archive

Archives de Tag: Georges Duby

Washington, 5 November 2018

We live in an age where populism, as both a totalitarian and a Manichean political attitude [1], is becoming more established on both sides of the Atlantic. An age, also, in which there is a proliferation of democratic innovations attempting to address the issues of the 21st century and the crises in representation and delegation. The question of public confidence in institutions is key, but it is based, first and foremost, on the way in which these issues should be resolved and, therefore, on the mechanisms that allow this to happen. In this respect, questioning governance in terms of its relationship with the law, as the World Bank and the World Academy of Art and Science are doing, makes sense, particularly in as turbulent a context as the one we live in today [2]. It seems that each piece of data, each reality, each fact and each change is doubted, challenged or even disputed. Individualism and the restricted thought communities in which some people seem to isolate themselves permanently prohibit any critical dialogue, permitting instead all forms of intellectual or cybernetic manipulation. Memory fades and the horizon becomes more limited, rendering any view fundamentally myopic. In an age of fake news [3], combined with superficial perspectives, all information, and also all knowledge, seems fragile and shifting. Yet, as a historian and Yale professor Timothy Snyder rightly pointed out, if there is no truth, there can be no trust, and nothing new appears in a human vacuum [4].

The democratic innovations are clearly here to fill this vacuum, by restoring meaning to collective action in which the involvement of each individual is recognised and by empowering citizens and politicians. The Destree Institute’s Wallonia Policy Lab – the Brussels Area Node for the Millennium Project – has been involved in these innovations in conjunction with the Parliament of Wallonia, based on an experiment which was launched in 1994 and which ended in 2017 and 2018, with citizens’ panels held within the parliamentary precinct itself, in dialogue with deputies and ministers. We are dealing here with the processes highlighted by Professor Archon Fung [5] which he calls “empowered deliberation” or “empowered participatory governance”, which enable officials and citizens to address complex and volatile governance issues to try and resolve them jointly [6].

In addressing some “new” governance models in Europe and the United States, we will firstly review the definition of the concept and the organisation of its models in three spheres. We will then move on to examine six mutations which have influenced and developed this model, before turning our attention to a 21st-century form of governance, as advocated by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration in the United Nations Economic and Social Council which, during its 2018 session, proposed a form of governance for Agenda 2030.

 

 1. The governance models

Behind the concept of governance, as we will use it here, lies an old idea reflecting the political science of social administration, and a more modern concept, stemming from the end of the 1980s, which represents an effort to reinvent a management model through dynamic organisation of the actors and stakeholders. This model has a history, which we will not elaborate on here, but which has its roots in the process of decolonisation and advancement of human rights and in the efforts, particularly by the United Nations and the related institutions, to shape new countries or even a new world [7].

 

1.1. Towards a definition of the concept of governance

In 1991, in a Report by the Council of the Club of Rome entitled The First Global Revolution, Alexander King (1909-2007) and Bertrand Schneider (born in 1929) use the term “governance” to denote the command mechanism of a social system (and its actions), which endeavours to provide security, prosperity, coherence, order and continuity to the system. This concept necessarily embraces the ideology of the system, which may (democratic) or may not (authoritarian) define means for the effective consideration of the public will and the accountability of those authorities. It also includes the structure of the government of the system, its policies and its procedures. Some might even say that governance is the means to provide a stable equilibrium between the various centres of power [8].

The British successor to Aurelio Peccei as President of the Club of Rome, and the French Secretary General of that organisation which was founded in 1968, note that the concept of governance, in the broadest sense, should not be reserved for national or international systems but should be used for regional, provincial and local governments and for other social systems such as education, defence, private enterprise and even the family microcosm [9]. Thus, governance includes the government and also any actor who uses the command mechanisms to articulate demand, formulate objectives, disseminate guidelines and monitor policies [10]. As the political scientist and futurist James Rosenau (1924-2011) indicates, in this fragmented world of ours, all these many and varied actors are of no less importance in the governance process than government policies. However, Rosenau, a professor at George Washington University, qualifies the idea of “command mechanism” found in the Club of Rome’s definition, preferring instead the concept of “control or steering mechanism”, which brings the concept closer to its etymological origin [11].

Steven Rosell, a Canadian researcher at the Institute for Research on Public Policy who was himself inspired by the works of the American diplomat and professor Harlan Cleveland (1918-2000) [12], offers a definition of governance that takes account of these aspects when he writes: the process of governance is the process whereby an organization or a society steers itself, adding that the dynamics of communication and control are central to that process. While the role of government is and remains central to the process of governance, in the information society more and more players, voluntary organisations, interest groups, the private sector, the media and so on – become involved in that process [13].

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has set itself the goal of advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources that help people build a better life. In its second annual report, in 1991, the UNDP suggests that underdevelopment originates from a lack of political accountability rather than a lack of funding. Since 1992, the term “governance”, combined with the democratisation of State management, has appeared in the Global Report on Human Development [14]. The UNDP, which was a co-author, defined good governance as the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. Good governance has many attributes. It is participatory, transparent and accountable. It is effective in making the best use of resources and is equitable. And it promotes the rule of law [15].

We are aware of the World Bank’s role in disseminating the concept of “good governance” as a public management model – developing accounting control to tackle corruption, building legal frameworks to promote the establishment of international free enterprise, a mechanism for decentralising services, etc. [16] The Washington institution was also at the forefront in terms of defining institutional governance:

We define governance broadly as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them [17]. We see the operational side of this definition for the World Bank, a definition which also includes a range of indicators that help to explain these various aspects of governance [18].

Other definitions have been developed over time, including those of the European Commission, the OECD and various countries. In its White Paper in 2001, the European Commission indicates that governance means rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in which they are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence [19].

As the political scientists have demonstrated, governance is a descriptive label used to highlight the changing nature of the political process over the past few decades. This concept alerts us to the ever-increasing diversity of areas and actors involved in the development of public policies. It takes into account all the actors and all the areas outside the executive framework of the policy development process [20]. The key element in both understanding and promoting governance is probably the notion of stakeholders of the particular policy or issue, which turns such parties into potential actors [21]. Whether they are engaged in action or in campaigning, it is through such involvement that actors find the legitimacy of participating in the governance of the defined territory. As for the public sector, such involvement may offer it a new opportunity to rethink its role and, consequently, a new vitality [22].

Lester Salamon, professor at John Hopkins University, has highlighted the new governance paradigm by demonstrating the transition between, on the one hand, traditional public administration based on programmes, agencies, hierarchy, public-private sector antagonism, command and control mechanisms and skills-based management, and, on the other, governance based on new tools, network logic, a constructive relationship between the public and private sectors, negotiation and persuasion and development of skills [23].

This comparison is consistent with others, particularly that between the Weberian Bureaucratic State and the Postmodern State, between government and governance, drawn up by Richards and Smith in 2002 and developed by Michael Hill [24].

diapositive1

 1.2. The three spheres of governance

The UNDP model structures the State, the private sector and civil society as three spheres of governance based on a specific division of tasks.

