[Festival of Ideas 2019] Globalisation vs De-Globalisation: What is the World’s Future?

distinguished guests ladies and gentlemen very good morning to all of you on behalf of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore we would like to warmly welcome each and every one of you to the festival of ideas 2019 the theme for the inaugural edition of this festival is governance for the future Asia's perspective my name is Erin and I'm a master of International Affairs candidate at the Lee Kuan Yew School to start us off it is my pleasure to invite Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Lee cacheing professor in economics resident ekwa to give his welcoming remarks Dean over to you America senior minister court Achtung chairman of our governing board your excellencies distinguished guests friends and colleagues our school the Lee Kuan Yew's core public policy shares many features with schools of public policy all around the world but at the same time our school is a unique construction most obviously it carries the name of Singapore's founding prime minister for that reason it attracts untold goodwill respect and admiration from all around the world standards that we constantly seek to live up to and from Singaporeans here an appropriate sense of pride and ownership the school deeply cherishes and values the trust and goodwill from all of the people around us a generosity that has allowed the school to do so much so quickly our schools journey over the last 15 years and continuing ahead is guided by principles by our founding documents our constitutional papers as it were and the intent in those founding documents makes clear our schools mission the V Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is an international institution that brings together scholars policy experts thought leaders from all around the world to share and to study diverse experiences this community of interests this fellowship in the classical sense of the word works because the school engages closely with both government practitioners and other research bodies and higher education institution the school continues to become a center of excellence for academic study and research in public policy focusing on the study of public policy in Asian societies in the first instance and specifically the economic and social policy challenges in developing in transitional and newly industrialized economies in this process the school helps reaffirm how the best practices in Singapore can form a global point of reference for the study of public policy and public management we think of our mission as a continuing one being an international institution that convenes on the one hand and on the other hand being a center of excellence means we need to achieve the very highest standards of credibility authority and trust with our community our fellowship this means studying with the highest integrity and rigor the reality of social political and economic developments around us it means our community generating foundational ideas on public policy and management and constantly testing those ideas against the most demanding and rigorous of interrogation in the world of both real world policy affairs and academic research it means importantly cherishing our past to clean the best principles as well as forging ahead on the defining challenges of the future continuing to make Singapore a global point of reference for best practice means leveraging a positive sum game seeing how we lift ourselves in the process of helping others around us it is against that backdrop that this year the school has put on this gathering a festival of ideas it is a festival that showcases how the school goes about its daily business or bringing together scholars and experts in policy and in governance in the school this week continuing to reach out to the local and international communities and convening all of us here in our bukit timah campus we reaffirm how best practice in Singapore is indeed a global point of reference and we subject ourselves and our principals to rigorous investigation by the communities that matter our Singaporean stakeholders and our stakeholders in the space of ideas and international affairs more generally this marketplace of ideas that we are all engaged in is how the best most enduring principles will emerge over the course of this next four days this festival will mount almost 50 sessions it will put on over 90 hours of content presented and curated by nearly 40 Lee Kuan Yew school participants and scholars and 60 external speakers with women forming almost but mentally not yet exactly half of all the airtime that we will see in doing this we will bring almost 7,000 footfalls to our campus this is a wonderful and glorious celebration of the best of principles that the school has to offer and I want to welcome everyone and earnestly wish that you all enjoy yourselves at this festival thank you very much thank you very much Dean ne crois to start our next panel discussion I'd like to call upon the moderator James Crabtree associate professor in practice at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy together with Dean Denis qua Dean and Lee kichan professor in economics at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Ronna karate Haddad regional industry director asia-pacific for the International Finance Corporation and Thomas Friedman foreign affairs columnist at the New York Times over to you my name is James Crabtree I'm an associate professor in practice here at the school my job here is to say very little I'm your chairman we're going to run through until 