Between the coast, the main train station and a run-down parking garage, the GES 2011 was a great event. Here are some concluding remarks:

A recurring claim: New mechanisms

One statement that appeared in all panels was that old mechanisms for governments interacting with each other on a global level don’t work anymore. They were designed in an other time after the Second World War: The Bretton-Woods-System and its executive institutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank took care about the financial systems and the economic development of what used to be called Third World Countries.

The United Nations were the mechanism for foreign policy and diplomacy. The security council can influence war and peace as well as sending troupes. Probably the European Union was the most successful form of international coordination and collaboration, leading its countries to a common market and in parts even to a common currency. All three examples suffered from high level misuse: Nearly 70 times Eurozone governments ignored the limits of a 3 percent deficit cap compared to the GDP and went over the allowed 60 percent sovereign debt relative to the GDP. The United States ignoried the security council, when it decided to go to war in Iraq. The IMF and the Worldbank were highly critized for supposedly wrong recommendations towards Asian and Southamerican countries in their currency crisis in the late 1990s. All these things accounted for a loss of credibility.

This is very likely a reason why in nearly all panels there were requests for reforms or even for totally new forms of collaboration. The most radical version was Wolfgang Kleinwächter’s call for a decentralized multistakeholder-model for governing the internet. In the macro session about global imbalances there was a proposition to create a Bretton-Woods-System 2.0 (without an explanation how this should look like). More realistically, a reform of the IMF would be a feasible goal, even though this is probably the least radical step). In the panel about global governance there were similar remarks, for instance: “The institutions today were designed for yesterday.”

Openness

It is kind of a schizophrenic situation: Inside, the GES tries to be a transparent and free place for thinking using surveys, wikis and collaborating with young bloggers. To the outside world the GES is an event, to which leaders from all over the world are debating in a high-class hotel behind security. Their solutions are only distributed to governments, NGOs and so on, but not accessible for the general public. Basically, it is like Yannik Horas, my blogging colleague, put it: “When you’re not in, you’re out”.

The Chatham House Rule

Most panels were held off record following the Chatham House Rule: It is not allowed to cite or even indicate who exactly made a certain statement. This code of conduct grants panelists the possibility to speak frankly and without self-censorship. But in my opinion, there was not one of the statements extraordinarily surprising or provocative – at least not in the four panels I was attending. I don’t think the Chatham House Rule is neccessary. On the other hand, I have never been to a comparable conference and maybe it is quite common to report imprecisely.

Probably the most honest and surprising statement came from a relatively small countries former politician saying that not every single country in the world might be in need of its very own foreign policy. Consequently this would mean to voluntarily give up executive power.

Missing: Women

The quota of women was ridiculously low: In my four panels (each held by five persons) there were only two women in total (one of them was the moderator) which means 10 percent in total numbers.

• Arun Maira is an elegant man with grey hair, strong tractions and a smile that makes him look like a boy. He seems pretty vital for a 67 old man. Living in Dehli, India,  he serves there as a member of the economic planning commission. He had studied physics before working for Tata Group for 25-years. Later he was with the Boston Consulting Group. He publishes articles and books.
• The Planning Commission of India is a governmental institution, that givesdirections for economic development in five-year plans. Until 1990s the policies were rather restrictive, following socialist ideas. Since then, economic policy has changed and the economy opened up. The latest,eleventh five-year plan is for 2007 to 2012.
• In an interview in the wine cellar of the hotel Atlantic Arun Maira talks about India’s economic situation, the need of participation in a democracy and an a better system in the “new normal”.

India’s economy was liberalized in the early 1990s. Why is there still a planning commission?

Arun Maira: Because there was one. When things change it takes a while. Two years ago, when the new government came, they asked the question you are asking. And the answer was: No, we should not have a Plannig Commission. The challenges in India are a lot of change for the country. For doing the right thing you need to have a kind of radar. The planning commission need cannot say the people what to do or not to do like 50 years ago, but you can give them very good insight and information. This required to be fulfilled by somebody and the best organization available is the Planning Commission.

So it is rather a think-tank?

The Planning Commisson is situated at the right level, chaired by the prime minister. It invites experts in different fields to its members, like myself in industry. It is a think tank embedded in government, so it is like an official think tank.

India is one of the fastest growing economies. What is the basis for this?

One is that we have very large unfulfilled potential. We have a lot to improve in terms of productivity and efficiency. Second is that we are a young country, so there are a lot of people with energy and new minds. This also gives a boost.

The prices have been rising for a while. Do you think, inflation could become a problem for the growth and slow it down?

The prices rise especially in food items, which raises the pain for the poorest people in the country, and there are lots of them. This results in political pressure to do something about the inflation. What can be done by the central bank is to increase interest rates to dampen the demand, but this also dampens supply. And so it can have a countereffect, of actually reducing availablilty and therefore increasing the prices.

What are the biggest challenges for India in the next decades?