– The role of the State and its three powers – legislative, judiciary and executive (public services and the military) – is to create a political and legal environment and climate conducive to human development by defending interests for the public good. It is the State’s responsibility to ensure law enforcement, maintain order and security, create a national identity and vision, define a public policy and programmes, generate revenues for public services and infrastructures, draw up and implement its budget and regulate and stimulate the market.

– The private sector which, from the smallest business to the largest, grows within the market, creates and provides goods and services, along with jobs and revenues for citizens. This commercial sector is not linked to a specific territory, yet it is an element of regional development.

diapositive3

Three spheres of governance

– The private sector which, from the smallest business to the largest, grows within the market, creates and provides goods and services, along with jobs and revenues for citizens. This commercial sector is not linked to a specific territory, yet it is an element of regional development.

– Civil society, which comprises all citizens, who may be organised through non-governmental organisations, professional organisations, religious associations, women’s associations, cultural or community associations, etc., facilitates political and social interaction, particularly by mobilising groups of citizens to participate in economic, social and political activities and express a range of dynamic and varied opinions [25].

Although it makes the system easier to understand, this arrangement of the three spheres of governance does not diminish the complexity of the system. Thus, it reveals the following seven types of relationships which remain common:

– the relationship between governments and markets;

– the relationship between governments and citizens;

– the relationship between governments and the voluntary or private sectors;

– the relationship between (elected) politicians and (appointed) civil servants;

– the relationship between local government institutions and residents in towns and rural areas;

– the relationship between the legislative and the executive;

– the relationship between the Nation State and the international institutions ([26]).

In its analysis, the UNDP points out that none of the three spheres is solely responsible for good governance and cannot own it by itself. Good governance extends beyond the functions of each sphere and is a matter for their meetings and interactions. As G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Director of the Improved Management & Governance Division of the UNDP, writes, it is first and foremost a question of promoting interaction between these three spheres. The actors involved at the point where the State, the private sector and civil society meet are the keys to governance [27].

Thus, from the experience of international cooperation, globalisation and economic interdependence, it is possible to derive this approach to governance, which can be seen as a process of coordinating actors, social groups and institutions that produce compromises and political and social consensus on achieving specific goals – which are discussed and defined collectively – in fragmented and uncertain environments. This view of the concept clearly addresses the issue of the State’s role in the organisation of society. Although it radically alters the nature of the relationship between citizens and State, the governance model cannot replace the function of government. We are dealing here with a complementary approach, which involves the decision-makers and increases their expectation of collective action by relying on the other pillars of society.

We can see this in the convergence between the various definitions of the concept of governance and the issue of the position of civil society, while the capacity of civil society to enter into a global dialogue with the political sphere is central to the revitalisation of democracy and the rehabilitation of politics. The key element in both understanding and promoting governance is probably the notion of stakeholders of the particular policy or issue, which turns such parties into potential actors. It is through their action or campaigning that actors find the legitimacy of participating in the political and social arena. As for the public sector, and particularly the government, such involvement may offer it a new opportunity to rethink its role and, consequently, a new vitality [28]. Indeed, politics retains its rightful place in the new model. Its own, new political vision leads it into the heart of the system, as a facilitator and organiser of the debate and of the decisions being taken between actors. In this respect, it appears to be the mastermind, like the State [29].

2. Six mutations that influence governance

At a particular moment in history – in the early 1990s –, a search for a new equilibrium was launched between market, political and civil society actors. It may be that the third of these served to complement the first two, to try and correct the excessive pendulum swing caused by the neoliberal deregulation introduced by Reaganism and Thatcherism. Economic and civil society actors have also been able to join forces in developing countries to maintain cohesion mismanaged by discredited regimes, and have therefore been parties at the international level. The same geopolitical causes that put an end to the bipolarity of the world clearly had an effect on ideologies. Their erosion, and even their partial or total discrediting, no doubt contributed to the development or consolidation of the individualist vision that marks the supremacy of personal sovereignty over state sovereignty and reconnects with the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment and the social contract. This individualism, in which the individual is not created for the State, but rather the State is created for the individual, is emerging as a significant trend in contemporary society.

In parallel, and faced with increased globalisation, the key players are operating increasingly at the international level and are, themselves, structuring the political and social arena [30]. The European Union is a good example of a public actor, as are multinational businesses and organisations such as Google, Uber, Greenpeace and the Millennium Project.

We wanted to highlight at least six mutations that influence governance, before examining how they influence our model: (1) The Knowledge Revolution (2) the transition to sustainable development, (3) the new social trifunctionality, (4) open government, (5) the conservative and populist zeitgeist, and (6) the increasing influence of businesses.

2.1. The Knowledge Revolution

There is no need to dwell on this mutation, except to point out that it is a single trajectory which originates in the Information Revolution of the 1970s, the communication highways, the cognitive revolution, the knowledge society, the digital revolution, the internet, the genome, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc.: all these transformations, these waves of technological and societal innovations, stem from the same dynamic. This structure of structural change leads us collectively towards something else whose magnitude we have barely perceived. One of the major results is clearly the higher levels of education among citizens and the significant increase in the number of intellectuals, defined as individuals who are engaged in critical thought, supported by research and reflection on society, and who offer solutions to address its normative problems. Unlike the far too negative perception people have of it, social media is a source of training and education for many. The internet, meanwhile, contains a considerable amount of information and knowledge which helps to train citizens. Social media is producing a multitude of new tools for building communities and promoting a more deliberative and more participatory democracy, even if its harmful effects cannot be denied. As early as 1974, in The Coming of Post-industrial Society, the sociologist Daniel Bell dedicated a chapter to this key issue question: who will lead? [31]

2.2. The transition to sustainable development

This transition, which also began at the end of the 1960s with increasing awareness of the limits imposed on growth, grew very (too) slowly through the various reports produced, above all, by the United Nations, scientists, NGOs of all kinds, political parties, States and, now, businesses. Nearly all accepted the notion that sustainable development is a systemic dynamic and a quest for harmony, as advocated in the Brundtland Report in 1987. The implementation of Agenda 2030 and the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted by heads of state and governments at the Special United Nations Summit of 25 September 2015, shares this systemic aspect and takes account of the critical need to save the planet and the urgency of climate change [32], highlighted further in the IPCC report of October 2018 [33].

2.3. The new social trifunctionality

It was the anthropologist and religious historian Georges Dumézil (1898-1986) who showed, through his work on ancient myths, how societies of Indo-European origin organise human activity based on a trifunctional approach. He consistently describes three functions in the societies studied. These are exercised as separate, hierarchical powers: a religion and sovereignty function, a military function and a production and reproduction function [34]. Thus, after the Aristotelian model [35], we note the feudal system model with its three orders, described by the historian Georges Duby (1919-1996), which is based on the work of Adalbéron, bishop of Laon (1027-1030) [36], and the French Ancien Régime model with its three states, conceived by René Rémond (1918-2007) [37] but previously described by the legal scholar Charles Loyseau (1566-1627) at the beginning of the 17th century. The governance model currently in force is a continuation of this trifunctionality, but it has the particular characteristic of seeking, as we have seen, a balance between stakeholders rather than a restrictive leadership of one party over the others.

