When Francis Fukuyama published his famous 1989 essay, “The End of History?,” he captured the mood in many Western capitals at the time. Not everybody agreed with him that “the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution” had been reached, but few could deny the resonance of his message. In anticipating “an unabashed victory” for “economic and political liberalism,” he was channeling both the emerging policymaking consensus and what had already become the standard approach in much of academia.

This late twentieth-century consensus rested on two distinct but synergistic pillars: political liberalism and economic liberalism. In the political domain, democratic institutions had the wind behind them and seemed to be taking root inexorably.

Humanity had been subjected to authoritarian despots and outright lawlessness for much of its existence. But ever since democracy had been “invented” in its modern form, the idea had been spreading around the world. Following the exhaustion of the alternatives (absolutism, fascism, communism) in the twentieth century, many Westerners concluded that their model would ultimately triumph everywhere, even in places with little or no democratic history, such as the Middle East. Ordinary people would demand a voice, and even iron-fisted autocrats would not be able to resist the implications of this “Western idea.”

To be sure, the process would not unfold seamlessly. Fukuyama and the many others who shared his outlook understood that the triumph of democracy would take decades. It would involve rebellions, revolutions, civil wars, and large-scale disruptions to entire societies. Nonetheless, the arc of history was unmistakably bending toward democracy.

The proponents of this view drew heavily from the “modernization theory” of the 1950s and 1960s. Adherents to this school believed that democracy followed naturally from economic growth, and that once a democracy had grown rich enough, it could never be dragged back into authoritarianism. These conclusions also bolstered the old Kantian supposition that democracies do not go to war against other democracies. Thus, a world of democracies would create the conditions for international peace and the establishment of a “rules-based order.”

Politically, the future looked bright, and the economic outlook was no less bullish. By the late 1980s, a kind of free-market fundamentalism had taken hold across the “triumphant” liberal democracies. After all, there was clear evidence to show that market economies vastly outperformed centrally planned ones. They seemed to be better both at fostering innovation and at providing the kinds of goods and services that people wanted. For many, it seemed a short step to conclude that the less fettered markets were, the more innovation and economic dynamism they would produce.

But such arguments conveniently ignored the fact that the United States was a heavily regulated economy when it was outperforming the Soviet Union. The US government actively supported innovation, not only by subsidizing research and development but also by setting the direction of technology. Strong unions and minimum wages helped to institutionalize a norm of reciprocity that ensured that workers’ pay tracked productivity growth, while fiscal policy kept inequality in check by redistributing from the rich to the poor and the middle class.

The Backlash

There has since been a widespread and broad-based backlash against economic and political liberalism. In the US and around the world, people are increasingly dissatisfied with democracy – particularly younger cohorts, which report a growing preference for left-wing or right-wing authoritarian regimes. On both sides of the Atlantic, it is now common to hear arguments advocating new forms of socialism or a move away from economic growth altogether.

This is a dangerous intellectual shift. The core assumptions behind such proposals are even more wrongheaded than the idea that economic and political liberalism are inevitable. As my own work shows, democracies do indeed outperform non-democracies quite consistently, both historically and in recent decades. Democracies deliver not only stronger economic growth, but also better health care and education for their citizens, notably the least well-off.

These benefits are undeniable, but they do not make the rise of democracy inevitable. Democracy takes work, and the processes that sustain it will always be contested. Democratic institutions necessarily reduce the power of elites and autocrats, who in turn will resist them. Democratic governance requires compromise, which can be a tall order in societies with a legacy of ethnic or religious conflict.

Democracy also requires an active and well-informed citizenry. But this is increasingly hard to come by when major television and social-mediachannels routinely spew falsehoods and citizens ignore civic engagement. During America’s long and costly “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, the vast majority of its citizens were encouraged to go on with their lives, as if they had nothing at stake.

We also know that central planning is very seldom successful, especially when it comes to fostering innovation. History is replete with examples of economic growth being blocked because the state or powerful actors exercised too much control over innovation. In a world where poverty is still widespread, economic growth remains a moral imperative, and markets therefore remain a key part of the solution. But this does not mean that unfettered markets will reliably steer innovation in socially desirable directions. In fact, market economies work much better when they are appropriately regulated.

