for information. The other half had computers on their desks connected to digital networks. They used a suite of tools that we built for electronic mail, word processing, document co-authoring and management, online information retrieval, personal time management and calendaring, and financial planning tools (spreadsheets had not been invented yet).

Something You Might Not Know About Canada — Don Tapscott on The Digital Office of the 1970s from Don Tapscott

We found that the wired group performed better and had more fun, concluding that computers were going to go beyond data processing to be used by everyone as communications tools. I was very fortunate to end up there, as we were doing work 15 years ahead of its time. In our group were people who today I still remember fondly as brilliant. We just loved coming to work every day: there was a sense of passion and excitement everywhere.

I wrote a book about that experience in 1981, but it didn’t sell well. Critics said only programmers would use computers because regular people would never learn to type.

Regardless, I was on the Executive Fast Track. I had received four promotions in two years, and was running the entire division of the company from my massive corner office. Even though our ideas didn’t yet have broad acceptance, I was a rising star in the company and highly regarded as a digital pioneer amongst the global “digerati” of the time.

Which is why it seemed so weird when a colleague named Del Langdon tried to convince me to quit the company and become an entrepreneur. It was circa 1982, in the middle of a brutal recession, and me about to launch a family. And here I had this colleague argue that we should take a dozen people in our division and create a company to help people implement this new class of technology — even though the technology didn’t exist. In fact, when we left the company, the IBM PC had not yet appeared on the market; it would be a full decade before PCs communicated with other technologies in a reasonable manner.

Her advice seemed nuts, but something caused me to listen. With the advantage of hindsight I can reflect on my reasons, unarticulated at the time: we wanted to control our own destiny; we wanted to share in the wealth we created; but most of all, I think we wanted the freedom to try and change the world — to create technology that would transform the way people worked, learned and communicated.

We were partially successful. We consulted to companies and governments, leading some of the earliest implementations of networked workstations in the world. We wrote a book together which had a modest impact. We built a system that eventually was acquired. The IPO didn’t exactly bring us great wealth, but it lead to more good things. Eventually, we lost control of the company. That chapter ended unhappily.

But the legacy was a great one — including that our colleagues all went on to do very interesting work. As for me, I finally wrote a book that someone read — “Paradigm Shift,” in 1992 — as I started to get that “market timing” thing down better. This led to a string of best sellers — “The Digital Economy,” “Growing Up Digital,” “Wikinomics” and a dozen others. It also led to the creation of companies that were significant both in terms of wealth creation and impact in the world.

Today, I feel very fortunate. I am truly the master of my destiny. I have a prosperous and purposeful life beyond my early dreams. In hindsight, the turning point was when I became an entrepreneur.

Today, more and more people will make this choice. Necessity is the mother of invention and good jobs for graduates are scarce. More importantly, the Internet enables small companies to have all the capability of large companies without their main liabilities like legacy building, bureaucracy, culture, and processes. Many will fail, as I did (several times). But for many more, it will be worth it. So consider this my advice to you.

Could Huronia hospital become a Banff Centre of the east?

The Star’s Martin Knelman asked Don Tapscott and other cultural heavyweights about the possibility of turning the shuttered Huronia hospital into a Banff Centre of the East.

Read the full article on TheStar.com

Davos 2015 Wrap-Up: Get Ready for Breakthroughs About the Brain

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos is over for another year. Amazingly, most of what was discussed this year had not been on the radar a year ago. A year ago there was no discussion of oil prices dropping to say $50; the acronym ISIS was never mentioned; conflict over the Ukraine or any other-state conflicts were not mentioned; and the mood was generally optimistic – for example, Europe was heartily on the mend.

Welcome to the volatile, unpredictable world. No one knows what tumultuous new developments might shake the world over the next year. But one thing is for sure. Planet earth is a troubled place. It’s too conflicted, too unsustainable, too unequal and as evidenced by the growing problem of structural unemployment, the digital revolution is clearly disrupting the global economy – mainly in ways that are problematic.

Interestingly, and on a cheerier note, one of the biggest themes programmed into the Davos agenda this January was a series of events on the new scientific developments about the brain.