As with all of Dumézil’s analysis, each of the models has been criticised. Take, for example, the well-known issues raised by Abbé Sieyes (1748-1836) [38] or by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) [39]. The model of governance by stakeholders has also been criticised and will be again. It has also been described as a new form of corporatism, which clearly evokes some highly charged images.

 

 2.4. Open government

Taking its inspiration from the works of the OGP (Open Government Partnership) and the OECD, open government can be conceived as a citizen-centred culture of governance that utilises innovative and sustainable tools, policies and practices to promote government transparency, responsiveness and accountability to foster stakeholders’ participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth [40]. This process is intended to lead to the co-construction of collective policies that involve all governance players (public sector, businesses, civil society, etc.) and pursue the general interest and the common good. Such initiatives have been taken by leaders said to be above politics, such as Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron, and are continuing, particularly in the action plans developed under the guidance of the OGP, such as the UK-NAP: 3rd OGP National Action Plan [41].

  

2.5. The conservative and populist zeitgeist

Whether you like him as a person or not, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his speech to the TUC (Trade Union Congress) in Brighton on 12 September 2006, perfectly captured the unease felt at that time by citizens and politicians, an unease which was still in its infancy but which would continue to grow until today. The quality of this analysis deserves a lengthy quotation.

« What has changed is the interplay between globalisation, immigration and terrorism. Suddenly we feel under threat: physically from this new terrorism that is coming onto our streets, culturally as new waves of migrants change our society, and economically because an open world economy is hastening the sharpness of competition. People feel they are working longer, but are less secure. They feel the rules are changing and they never voted to change them. They feel, in a word, powerless. This is producing a pessimism that is pervasive and fearful because there seems no way through, or at least a way under our control.

There is a debate going on which, confusingly for the politicians, often crosses traditional left/right lines and the debate is: open vs closed. Do we embrace the challenge of more open societies or build defences against it? In my judgement, we need an approach that is strong and not scared that addresses people’s anxieties but does not indulge them, and above all has the right values underpinning it. The challenge won’t be overcome by policy alone, but by a powerful case made on the basis of values, most especially those that combine liberty with justice, security with tolerance and respect for others. We have to escape the tyranny of the « or » and develop the inclusive nature of the « and ».

The answer to economic globalisation is open markets and strong welfare and public service systems, particularly those like education, which equip people for change. The answer to terrorism is measures on security and tackling its underlying causes.

The answer to concern over migration is to welcome its contribution and put a system of rules in place to control it [42].

 And Tony Blair goes on to condemn economic protectionism, isolation and nativism, the political current of opposing any new immigration:

Protectionism in the economy; isolation in world affairs; nativism within our society; all, in the end, mean weakness in the face of challenge. If we believe in ourselves we can be strong. We can overcome the challenge of global change; better, we can relish its possibilities [43].

The opposite of this open concept is clearly populism, which we mentioned at the outset. In June 2017, Anthony Zurcher, the BBC News correspondent in the United States, described this attitude and its consequences: challenging the legitimacy of elected representatives, distrusting the parliamentary system, criticising the media and a financial oligarchy that seems to run the world, along with challenging scientific evidence, particularly by maintaining a sense of confusion over certain issues: the case analysed was typical: Does Trump still think climate change is a hoax? [44]

 

 2.6. The growing influence of businesses

 The growing influence of businesses is a clearly visible reality. There is little doubt that the role of businesses is better recognised in society and that their impact on governance has increased at the global and the local level. In June 2014, alluding to integrated governance, a new governance model for sustainability, the United Nations Environment Programme observed that companies have been the engine behind the unprecedented economic growth of the past century. The big companies through their operations have managed to raise billions of people from poverty, provide employment and education opportunities and unlock the human potential for innovation and creativity [45].

If we analyse the UNDP’s ‘three spheres of governance’ model, we can already see that, in what we call the first generation (Governance Model 1.0. #1stGen), from the 1980s to the middle of the 2000s the influence of the Knowledge Revolution was already being strongly exercised over the private sector and over civil society. The transition towards sustainable development was recognised mainly within civil society, whereas the social trifunctionality model was disseminated in the public sector through the international institutions.

It seems that this pattern has evolved since the middle of the 2000s towards a second-generation governance model (Governance Model 2.0. #2nd Gen) in which sustainable development is widespread throughout all levels of the public sphere to the point of becoming the official norm. The effects of the Intelligence Revolution have continued to be felt everywhere, but they are especially extensive in the public sector, particularly through the open government movement, and particularly under the influence of Barack Obama, starting from his first term in 2009. But in a world in which knowledge is valued, a new sphere is emerging that of the world of research and universities (Academia). This represents an interface, being both autonomous and a meeting and activation point for the private, public and civil society spheres, particularly through its capacity to activate collective intelligence and its academic freedom. This new sphere is challenging the social trifunctionality model.

It could be argued that the adoption and implementation of the SDGs since 2015 represents a tangible acceleration of the transition towards sustainable development and the prospect of a new generation of governance (Governance Model 3.0. #NextGen).

diapositive4

The growing influence of businesses may, in this key area of the SDGs which are the primary focus of their societal responsibility, provide valuable support, especially since awareness of sustainability in the business world has increased considerably and the resources available to public “authorities” are effectively eroded. Nevertheless, the conservative and populist zeitgeist which is disrupting the public sector and civil society may have some annoying effects, namely blocking or confusing the information and communication flows.

The impacts on the actors in governance of the six mutations in progress can be summarised in the following table.

diapositive5

 

 3. Governance for Agenda 2030?

The United Nations Committee of Experts in Public Administration (CEPA), set up by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2001, is composed of 24 members who meet every year at the UN headquarters in New York. The Committee supports the work of ECOSOC to promote the development of effective public administration and quality governance among Member States, particularly in the context of Agenda 2030, in support of the implementation and evaluation of progress in achieving the sustainable development goals. CEPA updates ECOSOC on the various aspects of governance and public administration of sustainable socio-economic development. Its particular focus is on topics relating to development of human capital, participatory governance, development of skills in countries experiencing crises or emerging from conflict, and on the various innovations in public administration and governance.

At its 17th session, which was held in New York in April 2018, the CEPA worked on the subject of preparing public institutions for the implementation of the SDGs (Readying public institutions for implementation of the SDGs). CEPA put forward recommendations on three issues it considered fundamental: firstly, preparing institutions and politicians with a view to ensuring the implementation of the sustainable development programme by 2030, then the implementation, at all levels, of efficient, responsible institutions that are open to anybody, and, finally, measures aimed at strengthening the institutions and giving them the necessary resources to transform societies and make them viable and resilient. Based on its earlier work, CEPA drew up a set of principles of effective governance to support the urgent and total achievement of all the sustainable development goals.

3.1. Effectiveness

3.1.1. Competence: to perform their functions effectively, institutions are to have sufficient expertise, resources and tools to deal adequately with the mandates under their authority (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of a professional public sector workforce, leadership development and training civil servant, financial management and control, investment in e-governement, etc.).

3.1.2. Sound policymaking: to achieve their intended results, public policies are to be coherent with one another and founded on true or well-established grounds, in full accordance with fact, reason and good sense (commonly used strategies such as: strategic planning and foresight, strengthening national statistical systems, risk management frameworks, data sharing, etc.).