12 o'clock and the topic that we're here to discuss is not just one of the big research themes of our school but one if not the biggest question that affects any of us who are interested in economics and politics here in Asia and globally namely the nature of the future direction of globalization globalization or D globalization what is our future what does it hold if you think about it simply there were there were three big T's before sadirah the big era of globalization trade technology and travel people movement all three of them were seen to be almost unstoppable forces the the transfer of goods the spread of Technology and the movement of people all three of them in their own way have since the global financial crisis either stalled or gone into reverse certainly trade has stagnated technology rather than being an unstoppable force has become a force of division particularly between the US and China and while the statistics say that global people flows continue to rise the consequences of that in terms of cultural division backlash and instability in areas like refugee movement have been considerable so that's the discussion that we want to have what is our future particularly thinking of it here in Singapore a very globalization dependent economy and so to run through that you've already heard from our dean danny Guara Rana Karachi from the International Finance Corporation an arm of the World Bank who spends her life as a manager across the whole of Asia Asia thinking about how to invest and develop this continent in terms of trade and a whole range of other things and then Tom Friedman one of the global gurus of the first wave of globalization his books the Lexus and the olive tree the world is flat more recently thank you for being late I'm sure many of you will have read and has been a kind of investigator in seer of globalization for many decades now and so we're going to hear from each of them in turn for 10 minutes apiece then I'm going to moderate a discussion between the three of us and then we'll have time for audience Q&A some of which I think you've been told that there's an app that you can use to ask questions and I have an iPad here in front of me but we also have a traditional old-fashioned microphones for those of you who are more of that bent and so we'll take a selection from the app and a selection from people who decide to stand up so that's what we're going to do thank you very much for coming Danny let me turn over to you for the first opening contribution I want to think about globalization as the increasing ease with which everything is available to us wherever we are on the planet I take this description from a trade perspective but obviously it has implications for how we think about technology the flow of ideas the flow of financial capital I want to make three points in our discussion of globalization the first is that globalization is not linear well it is very helpful to think about the world having more globalization to think about disruptors like Donald Trump or brexit pulling the well back second up barriers so that the world D globalizes and there's less globalization the first point I want to make is that we need to stop thinking about globalization as being something linear it is not like the nuclear Doomsday Clock of The Bulletin of Atomic this were closer to midnight were further away from midnight instead what I want to argue is the globalization it is a knotted ball of string it is hairy in parts it's all complicated and nonlinear I want to argue in a little bit as I flesh in the detail on that what exactly I mean by that but if for the time being you are willing to accept my basic hypothesis that globalization is nonlinear two important implications follow the first is at any given point in time the supply of globalization on offer in the world does not have to be the same as the demand for globalization from the perspective of any given nation this is in contrast to the idea that more globalization is always a good thing because more globalization brings more open markets instead my second point is that there is an optimum amount of globalization and often the empirical reality that we see out there is not where we ought to be the second implication just as important is that because globalization is not linear because it doesn't mean just greater openness and it's a win-win proposition that also means globalization is asymmetric it is differentiated in how it affects different economy and the critical part of that observation is that we will often encounter situations where globalization pits nation against nation there's no longer the idea of a clear win-win outcome always when we look around the world and we appreciate in light of this proposition this hypothesis that globalization it's not always win-win for me it helps me in a predictive positive economic sense it helps me understand why some parts of the world are still all in favor of greater globalization in other parts of the world seek to pull back so it is consistent with what we see in the world my third point is where do I take these ideas going forward what is the future for this globalized world this appropriately globalized world and what I will argue there is that we need to step back a bit from the knee-jerk reaction that so many of us have that globalized international regime with America at the center pushing for ever more open borders is something that's accepted and indeed welfare improving for everyone we need to step back from that idea and in place of the muscle memory that we've got that associates American unipolarity with the best