The seemingly simple solutions proposed by extremists – be it unfettered economic liberalism or some enlightened form of socialism – will not work. But until we have a new paradigm for thinking about the future, they will have a powerful influence on public opinion and policy debates.

In Search of a Roadmap

New paradigms are built collectively, gradually, and through sustained efforts by many stakeholders. But honing our analysis and enriching our thinking in five areas would facilitate the process.

For starters, despite its widespread benefits, democracy will not vanquish autocracy anytime soon. In an age of new disruptive technologies, rising inequalities, and globalization, the “narrow corridor” (specific conditions) in which democratic governance can thrive is likely to become even narrower. Bolstering democratic institutions thus will require even greater efforts than in the past.

To navigate this narrowing corridor, we must abandon the conceit that all our biggest challenges can be understood as engineering problems, as if we can solve everything with the right technologies. The last two decades have provided ample evidence that technology itself is undermining the functioning of democratic institutions, and empowering autocrats to brainwash and control their populations. And yet we currently have neither a good understanding of how new communication technologies disrupt democratic processes, nor a principled strategy for regulating them.

Second, democracy’s future cannot be separated from the global context. We must abandon the idea that trading freely with authoritarian countries will “promote freedom” within their borders or make their governments any friendlier to democracy (as US President George H.W. Bush once claimed). Of course, this observation raises many more questions than it answers. How should democratic criteria influence economic ties and international diplomacy? Should democracies avoid supply chains that rely heavily on non-democratic countries? How should they think about technology transfers, joint research, and related issues? Neither academics nor policymakers have clear answers to such questions.

Third, it can no longer be assumed that economic growth will inexorably create shared gains. The US and the rest of the Western world have enjoyed significant technological progress and productivity growth over the past four decades, but workers, especially those without college degrees and specialized technical skills, have scarcely benefited. Textbook economic models generally suggest that productivity growth should ultimately translate into wage growth, but that has not been happening.

What the standard models usually miss is that the source of productivity growth matters very much, and the manner in which wages are set matters even more. Using machines to do what workers used to do may improve productivity, but it will not automatically bring shared prosperity. When output increases, employers and managers may choose to keep more of the gains for themselves, using automation to undercut workers’ bargaining power whenever the institutional framework allows. Shared prosperity thus depends not only on productivity growth but also on the right composition of technology, institutions, and norms.

After Market Fundamentalism

We also need to rethink innovation policy. Yes, we in the West owe our prosperity, health, longevity, and modern conveniences to the three centuries of technological progress that never would have happened without market incentives. But the necessity of markets for driving innovation does not make them sufficient for producing social benefits. Markets direct investment toward technologies that will generate greater profits, which are not always the same as those that would foster growth or improve welfare.

In health care, for example, high-tech procedures and drugs targeting cures are more profitable than innovations to bolster public health and disease prevention, even though these could bring more social benefits. The market excessively favors the former, leading to underinvestment in the latter.

Similarly, left to its own devices, the market will continue to channel investment to fossil fuels. Taxation, regulation, and societal pressure are all necessary to direct more capital toward renewables. I have also argued that the market may be driving overinvestment in automation, at the expense of the social and economic benefits that would come from improving worker productivity. In all these cases, we must move away from market fundamentalism in designing innovation policy. And yet, once again, much more research is needed to design better alternative frameworks.

Lastly, abandoning market fundamentalism means rethinking some of the key pillars of our regulatory regimes. A common approach in economics is to allow market processes to unfold before stepping in to consider whether there is too much poverty or inequality in the outcome. The standard fiscal tools of redistribution – direct transfers and safety-net programs – are thus considered to be sufficient. But this assumption needs to be questioned.

A new regulatory framework must recognize the systematic distortions that can accompany market processes. Recent research shows that, contrary to the conventional academic wisdom, highly egalitarian countries like Sweden have not achieved more equitable outcomes solely through tax-transfer schemes. No less important is that their pre-tax income distributions are far more equal than in countries like the US. This reflects the more equal distribution of skills among Swedish workers, and that wage negotiations and the broader institutional framework are geared toward ensuring that workers receive a fair slice of the economic pie.

We have entered rough seas without a clear map of how to reach calmer waters. But there is much we can learn from new social-science research and intellectual innovation to help us navigate the way.