3.1.3. Collaboration: to address problems of common interest, institutions at all levels of government and in all sectors should work together and jointly with non-State actors towards the same end, purpose and effect (commonly used strategies such as: centre of government coordination under the Head of State of Government, collaboration, coordination, integration and dialogue across levels of government and functional areas, raising awareness of the SDG, network-based governance, multi-stakeholder partnerships etc.).

3.2. Accountability

3.2.1. Integrity: to serve in the public interest, civil servants are to discharge their official duties honestly, fairly and in a manner consistent with soundness of moral principle (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of anti-corruption policies, practices and bodies, codes of conduct for public officials, elimination of bribery and trading in influence, conflict of interest policies, whistle-blower protection, provision of adequate remuneration and equitable pay scales for public servants, etc.).

3.2.2. Transparency: to ensure accountability and enable public scrutiny, institutions are to be open and candid in the execution of their functions and promote access to information, subject only to the specific and limited exceptions as are provided by law (commonly used strategies such as: proactive disclosure of information, budget transparency, open government data, registries of beneficial ownership, lobby registries, etc.).

3.2.3. Independent oversight: to retain trust in government, oversight agencies are to act according to strictly professional considerations and apart from and unaffected by others (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of the independence of regulatory agencies, arrangements for a review of administrative decisions by courts or other bodies, independent audit, respect for legality, etc.).

3.3. Inclusiveness

3.3.1. Leaving no one behind: to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality, public policies are to take into account the needs and aspirations of all segments of society, including the poorest and most vulnerable and those subject to discrimination (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of equitable fiscal and monetary policy, promotion of social equity, data disaggregation, systematic follow-up and review, etc.).

3.3.2. Non discrimination: to respect, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, access to public service is to be provided on general terms of equality, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of public sector workforce diversity, prohibition of discrimination in public service delivery, multilingual service delivery, accessibility standards, cultural audit of institutions, universal birth registration, gender-responsive budgeting, etc.).

3.3.3. Participation: to have an effective State, all significant political groups should be actively involved in matters that directly affect them and have a chance to influence policy (commonly used strategies such as: free and fair elections, regulatory process of public consultation, multi-stakeholder forums, participatory budgeting, community-driven development, etc.).

3.3.4. Subsidiarity: to promote government that is responsive to the needs and aspirations of all people, central authorities should perform only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more intermediate or local level (commonly used strategies such as: fiscal federalism, strengthening urban governance, strengthening municipal finance and local finance systems, enhancement of local capacity for prevention, adaptation and mitigation of external shocks, multilevel governance, etc.).

3.3.5. Intergenerational equity: to promote prosperity and quality of life for all, institutions should construct administrative acts that balance the short-term needs of today’s generation with the longer-term needs of future generations (commonly used strategies such as: sustainable development impact assessment, long-term public debt management, long-term territorial planning and spatial development, ecosystem management, etc.) [46].

These principles of effective governance, drawn up by the UN CEPA to support the urgent and total achievement of all the sustainable development goals, is a genuine roadmap from which all actors in governance must be able to draw inspiration. Not only administrations and associations, as we have seen, but also citizens, businesses and researchers. Not only will the implementation of these principles contribute to increasing sustainable development and help it to achieve its goals by 2030, but they may also improve our world and our societies, here and now.

Conclusion: Rationality and Organization in Democracy

The governance models highlighted today are certainly not being advocated only for Europe and the United States. They are recommended for the entire world, but these models are enriched considerably by the work undertaken by the major international institutions, associations and foundations. Naturally, these include the Club of Rome, the UNDP, the World Bank, the ECOSOC CEPA and the Open Government Partnership. There are others, as well, such as the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the OECD.

The objective of these initiatives is, first and foremost, to improve democracy and governance. These cannot function without being organised through structured and often procedural dialogue between stakeholders. To achieve harmony, democracy also requires rationality and method [47] from citizens and politicians. Education and training are fundamentally what sustains them on a daily basis. This should never be forgotten.

Philippe Destatte

@PhD2050

 

See also : Philippe Destatte, What is Open Government?, November 7, 2017.

Direct access to PhD2050’s English Papers

 

[1] As Emiliano GROSSMAN and Nicolas SAUGER note in Pourquoi détestons-nous autant nos politiques?, p. 71-72, Paris, Presses de Science Po, 2017, populism is, if we accept the contemporary definitions of the term (including Cas MUDDE, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.), first and foremost a partial ideology (in that it does not offer a full and comprehensive explanation of the world), built around two principles: total separation between the people and the elite (the people being good, the elite being corrupt), and subjection of politics to the general will. In other words, populism is based on a negation of pluralism (the people are a homogeneous whole) and a form of Manichaeism (the people are good, the elite are evil) Our translation. – See also Colin HAY, Why we hate politics, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2007.

[2] This text is an updated version of my speech at the “Round table on Governance & Law: Challenges & Opportunities” seminar held at the World Bank in Washington at the instigation of the World Academy of Art and Science and the World University Consortium, on 5 and 6 November 2018.

[3] Although the historian recalls that rumours are not specific to the information society or the knowledge society. See François-Bertrand HUYGHE, La désinformation, les armes du faux, Paris, A. Colin, 2016. – Fake News, la Grande Peur, 2018.

[4] Timothy SNYDER, The Road to Unfreedom, Russia, Europe, America, p. 279, New York, Tim Duggan, 2018.

[5] Archon Fung is Professor of Citizenship and Governance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

[6] Archon FUNG, Democratizing the Policy Process, in Michael MORAN, Martin REIN & Robert E. GOODIN, The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, p. 682, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. – A. FUNG, Empowered Deliberation: Reinventing Urban Democracy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2004.

[7] See inter alia Louis EMMERIJ, Richard JOLLY, Thomas G. WEISS, Ahead of the Curve?, UN Ideas and Global Challenges, New York – Geneva, UN-Indiana University Press, 2001. – id., En avance sur leur temps?, Les idées des Nations Unies face aux défis mondiaux, p. 229sv., Blonay, Van Diermen – ADECO – Geneva, United Nations, 2003. – Thomas G. WEISS, Governance, Good Governance, and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges, Third World Quarterly 21, n°5, October 2000, p. 795-814.

[8] Alexander KING & Bertrand SCHNEIDER, The First Global Revolution, p. 114, New York-Hyderabad, Pantheon Books – Orient Longman, 1991. – It should be noted that, in the French translation of this report, which was prepared by Jacques Fontaine and published in Paris in 1991, the term governance is translated by « structures de gouvernement [structures of government]”, thus indicating that its use is France is not yet widespread. A. KING & B. SCHNEIDER, Questions de survie, La Révolution mondiale a commencé, p. 163, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1991.

[9] A. KING & B. SCHNEIDER, The First Global Revolution : A Report of the Council of Rome…, p. 181-182.

[10] James N. ROSENAU & Ernst-Otto CZEMPIEL ed., Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. – J.N. ROSENAU, Along the Domestic Frontier, Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, p. 145, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

[11] « Governance » is understood to come from the Greek kybenan or kybernetes (as in cybernetics), which means to steer or control. J.N. ROSENAU, Along..., p. 146.