of globalization and multilateralism we need to think more creatively in a more subtle way in a more nuanced way where I'm going to land is that in the world today recognizing this complicated nonlinear nature of globalization we need to think about schemes that work we need to think about how Nations can help other nations get past their difficulties with globalization in other words we think about how nations can help themselves to the fruits of globalization by actually helping others through the difficulties through the difficulties that they face so these are the three points I want to make in the time that I've got let me just flesh out a little bit of each of these why do I say globalization is nonlinear why do I say it's hairy is mad is naughty is all-different convolutions because after all doesn't economics tell us that the greater volume of trade that you've got the better it is and indeed in many circumstances that's absolutely right greater openness flattens social hierarchies it opens up the people in my society to exposure to the best ideas in the world it sparks creativity it helps us all become better versions of ourselves it improves the availability of intermediate inputs it makes producers more efficient improves the variety lowers the price of final goods it makes consumers better off there's nothing to object to that let me suggest however that there are many things in the real world where greater openness doesn't bring just that we have the idea that global competition reduces the power of local feudal landlords local government local government monopolies local cronies but we don't often recognize that greater openness introduces yet other vested interests multinational banks large corporations winner-take-all network externality driven big tech companies all of these things will worsen social hierarchies all of these things will excessive eight income inequality all of these things create in turn a local political economy where more globalization doesn't mean necessarily good things so yes globalization brings good things but also brings difficulties one huge difficulty for many emerging economies is something called trade related intellectual property rights trips intellectual property systems are meant to be schemes that help societies navigate the difficulty the trade-off between the creativity of their inventors and the efficiency of the marketplace but ever since 2004 we have fetishized trips into trade agreements we have declared how trade agreements that don't carry trips are not gold standard high quality ourself often comes criticized for this as against what trips would have done under TPP well actually in economic theory and in history trips intellectual property is different from ordinary goods and services and the act of commercializing and marketers using them in the current version of globalization actually harms societies there's a laundry list of yet other things we can go through let me leave my first point at that globalization is not linear there's not more globalization less globalization that's the right kind of globalization and the right kind of globalization is what works differently for different nations and very quickly on the heels of that follow my two propositions first that there's an optimum of globalization it's not always what the world has to offer each individual society but we need to do what's best for ourselves and at the same time we need to understand that there becomes that that emerges conflict the clearest example of that is when China and India's globalization put onto global labor markets two billion additional workers at low wages just the force of market competition never mind terms like heckscher-ohlin theory or factor price equalisation theorem just the force of market competition means that the lower income lower wage in high-income societies will all of a sudden face great competition force of market competition drives wages down and the low end in rich countries drives wages up everywhere in the emerging countries emerging countries greatly value globalization America Britain and elsewhere are tortured or no one's than how they view this and that sets up the tension so how do we do what you do going forwards and this is my concluding third point we need to step back from the easy policy advice that say more globalization is always good open up your economy instead think about what the right kind of globalization is and when yours is a society that values globalization but those around you do not try and think about the game where by helping others around you see past those challenges help them on the law help them on income inequality help them build infrastructure you can bring everyone up and in doing so you yourself benefit from globalization thank you very much very good thank you Danny so we're gonna go down the panel in in order to make things simple so Rana do you want to give us your you know sort of starter for 10 yeah sure thanks thanks James and it's really come after a professor Danny Kwai I think I've really appreciated your comments let me just first give everybody in the audience because everybody may not be familiar with what we do at IFC IFC is what we call the private sector investing arm of the World Bank Group we were established in 1956 with the idea being that really to have sustained economic development need to have a vibrant private sector so I've C was set up to help sort of emerging economies develop by investing directly in to the private sector and it's been quite a successful story and just to give you kind of an overview of our size scale and