The Age of Uncertainty

We are entering the age of dealing with unknown unknowns – as Brexit and Turkey’s failed coup show

 

The dark future of Europe

THE Age of Uncertainty is a book and BBC series by the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, produced in 1977, about how we have moved from the age of certainty in 19th century economic thought to a present that is full of unknowns.

I still remember asking my economics professor what he thought of Galbraith, one of the most widely read economists and social commentator of his time. His answer was that Galbraith’s version of economics was too eclectic and wide-ranging. It was not where mainstream economics – pumped up by the promise of quantitative models and mathematics – was going.

Forty years later, it is likely that Galbraith’s vision of the future was more prescient than that of Milton Friedman, the leading light of free market economics – which promised more than it could deliver. The utopia of free markets, where rational man would deliver the most efficient public good from individual greed turned out to be exactly the opposite – the greatest social inequities with grave uncertainties of the future. Galbraith said, “wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding”. Perhaps he meant that poverty and necessity was the driver of change, if not of revolution.

The economics profession was always slightly confused over the difference between risk and uncertainty, as if the former included the latter. The economist Frank Knight (they don’t make economists like that anymore) clarified the difference as follows – risk is measurable and uncertainty is not. Quantitative economists then defined risk as measurable volatility – the amount that a variable like price fluctuated around its historical average.

The bell-shaped statistical curve that forms the conventional risk model used widely in economics assumes that there is 95% probability that fluctuations of price would be two standard deviations from the average or mean.

For non-technically minded, a standard deviation is a measure of the variance or dispersion around the mean, meaning that a “normal” fluctuation would be less than two; so if the standard deviation is say 5%, we would not expect more than 10% price fluctuation 95% of the time.

Brexit may represent the final rejection of Tony Blair’s legacy of globalisation

Events like Brexit shock us because the event gave rise to huge uncertainties over the future. Most experts did not expect Brexit – the variance was more than the normal. It was a reversal of a British decision to join the European Union, a five or more standard deviation event – in which the decision is a 180 degree turn. The conventional risk management models, which are essentially linear models that say that going forward or sequentially, the projected risk is up or down, simply did not factor in a reversal of decision.

In other words, we have moved from an age of risk to an age of uncertainty – where we are dealing with unknown unknowns. There are of course different categories of unknowns – known unknowns (things that we know that we do not know), calculable unknowns (which we can estimate or know something about through Big Data) and the last, we simply do not know what we may never know.

Big Data is the fashionable phrase for churning lots of data to find out where there are correlations. The cost of big computing power is coming down but you would still have to have big databases to access that information or prediction. Most individuals like you and me would simply have to use our instincts or rely on experts to make that prediction or decision. Brexit told us that many experts are simply wrong. Experts are those who can convincingly explain why they are wrong, but they may not be better in predicting the future than monkeys throwing darts.

Five factors

There are five current factors that add up to considerable uncertainty – geopolitics, climate change, technology, unconventional monetary policy and creative destruction.

First, Brexit and the Turkish coup are geo-political events that change the course of history. In its latest forecasts on the world economy, the IMF has called Brexit “the spanner in the works” that may slow growth further. But Brexit was a decision made because the British are concerned more about immigration than nickels and dimes from Brussels. This is connected to the second factor, climate change.

Climate change could make Middle East 'uninhabitable', according to study

Global warming is the second major unknown, because we are already feeling the impact of warmer weather, unpredictable storms and droughts. Historically, dynastic collapses have been associated with major climate change, such as the droughts that caused the disappearance of the Angkor Wat and Mayan cultures. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and all are failing states because they are water-stressed. If North Africa and the Middle East continue to face major water-stress and social upheaval, expect more than 1 million refugees to flood northwards to Europe where it is cooller and welfare benefits are better.

The third disruptor is technology, which brings wondrous new inventions like bio-technology, Internet and robotics, but also concerns such as loss of jobs and genetic accidents.

