Reith Lectures 2007

Today the BBC starts another episode in their Reith Lecture Series. The BBC has broadcasted the series since 1948. The Reith lecture series were initiated by Sir John Reith, the first director general of the BBC. He maintained that broadcasting should be a public service which enriches the intellectual and cultural life of the nation. In its long history the series have covered a wide range of topics in the sciences and social sciences. The first Reith lecturer was philosopher Bertrand Russel, speaking about the Authority and the Individual. In economics and the social sciences it has featured names like Arnold Toynbee, John Kenneth Galbraith and, more recently, Anthony Giddens on the Runaway World. Lectures are available online since 1999, but the BBC has also put some historic lectures online.

This years Reith lecturer will be Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He will give a series of five lectures related to global challenges that the world is facing:

Lecture 1: Bursting at the Seams
The 21st century will be marked by severe natural resource limits, the rise of new economic powers and the threats of failed states. These are tectonic changes with the potential to unleash global-scale upheavals. Global cooperation of an unprecedented depth and scale will be needed but we are not yet prepared for such cooperation.

Lecture 2: Survival in the Anthropocene
The biggest challenges that we face - climate change, alleviation of hunger, water stress, energy - are translated in the shadow of ignorance into "us versus them" problems, with only the weakest links to underlying scientific principles and technological options.

Lecture 3: The Great Convergence
Power and America have seemed synonymous for the last fifty years. No longer. Power in the 21st Century is shifting to the East: to India and above all to China. Facing up to the end of centuries of North Atlantic dominance - first Europe then the U.S. - will pose huge challenges.

Lecture 4: Poverty in the Midst of Plenty
This lecture considers the challenges of extreme poverty and the extreme worry of the rest of the world which fears for its own prosperity. It spells out the limits of the free market to solve these problems and proposes a plan of action which presents choices to those listening.

Lecture 5: A New Politics for a New Age
The key political novelty of our age is mass political awareness and mobilization. Mass mobilization has brought the Age of Empire to an end, and accounts for the failures in Iraq. No society any longer tolerates being ruled by another. Social mobilization can be a dramatic force for positive change.

You can listen to the lectures in streaming audio or download the mp3 files or transcripts. Lecture audio and transcripts will be available after each broadcast. Each lecture will be available as an MP3 download for 7 days after the first broadcast.

India Rising (or part of it)

Last year October I made my first visit to India. I had heard a lot of stories and read numerous articles about the 'Rise of India' (Thomas Friedman probably topping the list in terms of optimism). So...I arrived with high expectations. After arriving in Delhi Airport, staying three days in Delhi and travelling two weeks through Rajasthan, I was becoming more and more fascinated and disappointed at the same time.

Of course I hadn't expected India to have turned in to one big IT science park in just one or two decades (although some publications seem to give that picture). But I had expected India's optimism, ambition and rupees to have trickled down to other sections of society...at least a little bit. I have not been in the booming cities of Bombay, Bangalore or Chennai, but judging from my experiences from Delhi and Rajasthan, there's a lot of work to be done, in terms of public facilities, but especially in terms of equality.

Delhi's airport was in many ways worse of than the smaller regional airports I had just seen while visiting Indonesia and Malaysia the two months before. The roads and other public works were definitely a lot worse. Steve Hamm of Businessweek fears that the lack of investment in public space might hurt India's progress:

The infrastructure deficit is so critical that it could prevent India from achieving the prosperity that finally seems to be within its grasp. Without reliable power and water and a modern transportation network, the chasm between India's moneyed elite and its 800 million poor will continue to widen, potentially destabilizing the country. Jagdish Bhagwati figures gross domestic product growth would run two percentage points higher if the country had decent roads, railways, and power. "We're bursting at the seams," says Kamal Nath, India's Commerce & Industry Minister. Without better infrastructure, "we can't continue with the growth rates we have had."

In Businessweeks 'Covercast' Hamm explains why the private sector not investing in India's public facilities, even though it is dependent on good roads and airports for its own progress. One of the reasons is the bureaucracy in India. Compared for instance to authoritarian China, it's a lot harder to get things done in democratic India. As a chief executive of Novartis explains:

"If you have to build a road in China, just a handful of people need to make a decision. If you want to build a road in India, it'll take 10 years of discussion before you get a decision."