Project Syndicate

No matter who you are, you won’t become successful overnight — and the sooner you internalize that, the better, says film director Spike Lee.

“One of the worst lies that’s been told to young people is that there’s a thing called ‘overnight success.’ That’s done a lot of damage to people,” Lee, 66, said at the 2023 LinkedIn Talent Connect Summit in New York earlier this year. “It’s not like you’re just out there, and the hand of God is going to come down from the heavens and say, ‘You are the next one.’ That is BS.”

For even the luckiest people, success is usually preceded by a lot of work, said Lee — even if it doesn’t seem apparent on the surface. His message: If you’re simply waiting around for the right opportunity or spotlight, but not doing anything to prepare for it or hasten its presence, you probably won’t achieve what you want.

In Lee’s case, he’s a longtime popular filmmaker with an Oscar, two Primetime Emmys and numerous other award nominations. But he had to “claw” to be taken seriously at first, he told LinkedIn editor-in-chief Daniel Roth in an interview last month.

“When I graduated from Morehouse College [in 1979], I knew I wanted to go to film school,” Lee said. “But that whole thing of ... moving out to LA and working your way up from the mailroom, that don’t work for Black people.”

Lee was rejected from film schools at the University of Southern California and the American Film Institute, but accepted at New York University — based on the quality of his work, rather than his results on standardized tests like the GRE, he said.

Lee’s story isn’t uncommon, across most industries. Mark Cuban, a billionaire tech entrepreneur and investor, started cutting his teeth as a salesman at age 12 — but didn’t feel “successful” for the first time until age 28, or become a billionaire until age 40.

Most of the world’s biggest companies similarly took years of struggle and tight budgets to get off the ground, from tech giants like Microsoft to apparel behemoths like Nike.

Often, an “overnight success” only seems that way because you didn’t see the work that went into it — especially in today’s digital age, where highlights and wins on social media are more prolific than the full stories behind people’s triumphs. That trend contributes to poor mental health and low self-esteem in young people, studies show.

You can address that by embracing the ebbs and flows of your journey, and getting rid of the notion that your dreams will come true instantaneously, said Lee.

“It’s not going to happen overnight. There are going to be times where you want to cry and you want to quit,” he said at the LinkedIn summit. “You can’t quit. You’ve got to keep going!”

CNBC

As the yuletide approaches, air passengers are facing increasing discomfort over the high cost of tickets.

Checks by our correspondent showed that ahead of Christmas and New Year, many seats have been booked; and as the festive period draws nearer, available seats are becoming more expensive.

The eastern routes are the most affected, with Enugu flight tickets selling between N171,000 and N200,000.

Checks by our correspondent indicate that the base fare to Port Harcourt is N99,000 and projected to hit N138,000 as bookings increase.

Lagos  to Owerri, from December 5 sells between N114,400 and N190,600 for a one-way economy ticket and N238,200 for business, while the base fare for Lagos-Calabar is N100,000.

At the moment, a 30-minute flight to Ilorin from Lagos costs between 100,000 and N143,000 for economy class.

Lagos to Sokoto ticket goes for N150,000, while a Lagos-Kaduna ticket is N143,000 as the base fare.

How airfares have doubled in one year

Our correspondent reports that an economy ticket one-way flight has increased from N50,000 (by 100 per cent) to over N100,000 on some routes. Airlines are blaming the hike on the prevailing economic challenges, especially high cost of operation.

The airlines had in 2022 increased a one-way ticket to N50,000 from N30,000. This had generated controversy in the travel industry.

But at present, a one-way economy ticket base fare is around N80,000.

Some of the factors cited by airline operators who spoke to our correspondent include high cost of aviation fuel, known as Jet A1, high exchange rate, multiple charges, among others.

Managing director/chief executive of Aero Contractors, Capt Ado Sanusi, recently told our correspondent that with the current rate of exchange, a one-way ticket should sell for over N130,000.

According to him, any operator pricing his ticket low might be cutting corners.

He said, “You can quote me on this: When the dollar was N460 we were selling a Lagos-Abuja ticket at N65,000, but the dollar is now twice that amount. And there is nothing we do in aviation that is not dollarised. You can imagine. So, we should be selling the ticket at N130,000.