Fourthly, unconventional monetary policy has already breached the theoretical boundaries of negative interest rates, where no one, least of all the central bankers that push on this piece of string, fully appreciate how negative interest rates is destroying the business model of finance, from banks to asset managers.

Last but not least, the Austrian economist Schumpeter lauded innovation and entrepreneurship as the engine of capitalism, through what he called creative destruction. We all support innovation, but change always bring about losses to the status quo. Technology disrupts traditional industries, and those disappearing industries will create loss in jobs, large non-performing loans and assets that will have no value.

Change is not always a zero-sum game, where one person’s gain is another’s loss. It is good when it is a win-win game; but with lack of leadership, it can easily deteriorate into a lose-lose game. That is the scary side of unknown unknowns.

I shall elaborate on how ancient Asians coped with change in the next article.

By Tan Sri Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective.

Related posts:

Dealing with the new abnormal negative ...

Jun 15, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.

  Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme!

Mar 5, 2016 ... Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme! Economic Collapse soon? Ponzi schemes and modern finance. Andrew...

 Beware when elephants Trump-et! Trump victory a major ...

Mar 19, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on...

 Hedge funds invasion of US treasuries puts bond at risk ...

Mar 29, 2016 ... While the Federal Reserve doesn't break out hedge-fund ownership, a group seen as a proxy increased its holdings to a record $1.27 trillion in...

 One phone to rule all; Fintech, the healthy disruptors of ...

Apr 16, 2016 ... That belongs to the realm of politics and education, which is another story. Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective.

China, next global hub for higher education

With its varsities gaining better rankings, the most populous nation is set to become the world’s leading learning destination.

HIGHER education in China can perhaps be traced to the establishment of a Taixue (the Imperial Academy) in the capital city of China during the Western Han Dynasty (206BC to 9AD).

Before this there were no formal organised institutions of higher learning. Only private education was available. Thus taixue became the highest educational institution in imperial China.

The earliest taixue education was based on legalist and Confucian ideals and philosophies, but later it evolved into one that was mainly Confucian-based when Emperor Wu (141BC to 87BC) decided to adopt Confucianism as the state doctrine. Imperial University was the first Confucian-based institution established in 124BC.

The taixue system later evolved into what was known as Gouzijian (Directorate of Education or National Central Institute of Learning). This occurred during the Western Jin Period (265 to 316).

Under the gouzijian system, higher education was stratified and segmented.

The system of admission and enrolment of students to these different levels and segments was based on social standing.

This traditional system of higher education was in place for the next 2,000 years before it underwent structural reforms into “modern universities” that we know of today.

In the late 19th century, several traditional institutions of higher learning sought permission from the Emperor to “modernise”.

However, Peking University is generally regarded as the first “modern university” in the country.

This was in 1898 and the term daxue for such institutions was adopted.

The university was first known as the Imperial Univer-sity of Peking before it became the present Peking University.

The reformation came about when events that took place in China in the mid-1800s opened up the country to the rest of the world.

Varsities closed

Even so, these new centres of learning experienced a period of great turmoil during China’s Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1969.

In the early months of the revolution, schools and universities were closed.

Though the revolution was officially over by 1969, its activities however continued until 1971 and most universities did not reopen until 1972.

From the 1980s onwards, higher education in China underwent further reforms.

In 1995, Project 211 was initiated to raise research standards of about 100 universities by the 21st Century, hence the term Project 211.

Project 985 launched in May 1998 by President Jiang Zemin, initially targeted 10 universities. They were given the necessary support to make them all world-class institutions. The number of such universities has now gone up to 39.

The project has also resulted in the creation of what is known as the C9 League of universities. The aim is to create a league that is equivalent to the Ivy League of the United States.

The C9 universities are Fudan University, Harbin Institute of Technology, Nanjing University, Beijing University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Tsinghua University, University of Science and Technology of China, Xi’an Jiaotong University and Zhejiang University.