And obviously, corruption is still a big problem:

Nearly all sectors of officialdom are riddled with graft, from neighbourhood cops to district bureaucrats to state ministers. Indian truckers pay about $5 billion a year in bribes, according to the watchdog group Transparency International. Corruption delays infrastructure projects and raises costs for those that move ahead.

But what I'm more troubled with is the trickling down (or better, the lack thereof) of India's new economic prosperity to other segments of society. The division between India's new knowledge professionals and India's poor seems to have created different Indias. In a recent article in Theory and Society(*), Simitha Radakrishnan, a UCLA sociologist, illustrates this:

Rather than having successfully produced a “new middle class,” as touted in media representations of India’s success, emphasis on knowledge for development and a knowledge economy in India has had the effect of producing an elite with formidable economic strength, as well as the cultural dominance to re-imagine and negotiate meanings of Indianness.

(...) So long as those engaged in the knowledge economy are blinded by the belief that their success reflects the progress of the nation as a whole, and that their class positions are not privileged, the possibility for sparking true social and economic change greatly diminishes.

This dilemma is outstandingly portrayed in a 4 part radio documentary of the BBC's "The Changing World". India’s economy is booming. Salaries in the big cities are rising, and consumer spending is exploding. Economic opportunities abound in India – but not for everyone. This documentary series explores the effects globalisation and a decade of economic reforms are having on India. In each of the 4 parts it highlights another aspect of the rise of India:

Part 1 (25:00 ; MP3 10MB)
A new materialism and consumerism is an obvious sign of India ’s growing middle class. The BBC’s George Arney has been visiting India for nearly three decades. He says that India used to spiritually rich, but materially very poor. Now, Arney reports, it's a very different story.

Part 2 (25:00 ; MP3 10MB)
This part focuses on the Indian state of Bihar. The squalor there is obvious. Bihar is glaringly left out of India ’s economic revolution. The BBC reports from a region known as India ’s Heart of Darkness.

Part 3 (25:00 ; MP3 10MB)
As India's economy rises, its entertainment industry is also taking off and an urban culture emerges. In this part Arney takes a close-up look at the nation that lies behind the shiny façade of modern India.

Part 4 (25:00 ; MP3 10MB)
The environmental and social costs of India's rapid expansion.

It's definitely a revealing documentary, with all 4 parts picturing contemporary India in a lively manner and with all its paradoxes. It contains several observations and interviews that clearly confirm Radakrishnan's point.

________
(*) Smitha Radakrishnan (2007) Rethinking knowledge for development: Transnational knowledge professionals and the “new” India. In: Theory and Society

Economic Benefits of Higher Education

Universities UK - the umbrella organisation of the Vice-Chancellors in the UK - issued a report (by Pricewaterhouse Coopers) last week on the private economic benefits of getting a degree. The report shows that higher education is still a very good investment: university graduates earn on average about a quarter more than young people who leave school after their A-levels. In total, a degree will bring average additional earnings of £160,000 over a working life. Some more findings:

• Financial benefit is greatest for men from lower socio-economic groups or from families from lower levels of income

  The rate of return to the individual would be expected to rise from 12.1% to 13.2% following changes to the student finance package arising from the introduction of variable tuition fees

  The benefits associated with HE qualifications increase as graduates get older

  Graduates are more likely to be employed compared to those with the next highest qualification and are more likely to return to employment following periods in unemployment or economic inactivity

  Significant costs associated with higher education are borne by the state

Diana Warwick, Chief Executive, Universities UK:

“We already know that graduates in the UK enjoy one of the highest financial returns of any OECD country. This report provides evidence that despite the expansion of higher education, the graduate premium has been maintained. Higher education is still clearly a worthwhile investment for the individual.

Also last week, they issued their third report on the impact of the higher education sector on the national economy (previous version were from 1997 and 2002). The report confirms the growing economic importance of the sector which had an income of almost 17 billion pounds a year in 2003/04 (compared with almost 12.8 billion in 1999/2000) and showed gross export earnings of 3.6 billion pounds. In the words of Drummond Bone, President of Universities UK:

All the evidence suggests that the direct economic importance of higher education will continue to grow in the future. The future expansion of student numbers, domestic and international, the development of knowledge transfer activities as well as a substantial volume of research all point in the same direction. Such activity depends on a continuing mix of public and private investment in the sector.

Income from private sources now amounts to 27% of all higher education income and this figure will increase significantly with the introduction of variable tuition fees. It is equally clear that public investment will continue to play a vital role in the development of the sector. It is evident from the findings of this report that such investment has a direct economic impact on the UK economy as well as maintaining the health of the sector.