“We don’t manufacture the aircraft; we don’t even refine the oil. So, what else do you do? We don’t even do the wheel on an aircraft. We also have to buy the bolts on the aircraft outside the country. So the moment the dollar is rising, we are affected. The fuel we buy is imported, as well as parts of the aircraft, so how would anybody tell me that he would not increase his ticket, except he is cutting corners. The only thing we can control is manpower.”

Another airline operator who spoke on condition of anonymity noted that the aviation industry was not immune to the inflationary pressure in the country.

He said with the rise in the dollar, airlines could not afford to maintain the old prices of tickets.

Daily Trust

After recording four bullish trade sessions last week, investors in the Nigerian Exchange gained N464 billion.

The market opened on a positive note and sustained the sentiment till Thursday, with investors earning N501 billion in the process

However, the market suffered a decline on Friday on the back of sell-offs in some banking stocks.

The NGX All Share Index concluded the trading week with a 1.18 per cent week-on-week increase, as it crossed the 72,000 mark to close at 72,389.23 points.

This appreciation in the ASI was underpinned by robust rallies observed across key sectors, namely banking, consumer goods, telecoms, energy, and industrials.

The financial services industry (measured by volume) led the activity chart with 1.373 billion units of shares valued at N22.165bn traded in 17,300 deals; thus, contributing 72.96 per cent and 70.08 per cent to the total equity turnover volume and value respectively.

The services industry followed with 97.008 million shares worth N616.265m in 1,949 deals, and the consumer goods industry, with a turnover of 86.370 million shares worth N2.136bn in 3,819 deals.

An analysis of the sectoral performances showed that the banking, consumer goods, and industrial indexes were up by 7.01 per cent, 0.22 per cent, and 0.24 per cent, respectively.

The upward movements were attributed to an increased buying interest observed in stocks such as Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank, Sterling Financial Holding Company, AccessCorp, Ecobank and Tantalizer Plc.

On the other side, the insurance and oil & gas indexes dipped by 0.96 per cent and 0.27 per cent, respectively, driven by price decline in Eterna, NEM Insurance, Sunu Assurance Plc and Conoil Plc.

Access Holdings Plc, Guaranty Trust Holdings Company Plc and Zenith Bank Plc (measured by volume) accounted for 491.533 million shares worth N15.466bn in 5,997 deals, contributing 26.12 per cent and 48.90 per cent to the total equity turnover volume and value, respectively.

Despite the market’s overall positive performance, trading activity during the week was lower at a total turnover of 1.882 billion units of shares worth N31.630bn in 33,020 deals traded in the past week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, compared to a total of 2.423 billion shares valued at N45.070bn that exchanged hands in 34,704 deals in the prior week.

The top-gaining stocks for the week included Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc, which gained 59.32 per cent to close at N2.82 per unit; SCOA Nigeria Plc, which added 28.89 per cent to close at N1.74 and Daar Communications Plc was up by 27.78 per cent to close at N0.46.

Other top gainers were John Holt, which added 20.54 per cent to close at 2.23; DEAP Capital Management & Trust Plc gained 14.75 per cent to close at N0.70, and Sterling Financial Holdings Company Plc went up 10 per cent to close at N4.18 per unit.

Conversely, stocks such as Secure Electronic Technology Plc lost 16 per cent to close at N0.63; Eterna Plc shed 11.83 per cent to close at N11.55 and Thomas Wyatt lost 11.14 per cent to close at N2.95.

As the market opens on Monday, analysts were of the view that the market may react to the newly-released inflation figure of 28.20 per cent for November and investors may take positions ahead of the release of corporate earnings reports.

Punch

Hafize Erkan, Turkey’s central bank governor, says she has been forced to move in with her parents due to the country’s inflation.

Speaking to Turkey’s Hürriyet, Erkan said her decision was hinged on the increase in rents due to the lack of social housing — of which the country’s rising inflation is a contributory factor. 

Erkan, who took up her post in June after two decades in the United States, said when there is a lack of supply and cheap financing, “balances can sometimes be disrupted”. 

“Here, the most important problem for us is the supply of social housing. There is an increase in rents due to the lack of social housing,” she said. 

She said “our President and Vice President also focus on this issue” of increase in rents.