My wife Ana Lopes is the Chair of the Canadian Center for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation (CAMHF) attended most of these sessions. We heard from her about fascinating new insights from many of the world’s leading neuroscientists, psychiatrists and government research funders, and through her I had private conversations with some of these people.

According to Dr. Philip Campbell, the Editor-in-Chief of Nature magazine:

If the 20th century was the century that successfully tackled infectious disease, the 21st century will hopefully be known as the century that tackles chronic disease. And no chronic disease (heart, cancer, diabetes combined) takes as big a toll on society than brain disease and mental illness.

In one panel Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States, explained that these are the largest cost driver in health care in the world.

However today, the research invested in understanding mental illness is starting to catch up with the size of the problem. Over USD $7 billion is committed world wide to understanding the brain with more commitments weekly. Inspired by the success of the Genome Project, and the enabling power of big data and analysis, brain scientists all over the world are finally starting to get funding to make sense of the brain.

Another theme is that scientists need to start collaborating and sharing data. To date most research has been done in competitive silos and that has been responsible for much of the lack of progress. But all that is starting to change as funders like the NIHMH are beginning to demand collaboration. Still more needs to be done. In a private conversation Dr Amit Etkin from Stanford University said that the collaboration that funders are demanding is a good start but we need to go much deeper and share data and insights throughout more of the research process.

One conclusion from all the panels is that because the brain is so complicated and that we know very little about its actual workings, we need to catalogue it before there can be important breakthroughs. With its billions of cells and neurons the brain is a big data exercise, and we now have the tools needed do so.

Dr. Amit Etkin of Stanford University said:

What scientists have thought of as chemical imbalances may really be circuit problems. So scientists are now investigating bipolar disorder and depression as circuit problems – and what this may mean for treatment. If we know the circuits involved, we may be able to intervene in more successful and targeted ways.

As a result, neuroscientists at Harvard and Stanford are busy building what they called “a parts list” and creating categories. Dr. Joshua Sanes, Director of the Center for Brain Science at Harvard University said “there is a dearth of basic knowledge, and we are where we were at with cancer 30-40 years ago.” Not previously possible, today new technologies for probing the brain enable the gathering and analysis of data required.

Sanes and Insel explained that we are in “a tool-driven” period of science rather than just “concept-driven.” We need to understand the basic principles on how the brain really works. In fact, there really haven’t been big breakthroughs on the treatment of mental illness in over half a century, and the drugs many sick people are prescribed today are derivatives of drugs developed back then, when we had a much more basic understanding of neuroscience. Sanes and Insel argue that we really need to go back to the drawing board and understand the underlying neural pathways and structure of the brain in order to make real progress.

The good news is that today, many philanthropists and governments are entering the arena for funding research. For example, Paul Allen has funded the Allen Institute for Brain Science to the tune of $500 million. The European Commission put €1.2 billion into the Human Brain Project. Canada and even the Province of Ontario have committed to the study of brain science with big investments towards research on depression, autism, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s.

All of this is starting to lead to big developments in treatment of mental illness. Neuromodulation (the tuning of circuits, transcranial and deep tissue stimulation) is generating great results and showing potential for very targeted interventions into the brain. In Canada, the Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention — part of the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program at CAMH — is achieving breakthrough results using the noninvasive transcranial magnet stimulation (TMS).

Insel described the problem with the old, and yet still somehow current treatments well: “When a car needs oil do we pour oil on the hood? No – it is poured into little pipe that takes it to a very specific part of the engine.” He made the case that with a better understanding of brain circuitry and its parts we are better able to pinpoint where to direct the treatment.

Discussions about the aging brain were equally fascinating: Dr. Tony Wyss-Coray from Stanford posing the question “is the progression towards death a one-way stream?” He said we always assumed so but the study of longevity genes amongst centenarians, and their ability to not only live longer but also fight disease, is enlightening.

Brain health was a big theme too. Several scientists presented on the benefit of exercise and diet on keeping the brain healthy and the important emerging concept of neuro-health. We used to think of it as mainly to do with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. However, now scientists are examining how everything from post-traumatic stress disorder to strokes fit under the rubric of brain health. They are also looking at ways to ameliorate the devastating consequences of such disorders.