[12] Harlan Cleveland, former United States Ambassador to NATO, president of the World Academy of Arts and Science, had himself used the term since the 1970s. – The organizations that get things done will no longer be hierarchical pyramids with most of the real control at the top. They will be systems—interlaced webs of tension in which control is loose, power diffused, and centers of decision plural. “Decision-making” will become an increasingly intricate process of multilateral brokerage both inside and outside the organization which thinks it has the responsibility for making, or at least announcing, the decision. Because organizations will be horizontal, the way they are governed is likely to be more collegial, consensual, and consultative. The bigger the problems to be tackled, the more real power is diffused and the larger the number of persons who can exercise it — if they work at it. Harlan CLEVELAND, The Future Executive: A Guide for Tomorrow’s Managers, p. 13, New York, Harper & Row, 1972.

[13] Steven A. ROSELL ea, Governing in an Information Society, p. 21, Montréal, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1992.

[14] UNDP and governance, Experiences and Lessons Learned, UNDP, Management Development and Governance, Lessons-Learned, Series, n°1, p. 9. – Richard Jolly, Director General of Unicef, special advisor to the UNDP Administrator and the driving force behind the Human Development Report, and the conference entitled Good governance and democratisation: the role of the international organisations, Ottawa, United Nations Association in Canada (UNA-Canada), 16 and 17 October 1997. – Une nouvelle gouvernance mondiale au service de l’humanité et de l’équité, dans Rapports mondial sur le développement humain 1999, p. 97-123, New-York, UNDP – Paris-Brussels, De Boeck-Larcier, 1999.

[15] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD : cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement, http://www.unac.org/français/activites/gouvernance/partieun.html 17/02/02. Shabbir CHEEMA directeur de la Division du Renforcement de la Gestion et de la Gouvernance au PNUD. – Another definition given by the UNDP is that of Public Sector Management, which dates from 1995: governance or public management encompasses the direct and indirect management by the state of public affairs and regulatory control of private activities that impinge on human affairs. Governance can best be understood in terms of three major components: first, the form of political authority that exists in a country (parliamentary or presidential, civilian or military, and autocratic or democratic; second, the means through which authority is exercised in the management of economic and social resources; and third, the ability of governments to discharge government functions effectively , efficiently, and equitably through the design, formulation, and implementation of sound policies. dans Public Sector Management, Governance, and Sustainable Human Development, Discussion Paper 1, Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, p. 19, New-York, United Nations Development Programme, 1995. – In 1997, a new study by the Management Development & Governance Division, prefaced by G. Shabbir Cheema, gave a very similar definition to the one presented in Ottawa: Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. it comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. In Governance for sustainable human development, A UNDP policy document, p. 3, New-York, United Nations Development Programme, 1997.

[16] See, for example: J. ISHAM, Daniel KAUFMANN & Lant PRITCHETT, Governance and Returns on Investment, Washington, The World Bank, 1995. – Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries, Washington, The World Bank, 1996. – Francis NG and Alexander YEATS, Good Governance and Trade Policy, Are They the Keys to Africa’s Global Integration and Growth? Washington, The World Bank, 10 November 1998. – Michael WOOLCOCK, Globalization, Governance and Civil Society, DECRG Policy Research on Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Facts, Fears, and Agenda for Action, Background Paper, Washington, The World Bank, 10 August 2001.

[17] We define governance broadly as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the governement to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Governance Matters, Washington, World Bank, 1999. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance. 16/02/02. Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Gestion des Affaires publiques, De l’évaluation à l’action, dans Finances et Développement, June 2000, p. 1.

[18] Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Aggregating Governance Indicators, Washington, World Bank, 1999. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance. 16/02/2002.

[19] Governance means rules, processes and behavior that affect the way in which they are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openess, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. European Governance, A White Paper, July 25, 2001, p. 8.

[20] David RICHARDS & Martin SMITH, Governance and the Public Policy in the UK, p. 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[21] La société civile et l’OCDE, in Synthèses, Paris, OCDE, December 2001, p. 1.

[22] Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools Approach and the New Governance: Conclusion and Implications, in Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government, A Guide to the New Governance, p. 600-610 , New-York, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[23] L. M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government… p. 9, 2002.

[24] David RICHARDS & Martin J. SMITH, Governance and Public Policy in the UK, p. 36, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002. – Michaël HILL, The Public Policy Process, p. 21, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 5th ed, 2009.

[25] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD: cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement…, p. 10. – Governance includes the state, but transcends it by taking in the private sector and civil society. All three are critical for sustaining human development. The state creates a conducive political and legal environment. The private sector generates jobs and income. And civil society facilitates political and social interaction – mobilising groups to participate in economic, social and political activities. Because each has weaknesses and strengths, a major objective of our support for good governance is to promote constructive interaction among all three. Governance for Sustainable Human Development, A UNDP Policy Document, United Nations Development Programme, January 1997.

[26] Sam AGERE, Promoting Good Governance, Principles, Practices and Perspectives, p. 1, London, Commonwealth Secretariat, Management and Training Services Division, 2000.

[27] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD: cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement…, p. 10.

[28] La société civile et l’OCDE, in Synthèses, Paris, OCDE, December 2001, p. 1.

[29] Philippe DELMAS, La maître des horloges, Modernité de l’action publique, Paris, Odile Jacobs, 1991.

[30] M. HILL, The Public Policy Process…, p. 20.

[31] Daniel BELL, The Coming of Post-industrial Society, p. 339, London, Heinemann, 1974.

[32] Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

[33] Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC approved by governments, 8 October 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[34] Georges DUMEZIL, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, Paris, Gallimard, 1941.

[35] ARISTOTLE, Ethique à Nicomaque (349 ANC), p. 43sv, Paris, Vrin, 1997.

[36] Georges DUBY, The Three Orders, Feudal Society Imagined, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

[37] René REMOND, L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, p. 64sv., Paris, Seuil, 1974.

[38] Emmanuel Joseph SIEYES, Qu’est-ce que le Tiers état? (1789), Paris, Editions du Boucher, 2002.

[39] K. MARX & F. ENGELS, Manifesto of The Communist Party (1847).

[40] OECD, Open Governement, The Global context and the way forward, p. 19, Paris, OECD Publishing, 2016. – In November 2017, the OECD published this work in French, using the following definition: a culture of governance that is based on innovative, sustainable policies and practices inspired by principles of transparency, accountability and participation to promote democracy and inclusive growth. OECD, Gouvernement ouvert: Contexte mondial et perspectives, Editions OCDE, Paris. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264280984-fr

[41] Policy paper, UK Open Government National Action Plan 2016-18, 12 May 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-open-government-national-action-plan-2016-18/uk-open-government-national-action-plan-2016-18

[42] Full Text of Tony Blair’s Speech to the TUC (Trade Union Congress), Brighton, Sept. 12, 2006. in The Guardian, 12 sept. 2006. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/12/tradeunions.speeches

[43] Ibidem.