China spends about 4% of her GDP on education and currently spends about US$250bil (RM1.03tril) a year on human capital development.

There are about 2,900 universities and colleges in China with a total enrolment of some 37 million students. Close to 380,000 international students from 203 countries studied in China in 2014.

The bulk of them were from South Korea, the US, Thailand, Russia, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, France and Pakistan.

Currently only about 10% of foreign students receive Chinese government scholarships and the rest are mainly self-funded.

However this is expected to change as China aims to attract 500,000 international students by 2020 and providing more scholarships is a way to support the target.

The 2016 Higher Education System Strength Rankings (by Quacquarelli Symonds - QS), placed China at eighth worldwide with China’s strongest score being in the economy metric.

The eighth place ranking is the highest for Asia with South Korea and Japan placed at the ninth and 10th position respectively.

The first seven places were taken by the US, UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, France and the Netherlands respectively. Malaysia is placed 27th, behind Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

This ranking is an assessment of the overall education system strength and flagship university performance, alongside factors relating to access and funding.

Also, according to the QS World University Rankings of 2015/16, of the world’s top 800 universities, four of the top 100 are in China.

They are Tsinghua University (ranked 25), Peking University (ranked 41), Fudan University (ranked 51) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (ranked 70) with Tsinghua being third in Asia after the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University of Singapore (ranked 12th and 13th respectively).

Tsinghua is even ahead of universities in South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Xiamen University, placed 17th in China, fell in the 401-410 band.

For Malaysian public universities, Universiti Malaya (UM) is placed 146 while Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) is ranked 289. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) is at 303 while Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 312 and Universiti Putra Malaysia, 331. None of Malaysia’s private universities appeared in the list.

According to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings of 2015-2016, two universities in China made it to the world’s top 100 out of the 800 listed.

The two were Peking University (ranked 42) and Tsinghua University (ranked 47), with Peking being ahead of universities in Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea.

Tsinghua was ahead of even the best in South Korea.

The best Malaysian university listed was UTM, placed in the number 401-500 band, similar to that of Xiamen University which has a branch campus in Sepang, Selangor.

Most of the British universities with branch campuses in Malaysia are within the world’s top 200.

Research performance

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Jiao Tong World University Ranking, ranked 500 universities worldwide based mainly on their research performance.

For 2015, four universities in Japan did better than those in China.

The top university in Japan was the University of Tokyo (ranked 21) while the top four in China, according to alphabetical order, were Peking University, Shanghai Jiao Tong, Tsinghua and Zhejiang University. They were placed in the number 101-150 band.

Malaysia’s top university, according to ARWU, was UM, placed in the number 301-400 band, while USM, the next best, was placed in the number 401-500 band. Xiamen University was placed in the same band as UM.

In a span of about 120 years, from having only one “modern” university, there are now about 2,900 universities and colleges in China. Several are world-class and are ready to compete with the best in the US and the UK.

Within the next decade, two universities in China may be ranked among the world’s top 10.

To achieve this, the government is going to great lengths to attract leading scholars, especially overseas Chinese scholars, to take up academic appointments at its leading universities.

Many universities in China are not only focusing on developing technologies that are competitive, but are doing so in areas like business education. Improvements have been by leaps and bounds.

Under such a scenario, what effects would the above have on world higher education in general and the trend of higher education pursuits by the global Chinese diaspora in particular?

It is an open secret that China encourages successful overseas Chinese to return to China to help in its development.

Even though the country is now the world’s second largest economy, there are still many spheres that need to be developed before China can claim to be at par with developed nations of the West.

One strategy would be to attract the best foreign students to study in China.

Upon graduation, these students can then be enticed to stay on to help develop the country.

Even if the graduates decide to return to their home country, their positive experiences while in China and the local Chinese network of friendship (guanxi) that the students have established are assets that will to some extent, influence their home countriesfavourably in their dealings with China.

Having foreign students on campus also has the added benefit of excha-nge and enrichment of experiences and ideas between local students and those from different parts of the world.