Stigma continues to be the biggest barrier to care, as people who are ill don’t seek treatment. Canada was praised for its work on stigma reduction. Particularly, the private telecomm provider Bell Canada has been lauded for its groundbreaking work on reducing mental health stigma and workplace mental health with their Bell Let’s Talk awareness campaign that engages customers on the topic of mental health. Coincidentally, yesterday was Bell Let’s Talk Day.

According to Dr. Nora Volkow from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, we need to understand better the relationship and treatment of drug abuse and addiction and mental illness as the two often go hand in hand. The good news for Canadians is that CAMH is a partner with the NIH Mental Health on this issue and this experience can be strengthened and shared across the country and around the world.

One recurring theme was that the world needs champions of this particular cause now more than ever as we mobilize support both social and fiscal. We need more people like the Canadian politician Honourable Michael Wilson, who has relentlessly pursued the need to bring awareness, funding, treatment and reduction of stigma of mental illness to the fore. Leading scientists at Davos were aware of Mr. Wilson’s contributions to the field and lamented that there is no one in the United States or Europe who has played a similar stigma-busting role.

On this issue it’s true: the world needs more Canada.

Introduction to Davos 2015 from Don Tapscott

Extreme Disparity of Wealth Dominates Davos

(Davos) With extreme wealth also comes extreme political clout which results in extreme human suffering, said Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International at a panel session this week in Davos.

Byanyima helped set the tone for this year’s World Economic Forum by releasing the comprehensive report on Monday that disclosed the world’s richest one percent are on track own more than half the world’s wealth by next year.

It is fair to say the report stunned the decision-makers and opinion-leaders ensconced in this small Swiss ski town. It has been a hot topic at many panel sessions and in informal gatherings.

Byanyima, who is also Co-Chair of Davos, was speaking this morning at a panel session on global economic growth, inequality and the role of technology. She noted that in the United States businesses spent $400 million during 2013 to lobby political decision-makers to pass laws and shape the market in their favor. “Extreme wealth takes over the role of public decision-making.” she said. And while this is going on, said Byanyima, many thousands in the developing world die of Ebola and malaria.

Other panelists included Martin Sorrell, CEO of the massive advertising and marketing conglomerate WPP, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, and Mark J. Carney, Governor of the Bank of England and former Governor of the Bank of Canada.

Martin Sorrell said people like him were critical to growth. “I founded a company with two people, which now employs 179,000 people in 111 countries and invests $12bn in human capital each year. I make no apology for that whatsoever.” But no one was asking him to apologize. It is not wealth creation that is the issue, just the manner in which it is distributed.

“Excessive inequality is not good for sustainable growth,” Lagarde from the IMF said, adding that inequality had worsened since the financial crisis. “Distribution per se matters,” she said, because “if you increase the income share of the poorest it has a multiplying effect on growth.”

The amount of money currently tied up unproductively is astounding. More than $18 trillion is stashed in tax havens, and $7 trillion on balance sheets remains uninvested.

“Let the companies stop lobbying and put the money into medicine,” Byanyima proposed. Calling for global tax reform, she said that the revenues derived from fair taxation could be ploughed back into the economy to create jobs and lift people from poverty.

Carney said that technology companies in particular should pay more tax out of a “sense of responsibility” to the system. “We should recognise that the firms that take advantage of international tax rules are technology companies,” he said. “The amount of tax that’s paid by technology companies is very small relative to the returns.”

Tax avoidance has been a hot issue in the UK. While he didn’t mention Google by name, everyone in the room knew it was one of companies he had in mind. Google UK had sales of USD $5.6 billion to UK customers, but most of this money was routed through Ireland for tax purposes, a move that saved Google a fortune.

Lagarde said that the plunge of the price of oil created the perfect opportunity to cut $2 trillion worth of energy subsidies across the world and invest it equally in job creation and education, with a special focus on women.

Introduction to Davos 2015 from Don Tapscott

CBC Radio Interview – The Digital Economy: Capitalism 2.0?

Don Tapscott was interviewed by Spark, Canada’s tech, trends, and fresh ideas show on CBC Radio.