[44] Anthony ZURCHER, Does Trump still think climate change is a hoax ? BBC News, June 2, 2017.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40128034

[45] Companies have been the engine behind the unprecedented economic growth of the past century. The big companies through their operations have managed to raise billions of people from poverty, provide employment and education opportunities and unlock the human potential for innovation and creativity. Integrated Governance, A New Model of Governance for Sustainability, p. 8, United Nations Environment Programme, June 2014.

[46] UN, Committee of Experts on Public Administration, Report on the Seveneenth Session (23-27 April 2018), p. 18-21, New York, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 2018, Supplement N°24. E/2018/44-E/C.16/2018/8.

[47] We are thinking, in particular, of issues relating to mutual adjustment in developing policies. See Philippe ZITTOUN, La fabrique des politiques publiques, Une approche pragmatique de l’action publique, p. 201sv, Paris, Presses de Science Po, 2013.

Referring to a study in March 2017 by the Institute for the Future (Palo Alto, California), the Mosan Free University College (HELMo) [1] noted, at the start of the 2018-2019 academic year, that 85% of the jobs in 2030 have not yet been invented [2]. The HELMo team rightly pointed out that population ageing, climate and energy changes, mass migrations and, of course, digital technologies, robotisation and other scientific advances are all drivers of change that will revolutionise the entire world. Highlighting its vocational emphasis as a higher education institution, it wondered whether the jobs for which it was training people today would still exist tomorrow. At the same time, its Director-President Alexandre Lodez, along with the teaching staff representative, lawyer Vincent Thiry, and the student representative, pointed out that HELMo did not only want to train human operational resources in response to a particular demand from the labour market, but also wanted to train responsible citizens capable of progressing throughout their careers and lives. Everyone was asking a key question: What, therefore, are the key skills to be consolidated or developed?

I will try to answer this question in three stages.

Firstly, by mentioning the global upheavals and their effects on jobs. Then, by drawing on a survey carried out by futurists and experts from around the world this summer, the results of which were summarised in early September 2018. And finally, by a short conclusion expressing utopia and realism.

1. Global upheavals

On the issue of technical and economic changes, we could proceed by mentioning the many contemporary studies dealing with this topic, including those by Jeremy Rifkin [3], Chris Anderson [4], Dorothée Kohler and Jean-Daniel Weisz [5], François Bourdoncle and Pierre Veltz and Thierry Weil [6]. We could also describe the New Industrial Paradigm [7]. Or, to reflect current events, we could even call on Thierry Geerts, head of Google Belgium, whose work, Digitalis [8] is very popular at present.

But it is to Raymond Collard that I will refer. Former professor at the University of Namur, Honorary Director-General of the Research, Statistics and Information Service at the Ministry of the Wallonia Region – the current Public Service of Wallonia – and scientific coordinator of the permanent Louvain Research and Development Group, Raymond Collard was born in 1928, but his death in Jemeppe-sur-Meuse on 8 July 2018 was met with indifference by Wallonia. It was only through an email from my colleague and friend André-Yves Portnoff on 13 September that I learned, from Paris, about his death.

On 15 March 1985, an article in the journal La Wallonie caught my attention. The title of this paper by Raymond Collard was provocative: Seeking Walloon pioneers! But the question was specific and could be asked again thirty-three years later: Are there, among the readers of this journal, men and women who can identify large or small businesses in Wallonia that truly live according to the principles of the “intelligence revolution”? The paper made reference to the presentation, in Paris, of the report drawn up by a team led by futurists: according to the report on the state of technology, we are witnessing the advent not of the information society, as is often said, particularly in Japan, but of the “creation society”, whose vital resource is intelligence and talent rather than capital. That is also why we talk of the intelligence revolution, a revolution which requires the harnessing of intelligence, something which cannot be done by force. The normal relationships between power and skills are altered at all levels.

The report itself, entitled La Révolution de l’intelligence [9], complemented my reading of the works of John Naisbitt [10] and Alvin Toffler [11]. It was described extensively by Raymond Collard. This relationship builder, as André-Yves Portnoff [12] called him, had travelled to Paris for the presentation of this document by Thierry Gaudin, civil engineer and head of the Centre de Prospective et d’Évaluation [Foresight and Assessment Centre] at the French ministry of Research, and Portnoff, then editor-in-chief of Sciences et Techniques, published by the French Society of Scientists and Engineers. The Minister for Research and Technology, Hubert Currien, and the Minister for Industrial Redeployment and Foreign Trade Edith Cresson were present at the event. Both were members of the government of Laurent Fabius while François Mitterrand was President of the Republic. It is not surprising that two ministers were present since the Centre de Prospective et d’Évaluation (CPE) was a service common to both ministries.

S-T_Revolution-Intelligence_1985

After finding this report, then photocopying it in the library, I literally devoured it – and then bought it on eBay. In 2018, it spells out a first clear message: the upheavals we are experiencing today are not new, even if they seem to be gathering momentum. Another message from Thierry Gaudin is that the cognitive revolution, reflected in the changes underway, has been ongoing since the start of the 1970s and will continue for several more decades.

I was not surprised then, as I am not surprised now. The conceptual context of the evolution of the technological system, leading to widespread change in all areas of society, is one I was familiar with. It had been taught to me at the University of Liège by Professor Pierre Lebrun, a historian and economist with a brilliant, incisive mind, whose astute words I would go and listen to, as one might listen to some freebooter down at the harbour. I taught this conceptual context to my students at Les Rivageois (Haute École Charlemagne) and at the High School Liège 2, and I teach it still at the University of Mons and even in Paris. Which is only fitting.

The analysis model for this context was conceptualised by Bertrand Gille, a technology historian and Professor at the École pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. In it, the director of the remarkable Histoire des Techniques in L’Encyclopédie de La Pléade, at Gallimard [13], clearly showed that it was the convergence of the rapid changes in the levels of training among the population and the spread of scientific and technical knowledge that was the driver of the technological progress that brought about the engineering Industrial Revolution. It will come as no surprise that Bertrand Gille was also a former teacher of Professor Robert Halleux, who was himself the founder of the Science and Technology Centre at the University of Liège. In this way, Bertrand Gille left his mark on several generations of researchers, historians and futurists, some devoting themselves to just one of the tasks, others to the other, and still others to both.

This model, which was reviewed by Jacques Ellul and Thierry Gaudin, imagines that the medieval technological system, highlighted by Fernand Braudel, Georges Duby and Emmanuel Leroy Ladurie, corresponds to an industrial technological system, which was the driving force and the product of an Industrial Revolution, described by Pierre Lebrun, Marinette Bruwier et al.[14], and, finally, a technological system under development, under construction, fostering the Intelligence Revolution and far from over. Land was key in the first revolution, capital in the second, and the third is based on the minds of men and women. Each time, it is materials, energy, the relationship with living beings and time that are involved.

In 1985, Raymond Collard explained what he had clearly understood from the report produced by Gaudin and Portnoff and the several hundred researchers they enlisted: the importance of the four major changes in the poles that are restructuring society:

– the huge choice of materials and their horizontal percolation, ranging from uses in the high-tech sectors to more common uses;

– the tension between nuclear power and saving energy resources, in a context of recycling;

– the relationship with living beings and the huge field of biotechnology, including genetics;

– the new structure of time punctuated in nanoseconds by microprocessors.