I'm sure that these two reports - making a case for both more private as well as public investment in higher education - have been welcomed by the members of Universities UK...

The Globally Integrated Enterprise

IBM's CEO Samuel J. Palmisano claims that the Multinational Corporation (MNC), one of the primary agents of globalisation, is taking on a new form: The Globally Integrated Enterprise. A post of the Dutch blog Sargasso pointed me to this article in this month's edition of Foreign Affairs (the article can also be downloaded from the IBM website).

Although international trading enterprises were already in existence in the 17th and 18th century (e.g. the British or the Dutch East India Company), the first international corporations emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. These corporations were mainly based on colonial exploitation and were in the business of importing raw materials and exporting finished products.

According to Palmisano, the phase of the Multinational Corporation began during the First World War. The War and the resulting collapse of the European and US economies caused barriers for the international corporations. Furthermore, protectionist measures and trade barriers spread throughout the Western world during the 20s and 30s. The result? The emergence of MNCs that could, on the one hand, adapt to trade barriers through local production and, on the other, could globalise specific tasks such as R&D and design. These MNCs however, continued to organize production market by market, within the traditional boundaries of the nation-state.

The subsequent emergence of the Globally Integrated Enterprise was caused by a few important changes at the end of the 20th century: the decrease of economic nationalism and the ICT revolution. The latter facilitated global communication and the standardisation of business operations. State borders thus defined less and less the boundaries of corporate thinking or practice and the Globally Integrated Enterprise could integrate production and value delivery worldwide.

Palmisano points to four major challenges that this new form of organisation will pose:

1. This type of enterprise demands high-value skills. Nations and companies alike must invest in better basic educational and training programs.
2. This form of organisation also needs the safeguarding of intellectual property. Because of global integration, intellectual property will become one of the key geopolitical issues of the twenty-first century. On the other hand, regulation should not be so rigid that it poses barriers to interorganisational collaboration, since this is a key feature of contemporary innovation.
3. Enterprises need ways to maintain trust in these increasingly distributed business models. A company’s standards of governance, transparency, privacy, security, and quality need to be maintained even when its products and operations are handled by a dozen organizations in as many countries. This will require new ways of establishing trust, based on shared values that cross borders and formal organizations.
4. Global corporate integration will involve significant changes in organizational culture and many new standards for managing a much more complex marketplace.

...and the new Globally Integrated Enterprise seems to deliver plenty of new research questions for scholars in organisation and managements studies as well...

The costs of free education?

Higher Education in 'Old Europe' has had some pretty bad exposure again. Examples from Germany and France show that free education can be pretty costly. The Dutch ScienceGuide has a small item on an awkward German issue. Roughly translated and summarised:

Five lecturers for 3000 students in German Linguistics was not sufficient at Paderborn University. "One professor had been ill for a long time and another lectureship was discontinued" the students complained and they took matters in their own hands. They collected money and recruited a lecturer from Bielefeld. She responded: "Of course I can only do this because it is only a onetime solution and because I'm very flexible due to my half-time position in Bielefeld." The executive board of the university has to check whether this complies with the university regulations. After the introduction of tuition fees next year (which was a controversial issue) both the university and the students hope for a more permanent solution.

This of course is a unique situation. The New York Times however, reports on the Nanterre campus of the University of Paris to illustrate the general situation in French higher education (except for the Grand Ecoles). Read for yourself and you'll conclude that it's not a pretty picture. In my view, the following passage best illustrates the cost of free education:

A second-year student in law and history complained about the lack of courses in English for students of international law. But asked whether he would be willing to pay a higher fee for better services, he replied: "The university is a public service. The state must pay." A poster that hangs throughout the campus halls echoed that sentiment: "To study is a right, not a privilege."

Of course, education is (to some extent) a 'right' that should be accessible regardless of class or status. But if free education can't be sustained, high quality education seems to become a privilege for the few.

Multi Billion Pound Meltdown

One evening of BBC News:

Wednesday, 10 May 2006, 16:47 GMT 17:47 UK
University offer 'will cost jobs'
Many universities will struggle to honour a pay offer to their staff of 12.6%, a vice-chancellor has said.

Wednesday, 10 May 2006, 22:45 GMT 23:45 UK
'Meltdown' threat to universities
Universities will face "meltdown" unless the dispute over lecturers' pay is quickly resolved, a union leader is expected to warn.