We have a very large number of people coming into workforce. In the next ten years we need to create 300 million more jobs. If you don’t do something the economy won’t grow. The other more serious problem is the social and political problem that will arise if lots of young people don’t have jobs. The second challenge is that choices have to be made for the future. And these choices need to be understood by everyone in a democratic country, because they can vote. You don’t even have to wait for an election. You can stall the process of governmental decision making by your protest. So the people at large need to understand, where the country could be if certain things are done and where if certain things are not done. The people in the country need to see, where the country is going. The plans cannot be expressed anymore in numbers, like GDP or saving rates numbers, because they mean next to nothing to most common people. So you need to talk to people in images and languages that they understand. The challenge is to have a method of participating in the political planning.

How do you want to achieve this?

By asking the people. We are having to use simpler tools. The internet ist not used by too many people, in percentage only one fifth of the country. The rest has to be reached by more conventional media processes, like newspapers and television. To create a national conversation we need tools and processes, in which people are included in the planning of the future of their country.

There is often the comparison between India and China. As far as I see China has the one-child-policy, which will lead in demografic trouble, whereas on the other hand there is India with a pretty good demografic situation. Could this lead to the situation that India will be the number one?

Right now, with China having so much payment reserves, it is able to buy itsself out. Your demografic profile helps to get growth. But even if you don’t have a good demografic profile, but a lot of money, you can still be a very rich country, because you can invest in various other ways. So China does have that advantage. The consequences of one child policy are not only economical ones, but also bad for society.

The Indian state of Gujarat that has had double-digit growth rates for years. How come? Why is that specific state so successful?

Gujarat is a state in the west of traders and people who have been in business for centuries. When you open up the economy in a liberalization those people will be the first to take advantage of that opportunity. This is what enabled Gujarat to start getting growth in GDP-terms. Another question is in terms of social indicators and environmental sustainability. If you have a triple line view of progess, then Gujarat is doing extremly well in terms of economic growth, but not so good in respect to sustainability and social improvement.

Do you think the debt crisis in Europe and the United States can anyhow affect India’s development?

I am sure it will. Anything that is so big in another part of the world will affect India in a connected world. You cannot say, I am completetly isolated from it. One view, and which I think is right, is that since India is not that connected dependent on the western world, that will be less affected. How and when is always uncertain, but it will affect the trade and financial inflows to India.

Do you think the financial crisis changes economics or do you think it will go back to before the crash?

I hope everything will not go on like it was before. Economists say, and I am not an economist, that we are going into a “new normal”. So even economists are recognizing that the way the economy was growing in the previous 20, 30 years is not the way it can be. The new way will include new ideas of what is good and what should be done. The idea of what is good, which was in the past more GDP, more wealth, more consumption, maybe will not be the idea that will rule in the “new normal”. We need to have a system with more equity and more fairness.

Foto:

© Fotograf Renard Kiel

“Norms for a Global Governance” was probably the most enlighting (and last) panel I took part. How should governments interact with each other on a global level? Which values should prevail and influence actions? The talk was on the one hand philosophical, using by using Locke, Hobbs, and Bentham for argumentations, but also practical by specific proposals and recommondations for politics. With participants from Asia, the United States and from a Eurozone country, two of them living on two continents and with their jobs ranging from government, private sector to NGOs, there was a good mixture of views on the world.

The talk was in the nicest room with two walls being windows to the coast. The five persons on the stage jumped from one topic to the other, led by an entertaining moderator. Nobody talked to long, but long enough to make their points. The people in the audience were in a good mood and asked good questions (Or were even dragged into the debate by the moderator – at least the one person, who was probably the most powerful at that moment in the room).

Following ideas for norms and governance were addressed:

On How to Manage Global Governance

International organizations like the UN, WTO, IMF and so on seem to be kind of powerless. Finding mechanisms for the globalized world of the 21st century is therefore crucial. “The institutions today werde designed for yesterday.” But: Before we can create new and innovative ones, it is important to define “what are the ultimative core values of our societies”.

In contrast to the commonplace that in times of globalization borders don’t matter anymore, the panelists said, that they do matter indeed. It was described how Japan had to change its value for the language Japanese being not a core part of its identity anymore.

In the last part of the panel a person from the audience draw the line from the way the internet is organized, basically decentralized and as a network, to the current crisis of international institutions. Would be a multistakeholder-model be a possible way?

(Even though the moderator had the objection that “multistakeholder-model”, just like “civil society”, is a very broad term, that can stand for a number of things.)

How Economy Shapes Values

In the past there have always been different balances in the wthere are doubts if the EU is able to speak with one voice.ay societies organize themselves. Basically there have been two poles: one the one hand cooperation, that emphasizes the community values, and on the other hand the competition, where the individual rights and values have more weight. Well-functioning civilizations have always a balanced view towards these poles. Evidence shows, that societies that had not been in the industrial revolution, e.g. in Asia, are prioritizing cooperation. I guess this is going to change right now, due to the fact that for instance in China materialism and consumption have been increasing for 20 years. Or, as a panelist put it: “Anything goes right now in China, because it is about survival.”