At Davos, Technology CEOs Discuss The Digital Economy

Davos: One of the most anticipated discussions at this year’s meeting was the plenary session on The Digital Economy. Given that I wrote the book that coined that term 20 years ago, I attended with great interest.

On the panel were Google chairman Eric Schmidt, Vodafone CEO Vittorio Colao, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

Unfortunately, the group didn’t really explore the state of the digital economy, but rather centered on all the great things technology is doing around the world. The discussion started on this bright note when the moderator asked whether each panelist was optimistic or pessimistic about the impact of technology on society. To this group the question was a rhetorical one, and predictably all panelists expressed great enthusiasm for what has been accomplished and the great strides the future holds in store.

They said that digital technologies used in areas from education to farming to healthcare have transformed communities and raised living standards around the world. As broadband capacity is rolled out to the four corners of the world, standards of living will increase even more.

Facebook’s Sandberg talked about two brothers in a village in India where they could not go to hospitals, but once they got access to the Internet their lives improved. “There are many other stories and therefore I am optimistic. Technology is both creator and destroyer of jobs but I am a huge optimist,” she said.

Sandberg did warn that without the proper measures, there is no guarantee that the benefits of technology would be distributed evenly. Policy-makers must take action to promote inclusion, otherwise women will not get the same opportunities. She noted that currently more than half the Internet’s content is in English and that women typically receive access to smartphones later than men.

During the session I frequently felt that that neither the optimistic statements of hope or anecdotes of those whose lives have improved adequately dealt with the challenge of the digital economy. I was tempted to quote Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The Digital Economy has become THE Economy. Yes, technology has created many wonders, but if we look at the macro level, the scorecard on economic results of technology are so far troublesome. Technology has unquestionably been at the heart of some negative developments including massive structural unemployment; growing social inequality where the benefits and wealth generated by technology have been asymmetrical; a fracturing of public discourse; and the loss of privacy and the rise of a surveillance society to name a few.

The panel touched superficially on several issues, such as unemployment. For the first time in history, economic growth is not generating a meaningful number of new jobs. Factor in the hangover from the financial collapse of 2008 and we’re witnessing youth unemployment levels across the western world from 15 to 60 percent.

But panelists said that this was a temporary problem and not a structural problem. Such creative destruction has happened at various junctures in history. Google’s Eric Schmidt argued that: “Almost all of the problems we debate can be solved by more broadband connectivity.” He cited broadband as the key public policy initiative that can promote social benefits ranging from good governance to education to human rights.

Microsoft’s Nadella agreed, saying that in the industry “there’s a consensus that low-cost bandwidth is a must.”

Vodaphone’s Colao likened the digital economy to a movie. “I can tell you that this is just the beginning of a great story, it is like a movie. We are at the beginning of something amazing. In Turkey, we have farmers who are using our technology and 50 per cent of them are women. Then there is education of teachers in Africa..

“The last scene of this movie should be around 10-15 years,” he added, but that steps must be taken to ensure all members of society benefit from technology’s arrival. “We need to see the benefit of technology and make sure that this movie gets a happy ending.”

Looking ahead, Schmidt offered one prediction regarding the future of the Internet, namely that “the Internet will disappear.” He predicted that the growth of smart devices and the Internet of things in the years ahead will eliminate the barrier between being online and offline.

Schmidt, a thoughtful observer of the big changes on the digital age compared the current disruptions to jobs and the economy with other convulsive technology revolutions in history that have caused massive, if temporary problems in society. “Is it different this time?” That would have been a great question to debate.

We need the leaders of the technology industry to step up and start to frankly address the big problems of the digital economy — problems that are rooted in technology. Enough extolling the virtues of technology. Let’s start to build the partnerships between business, government and the civil society that can forge a new framework and action plan for ensuring that the smaller world our kids inherit is a better one.

Introduction to Davos 2015 from Don Tapscott

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM/swiss-image.ch/Photo Valeriano DiDomenico

Davos 2015: What Future Do You Want?

Davos: Do you agree or disagree that in the future we will think “Inserting radio-frequency identification in our babies’ bodies is as normal as vaccination”?

This is just one of many provocative questions put to the participants in a spirited Davos session entitled “What Future Do You Want?”