reach kind of put into context and and I can share what I do and then from that the perspective that I bring in into this conversation as well so we invest anywhere between twenty fifteen to twenty billion every year globally only in emerging markets last year we deployed about nineteen billion across the globe we have a portfolio size of about 59 60 billion in 2000 companies and like I said our ultimate objective is how do we have economic development right and we have to track that for every investment that we do so to give you a flavor of some of the indicators that we have seen and of course this is going to be linked to what I'm on the perspective that I'll introduce in terms of globalization and how we look at it and how we see it impacting our clients our economies our work and why we feel it's important and where the challenges are but last year for example from our investments we created about 2.1 million jobs provided about 50 million in microfinance loans about eight million in SME loans we reached about 50 million patients a five over five million farmers reach through our financing 18 million people reached through at and increased access to water and about 81 million people reach through increased power generation so for us this is very much part and parcel of what we do and one of the things that we are seeing is as people are deploying capital they're looking at saying and we're as we talk to other financial institutions and and they're deploying capital around the globe is how do we measure it and how do we ensure that it has impact right and so recently we've launched these what we call sustainable these impact principles for sustainable investing and I'm happy to say that about 70 institutions have signed up to that so it shows you that there's an increased awareness of capital institutional capital that wants to be deployed globally I would argue but with impact right and so this is a trend that we are certainly seeing were you know it's for us is a very positive thing now going back to sort of the theme on globalization and D globalization right so we have seen global growth has has growth has global growth has slowed and is expected to slow this year so if we look at the global numbers according to the World Bank you know it'll decrease from 3% to 2.5% in the in 2019 from 2018 Asia also a slight decline six and a half to six percent right so the World Bank recently launched and sort of directly related to this recently launched what we call the global value chain Report 2020 it looks like it looks across the globe at sort of the cross country production process specialization hyper specialization and it talks about how that has net benefited population but sort of where that trend has been moving and why it's moved as such and as as one of the sort of multilateral institutions we like to think of ourselves as trying to enhance the betterment of global economies by enhancing trade and and economic flows does that mean I'm below five minutes sorry okay sorry so just as a point of reference in 1970 about 30 37 percent there was a 34 7 percent of global value trade existed that increased to 2005 to 52 percent 54 2% of global value trade all right we saw in 2008 and then they were there was a subsequent decline what we found - about 48 percent currently right so there's been a slight decline and what's been happening as a result of that decline right so we see shifts right China has been which was a big driver of international trade has been looking more internally right at servicing their local economy focusing on domestic consumption right commodity trade which was a big part of that right I slowed down obviously because the US as shale gas reserves right so they've been you know having been trading as much in sort of an oil and gas right and of course we see trade reforms right or policy maturation and sort of trade reforms people sort of starting to look more inward as a result and and why does that matters right as I go back to our objectives for why you know what do we look for as part of the World Bank what does IFC interested in right we're looking at how can we deploy capital to enhance economic development and so while we realize shifts right for various reasons because of shifts and national economies because shifts in commodity trades shifts in in sort of policy perspectives right but we also can see a direct impact as a result of a reduced Lincoln global value trades reduced link and trade reduce link in globalization right so so you know if if we see a continued decline according to the World Bank what there's a risk that an additional 30 million people could be pushed into poverty right and global income could decline by one point four trillion hardest-hit and this biggest beneficiaries of global trade are women in the workforce hardest hit from d globalization we find will be the women in the workforce so I think these are things to sort of keep in mind that are important we see a number of different risks to global growth and trade going forward obviously the shift in China's economy right shifts in global financial conditions right high household and corporate debt increasing geopolitical tensions and overlaying all of this of course will be climate climate and and technology certainly can just continue to disrupt you know businesses economic cycles and and I have a lot of other points that I want to bring but let me just sort of conclude on one thing since we're here at the University and you know I think Professor Danny Kwas right sort of globalization is not linear right and I'm curious how many people in this audience