Wednesday, 10 May 2006, 22:56 GMT 23:56 UK
Universities 'worth 45 billion Pounds a year'
Higher education is worth 45 billion Pounds a year to the UK economy - more than the aircraft or pharmaceutical industries - a report says.

Solid Growth, New Challenges

This morning I attended the launch of the World Bank's East Asia and Pacific Regional Update. For the first time, the launch came directly from Sydney; previously it was launched in Washington and presented in Australia by videoconferencing. This twice yearly snapshot of economic development in East Asia was presented by Jeff Gutman (WB Vice President for East Asia and the Pacific) and Dr Homi Kharas (WB Chief Economist for East Asia and the Pacific). The title was 'solid growth, new challenges' and pretty much covered the message: a lot of optimism, but also some challenges (although I wouldn't call them new). Here are a few highlights.

Economic growth in East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) remains high. Southeast Asian countries show a rather steady growth of 5 to 6%, while China's growth slowly decreases but remains high at more than 9%. Japan slowly recovers with a growth of 2.8%.

An interesting observation was the increased regionalization in terms of trade. Exports in East Asia were more than before aimed at other EAP countries. Obviously, the expansion of the Chinese market plays a substantial role in this, but also the economic recovery of Japan.

East Asia is also slowly catching up in terms of patents. The amount of patents in EAP is high for countries like Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea, even if corrected for income and population. Malaysia and China's innovation are approximately what could be expected with their level of income. Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand however, are still underperforming.

One of the challenges ahead was also an important topic in the previous update of November 2005: the avian flu. This problem mainly needs a combination of international and local efforts in order to be contained. Although the economic consequences of an avian flu outbreak could be severe, it "did not keep the World Bank's Chief Economist awake at night."

Some extra attention was also given to a more long term threat: global warming. With the rise of China, the CO2 emissions rise accordingly. At the same time, East Asia and the Pacific are very vulnerable to global climate changes, especially since most of their economic activity is in coastal cities.

Interesting quote this morning: "What we worry about most is not having anything to worry about"

The report will soon be available on-line. Audio recordings are available via the University of Sydney Podcasts feed.

The Economics of Selective Knowledge

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Lisbon Council:

In a landmark study, OECD education expert details poor performance of European education. Europe risks falling further behind in 21st century economic race unless it manages to make skills and knowledge a top priority.

The OECD:

The economics of knowledge: Why education is key to Europe's success. In a study released by the Lisbon Council, OECD education expert Andreas Schleicher shows that educational progress in Europe is lagging behind, in terms of the quality and quantity of its graduates, in openness of its education systems to students from all social backgrounds and in the availability of continuing education and training to those who need it most.

The BBC:

Europe's skills fall behind Asia.

The Telegraph:

Old Europe 'being outpaced by Asian higher education'

-------------------------------------------------------------

This 'landmark' study offers no more than a collection of graphs and some comments that, in many cases, are not at all based on the graphs. The reason why the Lisbon Council calls it a landmark study is probably because the outcomes are directly in line with their goals (many of which I agree with) and because they commissioned the study. It is not that I don't agree with the recommendations, it is not that I ignore the problems.

It is the way in which the recommendations and conclusions lack support, the way in which statistics are used selectively, the way in which glossy policy briefs are presented as landmark studies and the way in which they are reported in the media. And then there's something that I noted before here and here: the way in which Europe can always be used to support your arguments by just cherry-picking the country that fits that argument.

Let's go through the report step by step and do some selective nitpicking.

The report starts of with its main conclusion and some key recommendations. In the end I'll come back to the recommendations, but the main conclusion is: education pays off, always! Not true. Education also has a point where the benefits are optimal and there after its marginal benefit will decrease (for more myths on education and economic growth see: Does Education Matter, Alison Wolf, 2002).

Then the report tries to make a point for higher education as a private investment. In Fig. 1, it is claimed that investment in education gives higher return rates than real interest rates. Basically this translates to: it's better to go to school than to put your money in the bank. Fine.., but nor very useful. However, the graph also shows that the private rate of return is a lot higher in the US (I guess because of bigger income inequalities) and therefore the graph makes a good case for private investment (meaning tuition fees) for the US and the UK, but less so for other countries.