Emerging technologies have the potential to reshape us as individuals, organizations and societies. How this will unfold depends on technological developments as well as on human choices which are driven by values, aspirations, imagination and the context we live in.

This session was organized around the work of the Forum’s Strategic Foresight group.

The reality is that the digital revolution is not going as well as many of us had hoped. The promise of new technologies has come with substantial peril.

The president of a European country described a factory that once employed 12,000 workers but now has less than 20 employees. Another participant cited Kodak’s death and Instagram’s birth. The former American manufacturing giant withered into bankruptcy in 2012. At its peak it had 145,000 employees. When Facebook bought Instagram for US $1billion, the startup had 13 employees. It now has 57.

Digital technologies should bring us together to deal with issues such as climate change and wasteful energy use. Instead we are being fragmented, to the point that something that is a scientific fact – climate change – is not accepted by vast swaths of the population. Many natural resources are now being consumed by digital technology, such as massive power-hungry data centres used by companies such as Google and Amazon.

It was a lively session, and delegates were asked to vote on of dozens of assertions such as the baby radio frequency question above. Other assertions included: “Emotionally intelligent robots are part of our society” and “Work is no longer a source of social recognition or status.”

At the end I was asked to summarize the discussions and what should be our guiding values.

The first value was respect for the human condition. We need to create the conditions where people can be autonomous and self-actualizing. Humans require a sense of purpose. It’s not good enough that everyone would have a guaranteed annual income. Financial security is required, but people also need work.

Dismissing unemployment as Schumpeter’s creative destruction and that new industries and jobs will be created isn’t good enough. The new industries won’t generate the many jobs needed.

We also need to ensure people’s well-being and that we have in place effective measures such as a social safety net and health care.

The second value is that we need institutions that act with integrity. They need to be honest and considerate of the interests of their stakeholders, and that includes society at large. Corporations, for example, should not externalize their costs by pumping toxic chemicals into our air and water.

Acting with integrity also means being accountable. This includes media organizations, which should assist public discussion. The media should not just focus on making a profit by being sensationalist and having outrageous points of view.

The third value is inclusion. Everybody needs to be involved. This requires a multiplicity of players and that we embrace diversity. We need multi-stakeholder approaches. No segment of society acting alone can fix what is ailing our world.

The fourth value is interdependence. Business cannot succeed in a world that is failing. A minister from a Latin American government asked: “Who gets to decide our future? It can’t be decided just by corporations or voters. We need more complex multi-stakeholder decision-making models.”

The fifth value was leadership. We are at the end of the industrial age and need leadership to develop a new game plan for the digital future. The shift from Agrarian Age to the Industrial Age brought about a set of new institutions to help society cope and prosper. This included the creation of public education, creation of a civil service and a wide array of regulatory agencies, creation of a social safety net, and so on. We aren’t doing anything equivalent today. We should be.

Davos 2015: International Conflict is Top Global Risk

Davos: There is much discussion of global risks this week at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, and illustrating today’s volatility, the biggest threat to the stability of the world was not even on last year’s list — international conflict. That is the conclusion of the World Economic Forum’s 10th edition of the Global Risks report, released in conjunction with the annual Davos gathering.

But don’t just think of Russian troops in Ukraine. Think also of North Korean hackers pillaging the Sony computer systems. In 2015, conflict can take many forms.

“Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world again faces the risk of major conflict between states,” said Drzeniek-Hanouz. “However, today the means to wage such conflict, whether through cyberattack, competition for resources or sanctions and other economic tools, is broader than ever. Addressing all these possible triggers and seeking to return the world to a path of partnership, rather than competition, should be a priority for leaders as we enter 2015.”

The Forum assesses the top global risks in terms of likelihood and potential impact over the coming 10 years. This year the experts found interstate conflict with regional consequences as the number one global risk in terms of likelihood, and the fourth most serious risk in terms of impact.

Such conflict is seen as more likely than extreme weather events, failure of national governance systems, state collapse or crisis, and high structural unemployment or underemployment.

But in terms of impact, water crises are the greatest risk facing the world. Other top risks include rapid and massive spread of infectious diseases, weapons of mass destruction, and failure of climate change adaptation.

