PPN 2020: From Globalization to Globalism

Dr Michael de Percy presenting at the Public Policy Network 2020 Conference.

This paper was the precursor to my chapter 'Populism and a New World Order' in Jakupec, V., Kelly, M., & Makuwira, J. (2020). Rethinking Multilateralism in Foreign Aid: Beyond the Neoliberal Hegemony. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367853808.

The abstract and slides from my presentation at the Public Policy Network 2020 Conference at the University of Queensland on 30 January 2020 are below:

Abstract

Institutions tend to be stable for extended periods of time, punctuated by exogenous events that can lead to institutional change. If institutions tend to reinforce their own rules and routines, it can be said that institutions cannot then change themselves. While wars and other major exogenous events can lead to institutional change, ideas are also powerful, and relatively peaceful, drivers of change. Since the establishment of an international trade regime at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, new ideas about the best way to organise the economy have influenced global trade, resulting in the establishment of the World Trade Organisation in 1995. The idea of free market economics led to a new global trading system, coinciding with the end of the Soviet Union, and this system has remained relatively stable since the end of Keynesianism on a global scale. Recently, however, the rise in populism and the re-emergence of nationalism have challenged the existing world order. This chapter examines the impact of the rise in populism and the re-emergence of nationalism on the international institutions of global trade. Using theories of institutional change, the chapter examines the extent that populist ideas about free trade versus protectionism are leading to a new world economic order.

From Globalization to Globalism: The Impact of Populism on Multilateral Institutions from University of Canberra

Modern Anchorites; or, How we displace reality because of the Fuckeaucracy

Contemporary Anchorites: When the insane becomes the popular stupid fuckeaucracy

What struck me about anchorites was their popularity. They were like the rock stars of the annoying Middle Ages where people were supposedly so stupid that they were complete idiots and believed anything.

And we tend to think of the Dark Ages as stupid - where stupid people continued to breed despite the odds of their perpetuating their stupidity. Not like now, when we are so advanced. Surely, we are so much more advanced than then?

It seems that we are now in the midst of a new period of stupidity. Everyone knows it, but we can't say a thing because the morons are in control again. If we state the obvious, we are obviously insane.

What am I talking about? The Age of Stupidity. It's like the Age of Enlightenment only dumber. It's like the Dark Ages except this time, we know that we are complete fucking morons.

And what's to blame? Bureaucracy. Although Weber and Durkheim may have pointed out the obvious in their time, it is now time that somebody who is not a bureaucrat came up with an alternative solution to what is obviously a crock.

So convince me that climate change is not real. That popular opinion is the predominant way of assessing policy. That people who spend their entire lives focused on crafting perfection in their field have nothing better to do than parade around being some elitist fuck because they are complete morons. That through their research they somehow arrived at something that suited their particular political agenda. Please. 

Tell me that every academic who is jumping through the hoops created by non-PhD or, more appropriately, non research active public servants who pretend to be academics but have career agendas beyond academia - that these non-academic people stood up to bullshit because it advanced their careers - and tell me what the fuck do these same clowns know?

And then tell me that the majority of people who barely did well at science in high school have a legitimate voice in policy-making. Please. Prove me wrong. No, please do so because I am sitting here thinking: WTF?

Most contemporary political problems are a consequence of a lack of knowledge. Whether the lack of knowledge is a consequence of the progressive dumbing down of university education is by the by (it is only a mater of time before it is true) but it is clear that everyone now has the democratised answer to everything. Who needs experts when we can now simply have the answer because we are so entitled to be brilliant?

Which is my point. Once, we may have clung to the words of some random fuckwit who locked themselves away in an anchor-hold to tell us about the future. Now we cling ourselves to some random fuckwit who tells us what we want to hear. 

The difference is training. If you think that academics are trained so peculiarly in scientific method that you, somehow with your non-research active idea about scientific method, are somehow better than every other natural and social scientist who have to defend themselves against popular opinion generated by uneducated morons who somehow know better; then fill our boots. 

You obviously know. Please. Be in charge of the future. I want you to be responsible.

Reflections on CeBIT 2019; or, WTF is an electric H-D good for?

Harley-Davidson LiveWire. Um, no thanks! 

Seeing an electric H-D LiveWire in the flesh at CeBIT today really set me off. WTF is that about? 

The first time I went to CeBIT the event was huge. This year, it was significantly smaller. The original CeBIT in Hanover, Germany, ended last year but Australia decided to push on with the branded local event. I'm not sure if I will go again.

Steve Wozniak was a keynote speaker. This year the keynote speakers in the sideshows provided an open-plan version of the restricted audience by using headphones for those with paid tickets.

There was an interesting budget hologram display at the British Industry stand and lots of virtual reality and AI displays. But it was clear the major exhibitors have moved on.

Some displays reminded me of Expo '88 in Brisbane where what was then the latest technology is now somewhat laughable in the manner of watching early aviation enthusiasts.

The saddest display was Harley-Davidson's e-bike, the LiveWire. A review in the AFR in June suggested the bike had some positives but two weeks ago H-D "pulled the plug" on sales and production due to some problems with the bike.

There is something just not right about an electric H-D. Sure, times are changing. But the "progress" thesis is running out of steam in my view.

The idea of human progress as a linear, inevitable improvement in the lot of humans has some validity, but it also tends to be uneven if you are starving in sub-Saharan Africa. And whether the Middle Ages were an improvement on the glory days of the Roman Empire is arguable.

What I saw at CeBIT was the tired leftovers of earlier technological advances. Much like the Millennium Falcon, things are looking a bit shabby chic. Not that the technology hasn't improved or that things haven't advanced, but to what end?

The H-D LiveWire had me thinking, "what's the point?" Granted, it is better for the environment and die hard H-D fans are no longer turning a profit for the company that is over 100 years old. But a H-D that makes that annoying Formula E zing zing sound? Progress, really?

It would seem that when we talk about the future of work, there is less and less work to be done. And when speakers talk about technology and leadership, what's so new about it all?

Two key things emerged for me at CeBIT. First, technology is replacing humans in everyday life. Who needs to speak to wait-staff or a cashier when you can order and pay for food on your phone? I used me&u for the first time today.

Second, the other technologies that featured heavily at CeBIT were meeting and corroboration tools. But meeting and collaborating to do what, exactly?  With production and manual labour roles now taken care of by technology, what exactly are people discussing in all these meetings?

It is becoming obvious that  it is all a con-job. Meetings are about saying, "see, I'm here!" and ticking off the attendance box. Skype is the same thing except it's, "see, even though I'm not there, I'm still working!"

The use of tech in healthcare and for first responders is important, but it made we wonder: Just how important is all this other work that we do?

I fear that, like the electric H-D, we've lost the point. We are meeting about things that we don't produce, to lead people who don't produce anything. If this is the case, why are there so many meetings?

Cal Newport has shown the way for the future of work. In the meantime, the noise of the H-D has been replaced by the noise of bureaucrats meeting. My key lesson from CeBIT? Don't believe the hype.