Because two of the speakers have Asian origin, the moderator directed the talk to the so-called “Asian values”. “There is no such thing as an Asien value”, clarified one participant, since there are 47 different countries on the continent. Nevertheless there are differences in values between continents and nations: “He have to be more honest about what we agree and about what we don’t agree on.”

Foreign Policy in a Interconnected World

One participant used the metaphora of ships to describe the situation of foreign policy today (even though he himself copied the comparion): In the past every country was a ship and the aim was to avoid collisions. Today, however,  all nations are one ship, that has 190 cabins, one for every countries, but there is no captain and no crew. And maybe not even a course. The consequence: “There is no need of 190 specific foreign policies anymore.”

But this does not avoid the question: How to organize global governance in the future? One panelist opted for an informal G3 with three members: USA, China and the European Union. This was critizised for two reasons. First, the G3 would not have worldwide legitimacy, because of the easy reason, that it would speak only for three out of nearly 200 countries on the planet. “In that sense, the UN, WTO and so on are still the most legitimate organizations.” Second, doubts are emerging, if the EU is able to speak with one voice.

The West as a Role Model

The panel was reminding the west to be a role-model for developing and emerging countries, which are looking for guidance “A failure for the western system would have a tremendous impact worldwide.”

One panelist shared an observation from China: When business partners from China and a foreign western country couldn’t agree on something in the early days of economic liberalization, the Americans or Europeans just had to say: “But this is international standard!” After failures in the west like the financial crisis such tactics does not work anymore.

In contrast to the bail-outs in the West, that did not create jobs, the stimulus China has a positive long-term impact. The money was spent in infrastructure, that creates a value for the future.

Further Information:

Dani Rodrick’s paper “Feasible Globalization” was cited during the discussion. According to one of the speakers the essence of the paper is that “things often look impossible unless we give up some things.”

Participants in the panel:

Victor L. L. Chu, Chairman, First Eastern, Investment Group

Sean Cleary, Chairman, Strategic Concepts, South Africa; Executive Vice Chair, Future World Foundation, Switzerland

Kunio Mikuriya, Secretary General, World Customs Organization

Wolfgang Schüssel, Former Federal Chancellor, Austria

Moderator:

Stephan Richter, President, The Globalist Research Center

Globalization is also the globalization of labor and therefore migration is becoming an intrinsive part. “This is an issue, everybody knows something about.”

Migration, as a panelist said, has definitly a negative connotation, which he wants to see eliminated by showing evidence in favor of migration. Since 2000 the remittances, the money migrants send back in their home countries, grew faster than the world GDP. It should be made clear, that migration has benefits for both, the donor and recipient countries.

Data shows that Europe attracts in particular unskilled migrants, whereas in the United States or Canada the migrant labor force is much more educated. This can either be called a misallocation or just a statistical trick. Illegal immigrants from the Americas are not measured in the US and therefore do not appear in official data.

But there is totally different attitude towards immigrants. In the US migrants are only foreign born persons, in Europe, however, the second or even third generation is called migrants. It is easy to become American. “Basically it is enough to put an American flag in the garden.”

Different Skill Levels

In order to can discuss about the humancapital of immigrants in an appropriate way, it is neccessary to disaggregrate the term “skill” in high, middle and low. The persons belonging to one of the groups have different motivations to leave their home countries. High-skilled will migrate anyway and will always find countries, that want them to live side its system. But they also tend to be downgraded, when they try to find a job, because the workingforce gaps are in the middle-skilled area.  The biggest difficulties are with the unskilled: “Policies need to be in place, because in the best case they are exploited and in the worst there is trafficking involved.”

Temporary Migration

One of the topics war temporary migration. There were both, opposing panelists and those in favor. “Temporary migration is no serious political solution”, claimed a person against residence permits, that have an expiration date. Immigrants, who know that they will have to leave again, have lower incentives to invest in their humancapital by learning the language or integrate socially. The advantages of temporary migration are with seasonal work in the agricultural sector or tourism, where shortages need a quick reaction.

Integration by Dual Citizenship

All panelists agreed that language skills are a crucial part of integration. Only after that it is possible “to climb up the integration ladder”. Dual citizenship could be one way to intensify integration: People could feel stronger as members of society when they are citizens. It was compared with a family situation: When parents split up it is the best for kids to stay in both parts and not to be forced to decide for one side. The same is said to be the case for migrants.

Next Time: Extend the Focus

The panel concentrated pretty much only on the situation in Germany and Austria and in general the industrialized world. It would have been interesting to extend the focus to other countries, in particular the view of a so-called “donor countries”, the countries, where people are migrating from. How do these countries live with having many people leaving the country? Do they suffer from brain-drain? Is there a net benefit by remittences? Are there programms and initiatives to keep people in the country?