Fig. 2 shows that if you are better educated, you will earn more. That obviously is the case everywhere. However, it is highest in Hungary, the UK, the US and Korea and the pattern tells more about the differences in income inequalities than about differences in education. More education pays of, especially for Hungarian males! The most interesting observations in the table is probably the fact that female Korean university graduates earn around 2.5 times more than their male colleagues. And in the UK they earn about a quarter more than their male colleagues.

Somehow, Fig. 3 & 4 show that "Countries that give individuals one additional year of education can boost productivity and raise economic output by 3% to 6% over time" (p.4) (although I can't really see how the graphs support that). Table 3 basically says that a decrease in unemployment and an increase in productivity will lead to a higher GDP per capita. Not really rocket science. Table 4 however is supposed to show us that education drives labour productivity. If that were the case, the red parts in the graph would gradually increase together with labour productivity. As we can see, the growth in the level of education seems to show no relation at all with labour productivity!! And I wonder how the annual percentage change in the level of education is measured anyway. In addition, the data for both graphs are from 1990-2000, the pre-Lisbon era.

Then we move to the issue of access and participation. This has increased everywhere, but not in the same way. The first point that is made is about the remarkable progress of Korea and how it climbed from rank 21 to 3, in terms of the proportion of the population with tertiary education. This remarkable growth, as is shown in this graph, can be mainly attributed to the policies in the 1980s. Countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland also made significant progress, the report says. Obviously these countries were clearly lagging behind many other OECD countries in the 60s and needed to catch up.

Then the report continues: "most of Europe's major economies, including France Italy and the UK, only held their ground or, in the case of Germany, significantly fell." This is true for the whole post-war era. On the other hand, and the report does not mention that, this graph shows that there was a considerable growth in people with tertiary degrees in the 1990s in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Poland, France, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Turkey and Portugal.

Then there's quality. On the basis of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking of universities (that only featured 2 European universities in the top 20), the report concludes that Europe "is running behind in the quality of the graduates it produces". A slightly bold conclusion from a ranking in which quality of education (measured in the amount of Nobel Prize and Field Medal winners among their alumni!) counts for only 10% of the total score. If we look only at the quality of the graduates, there would be 5 European universities in the top 20, instead of 2. And besides, the report does not mention that the 'Korean miracle' is not present at all in the top 100 of the ranking.

After praising American higher education the report switches to secondary education: "the results are not much more encouraging". On the basis of the OECD PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) data, it concludes that "students in very few of Europe's most important countries performed much above the OECD average and many performed below it." Pretty vague statement. Since we were comparing with the US anyway, let me rephrase that somewhat differently (as shown here for the case of math skills): "students in 18 European countries performed above the US average and four performed below". And that while it spends so much more on education. It's not my intention here to criticize American education, I just try to make clear how statistics are used selectively.

And then it's time for the public-private debate. I already pointed to the fact that the private rates of return of tertiary education are higher in the US than in many other countries and that that could justify the fact that there is more private spending in the US, as this graph shows. A better reflection of public-private benefits in the funding of European higher education can be justified in my opinion. There are several studies, like this dissertation, that support that, but there is no way that you can support that on the basis of this data!

After a story on 'what is so great about Finland' the report continues with access and participation in relation to social backgrounds. The point here is that the US, Australia, Japan and Korea have improved access in higher education by letting students pay for their education. "Most (?) continental European countries are holding back their universities by neither making the public investment nor charging tuition fees". However, other OECD data shows that such an increase in participation has also taken place in predominantly publicly funded education in countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

With regard to the issue of equity versus school autonomy, the report shows this table. Finland supposedly steers on outcomes: teachers and schools have a lot of freedom in what they teach and how they teach, as long as the results are ok. Other countries, on the left side of the graph, want to guarantee that everyone gets an equal education. However, the result of the latter strategy is that kids from 'better' social backgrounds are more likely to enter universities and therefore it increases inequality. There is a logic in this kind of reasoning. However, considering that all Nordic countries are concentrated at the right side of the graph, it might also (or additionally) be that equity is enhanced by a high degree of public funding of the education system. After all, this way there is no reason for richer students to get better quality education than poor background students. I think that here the report again fails to present a complete picture.