What is striking about this year’s report is the extent to which geopolitical risks, having had a low profile in recent years, are again looming large. The risk landscape also shows concern over the world’s ability to solve its most pressing societal issues, as societies are under threat from economic, environmental and geopolitical risks.

The Forum’s annual risk report does more than just catalogue what ails society. It also examines the interconnections between risks, as well as how they interplay with trends shaping the short- to medium-term risk landscape. With respect to urbanization, for example, the report considers how best to build sufficient resilience to mitigate the challenges associated with managing the world’s rapid and historical transition from predominantly rural to urban living.

“Without doubt, urbanization has increased social well-being. But when cities develop too rapidly, their vulnerability increases: pandemics; breakdowns of or attacks on power, water or transport systems; and the effects of climate change are all major threats,” said Axel P. Lehmann, Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance Group.

Of course, cataloguing the world’s risks is a bit of a moving target. Since the survey was conducted, many unexpected events have occurred. The price of oil has plunged, and the euro’s health has become less certain. Top of mind is Greece, with the leftist anti-austerity Syriza party leading in polls running up to this weekend’s national elections. These and many other factors will make for interesting discussions.

Davos 2015: Wealth Inequalities and the Collapse of Trust

Davos: Undoubtedly timed to the opening of the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, a new report by Oxfam says the richest 1 percent of people in the world will have a majority of the wealth on the planet next year.

“The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering,” says Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam’s executive director and a co-chair of this year’s Davos meeting. In 2014, the 80 richest people had a collective wealth of $1.9-trillion (U.S.) – a rise of $600-billion or about 50 percent in four years. The report is provocatively titled Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More. “Despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”

The report is a perfect preamble to the Davos meeting, the theme of which is The New Global Context. The World Economic Forum’s founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, says the theme of the program is designed to be one of optimism and not despair.

“Pessimism has become too much the zeitgeist of our time,” Mr. Schwab said during a pre-event news conference. “So we will explore what are the fundamental forces at work technologically, socially, economically which require new dimensions for our decision making, and here I think we should particularly concentrate on the opportunities, and not only on the threats.”

To me, Europeans tend to be much better than North Americans at understanding the forces at play as societies evolve. Europe has been involved in nation building and economic development for many centuries more than its North American counterparts.

Sebastian Buckup is a director with the World Economic Forum. In material prepared for the Davos meeting, he argues that the new global context must be understood as a loss of trust in progress, the market and the nation state. These three factors enabled the rise of the West and are now enabling the rise of the West’s competitors. Ascending challengers are pitted against struggling incumbents.

Progress isn’t what it used to be. Mr. Buckup writes: “in the past, greater productivity led to the creation of new and better jobs; today, economists worry about the polarization of labour markets into a few winners and many losers. This is bad news for a planet that will reach a population of nine billion people, limited resources and fragile ecosystems.” If technological change is not seen to benefit everyone, this puts political, social and economic stability at risk. We are a world that is both moving closer together and drifting further apart.

Second, we are also losing trust in the ability of markets to equitably share wealth. The development of countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa is a tribute to the power of the market. China has grown year after year by more than 9 per cent, freeing millions from poverty. India reduced poverty rates to 20 per cent from 50 per cent in just two decades. Many of the fastest-growing economies are now in Africa.

Despite this enormous progress, the gap between poor and rich has grown significantly for most of the world. Inequality in China is 50 per cent higher than before its reforms, higher than in the economies like Great Britain and the U.S., and up to double that of social market economies. Worldwide, seven out of 10 people live in countries where inequality has grown over the past three decades.

“A severely skewed income distribution harms the pace and sustainability of growth over the longer term,” warns Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund. “It leads to an economy of exclusion and a wasteland of discarded potential.”

Finally, Mr. Buckup writes, we are losing trust in government. “The Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution – disruptive change in modern European history has been driven by informal networks that undermined traditional power structures. Steamships and trains transported not only goods, but also powerful ideas including liberalism, socialism and nationalism.”