Participants in the panel:

Wolfgang Schüssel, Former Federal Chancellor, Austria

Aart de Geus, Member of the Executive, Board, Bertelsmann Stiftung; Former Deputy Secretary General, OECD

Christian Dustmann, Professor of Economics, University College London

Gil S. Epstein, Professor of Economics, Bar-Ilan-University

Moderator:

Kim Cloete, Journalist, Moneyweb

Foto:

© Fotograf Renard Kiel

The recession after the financial crisis is officially over and the economies are recovering, but there remains the danger of a double-dip recession. In order to build a more sustainable economy in the future, one issue to tackle are global imbalances. In a “hardcore macro session” a panel discussed about “Avoiding Currency Wars and Ensuring Balanced Global Recovery”.

The panel agreed upon the basic problems: Huge imbalances make the world economy even more fragile, excessive reserve accumulation worsens the problem and currency wars are counterproductive. And of course, there has to be a fiscal consolidation of the United States and European countries in the medium and long term.

What are ways out? One possibility to tackle the imbalances could be indicators that show, whether surpluses or deficits, are beyond an acceptable limit, that could threaten the global stability. Therefore it is also neccessary to find institutional mechanisms, so that the set limits don’t go up in smoke. The WTO dispute settlement could work as a role model. “But this is a tremendous difficulty.”

Another parameter that could be changed is the IMF, a possibility that was called “certainly feasible”. The first step would have to be a more credible fund, so that it is perceived as free from politics. This should increase the effectivness considerably.

When global imbalances are the topic, it is clear that sooner or later the question will be: What should China do? Appreciation of its currency, often said to be the first step to a more balanced global economy, was called „less important“. Instead, the US as well as China should expand fiscally. „But this is not on the table in the US.“ So it is China’s turn to consume more by decreasing the savings of its households and corporation. „This would make it an even bigger engine of growth“ said one of the panel participants.

The current austerity programs in Europe and the US was crititised harshly: „There is kind of a desaster in the making.“

A liquidity problem that wasn’t on the radar until the financial crisis was that European banks might need US-Dollars from the Federal Reserve, and US-banks Euros from the European Central Bank.

For me this seems a rather hard challenge. A reform of the IMF might be really possible and also neccessary in times of economic power shifts towards emerging countries. I also believe, that there could be limits installed that show if there are certain unwanted developments. But this cannot be enough. Just because somebody is outside this range doesn’t change the behaviour. Limits that are not enforced don’t make any sense, which was shown by the Stability and Growth Pact in the Eurozone.

Participants in the panel:

Domingo Cavallo, Senior Fellow and Lecturer in Global Affairs, Jackson Institute for International Relations, Yale University

Carlos Cozendey, Ambassador, Ministry of Finance

Anne O. Krueger, Professor of International Economics, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University; Senior Fellow, Stanford Center for International Development

Maurice Obstfeld, Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley

Ibrahima M. Turhan, Deputy Governor, Central Bank of Turkey

Moderator:

Wolfgang Munchau, Co-Founder and President, Eurointelligence; Associate Editor, Financial Times

Wolfgang Kleinwächter is  Professor for International Communication Policy and Regulation at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. With Economic Insights he talks about the rise of the internet and how it provokes a clash of cultures, power sharing and a tough challenge for the 21st century.

I am using Facbook daily, check my E-Mail and if I want to know something I look it up on Google. So for me everything seems pretty fine. Why do we need a internet governance?

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: There are at least two issues that have to be seen in this context. Number one is that you have an underlying infrastructure, which has to work. This is a layered system and on each layer you have a mechanism in place, which guarantees stability and security. This means: If you are using Facebook you are doing it on a basis of a domain name and your computer has an IP-address. This domain names and IP addresses have been labeled as critical internet ressources. And ressources need a certain kind of management, for example every domain name is unique. The other part is that a lot of this applications have implications, which can be treated as public policy issues. Very known issues are freedom of speech, privacy, intellectual property or crime. All these appear on the internet, too. This leads to the question: How can this be managed in the global world? The difficulty is: The internet is borderless, but our world is organized in nation states.

How does the internet governance structure look right now?

In the last 200, 300 years a government structure was a hierarchy. The internet is a network, we have no central authority. This is a clash of cultures. While all traditional systems of decision-making are more or less hierachcal systems, that are very often negotiated behind closed doors. The internet world, however, has a distributed system, where you have a bottom-up transparent discussion process. This was very successful, otherwise two billion people worldwide would not use it. Goverments believe they can manage the internet like other things, e.g. broadcasting or telecommunication, where you have a national law and a national authority. But internet is different. Traditional policy making in hierarchical mechanismsm does not work anymore.

How could this problem be solved?