“Home and food are very important. It has been a long time since our state solved the health issue. Is it possible that Istanbul has gotten more expensive than Manhattan? We haven’t found a house in Istanbul. It’s terribly expensive. We settled with my parents and are staying with them,” Erkan said. 

In November 2023, Turkey’s inflation rose 62 percent year-on-year.

This followed a 61.36 percent annual increase in October — a trend triggered by the depreciation of the Turkish currency, lira.

The Cable

Israeli army says it uncovered biggest Hamas tunnel yet

The Israeli army said on Sunday it had uncovered the biggest Hamas tunnel in the Gaza Strip so far, just a few hundred metres from a key border crossing.

Such was its size that small vehicles would be able to travel within the tunnel, an AFP photographer granted access to it reported.

The underground passage formed part of a wider branching network that stretched for over four kilometres (2.5 miles) and came within 400 metres (1,300 feet) of the Erez border crossing, the army said in a statement.

It cost millions of dollars and took years to construct, Israeli forces said, with the project lead by Mohamed Yahya, brother of Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar, who is believed to have masterminded the October 7 attacks.

The honeycomb of passageways features a drainage systems, electricity, ventilation, sewage and a communication network as well as rails.

The floor is compacted earth while its walls are reinforced concrete and its entrance is a metal cylinder with 1.5 centimetre (half-inch) thick walls.

Footage released by the Israeli army, which it said was filmed by Hamas, showed a small construction vehicle being driven into the tunnel, an extensive temporary warehouse filled with pre-cast concrete for lining the walls and workers digging beneath the earth using crude power tools.

The Israeli army said it had found a large number of weapons stored in the tunnel, ready to be used in an attack.

- People, goods, weapons -

Hamas had expended huge resources in the project, said Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hecht, an army spokesman, and did so to "serve only one purpose -- attacking the State of Israel and its residents".

He said the tunnel was deliberately built near the Erez crossing, which Israel uses to facilitate the strictly controlled entry of Palestinian workers and those travelling for medical care.

"For Hamas, attacking the people of Israel continues to take priority over supporting the people of Gaza," he said.

The Islamist militant group launched a surprise attack against southern Israel on October 7, killing around 1,140 people, mostly civilians, and taking about 250 hostages, according to the latest Israeli figures.

In response, Israel set out to destroy Hamas and launched a relentless bombardment and ground invasion of the Gaza Strip to achieve that goal.

The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says Israel has killed more than 18,800 people, mostly women and children, during the war.

Dubbed the "Gaza Metro" by the Israeli military, the labyrinth of tunnels beneath the coastal territory was initially devised as a way of circumventing the crushing Israeli-Egyptian blockade, in place since 2007.

Hundreds of tunnels were built under the border with Egypt and into the Sinai Desert, allowing people, goods and weapons to cross into Gaza from the outside world.

Since the 2014 war with Israel, the tunnel network has been expanded and Hamas has made frequent use of it to facilitate its rocket launches.

A study published on October 17 by the Modern War Institute at the US military academy West Point said there were 1,300 tunnels stretching over 500 kilometres (310 miles).

The Israeli army said at the beginning of December that it had discovered more than 800 tunnels, with 500 destroyed.

Reports in Israeli media last week said that the army was considering flooding the tunnels with seawater pumped from the Mediterranean and had already conducted succesful tests.

AFP

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia and Ukraine launch swarm of drones at each other's territory

Ukraine and Russia launched a swarm of drones at each other's territories on Sunday as both sides step up attacks, with the Russian assault reportedly killing one person in Odesa and the Ukrainian strike targeting a Russian military airfield.

Ukraine's air force said on Sunday morning that it had destroyed 20 drones and a cruise missile that Russia launched overnight. Nine of the drones were downed over the southern Odesa region, with falling debris starting a fire in a residential house and killing one person.

The Russian defence ministry said in a social media statement that its air defence systems destroyed or intercepted a total of 35 Ukraine-launched drones over Lipetsk, Volgograd and Rostov regions. It did not say what was targeted or whether there was any damage.

Ukrainska Pravda media outlet reported late on Sunday, citing unnamed sources, that the Kyiv attack targeted the Russian Morozovsk airfield in the Rostov region in a reportedly joint operation of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Armed Forces.