Raymond Collard explored all these points some time later in a remarkable speech to the first Wallonia toward the future Congress in Charleroi, in October 1987, entitled: Foresight 2007 … recovering from the crisis, changes in work production methods and employment, which is still available online on The Destree Institute website [15]. In this speech, Collard, who was Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Namur, noted the following: it has been written that microelectronics is intellectualising industry. We are experiencing an industrial revolution that can be described as an “intelligence revolution”. The development of the possibilities created by the dramatic advances in microelectronics has opened up vast spheres to computer technology. Tomorrow, we will make greater use of artificial intelligence, which will be in evidence everywhere with the implementation of fifth-generation computers [16].

The 1985 report by the CPE remains a mine of information for anyone wanting to understand the changes underway, by looking both retrospectively – examining futures that did not happen – and prospectively – envisaging possible futures to construct a desirable future. There are some precepts to be drawn that are useful mainly for higher educational institutions and our businesses. The following give us cause to reflect:

experience shows that the introduction of new technologies is harmonious only if the training comes before the machines” (p.15).

it is no longer possible to develop quality without giving each person control over their own work” (p.15).

giving a voice only to management means wasting 99% of the intellectual resources in the business” or the organisation. (…) Harnessing all the intelligence is becoming essential (p.42).

“a successful company is one that is best able to harness the imagination, intelligence and desire of its staff” (45).

“the new source of power is not money in the hands of a few, but information in the hands of many”. Quotation taken from the works of John Naisbitt (p.45).

But, above all, the text shows, in the words of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, that the essence of technology has nothing to do with technology [17]. Everything in technology was first dreamed up by man, and what has been successful has also been accepted by human society, states the report [18]. For this report on the state of technology is also a lesson in foresight. It reminds us, specifically through retrospect, that we are very poor at anticipating what does not already exist. Of course, as Gaston Berger stated on several occasions, the future does not exist as an object of knowledge. It exists solely as a land for conquest, desire and strategy. It is the place, along with the present, where we can innovate and create.

We often mistakenly believe that technologies will find their application very quickly or even immediately. Interviewed in February 1970 about 1980, the writer Arthur Koestler, author of Zero and Infinity, envisaged – as we do today – our houses inhabited by domestic robots that are programmed every morning. He imagined electric mini-cars in city centres closed to all other forms of traffic. He thought that telematic communications would, in 1980, allow us to talk constantly by video so as to avoid travelling. Interviewed at the same time, the great American futurist Herman Kahn, cofounder of the Hudson Institute, imagined that, in 1980, teaching would be assisted by computers which would play, for children, an educational role equivalent to the role filled by their parents and teachers[19].

The world continues to change, sustained, and also constrained, by the four poles. The transition challenges us and we are trying to give the impression that we are in control of it, even if we have no idea what we will find during its consolidation phase, sometime in the 22nd century.

Which jobs will survive these upheavals? Such foresight concerning jobs and qualifications is difficult. It involves identifying changes in employment and jobs while the labour market is changing, organisations are changing and the environment and the economic ecosystem are changing. But it also involves taking into account the possible life paths of the learners in this changing society [20], anticipating skills needs and measuring workforce turnover.

What we have also shown, by working with the area authorities, vocational education institutions and training bodies is that it is often at micro and territorial level that we are able to anticipate, since it seems that the project areas will be required, in ten to fifteen years at the latest, to be places for interaction and the implementation of (re)harmonised education, training and transformation policies for our society, with varying degrees of decentralisation, deconcentration, delegation, contractualisation and stakeholder autonomy. It is probably the latter context that will be the most creative and innovative, and one in which progress must be made. This requires cohesive, inspirational visions per area at the European, federal, regional and territorial level.

In leading the permanent Louvain Research and Development Group since the mid-1960s, particularly with the help of Philippe le Hodey and Michel Woitrin and the support of Professor Philippe de Woot, Raymond Collard had successfully set up and operated a genuine platform of the sort advocated by the European Commission today. Referring, as always, to Thierry Gaudin, he noted in 2000 that understanding innovation means grasping technology, not in terms of what is already there but in terms of revealing what is not yet there [21]. And although Raymond Collard recognised that this required a considerable R&D effort, he observed that this was not enough: as an act of creation which the market has to validate, innovation is the result of an interdisciplinary and interactive process, consisting of interactions within the business itself and between the business and its environment, particularly in terms of “winning” and managing knowledge and skills [22]. With, at the heart its approach, the idea, dear to François Perroux and highlighted by the work of the Louvain Research and Development Group in 2002, that a spirit is creative if it is both open and suited to combining what it receives and finding new combinatorial frameworks [23].

This thought is undoubtedly still powerful, and will remain so.

2. Foresight: from technological innovation to educational innovation

Like any historian, the futurist cannot work without raw material, without a source. For the latter, collective intelligence is the real fuel for his innovative capacity.

To that end, in 2000, The Destree Institute joined the Millennium Project. This global network for future studies and research was founded in 1996 in Washington by the American Council for the United Nations University, with the objective of improving the future prospects for humanity. It is a global participatory think tank, organised in more than sixty nodes, which are themselves heads of networks, involving universities, businesses and private and public research centres. Since 2002, The Destree Institute has represented the Brussels-Area Node which aims to be cross-border and connected with the European institutions [24].

The-Millennium-Project_logo250

In preparation for a wide-ranging study entitled Future Work/Technology 2050, the Millennium Project Planning Committee drafted some global scenarios to which they sought reactions from around 450 futurists and other researchers or stakeholders. A series of seminars was organised in twenty countries in order to identify the issues and determine appropriate strategies to address them. It was on this basis that a series of real-time consultations with experts (Real-Time Delphi) was organised on issues of education and learning, government and governance, businesses and work, culture and art and science and technology. From a series of 250 identified actions, 20 were selected by the panel of experts in the field of education and learning.

The complete list of the 20 actions is shown below. I have ordered them, for the first five at least, according to their level of relevance – effectiveness and feasibility –, as they were ranked by the international panel.

The first action on this list concerns the educational axes. This involves:

4. Increase focus on developing creativity, critical thinking, human relations, philosophy, entrepreneurship (individual and teams), art, self-employment, social harmony, ethics, and values, to know thyself to build and lead a meaningful working life with self-assessment of progress on one’s own goals and objectives (as Finland is implementing). 

The second will delight futurist teachers, since it involves:

20. Include futures as we include history in the curriculum. Teach alternative visions of the future, foresight, and the ability to assess potential futures. 

The third action is a measure of social cohesion:

6. Make Tele-education free everywhere; ubiquitous, lifelong learning systems.

The fourth, in my view, is probably the most important at the operational level:

2. Shift education/learning systems more toward mastering skills than mastering a profession. 

The fifth will totally transform the system:

3. In parallel to STEM (and/or STEAM – science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) create a hybrid system of self-paced inquiry-based learning for self-actualization; retrain teachers as coaches using new AI tools with students.

The 15 other actions are listed in no particular order, some complementing initiatives on the ground, particularly in the Liège-Luxembourg academic Pole.