Such a strategy is not new as it has been practised by countries of the West even though these countries have their own bright students.

That is one reason why the West is now so strong and advanced, especially in the area of science and technology.

This approach of attracting the best foreign students can only be successful if an excellent system of higher education is in place, and China is doing just that.

As a start, China is also increasing the number of scholarships for foreign students.

For example during the 18th ASEAN-China Summit held in Kuala Lumpur last November, China’s Premier Li Keqiang made a commitment that China will increase the number of government scholarships for Asean countries by a thousand over the next three years.  

Incentives

On a global scale such efforts may not seem much, but China might introduce innovative incentives to attract the best foreign students to its shores.

The country might just be waiting for the right moment to do so.

Like all other projects launched, once a decision is made and the time is right, China would go all out to implement the idea in a big way.

The soft power strategy outlined above, if introduced, would have a greater impact in countries with a large overseas Chinese population - especially in countries where these students are marginalised with limited access to higher education.

Together there are close to 27 million overseas Chinese living in the Asean region. This is about half the total number of overseas Chinese worldwide.

China may have the edge over the West in attracting these overseas Chinese students as many of these students would be familiar with China’s culture and language.

However it must also be highlighted that presently in China, some university courses are already being taught in English.

From the economic perspective, the cost of higher education in China is relatively cheap compared to those in the West.

Depending on the programme of study, the location of the institution, the type of accommodation sought, and the food consumed, the cost can be as low as US$4,000 (RM16,000) per year.

However it can also be at US$10,000 (RM40,000) per year, making it less affordable to those from poorer nations.

Nonetheless, even now, , studying in China is already a good option.

Doing so not only allows one to receive a world-class education at an affordable cost, it also provides the opportunity for one to establish vast professional and business networks.

These networks are certainly beneficial in a world that has predicted that China would be the largest global economy and a superpower in the not too distant future.

By Dr Lim Koon Ong

The writer is a former Universiti Sains Malaysia deputy vice-chancellor, and is presently an emeritus professor there.

Related posts

Asian students dominate global exam; Are the Chinese ...

Dec 17, 2013 ... Hong Kong ranked third in Maths, scoring 561, while Japan was ranked ... Are the Chinese cheating in PISA or are we cheating ourselves?

 

 The Malaysian Education: bleak and bright side, a wake ...

May 20, 2015 ... ... Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and ... schools are scoring top grades for science and maths in the UPSR.

 English not only language of science and mathematics

Feb 27, 2016 ... May 20, 2015 ... As a result of participating in ASTI's Science Fair for Young Children, Tamil schools are scoring top grades for ... What is PISA?

Don’t blame China for global economic jitters; China contributed >25% global growth

‘There has never been a real recovery in North America and western Europe since 2008.’ Photograph: Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters

The US stock market has just had the worst start to a year in its history. At the same time, European and Japanese stock markets have lost around 10% and 15% of their values respectively; the Chinese stock market has resumed its headlong dash downward; and the oil price has fallen to the lowest level in 12 years, reflecting (and anticipating) worldwide economic slowdown.

According to the dominant economic narrative of recent times, 2016 was the year when the world economy would recover fully from the 2008 crash. The US would lead this recovery by generating growth and jobs via fiscal conservatism and pro-business policies. Reflecting the economy’s robust growth, the US stock market reached new heights in 2015, although disrupted by the mess in the Chinese stock market over the summer. By last October, US unemployment had fallen from the post-crisis peak of 10% to 5%, bringing it back close to the pre-crisis low. In a show of confidence, last month the US Federal Reserve finally raised its interest rate for the first time in nine years.

Not far behind the US, the story goes, have been Britain and Ireland. Hit harder than the US by the financial crisis, they have, however, recovered handsomely because they kept their nerve and stuck to the right, if unpopular, policies. Spending cuts, focused on wasteful welfare spending, accelerated job creation by making it more difficult for people to live off the taxpayer. They sensibly didn’t give in to the banker-bashers and chose not to over-regulate the financial sector.