This is the power struggle of the 21st century. We have seven billion people on earth and only two billion are online. This means: The big issues will come in the years ahead. Who has the decision power to manage this? Is there a need to have a central decision-making power like the “world government of the internet”? My answer is “no”. We have a decentralized system, so the governance and authorities over certain parts should also be decentralized. Right now the ICANN is responsible for domain names and IP-addresses, the ITF makes the standards, UNESCO could deal with language issues and so on. You have a distributed system, that looks a bit like the internet itsself. The internet is nothing else than a network of networks. You have to bring some order in, because people have human rights, like the freedom of speech.

Do you think the “Declaration of Human Rights” should be expanded to the internet?

No, it should not be expanded, but you have to find ways to implement in the “Declaration fo Human Rights” in this new world. This makes it difficult, because different countries have different legislations. It is impossible that one government can dictate all the others what is legal and what is illegal. Governments cannot escape anymore from closer collaboration.

For example, China and the western countries have very different views on “freedom of speech”. How can there be a collaboration?

There will be issued that will be remained unsettled. In particular if it comes to such issues like ideology. It is much more easier to deal with privacy and intellectual property issues. The only way forward is to identify the issue and then to look how it can be settled. We have do define exactly; What is the responsibilty of the body and what can it do, either by political binding norms or recommendations. The internet governance system of the future will be a decentralized system, where you have in different bodies various decision making powers.

China is big in censorship and it is hard to imagine that a solution will be found. So should this topic be excluded?

China wants to censor certain content. They have developed instruments for their own network. They can control their domain, th .cn-domain, but it is already very difficult to control the .com-domain. This remains a permanent power struggle.

Is this power struggle a new development?

Historically this development is not so new. If you go back in the early days of the industrial revolution new stakleholders emerged, because people wanted representation. We have reached now a similar moment in history, where power is centralized in a national system, but now new constituencies are emerging, which organize themselves on a global level. Two systems, the traditional parlamentarian system and the new emerging sytsem are clashing. Wether the internet will go backwards under the traditional system or will this nice chaos or anarchy destroy governmental structure or will this be something like a cohabitation.

Can you explain the concrete mechanism?

The multistakeholder model is at the very early stage. It is a pioneering work. You try to find out: How can you develop mechanisms on a global level which meet all the questions raised before. I think next to climate change and energy it will be one of the big questions in the 21st century. But you cannot settle new challenges with the instruments of the 20th century. So we have to invent something.

And the multistakeholder-model is this new invention?

I think this is the beginning. There is no alternative. The various parties have to come together and share responsibilities. It is not only about freedom and rights, it is also about duties and responsibilities. It looks a bit utopian and idealistic, I know this. But I did not find any way out from this dilemma within this clash of power.

So in the end the government has to give parts of its power?

Yes, more or less it is about power-sharing. Power does not disaapear, but it is redistributed. The question is: Goes it to the private sector? How powerful will be the civil society? What is the role of government in the future? Governments will not disappear, but they haven’t anymore the capacity to get it all under its control.

When do you think your ideas could become reality?

I guess in 50 years or a bit longer. It is a task for the first half of the 21st century.

The Internet affects the lives of everyone of us. So the question arisis if there is a global internet governance is neccessary. One of the very first panels on wedneyday was called “Internet Governance Structures” – a “pretty esoteric topic” as one of the persons on the stage named it.

The development of the internet is pretty different to those of other forms of communication like the telephone. In the latter case politicans took up the topic and made laws concerning communication via phones. In contrast to this there are no laws in internet development. Moreover the nature of the internet is a decentralized, whereas politics are centralized authorities. Therefore a “world government of the internet” cannot be the answer.

Political Interest Conflicts

There emerges a clash of cultures: Should a global governance be implemented bottom up by a self-organizing community or should it be a top down policy. Usually there is a separation between policy and people. This does not work anymore for the internet, where users are involved in the policy-making process.

Of course, a global governance means to include all countries. But how to find an agreement if the party’s interests are very different. The best example for this is the cencorship and the “Great Firewall” in China, that shows that in politically unfree countries, technology can be used for controlling its own population: “This is an inherent problem.”

Freedom or Differentiation?

Freedom in the internet leads sooner or later to the hot topic net neutrality, which means that internet providers or governments are not able to restrict the access for consumers. In other words: “We have to make sure that there is a single internet. No matter if I log on in Hamburg, Hongkong or New Zealand, I should be able to access the same internet.” Even the godfather of the web, Sir Tim Bernerns-Lee, was cited, who said that “the best practices should include a neutrality on the web”.

The latest innovations seem to speak for freedom in general and net neutrality specifically. “Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page didn’t ask for permission to develop Facebook and Google.” This working process can be summarized in the saying “innovation without permission”. In that sense openness and freedom of the internet are crucial factors and the driving forces for new ideas. “This is extremely important from user perspective.” (But this view was called “overglorfied” in the panel).