Reuters could not independently verify the reports.

Vasily Golubev, the governor of the Rostov region that borders Ukraine in Russia's southwest corner, said in a statement on the Telegram messaging app that air defence forces repelled "a massive attack" by drones in the area of Morozovsk and Kamensk and that most of the air weapons were destroyed.

Several Russian military bloggers said, however, that one bomber at the air base suffered minor damage.

The Morozovsk air base is home to Russia's 559th Bomber Aviation Regiment, according to Russian state media, and is armed with Russia's most modern medium-range Su-34 bombers.

While Moscow and Kyiv deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched on Ukraine in February 2022, both sides have carried out numerous strikes on each other's infrastructure that is critical to their militaries.

Sunday attacks follow Ukraine's reports that its air defence systems had shot down 30 Russia-launched drones over 11 regions across the country on Saturday and Russia saying on Friday it had downed 26 Ukrainian drones over Crimea, the peninsula that Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine’s top spy admits failure of forced conscription

Forcibly conscripted Ukrainians have been displaying subpar combat performance, Ukrainian military intelligence chief Kirill Budanov has admitted. Still, the harsh recruitment drive must continue, and no one will be able to “escape mobilization,” he warned.

The spymaster made the remarks during a panel discussion dubbed ‘2024: challenges and prospects,’ excerpts from which were circulated by local media on Sunday. Budanov backed the idea of continuing forced conscription into the country’s armed forces, claiming it was the only way to maintain its numbers.

“It is impossible to escape mobilization,” he stated. There are currently 1.1 million people in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. No recruiting can cover such volumes.”

“We don’t have that many people willing to do anything, actually. I’m not even talking about fighting,” he added, admitting that most of Ukrainians prefer to cheer the country’s troops away from the frontline.

The majority of our people, despite everyone shouting: ‘I am Ukrainian,’ ‘Ukraine above all,’ have not realized themselves as citizens of Ukraine.”

The country has long run out of volunteers, eager to fight Russian forces, with “everyone willing” having enlisted during the first six months of the conflict, Budanov said. Those who end up within the country’s military ranks must be properly motivated, the spy chief stressed.

“Who is being called up now?” he asked. “Unfortunately, there is no good answer here. If you don’t find motivation for these people, then regardless how many people are forced into or enlisted according to the law, their efficiency will be almost zero, which is basically what’s been happening lately.” 

Ukraine launched a general mobilization shortly after the start of the conflict with Russia in February 2022, barring most men aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country. The conscription drive has been riddled with assorted difficulties, namely rampant corruption and draft dodging.

Simultaneously, Ukrainian recruitment officers have been growing increasingly violent and lawless in their effort to catch more would-be soldiers, with numerous videos circulating online showing them chasing potential recruits in the streets, raiding public venues and even beating up their victims.

As of late, Ukrainian authorities admitted difficulties with bolstering the military’s ranks. Mikhail Podoliak, a top aide to President Vladimir Zelensky, admitted earlier this month that further mobilization in Ukraine is bound to be complicated, suggesting that the government needs to crank up its“propaganda element” to fix the situation and attract recruits.

Reuters/RT

From high-level policy debates and political manifestos to everyday news coverage, anxiety about economic growth is everywhere. In Germany, the government’s latest budget identifies stronger growth as a top priority. In India, national leaders are eager to reclaim their country’s place as the world’s fastest-growing economy. In China, where the prospect of deflation looms, the government is undoubtedly worried about hitting its 5% growth target for the year.

In the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, has vowed to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 if given power, and the ruling Conservatives express similar ambitions (recall former Prime Minister Liz Truss’s now-infamous mantra: “growth, growth, and growth”).

But putting growth at the center of economic policymaking is a mistake. While important, growth in the abstract is not a coherent goal or mission. Before committing to particular targets (be it GDP growth, overall output, and so forth), governments should focus on the economy’s direction. After all, what good is a high growth rate if achieving it requires poor working conditions or an expanding fossil-fuel industry?

Moreover, governments have been most successful in catalyzing growth when they have been pursuing other goals – not treating growth itself as the objective. NASA’s mission to land a man on the moon (and bring him back) yielded innovations in aerospace, materials, electronics, nutrition, and software that would later add significant economic and commercial value. But NASA didn’t set out to create these technologies for that reason, and it probably never would have developed them at all if its mission had been simply to boost output.