Even the continental European economies have been finally picking up, it was said, having accepted the need for fiscal discipline, labour market reform and cutting business regulations. The world – at least the rich world – was finally set for a full recovery. So what has gone wrong?

Those who put forward the narrative are now trying to blame China in advance for the coming economic woes. George Osborne has been at the forefront, warning this month of a “dangerous cocktail of new threats” in which the devaluation of the Chinese currency and the fall in oil prices (both in large part due to China’s economic slowdown) figured most prominently. If our recovery was to be blown off course, he implied, it would be because China had mismanaged its economy.

China is, of course, an important factor in the global economy. Only 2.5% of the world economy in 1978, on the eve of its economic reform, it now accounts for around 13%. However, its importance should not be exaggerated. As of 2014, the US (22.5%) the eurozone (17%) and Japan (7%) together accounted for nearly half of the world economy. The rich world vastly overshadows China. Unless you are a developing economy whose export basket is mainly made up of primary commodities destined for China, you cannot blame your economic ills on its slowdown.

The truth is that there has never been a real recovery from the 2008 crisis in North America and western Europe. According to the IMF, at the end of 2015, inflation-adjusted income per head (in national currency) was lower than the pre-crisis peak in 11 out of 20 of those countries. In five (Austria, Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK), it was only just higher – by between 0.05% (Austria) and 0.3% (Ireland). Only in four countries – Germany, Canada, the US and Sweden – was per-capita income materially higher than the pre-crisis peak.

Even in Germany, the best performing of those four countries, per capita income growth rate was just 0.8% a year between its last peak (2008) and 2015. The US growth rate, at 0.4% per year, was half that. Compare that with the 1% annual growth rate that Japan notched up during its so-called “lost two decades” between 1990 and 2010.

To make things worse, much of the recovery has been driven by asset market bubbles, blown up by the injection of cash into the financial market through quantitative easing. These asset bubbles have been most dramatic in the US and UK. They were already at an unprecedented level in 2013 and 2014, but scaled new heights in 2015. The US stock market reached the highest ever level in May 2015 and, after the dip over the summer, more or less came back to that level in December. Having come down by nearly a quarter from its April 2015 peak, Britain’s stock market is currently not quite so inflated, but the UK has another bubble to reckon with, in the housing market, where prices are 7% higher than the pre-crisis peak of 2007.

Thus seen, the main causes of the current economic turmoil lie firmly in the rich nations – especially in the finance-driven US and UK. Having refused to fundamentally restructure their economies after 2008, the only way they could generate any sort of recovery was with another set of asset bubbles. Their governments and financial sectors talked up anaemic recovery as an impressive comeback, propagating the myth that huge bubbles are a measure of economic health.

Whether or not the recent market turmoil leads to a protracted slide or a violent crash, it is proof that we have wasted the past seven years propping up a bankrupt economic model. Before things get any worse, we need to replace it with one in which the financial sector is made less complex and more patient, investment in the real economy is encouraged by fiscal and technological incentives, and measures are brought in to reduce inequality so that demand can be maintained without creating more debts.

None of these will be easy to implement, but we know what the alternative is – a permanent state of low growth, instability, and depressed living standards for the vast majority.

By Ha-Joon Chang, Guardian Economics News

China Should Take Advantage of Industry 4.0 to Shift Economy: Bill Gates

Philanthropist and co-founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates attends a panel "Preparing for the Next Pandemic" at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 22, 2016. [Photo: Imagine China]

Microsoft founder Bill Gates has urged China to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution so as to face the challenge of transforming its economy.

He made the remarks on the sidelines of the ongoing World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.

"Well China's obviously got a lot of people, a lot of smart people. It's moved to not only have more people college educated, but lots of engineers, to raise the quality of those engineering skills. It's created a recognition that if people invent something that they can be rewarded for that, which is leading to all new sorts of companies. Not just the IT space, although that's the most visible, but also more and more in biology, robotics, those things, so China's going to carry its weight. "

Gates also expressed his optimism about China's economic future.