1. Make increasing individual intelligence a national objective of education (by whatever definition of intelligence a nation selects, increasing “it” would be a national objective). 

5. Continually update the way we teach and how we learn from on-going new insights in neuroscience. 

7. Unify universities and vocational training centres and increase cooperation between schools and outside public good projects.

8. Utilize robots and Artificial Intelligence in education. 

9. Focus on exponential technologies and team entrepreneurship.

10. Change curriculum at all levels to normalize self-employment. 

11. Train guidance counsellors to be more future-oriented in schools. 

12. Share the responsibility of parenting as an educational community. 

13. Promote “communities of practice” that continually seek improvement of learning systems. 

14. Integrate Simulation-Based Learning using multiplayer environments. 

15. Include learning the security concerns with respect to teaching (and learning) technology. 

16. Incorporate job market intelligence systems into education and employment systems. 

17. The government, employers across all industry sectors, and the labour unions should cooperate in creating adequate models of lifelong learning. 

18. Create systems of learning from birth to three years old; this is the key stage for developing creativity, personality. 

19. Create mass public awareness campaigns with celebrities about actions to address the issues in the great transitions coming up around the world [25].

We can appreciate that these actions do not all have the same relevance, status or potential impact. That is why the top five have been highlighted. However, the majority are based on a proactive logic of increasing our capacities for educating and emancipating men and women. The fact that these actions have been thought about on all continents, by disparate stakeholders, with a genuine convergence of thought, is certainly not insignificant.

3. Conclusion: in the long term, humans are the safest bet

As regards Wallonia, and Liège in particular, we are familiar with the need to create value collectively so that we are able to make ourselves autonomous and so that we can be certain of being able to face the challenges of the future. Without question, we must place social cohesion and energy and environmental risks at the top of this list of challenges. Innovative and creative capacities will be central to the skills that our young people and we ourselves must harness to address these challenges. These needs can be found at the core of the educational and learning choices up to 2050 identified by the Millennium Project experts.

The 1985 report on The Intelligence Revolution, as highlighted by Raymond Collard, is both distant from us in retroforesight terms and close to us in terms of the relevance of the long-term challenges it contains. In this respect, it fits powerfully and pertinently into our temporality. In the report, Thierry Gaudin and André-Yves Portnoff noted that setting creation in motion means sharing questions before answers and accepting uncertainty and drift. Dogmatism is no longer possible (…) as a result, utopia is evolving into realism. In the long term, humans are the safest bet [26].

Of course, betting on humans has to be the right decision. It is men and women who are hard at work, and who must remain so. This implies that they are capable of meeting the challenges, their own and also those of the society in which they operate. Technically. Mentally. Ethically.

Philippe Destatte

@PhD2050

[1] This text is a revised version of a speech made at the start of the HELMo 2018-2019 academic year, on 18 September 2018, on the subject of The jobs of tomorrow... A question of intelligence.

[2] The experts that attended the IFTF workshop in March 2017 estimated that around 85% of the jobs that today’s learners will be doing in 2030 haven’t been invented yet. This makes the famous prediction that 65% of grade school kids from 1999 will end up in jobs that haven’t yet been created seem conservative in comparison. The next era of Human/Machine Partnerships, Emerging Technologies, Impact on Society and Work in 2030, Palo Alto, Cal., Institute for the Future – DELL Technologies, 2017.

http://www.iftf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/th/SR1940_IFTFforDellTechnologies_Human-Machine_070717_readerhigh-res.pdf

[3] In particular, his best book: Jeremy RIFKIN, The End of Work, The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the PostMarket Era, New York, Tarcher, 1994.

[4] Chris ANDERSON, Makers, The New Industrial Revolution, New York, Crown Business, 2012.

[5] Dorothée KOHLER and Jean-Daniel WEISZ, Industrie 4.0, Les défis de la transformation numérique du modèle industriel allemand, p. 11, Paris, La Documentation française, 2016.

[6] François BOURDONCLE, La révolution Big Data, in Pierre VELTZ and Thierry WEIL, L’industrie, notre avenir, p. 64-69, Paris, Eyrolles-La Fabrique de l’Industrie, Colloque de Cerisy, 2015.

[7] Philippe DESTATTE, The New Industrial Paradigm, Keynote at The Industrial Materials Association (IMA-Europe) 20th Anniversary, IMAGINE event, Brussels, The Square, September 24th, 2014, Blog PhD2050, September 24, 2014.

https://phd2050.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/nip/

[8] Thierry GEERTS, Digitalis, Comment réinventer le monde, Brussels, Racine, 2018.

[9] La Révolution de l’intelligence, Rapport sur l’état de la technique, Paris, Ministère de l’Industrie et de la Recherche, Sciences et Techniques Special Edition, October 1983.

[10] John NAISBITT, Megatrends, Ten New Directions Transforming our Lives, New York, Warner Book, 1982. – London and Sydney, Futura – Macdonald & Co, 1984.

[11] Alvin TOFFLER, The Third Wave, New York, William Morrow and Company, 1980.

[12] André-Yves PORTNOFF, Raymond Collard, un tisseur de liens, Note, Paris, 10 September 2018.

[13] Bertrand GILLE dir., Histoire des Techniques, Techniques et civilisations, Technique et sciences, Paris, Gallimard, 1978.

[14] Pierre LEBRUN, Marinette BRUWIER, Jan DHONDT and Georges HANSOTTE, Essai sur la Révolution industrielle en Belgique, 1770-1847, Brussels, Académie royale, 1981.

[15] Raymond COLLARD, Prospective 2007… sorties de la crise, transformations des modes de production, du travail et de l’emploi, dans La Wallonie au futur, Cahier n°2, p. 124, Charleroi, The Destree Institute, 1987.

http://www.wallonie-en-ligne.net/Wallonie-Futur-1_1987/WF1-CB05_Collard-R.htm

[16] R. COLLARD, Prospective 2007…, p. 124.

[17] This was his 1953 lecture. Martin HEIDEGGER, Essais et conférences, Paris, Gallimard, 1958. – Our translation.

[18] La Révolution de l’intelligence…, p. 182.

[19] La Révolution de l’intelligence…, p. 24.

[20] Didier VRANCKEN, L’histoire d’un double basculement, preface to D. VRANCKEN, Le crépuscule du social, Liège, Presses universitaires de Liège, 2014.

[21] Thierry GAUDIN, Les dieux intérieurs, Philosophie de l’innovation, Strasbourg, Koenigshoffen, Cohérence, 1985.

[22] Raymond COLLARD, Le Groupe permanent Recherche – développement de Louvain, p. 11, Brussels, Centre scientifique et Technique de la Construction (CSTC), 2000.

[23] Permanent Leuven Research and Development Group, 37th year, Peut-on industrialiser la créativité?, 2002. – François PERROUX, Industrie et création collective, t. 1, Saintsimonisme du XXe siècle et création collective, p. 166, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1964.

[24] http://www.millennium-project.org/

[25] Jerome GLENN, Results of the Education and Learning Real-Time Delphi that assessed 20 long-range actions to address future works-technology dynamics, Sept 2, 2018.

[26] La Révolution de l’intelligence…, p. 187.