have familiar with the term Luca have you ever heard about a VUCA world right volatile uncertain confusing ambiguous right and I I think sort of since we're here at the university talking to I'm sure you know number of students here I guess comments I would make to you is that and points of advice I would I would make to the students and in the audience is that you have to constantly think about how you retool yourself I think there was a McKinsey report that came out says we have to sort of retool ourselves every five years right and I think that's gonna continue to accelerate right and it's going to accelerate because of all the disruptions between globalization and D globalization I think we're gonna constantly see a world of disruption and I think that you know what's going to be important for us as part of the global economy going forward will be sort of how do you connect the dots right how do you work globally how do you you know bring in and constantly reinvent and retool yourself and how do you work in a world of disruption and so there's no clear answer but I think you know what is clear is that we need to constantly being able to do that right so in sort of the generation where I grew up at work you know my boss will tell me to do something I'll say sure I'll do it now I'll tell somebody maybe with the younger generation can you do something and they'll ask why right so I think we constantly you know and I think as well how professor Danny quality you know started his talk was that we need to constantly be questioning ourselves and so I would encourage all of you to continue to do that thank you thank you all right age of disruption this brings us neatly on to you Tom or age of acceleration as you now call it you want to give us your your sense of where you're thinking and globalization has reached you know thank you James and those were those are great I've been taking notes so I wrote the world is flat you know back in 2004 um maybe just start there but what I what I meant by the term flat because it got widely you know misinterpreted by different people who wanted it to mean different things than I did and what I meant was simply not that the world was equal what I meant was that we had created a technology platform where more people from more places could compete connect and collaborate on more things in more ways on more days for less money more equally than ever before that's what I meant by the world is flat we've created a technology platform for that to happen that gave more people the ability to compete connect and collaborate on more things what they did on that platform though it got widely and I got widely branded as the Guru of global is a every Union named it I was at UM because the greatest sin you can ever commit as a journalist is to be optimistic about anything okay and because I saw a platform emerging that brought more people out of poverty faster than any engine ever created before in history and that kind of floated my boat I got it a lot of blowback on that including people who said Oh Friedman went to India and talked to his high-tech pals in Bangalore and declared the world is flat well actually not exactly um what actually excited me or that the charge said I didn't understand that there were poor people in India to which I said oh thank you um I hadn't noticed what you haven't noticed is this for the first time we are spawning massive numbers of Indian engines entrepreneurs and innovators who are making India on pork and that is new and that is important and I make no apologies for giving that a standing ovation so that's sort of where I was kind of coming from now this platform though because I believe globalization is a platform it goes both ways and it's everything in its opposite it can be incredibly democratizing an incredibly authoritarian it can be incredibly particular izing and incredibly homogenizing it can be wonderful for individuals and terrible for individuals it's all about the values that we bring to this platform and that's a question of politics and Society the other thing I noticed is that globalization began to be blamed for every um including you know massive job loss and I tried to point out to people that the engine of job loss the grit is actually technology acceleration we used to have a receptionist at the New York Times bureau in Washington DC we don't anymore but she didn't lose her job to a Mexican she lost her job to a microchip we got voicemail okay but because you can't see the microchip but you can see the Mexican we tended to blame individuals and globalization for what was largely driven by technology but that's not to suggest what both run in and and Danny pointed out that for certain sectors of society at a certain time the surge of a trade from China had a devastating impact and that's why politics has to be about cushioning the worst impacts and enhancing the best and that's why I like so much what Danny said my way of saying what he says I'm all for floors but I'm really against walls but I think the way to manage globalization is by trying to lift the floor for everyone not by erecting walls because I am I've been accused of being a technological determinist and I am guilty as charged by that I mean I believe if I have a cell phone that allows me at zero marginal cost to have collaborators around the world customers around the world suppliers around the world I'm gonna use this okay what I use it for though is a whole nother question which is why the question of values and ethics today becomes much more important because we now live in a world where more people because of