Another interesting passage is the following about social mobility: "Here lies perhaps the biggest disappointment in Europe's education systems. Many of them make ambitious claims when it comes to securing equity in learning opportunities. But the OECD's PISA study reveals that social background plays a larger role in determining a student's performance in countries such as Germany, France and Italy than in the U.S. (..) In many countries, the data suggest that European schools reinforce existing socio-economic inequities." In a report full of tables and graphs, I would have loved to see one on this data! If we look for instance to a study by the Education Policy Institute (p.40) that also looked at the relation of social background and participation in higher education, we can see in this table that it is at least not correct to talk about 'Europe' in this sense.

An interesting point however (but again no data) is that participation seems to decrease if student pathways are established early in the educational career. In Germany for instance, kids are divided for the academic or vocational track already at the age of 10. In Dutch education, I had to make those choices at the age of 12.

Finally then, there is continuing education. Europe underperforms here as well, although again, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are doing well, especially for the groups that need it most. In the US, the continuing education market is also large, but there the lower level segment only accounts for a small part.

Having gone through the report, let's have a look at the recommendations:

1) Create and maintain a system of diverse, sustainable and high-quality educational institutions with the freedom to respond to demand and accountable for the outcomes they produce

2) Ensure that the growth and development of tertiary educational systems are managed to improve access, raise quality and enhance equity

3) Implement financing and student-support policies which mobilize public and private funding in ways that better reflect the social and private benefits of tertiary education

4) Encourage universities to evolve so that their leadership and strategic management capacity matches that of modern enterprises, with appropriate strategic, financial and human resource techniques to ensure long-term financial sustainability and accountability requirements, and

5) Ensure that universities are governed by bodies that reflect a much wider range of stakeholder interests than the academic community

Only the second and third recommendation can be directly related to the report, although no data was presented on these issues. The other three might be useful but seem to come out of the blue. I repeat that I don't necessarily disagree with the recommendations and that I don't ignore the problems (like some politicians do). But I don't think that the ends always justify the means..

Technonationalism and Economic Globalism

This month's Far Eastern Economic Review featured an interesting article about Asia's nationalist policies in the globalised field of science and innovation. Here are a few sections, but read the full story here (free access).

P.V. Indiresan, the former director of the Indian Institute of Technology Madras: "The future of both China and India is at risk, because neither owns the technology it operates; the intellectual property continues to remain in the West. The short answer to this problem is that we should develop our own technology; we should acquire so much intellectual property that the West will be as much dependent on us as we are on them."

(...)

There has been a real effort to reach out to Asian diasporas in places such as Silicon Valley and Cambridge University. Successful Chinese, Korean, and Indian scientists are being successfully lured back to their home countries to new labs in new research centers stocked with the most advanced equipment. The Shanghai and Beijing municipal governments offer returning technology entrepreneurs tax breaks, subsidized office space and access to government-investment funds.

(...)

Mr. Wen's (Premier Wen Jiabao of China, Ed) January speech about 'independent innovation' was accompanied by commentaries in Science and Technology Daily that quickly pointed out that self-reliance did not signal the abandonment of the 'open door' policy and that 'independent' did not equate to 'insular' or 'closed'. Domestic firms themselves, moreover, have business strategies that may conflict with nationalist goals.

The very forces of globalization that are encouraging such knowledge transfers, however, are also undermining the abilities of Asian nations to effectively implement technonationalist policies or any top-down development strategy, for that matter. WTO restrictions on import quotas, tariff barriers, and export subsidies have gradually created more open and market-oriented economies. As a result, policy makers have gradually replaced state-led, highly centralized models of technological innovation with a more flexible and open system, increasingly dependent on foreign enterprises. As they have globalized, Asian societies have become less susceptible to top-down direction.

(...)

The twin forces of nationalism and globalization could, however, push in opposite directions. Changes in the security environment are the most likely scenario that would lead policy makers to more forcefully control the free flow of ideas or talent. Already worried about the rise of China's military power, the U.S. defense and commerce departments are currently considering new regulations limiting the ability of foreign students and researchers to work with information and technology that is export-controlled. Job loss in developed countries, especially among knowledge workers believed to be immune from the vagaries of international competition, could generate a backlash against globalization. A failure of Asian firms to actually work their way up the value chain and begin to control proprietary technology may also cause decision-makers to question whether they can truly break free of dependence on Western technology through integration with the global economy.

It will not be surprising to see innovation and technological challenges arising from countries not historically known for their scientific prowess. While globalization is a part of this story, an important and often overlooked element of this story is the nationalist agenda promoted by Asian states. The world may be flatter, but it is still populated by nation-states seeking to increase their wealth, power, and status.