"There are a lot of great talents in China. You know, building up the educational system, you know, I think China has got a very bright future. I have a lot of confidence in China partly because they take long-term view; they look at what other countries are doing. You know China is going to contribute more and more to the world's innovation."

Figures from China's National Bureau of Statistics showed that the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2015 registered an annual growth rate of 6.9 percent, the lowest level since 1990.

Though slowing, China still contributed to more than 25 percent to global economic growth.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, also termed as Industry 4.0, is marked by convergence of smart technology including artificial intelligence with the industrial sector.- (CRI Online)

China to Contribute More to World's Innovation: Bill Gates

With a strong ambition to promote science and research, China is going to contribute more and more to the world's innovation, Microsoft's founder Bill Gates has said.

In an interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting 2016, Gates said China would probably become a huge participant in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is already under way and bringing a fast and disruptive change for most industries.

Talking about the new revolution, Gates believed the digital revolution, something he spent most of his life working on, was a huge factor.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution refers to the ongoing transformation of our society and economy, driven by advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology and other areas of science.

A key enabler of much of these new technologies is the Internet where Microsoft and Gates has been a leading contributor to the progress.

"An industrial revolution is coming to increase productivity very dramatically," Gates said, "It creates opportunities, and it creates challenges."

New technology changes would free some labor, so that people can do more in culture sector, according to Gates.

He said China had built some advantages in science and technology through its educational system, and the country had a strong will to promote its contribution in different sciences sectors.

"China obviously has a lot of people and a lot of smart people," Gates said, "Not only a lot of people college-educated, but also a lot of engineers with the quality of engineering skills. "

"With the recognition that people have done something that they can be rewarded for that, many experts have been leaded to have new companies, in IT sector, biology, robots and other those things."

"China is going to carry its weight," he said.

In recent years, the former internet elite has been dedicating to driving innovation in global health and development. As the Co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates decided to join force with China's Tsinghua University to establish the Global Health Drug Discovery Institute(GHDDI) in Beijing during his Davos visit.

"China has made incredible progress in reducing poverty and shares the foundation's commitment to harnessing advances in science and technology to address the critical health challenges affecting the world's poorest people," Gates said.

"We are excited about GHDDI's potential to drive innovation in global health research and development, and look forward to partnering with Tsinghua University on our continued work to address the world's most pressing global health challenges."

In an article released during WEF, Gates pledged his foundation would invest more in innovation in the coming years. He told Xinhua that the investment that went to China's innovation was expected to increase gradually.

Asked whether he worried about China's economic slowdown, which may hinder innovation progress, Gates said he was quite optimistic about China's economic outlook.

"I have a lot of confidence in China, partly because they take a long-term view, and partly because they look what other countries are doing," he said.

Faced with a challenge of turning the economy into new directions, Gates said China had great talent to achieve its goal.

"Most countries would envy a 6.9 percent growth, I think China has a bright future,"he said, adding "China is going to be contributing more and more to the world's innovation." - Xinhua Web Editor: Zhang Peng

Related posts:

Chinese economy expands 6.9% in 2015, slowest growth in 25 years

Video: http://t.cn/R4QD2R0 China’s economy posted a 6.9 percent GDP growth in 2015, which is within people’s expectations. Faced with susp...

 

Era of financial vulnerability

  The stock market crash in China and around the world shows how developing countries like Malaysia are increasingly vulnerable to financial... 

 

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, opens to lay down milestone for global economic governance

    Xi pushes for 'perfection of the system BEIJING: China has pledged US$50mil (RM221.25mil) to the Asian Infrastructure Investmen... 

 

AIIB attracts nations from East, West, its fate connects to Chinese economy

AIIB’s fate connects to Chinese economy The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) officially opened for business on Saturday...