globalization can do unto you Putin did unto us in our election and you can do unto others more deeply than ever before so where is globalization today and because I tend to look at it as globalization was initially driven by by countries Spain you know launching Christopher Columbus to the New World then it was delivered by driven primarily by companies the Dutch East in company you know today I believe globalization is driven primarily by individuals um because of the technology is now allowing individuals to compete connect and collaborate globally as individuals and so I'm really um I totally agree with what Ron said that if you actually think about globalization as containers on ships and planes it's actually flat to declining if you think of globalization as I do which is digital globalization though everything is being digitized and globalized through Facebook Twitter MOOCs and Internet of Things it's actually accelerating and looks like a giant hockey stick by any indices of global cell phone diffusion global internet usage cetera it's really digital globalization is the new thing that came along since I began writing about this in 2004 and it is it is rapidly accelerating so why is that so I tend to look at technology as moving up in steps and each step tends to be driven by a bias toward a certain set of capabilities bias by a dominant set of technologies and I would argue that around 2000 a set of technologies came together that were biased toward connectivity and that was because the dot-com boom bubble-and-bust collapsed the price of fiber-optic cable and so we accidentally wired the world honey I didn't mean to but I Shrunk the world okay and we and America discovered that around y2k we discovered that we need to remediate all our computers because when the calendar turns to 2000 they're all going to blow up and the electricity is gonna stop and the water won't come out your faucet and all these other things we are warned of and the process of Rimini and all these computers required massive numbers of engineers and we discovered that we had actually wired or accidentally wired the world switch of leverage engineers in Banga lor india in the tens of thousands to help us remediate this problem so I'm caught because connectivity had become fast virtually free easy for you and invisible and she was really and ubiquitous and I discovered it by calling home to minneapolis one day and talking to my mom and telling me around mm that i was interrupting her because she was playing bridge on the internet with someone in siberia okay and so whatever people telling me oh the globalization we've seen all that before I say really was your great-grandmother playing bridge on the internet with someone in Siberia so don't let anyone tell you there's nothing new here okay because in the ability of an individual tag globally now is fundamentally new so in what happened around 2000 on that step was that suddenly I could touch people who I could never touch before and I could be touched by people who could never touch me before and I came along gave that moment a name I said it feels like the world is flat but as Danny and Romney said this is this is a dynamic process it didn't just stop there technology moved up another step around 2000 another set of technologies came together and they were biased toward complexity they were driven by another price collapse a collapse in the price of compute and storage and what that allowed with the right algorithms was forced to massively abstract complexity in more and more ways of our daily life and commerce we could suddenly takes and out of the years of so many things and put Greece in their place and the world became fast that's because around the year 2000 a set of technologies came together we're on compute storage memory and software that gave us the ability to connect mobility broadband cloud in ways that were utterly transformative those in 2007 the iPhone came out January 11th Steve Jobs in 2007 Facebook opened its platform to anyone with the registry email address in 2007 Twitter launched its own independent platform in 2007 Hadoop which created big data was launched into the wild in 2007 github was launched the world's largest repository of open source software in 2007 VMware went public which created the foundation of cloud computing enabled any operating system to work with any computer in 2007 Android was launched in 2007 Google TV company called YouTube in 2007 Netflix screamed its first video lyft sent its first writer Watson IBM's Watson was launched in the computer world the first cognitive computer the SAR on Bitcoin was launched late 2006 Airbnb was launched in 2007 I can go down the list 2007 I believe will go down in history as one of one of the single greatest technological inflection points in history and we completely missed it because of 2008 yeah right when our technologies massively accelerated our social technologies the learning reform education reform management reform and governing reform you would need was such an acceleration in technology completely froze because we entered the deepest recession since 1929 and in that gap between what happened to our physical technologies and what didn't happen to our social educational and governing technologies a huge number of brexit and Trump voters were born because a huge number of people got completely dislocated but again as my colleague said the process is dynamic it just kept going and we entered left up to a third step around 2015 this step was driven by a further price collapse in the powers of compute storage and memory and much stronger algorithms