Nevertheless the concept of net neutrality is not a value everybody shares. ”Currently the net is not as neutral as many people think.” No net neutrality means in reverse differentiation. It was argued that such a differentiation doesn’t have to be neccessarily a contradiction to the users’ welfare: If there are different types of services (= the supply widens) the consumers can be better of. For example there would be a higher price for higher bandwidth, whereas the price is lower for a slower connection. Another possibility are to restrict the speed or the download volume, since only relativly few people are responsible for much of the traffic. But the fear arised: What happens if users have to pay (more) to get access to certain parts of the net?

New Business Models

The internet didn’t only revolutionize communication for consumers. Also, it changed the business modells for communication companies fundamentally. In the past it based on the provision of availability of the core infrastructure, like the telephone network. Today the firms make profit by their applications and services. The problem seems that investments in infrastructure could be missing. “An open and free internet will not work when infrastructure is not implemented.” Since nearly two billion people worldwide are online and mobile broad band connection is increasing there are investmens in infrastructure needed in order to keep the environment open: “Good infrastruce is the starting point.”

Sooner or later every discussion about internet policies tackles the ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. An accusation to this US-based institution is that the US has too much influence, despite reforms in the last years: “The US would have the power to influence.”

Many Discussions Lie Ahead

Despite the GES is supposed to be a solution forum, practical solutions for a global internet governance seem to be far away. Too many questions remain unanswered: Which values are important? How to weigh freedom vs. business interests? How to build the bridge from free to unfree countries? One of the discussion participants said: “There needs to be significant further debate about the priorities”. Or like Bill Clinton said: “Internet governance is stumbling forward.”

I guess there will be a couple more Global Economic Symposiums needed until to find a solution, but one thing seems clear: Because the internet is so innovative, the governance answers have to be, too.

Participants in the panel:

Johannes M. Bauer, Professor, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University

Peter Dengate Thrush, Executive Chairman of Top, Level Domain Holdings

Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor for International, Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus

Lorenzo Maria Pupillo, Executive Director, Public Affairs Unit of Telecom Italia

Moderator:

Bryan Glick, Editor in Chief, ComputerWeekly.com

Damit beschäftigt sich ein weiterer interessanter Vortrag bei der TED Conference (btw: <3): Does democracy stifle economic growth? Huang macht unter anderem klar: Der große Vorteil Chinas war Humankapital. (Mit der Ein-Kind-Politik kann aber erwartet werden, dass sich die demografische Entwicklung in den nächsten Jahrzehnten die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung eher hindern wird.) Da kommt meiner Meinung nach der große Vorteil Indiens ins Spiel: Denn dort ist genau das Gegenteil der Fall, denn die Bevölkerung ist jung. Aber ungebildet, wie Huang in seinem Vortrag auch erzählt.  

Huangs Fazit: In China müssen politische Reformen durchgezogen werden, damit das Wachstum aufrecht erhalten werden kann, Indien muss in öffentliche Versorgung investieren.

Der Chefökonom der Weltbank, der Taiwanese Justin Yifun Lin, schlägt etwas ziemlich altmodisches vor: Infrastruktur. Die guten, alten Straßen und Brücken. Da gäb’s in den Vereinigten Staaten genauso was zu tun wie in Kenia. Die Nachfrage nach besseren Straßen, Wasser- und Stromnetzen und Leitungen ist also da, aber das Angebot fehlt. Niemand will den Job machen. Der Staat kann nicht, die Staatsschulden drücken, und die Privatwirtschaft will nicht und kann’s vielleicht auch nicht alleine.

Im Magazin “Foreign Policy” erläutert Justin Yifan Lin, der im übrigen eine sehr interessante Biographie hat (Taiwanese, der nach China flüchtet, dort marxistische Wirtschaftstheorie studiert, später an die Universität in Chicago geht und heute Chefökonom der Weltbank ist), in “Bridges to Somewhere”, wie er sich Wachstum durch Infrastruktur vorstellt. Das Zauberwort lautet “Public-private partnerships” – kurz: PPP! Vorteile hätte das für Industrieländer ebenso wie für sich Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer:

Investitionen in Infrastruktur sind entscheidend für die Schaffung von Wachstum und mehr Arbeitsplätze – vielleicht entscheidender als jemals zuvor. Für Industrieländer könnte es der schnellste Weg aus der Krise sein. Für Entwicklungsländer ist es ein mächtiger Katalysator, um ihre Volkswirtschaften zu transformieren, die Unternehmen können ungehindert ohne Stromengpässe arbeiten, frei kommunizieren, ihre Märkte erweitern und, schlussendlich, die technologische Leiter hinaufklettern. Der Bedarf ist klar. Das Geld ist verfügbar.

Investing in infrastructure is critical for generating growth and creating jobs — perhaps now more than ever. For advanced economies, it may be the fastest way out of their slump. For developing countries, it is a powerful vehicle for transforming their economies, enabling their businesses to work unimpeded without electricity shortages, communicate freely, expand their markets, and, ultimately, climb up the technological ladder. The need is clear. The money is available.