Today, all states face pressure from new informational, commercial and social networks. Networks can empower people, unleash creativity and spur change, but they can also sow discord, instil factionalism and spread confusion. They can not only bring tangible benefits to millions through higher growth and living standards, but also amplify crises and increase volatility and instability. “Mitigating the risks of a networked world without compromising the benign self-organizing capacities of networks is the holy grail of a sustainable political order in the 21st century.”

Davos 2015: Can the World’s Problems be Solved?

Davos: Against a disturbing global backdrop that includes ongoing hostilities in Ukraine, the crashing of oil prices, a global jobless recovery and the recent slaughter at Charlie Hebdo, more than 2,500 delegates will squeeze into the small ski resort of Davos, Switzerland – population 11,000 – for the World Economic Forum annual meeting. The theme of this year’s event is “The New Global Context.”

I’m attending as part of the Davos faculty and will also report daily on interesting developments here and on twitter. Given the Swiss National Bank’s decision to pull the plug on its strategy of tying the franc to the euro, I’ll be watching my entertainment budget carefully!

There is a lot for delegates to discuss as the world increasingly conflicted, unequal and unsustainable. Last week, the Forum released its Global Risks 2015 Report where it identified top dangers, including extreme water crisis, massive unemployment and the failure of national governance systems. The biggest threat to the stability of the world in the next 10 years comes from the risk of international conflict.

“Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world again faces the risk of major conflict between states,” said Margareta Drzeniek-Hanouz, lead economist, World Economic Forum. “However, today the means to wage such conflict, whether through cyberattack, competition for resources or sanctions and other economic tools, is broader than ever. Addressing all these possible triggers and seeking to return the world to a path of partnership, rather than competition, should be a priority for leaders as we enter 2015.”

Established in 1971, the Forum prides itself on being an impartial platform for transforming dialogue into insights, insights into agendas and agendas into action.

“The World Economic Forum serves the international community as a platform for public-private co-operation,” says Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman.

“Such co-operation, to address the challenges we all face, is more vital than ever before. But it requires mutual trust. My hope is that the annual meeting serves as the starting point for a renaissance of global trust.”

The Forum is often accused of being elitist, and four decades ago such criticism had merit. In the early years only a super strata of business and governmental elite were invited. To be sure the world’s elites are attending the event, but there will be many representatives from international organizations, civil society, cultural and spiritual leaders, academia and the media. All points of view are welcome.

More than 100 of the Forum’s 280 sessions will be webcast live so that anyone with Internet connection can watch and listen to the proceedings. You don’t have to be in Davos to get access to important debates.

Examples of discussions and the extraordinary array of participants include:

Resolving geopolitical crises: With conflicts continuing to destabilize Ukraine, the Middle East and other parts of the world, what can the international community do to help bring about a lasting peace? Participants include Egyptian President Abdel Fatah el-Sissi, King of Jordan Abdullah II Ibn al-Hussein, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, President of Iraq’s Kurdistan region Masoud Barzani and Ukranian President Petro Poroshenko.

Repercussions of climate change: As the world prepares for another round of post-Kyoto climate negotiations, what are the chances for success at the climate meeting in Paris? And how can the private sector contribute? Participants include Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Peruvian President Ollanta Moises Humala Tasso and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

Pandemics and health: As the outbreak of Ebola has shown, combating the spread of viruses is still a worldwide priority. At the same time, non-communicable diseases such as diabetes are becoming the world’s biggest silent killer. What can the world do to ensure global health going forward? Participants include Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General, United Nations (1997-2006), Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), Alpha Condé, President of Guinea, Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, President of the Republic of Mali, and Peter Piot, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The new energy context: As energy prices are dropping to five-year lows, what are the short- and long-term effects on the world? What does it mean for growth in emerging economies and the impact on climate change? Participants include Saudi Aramco president and CEO Khalid al-Falih, General Motors CEO Mary Barra, OPEC secretary-general Abdalla Salem el-Badri, Petroleos Mexicanos CEO Emilio Lozoya and Total president and CEO Patrick Pouyanné. The Forum has shifted over the years from being a convener of meetings to a think tank and has now become what you might call a do-tank. It has dozens of initiatives to build networks of not-for-profits, governments and business to bring about change in the world. Davos is not so much a big schindig, but rather an intervention in that process. Will something happen that can change the course of things in the world? Stay tuned.