Similarly, the internet emerged from the need to get satellites to communicate with one another. Owing to its widespread adoption, digital GDP has been growing 2.5 times faster than physical GDP for the past decade, and now the digital economy is on track to be worth an estimated $20.8 trillion by 2025. Again, such growth figures are the result of active engagement with the opportunities that digitalization presents; growth itself was not the goal.

Rather than focusing on accelerating digital GDP growth, governments should instead aim to close the digital divide and ensure that current and future growth is not based on Big Tech’s abuse of market power. Given how rapidly artificial intelligence is advancing, we urgently need governments that can shape the next technological revolution in the public’s interest.

More broadly, pushing growth in a more inclusive direction means departing from the financialization of economic activity and recommitting to investment in the real economy. As matters stand, far too many nonfinancial companies (including manufacturers) are spending more on share buybacks and dividend payouts than on human capital, machinery, and research and development. While such activities can boost firms’ stock price in the short term, they reduce the resources available for reinvesting in workers, widening the divide between those who control capital and those who do not.

Financialization is more often than not about value extraction and short-term profit maximization, rather than value creation for the sake of society as a whole. To achieve inclusive growth, we must recognize that workers are the real value creators, and their interests should feature prominently in discussions about income and wealth distribution.

In this sense, the UK Labour Party’s new stance on workers’ rights is worrying. In a knee-jerk attempt to appeal to corporate leaders and counter claims that it is “anti-business,” Labour has softened its previously stated commitment to stronger protections for gig workers. Yet investment-led growth and workers’ rights should not be regarded as competing priorities. Balancing corporate engagement with a commitment to workers is not only essential to achieving inclusive growth; it has already been proven to boost productivity and growth over the long term.

The economy will not grow in a socially desirable direction on its own. As I stressed ten years ago, the state has an important entrepreneurial role to play. After governments’ recent attempts to kick-start their economies following the pandemic, it is clear that we still need new thinking about how to achieve growth that is not only “smart,” but also green and inclusive.

Governments need economic-policy roadmaps with clear goals, based on what matters most to people and the planet. Public support for businesses should be made conditional on new investments that will “build forward better” toward a greener, more inclusive real economy. Consider the United States’ CHIPS and Science Act, which aims to boost the domestic semiconductor industry. The law prohibits funds from being used for share buybacks, and one could easily imagine additional provisions requiring that future profits be reinvested in workforce training.

But to help steer growth in the right direction, governments also must make goal-oriented investments in their own capabilities, tools, and institutions. The outsourcing of core capacities has undermined their ability to respond to changing needs and demands, ultimately reducing their potential to create purposeful growth and public value over time. Worse, as the public sector’s capabilities and expertise have been hollowed out, it has become more susceptible to capture by vested interests.

Only with the right capacities and competencies can governments successfully mobilize resources and coordinate efforts with businesses that are willing to work toward shared goals. A mission-oriented industrial strategy requires the public and private sectors to work together symbiotically. Done right, such an approach can maximize long-term public benefits and stakeholder value: innovation-led growth becomes synonymous with inclusive growth.

The question we should be asking is not how much growth we can achieve, but what kind. To achieve greater economic output that is also inclusive and sustainable, governments will need to embrace their potential to be value creators and powerful forces shaping the economy. Reorienting public organizations around ambitious missions – instead of obsessing over narrow growth targets – will allow us to tackle the grand challenges of the twenty-first century and ensure that the economy grows in the right direction.

Project Syndicate

There are plenty of frameworks you can use to make better decisions. Jeff Bezos uses the two-way door rule to identify reversible decisions and embrace a bias towards action. Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher used the one-question rule to add clarity the decision-making process.

Science can also help you make better decisions. You can leverage your circadian rhythm. You can use the power of experience-based intuition.  You can even sleep on a decision (as long as you get a good night's sleep.)

Problem is, most frameworks won't necessarily help you make good decisions when your willpower reserves run low. When temptation trumps determination.  When your emotions work against you, not for you, and you struggle to stay whatever course you've chosen. 