what gave us artificial intelligence and a collapse in the price of sensors which allowed us to deploy sensors everywhere on every light faucet drained computer engine we could put sensors and create this internet of things everywhere and then digitize all that data and store it in the cloud and the world became smart suddenly we could put intelligence into everything suddenly now with no touch with no - no sorry I didn't say in the second stage it was all about what we could do with one touch with one touch I could page a taxi direct a taxi pea taxi raid a taxi and berated by a taxi with one little touch because we had strechted away all that complexity we had made complexity fast free easy for you and invisible and the world got fast in this third stage the world got smart now with no touch on my phone this morning it says you're on a panel with James Crabtree in 45 minutes and you're 50 minutes away it just didn't say you're 15 minutes away but that will that will come okay so that was with no touch it sensed where James was where I was and with no touch pushed intelligence to me so basically what's happened with with the technology underlying globalization is in the last two decades the world went from flat to fast to smart so again it never stopped the process is dynamic because it's driven by technology okay so where are we today so where are we today is that um my wife is building a word language Museum in Washington DC it's called planet word world's first word language museum she's a real wordy and she likes to come back at the end of every year and asked me if I know what the word of the year is because the online dictionaries can now track what is the most searched word what word did more people around the world look up last year and on Webster's Merriman they will tell you that in 2018 the word of the year was justice more people looked up the meaning of justice in 2018 than any other word so I told my wife you can close the contest for 2019 now I will tell you what the word of the year is okay and the word of the year for 2019 is deep deep have you noticed how we're applying the adjective deep to everything deep fake deep surveillance deep state deep mind deep research deep medicine deep war deep climate and by the way no one declared this no one declared this the word of the year no one declared we must call it that everyone autonomously independently has started to apply the word deep because when the world goes from fast to flat to smart it starts to go really deep suddenly I can hit as a medical researcher I can hit that that cell I can toggle that DNA at a depth of precision that was science fiction just five years ago suddenly as a as a war maker I can hit a target I can kill you and your wife upstairs and leave your kids alone downstairs suddenly as a researcher I can find the needle in the haystack of my data at a depth of precision that was unimaginable and because we all into it now we're going to a depth we've never been at before we all suddenly started describing this as deep because we knew we were somewhere we hadn't been before and because I'm a big believer in following popular culture I get a lot of my signals from there you may have noticed the song that won the Oscars last year by Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper was called shallow okay but listen to the words I'm off the deep end watch as I dive in I'll never see the shore crash through the surface where they can't hurt us were far from this shallow now oh baby we are far from the shallow okay so basically um the world has gone from flat to fast too smart too deep now why does this impact global ization well um take the us-china trade issue there are two issues in that in that story today there's soybeans and Boeing's and one way or another they'll figure that out we'll build more of our soybeans well but they'll buy more Boeing whatever it is what we'll figure that out but the other issue is called wallet and huawei is the apotheosis of the deep problem it is the tip of a gigantic iceberg that I believe represents the biggest challenge to globalization today and that is because for 30 years China sold us shallow goods they sold us shirts we wore in our back they sold us shoes we worn a feet they sold a shocks that we wore on her ankles they sold us surface goods solar panels that we put on our roofs they sold us toys t-shirts and tennis shoes but China has become a technological powerhouse now and it now wants to sell us Huawei 5g and Huawei 5g is deep it gets buried in your sidewalk in the walls of your house in the body in your bedroom and we and China do not have a trust framework for us to buy they're cheap it's their deep goods and that is the core of the story today with US and China they had to buy our deep goods for 30 years our software our computers they didn't have a choice but now that they can also make deep technologies we have a choice or think we do and without a trust and shared values framework us-china trade cannot go forward because we don't have a framework to buy their deep goods so one of two things is going to happen either we're gonna collaboratively develop that framework in which case you are gonna see globalization on steroids oh you are gonna see globalization like we've never seen it before or we're not going to develop that framework and if we don't we're gonna look back on the past 30 years of globalization as the great and wonderful good old days thank you I'm almost tempted to ask Tom to give us a full rendition of this let me ask you a quick question so Tom you said you know you're seen as this high priest of