Lin ist damit nicht alleine: Eine “Infrastructure Bank” soll auch Barack Obama im Kopf haben. Europa versucht es mit dem “Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative”, ob der wirklich bin ich mir nicht so sicher. Wenn es um konkrete Startzeiten geht, beinhaltet der Text der EU für meinen Geschmack zu viele Konjunktive. Der Baubranche könnte so wieder auf die Beine geholfen werden, die Arbeitslosigkeit verringert und Wachstum generiert werden.

Aber es geht vor allem auch darum, wie Brücken, Straßen, Strom-, Wasser- und Kommunikationsnetze in den Erdteilen außerhalb Nordamerikas, Europas, Australiens und ein paar Peripherieländern wirken.

In “Foreign Policy” steht, ich zitiere:

1,4 Milliarden Menschen haben keinen Zugang zu Strom, etwa 880 Millionen Mänschen Menschen leben ohne sauberes Trinkwasser, und 2,6 Milliarden ohne Zugang zu einfachen sanitären Einrichtungen; Ungefähr 1 Milliarden Leute auf dem Land leben nach Schätzungen so abgelegen, dass sie keinen Zugang zu Straßen haben, die bei jedem Wetter befahrbar sind im Umkreis von zwei Kilometern (Übersetzen ist echt anstrengend.)  In der Subsahara (ohne Süd-Afrika) ist der pro_kopf_Stromkonsum im Durchschnitt nur 124 Kilowatt-Stunden im Jahr, kaum genug Strom für eine Glühlampe pro Person, die sechs Stunden am Tag brennt.

1.4 billion people have no access to electricity, about 880 million people still live without safe drinking water, and 2.6 billion are without access to basic sanitation; About 1 billion rural dwellers worldwide are estimated to have no access to all-weather roads within two kilometers (about the length of a 25- to 30-minute walk). Per capita electricity consumption in sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) averages only 124 kilowatt-hours a year, hardly enough to power one light bulb per person for six hours a day.

Aber wenn keine Straßen, auf denen man gscheid fahren kann da sind, und der Strom grad mal für ein paar Glühlampen pro Tag reicht (bei mir brennen gerade zwei) und kein Wasser aus dem Hahn kommt, ist ja klar, dass da die Wirtschaft nicht wachsen und Unternehmertum sich nicht entfalten kann.

Die asiatischen Erfolgsländer in den letzten Jahrzehnten China, Japan und Südkorea geben schon seit Jahrzehnten mindestens neun Prozent ihres BIPs (Bruttoninlandsprodukts) für Infrastruktur aus. (Ich erinnere mich an die Bravo Gameszeitung, über koreanische PC-Spiele-Meisterschaften, als ich zu Hause am 166 MgHz-Computer mit Windows 95 saß.)

Kurzum: Justin Yifu Lin plädiert, dafür, dass die Privatwirtschaft aus den Industrieländern in Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern investiert. PPP eben. Aber jaja, schöne Pläne gibt’s ja viele, aber wie soll das jetzt wirklich finanziert werden?

Neben mehr Effizienz, sollen die bisherigen Quellen (Entwicklungshilfe zum Beispiel) mit neuen Finanzierungsquellen kombiniert werden. Zum Beispiel durch den Privatsektor. Genau diese vermehrten privaten Investitionen würden die Lücke schließen, die bisher immer noch besteht, und Geschäfte nicht stattfinden können.

So wie ein Vertrag darüber, dass ein deutsches oder chinesischen Unternehmen eine Straße in Angola baut oder sie zumindest finanziert. Nachdem das Ding dann steht oder geteert oder wie auch immer fertiggestellt ist, bekommt der Investor seine Rendite. Denn eingeplant ist dann meist auch sowas wie eine Gebühr für das Teilstück der Autobahn, die dann an den Investor gehen. Solche Sachen gibt es durchaus schon, aber konzentriert auf die BRIC-Staaten (Brasilien, Russland, Indien, China) und die Türkei. 

Aber es darf nicht vergessen, dass eine solche Geldanlage auch riskant ist. Die Einnahmen fallen vielleicht doch nicht so hoch aus wie erwartet, denn vielleicht können sich die Leute den Superhighway durch Afrika auch gar nicht leisten, oder die Wechselkurse steigen oder fallen plötzlich. Und erstmal muss ‘ne Stange Geld in die Hand genommen werden, damit Glasfaserkabel verlegt werden können. Von heute auf morgen geht das auch nicht, da kann sich auch leicht mal was verzögern, in der Zeit darf der Investor also nicht pleite gehen.

Richtig einfach ist das auch nicht, da braucht es auch Know-How dazu, Humankapital. Wie auch finanzielles Kapital, das durch die privaten Investoren, in die entsprechenden Länder erst durch die PPPs importiert werden muss, weil es nicht in ausreichendem Maße vorhanden sein kann, so kann das auch mit ausgebildeten Männern und Frauen sein. Aber das sind ja auch genau die Lücken, in die entwickelte Ökonomien mit ihren Angeboten einspringen können: Anschubfinanzierung, Maschinen, Pläne.

