I'm not signing up for the site to read the article. This appears to be it available without signup:
In 2022, the Covid-19 pandemic and the myriad crises it spawned may finally start to recede.
www.thedailystar.net
In any case, I don't see any meat in the article. It hints at the relative merits of governance variations but didn't seem nearly as fascist in it's push for environmentalism as other sites. Without considering or comparing every word in the article, governance 1.0 is authoritarianism/despotism, such as Hitler, Stalin/USSR, King George, Pol Pot, etc. Klaus would likely disagree on the list but, still, the idea describes level 1 governance.
Level 2 is capitalism, where we are, or were 2 years ago. OK.
Level 3 is disaster/emergency/crisis management where we are now; Klaus describes it as the pandemic. Presumably something will come later (hopefully sooner) and could be called governance 4.0
From the article:
Many leaders remain stuck in the shareholder capitalism mentality of Governance 2.0, while some societies still favour the strongman structure of Governance 1.0. And as long as Covid-19 remains a threat, the crisis mentality of Governance 3.0 will continue to dominate boardroom and cabinet discussions. But many leaders are already thinking and acting like pioneers for a new age of governance. They include business executives advocating for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics. Above all, young people are demanding a better future.
Instead of criticising such leaders for not "staying in their lane," we should welcome them for acting outside of their narrow interests. The best gauges of responsible and responsive governance today measure the extent to which leaders embrace and consent to stakeholder responsibility over shareholder responsibility.
I agree with leaders running businesses with social responsibility in mind. For instance:
- Nike and the NBA could refuse to do business with China over its treatment of the Uyghers.
- The United States could put high tariffs on Chinese products unless and until they reduce their pollution.
- Europe could refuse to buy Russian gas and oil unless Russia allows dissidents the freedom to disagree with Putin.
- American oil companies could produce petroleum and petroleum products in the United States where the production is far cleaner rather than shut down production in the US in favor of importing far dirtier oil, dirtier produced products, from Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
Or social justice like inclusivity, like not making decisions based on color and including all Americans.
Klaus calls for a better future for young people; I agree completely. Governance 4.0 should provide education choice for young people, encourage two-parent homes, and opportunity for young people to improve their conditions through their own labor.
So, I don't disagree much with what Klaus wrote in the article. I suspect, though, that he and I disagree completely on the details and implementation. The article appears to be intentionally vague to get people conditioned to the idea first and then the details can come later.
Yes, responsible business and responsible government for governance 4.0. I couldn't agree with Klaus more - except that he and I likely disagree on the details and the implementation of the details.