See two employees arguing at the end of a long day and it's tempting to ease past and hope the problem goes away. Walk out of your third meeting in a row to find a note about a customer complaint and it's tempting to save that call for tomorrow. Hear your alarm go off at 6 a.m. and it's tempting to hit snooze and skip your morning workout.

When you aren't at your best, whether mentally or emotionally or physically, immediacy typically wins.

Unless you apply Suzy Welch's 10-10-10 Rule.

The 10-10-10 Rule

The framework is simple: before you make a decision, ask yourself three questions:

10 minutes from now, how will I feel about this decision? 10 months from now, how will I feel about this decision?  10 years from now, how will I feel about this decision?

It's easy to feel pretty good about a decision ten minutes from now, especially if instant gratification or conflict avoidance is involved. Taking a longer-term perspective gets your "future self" involved: your goals, your dreams, the kind of person you want to be, and re-establishes -- when you need it most -- continuity between "today you" and 10 months, and 10 years from now, you.

Research shows that re-establishing that perspective will instantly help you make better decisions.  One study shows that people with greater "present-future continuity" tend to exercise more. Another study shows they tend to be more financially prudent, and more likely to save money. Another showsthey tend to behave more ethically, both personally and professionally.

In fact, this study shows the degree of continuity you feel with your future self can actually predict your overall life satisfaction and well-being 10 -- yep, 10 -- years later.

As the authors of the study write:

The more connected you feel to your future self, the more likely you are to consider emotions you will feel later, not just now, like regret or guilt.

Take an interpersonal issue between two employees. Ten minutes from now, walking away will still feel good.

Ten months from now, when the bickering has escalated and spread to the people around them -- as it always does -- you'll wish you had dealt with the problem. Ten years from now, at least a few of your employees will still remember the example you didn't set... and will follow that example. How will that feel?

What you do today builds the foundation for what you will become. Who you will be in 10 months, and in 10 years, is the result of every decision you make -- and action you take -- today.

Because consistency, not intensity, produces long-term results, the choices you make and actions you take will either work for or against the goals and dreams you have for future you. 

And how, someday, you will feel about yourself.

If you want your future self to be kinder, smarter, fitter, more successful, wealthier, more generous -- whatever you hope your future self to be -- apply the 10-10-10 rule to the choices you make.

Because who you will be 10 months from now, and 10 years from now, starts with what you decide, and do, today.

And every day from now on. 

Inc

Olisa Agbakoba, former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), says the current supreme court is the “worst” in his 45 years of legal practice.

Agbakoba spoke on Thursday in Abuja at a colloquium to mark the 61st birthday of Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

The colloquium was attended by President Bola Tinubu and many political stakeholders, including members of the national assembly.

Speaking at the event, Agbakoba narrated how the “mafia” in the National Judicial Council (NJC) rejected his application to join the bench of the apex court.

“I was the first, accompanied by my brother, Wole Olanipekun, who applied because we thought we were qualified to sit at the supreme court. The mafia there threw us out,” he said.

The senior lawyer asked the national assembly to make laws for the appointment of senior judges in the country.

Agbakoba said there is a difference between the administration of justice and judicial administration.

“We still mix the administration of justice, which the national assembly cannot interfere, with judicial administration, which the national assembly can make laws,” he said.

“There should be a law governing the appointment process of senior judges. We can’t leave it to the National Judicial Council. What the constitution says is that once you are 15 years, you are qualified.

“But the National Judicial Council and supreme court judges have formed a mafia, and we don’t get there.

“With the greatest respect, this is the worst supreme court I have seen in my 45 years of practice.

“It has to change. A challenge for the national assembly to enact a law that deals with judicial administration.

“I did not say administration of justice, you can’t go there because that is the internal workings of the judiciary but judicial administration, the national assembly can make laws.

“You pass a law so that I don’t depend on the chief justice of Nigeria if I want to be a judge, the law will be passed stating the criteria to become a judge.”

Over the past few months, the judiciary, especially the supreme court, has come under criticism over election-related judgments.

In October, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, a retired supreme court justice, in his valedictory speech, faulted the composition of the panel that delivered judgment on the presidential election petitions.

Muhammed also condemned the non-representation of the north-central and south-east zones in the apex court.

The retired judge also complained that the chief justice of Nigeria (CJN) had become too powerful.

The Cable