Zur Sicherheit gibt es öffentliche Garantien. (Wie die genau aussehen, weiß ich nicht), aber, so Justin Yifun Lin in “Foreign Policy” seien nur solche Risiken versichert, die das Projekt direkt betreffen. Die Weltbank, so erzählt ihr Chefökonom, biete deshalb eine Versicherung gegen/für politische Risiken an: Krieg, Unruhen unter der Bevölkerung oder den Devisenmärkten, solche Sachen."Aber mehr bleibt zu tun”, glaubt Justin Yifun Lin.

Denn insgesamt fließt immer noch zu wenig Kapital für Infrastruktur in sich entwickelnde Staaten. Deshalb hat die Weltbank einen eigenen Fonds gründet, der Gelder von anderen Fonds, wie eben genannte Sovereign Wealth Funds, aber auch Pensionsfonds, sammelt und mehr Geld für infrastrukturelle Maßnahmen in Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer zur Verfügung stellt.

In Sovereign Wealth Funds sieht Lin eine Möglichkeit Geld zu beschaffen. Warum Lin gerade diese so prominent heraushebt, verstehe ich nicht. Denn auf Deutsch heißt diese Form des Geld investierens Staatsfonds und sind – ganz genau – Knete vom Staat. Und Justin Yifan Lin will ja eigentlich vor allem den Privatsektor zum Investieren verleiten.

Andererseits wäre das ja auch eine Methode indirekt Nachfragepolitik zu betreiben. Denn haben nicht auch die amerikanische Notenbank und die Europäische Zentralbank mit ihren aufgekauften Wertpapieren nicht auch genügend Geld zur Verfügung? Gibt es bedeutsame europäische oder US-Staatsfonds? Wikipedia sagt nicht. Warum ist das so? 

Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass es im Netz neben den glitzernden Hauptstraßen auch immer die dunkleren Seitengassen, die nur halb legalen Rotlicht-Viertel, die Indie-Läden und die Drogendealer geben wird – wie in jeder Stadt auch. Man wird immer finden, was man will, wenn man weiß, wo man suchen muss. Ich mache mir keinerlei Sorgen darum, dass das Netz zu einem klinisch sauberen Ort werden könnte, der keinen Platz mehr für Spinner und Absurditäten lässt, für Abgedrehtes und Absonderliches und für das, was nun wirklich nur drei echt ziemlich schräge Leute interessiert. Das Netz besteht schließlich aus Menschen. Die machen das schon.

Ich bin aber auch ziemlich sicher: Das anarchistische Internet ist tot. Und es wurde nicht allein von regulierungswütigen Politikern oder Wirtschaftbossen getötet, sondern vielleicht auch von der Realität seiner verschiedenen Entwicklungen, von der Tatsache, dass es schon lange kein elitärer Klub mehr ist, sondern ganz einfach eine Erweiterung des öffentlichen Raums. Und für einen solchen kann das Hoffen auf Selbstregulierung kaum genügen.

Wenn die unten nicht mehr wollen – Mal wieder ein Text, der sagt, dass Begriffe wie “links” und “rechts” ausgedient haben. Wir stehen nun, so Arno Widmann im Tagesspiegel, nach dem Ende des Kommunismus, der Finanzkrise usw. an einem Wendepunkt, an dem sich ein Systemwechseln ereignen wird. Elementare Dinge eines politisches Systems wie die Frage der Partizipation und Wirtschaftsform sollen sich erheblich ändern. Wichtig dabei: Wie kann mit möglichst geringem Schaden geschehen?

Es geht nicht darum, Einstürze, Bankrotts also, zu verhindern. Es geht darum, sie möglichst früh, also möglichst kostengünstig passieren zu lassen. Das ist sicher keine linke Idee. Das ist aber auch keine rechte Idee. Das ist vernünftig. Es ist das Vernünftige, das schwer zu tun ist. Besonders in einem Land, das Jahrzehnte lang marode Industrien durchgefüttert, ganze Landstriche miternährt hat, ein Land also, das sich in Ost und West daran gewöhnt hatte, dass es irgendwie schon funktionieren wird.

Shoplifters of the World Unite – Slavoj Žižek  schreibt über die Ausschreitungen in London. Dass es keine politischen Forderungen gab, sieht er in einer Linie darin, dass nach dem Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus eine ideologielose Zeit begann:

The fact that the rioters have no programme is therefore itself a fact to be interpreted: it tells us a great deal about our ideological-political predicament and about the kind of society we inhabit, a society which celebrates choice but in which the only available alternative to enforced democratic consensus is a blind acting out. Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst. What is the point of our celebrated freedom of choice when the only choice is between playing by the rules and (self-)destructive violence?