globalization there was a time in the 1990s around the time so in the Lexus and the olive tree came out when you know Blair and I Clinton these kind these sort of leaders were in power globalization was seen as unstoppable and not the globalization you're talking about but the what you call your grandfather's globalization containers on ships trade going around the world now what did we get wrong about that because it does seem to have been much more stoppable than maybe you think I don't know if you will admit and Mayer culpa here I mean did you sort of did you get that wrong a bit or well I really don't think so because um you know that book one of the biggest chapters in that book was called the backlash against globalization it was all about Seattle so what was the framework of that book what was that book came along in a context where 1989 just happened so he'd entered the post-cold war world and the book was written in the context of everyone was trying to ask because the Cold War was a system of understanding international relations so if the Cold War it collapsed what is the new system for framework for understanding global international affairs and I would argue well there are three very prominent books that came out the first was by Frank folk young he said the system that were placed a Cold War system will be on the triumph of free markets and free people everywhere and that will be the end of history that didn't work out the second big argument was by Sam Huntington he said what's gonna replace the Cold War system he's actually a clash of civilizations who actually what's happened is much more clash within civilizations Sunnis and Shiites much more than as one example Koreans and Chinese or Japanese much more than actually on clash a giant clash of civilizations the third was Robert Kaplan he said it's going to actually be the coming Anarchy and and my book was written in that context and what I argued was that actually what's going to replace the Cold War system is an interaction between what I call the Lexus analogy between all these very old and ancient urges and aspirations within us around identity place region sect tribe and faith our olive tree urges that are always there and can easily emerge into the world and they will be intersecting with something very new this globalization system and the story will be about the interaction between the two so yes Vladimir Putin will seize Crimea you'll see is Crimea his olive tree urges will drive him to do that but he won't go to Kiev why won't he go to Kiev because the globalization system and the IFC will so fun will so punish him for doing that that he won't dare do that instead he'll use just little green men to try to be stable so everywhere I look I think that framework today is still alive and well and I argued that what was new about international this form of international relations just to close what that we now will not just have superpowers but we will have super empowered individuals and some will do amazing things Mark Zuckerberg will create a platform that 2.4 billion people will use today and I said but unfortunately will also have super empowered angry men and women and I wrote this book in 1998 came out in 99 and my example of the super-powered angry man was a guy I called a guy who was called Osama bin Laden so I probably got a few things wrong there I think I got a few things right also about sort of what was happening and I would argue that of those four frameworks James I think I'm still standing I I didn't get everything right I certainly there's been a push back on the neoliberal golden straitjacket whatnot but when I get that pushback I always say I totally get it what is your alternative you know what is the alternative economic engine that will create this much prosperity for this many people and I think that's really what the debate should be about so that's my rant so Rana let me sort of to ask a variant of the same question to you so I struck at the end that you said the the people who will lose out most from a world of D globalization are often the poorest you mentioned women I mean give us it just so you were talking about global value chains and who benefits from them and what the risks are can you talk a little bit about that and give maybe give us a practical example but also I mean is it your sense that institutions like the IFC in the World Bank which to some degree were accused of being very favorable towards globalization have now got a kind of more nuanced view about the way forward okay let me see if I can be as inspirational let's talk freedom from what so okay so there's a couple of questions in there and let me see if I can approach from from a couple of different perspectives so one let me just say you know the way we've looked at I think there's no sense increase its since China joined the WTO in 1990 and I think as Professor kua mentioned the huge influx into the labor force at that point sort of disrupted how things work but since then I don't think I think everyone probably agrees that there's been a general global econ make sort of positive outlook it's globally we have net benefited from global trade has it been disproportionate yes right so even looking at the United States you can see probably coasts have benefited much more than the heartland of America and you're seeing it playing out and in in current politics today you add to it sort of fast and deep you further disrupt that right but just looking at it from that simple lens of sort of global economic trade and benefits the impetus in my mind then comes back to sort of how then what is the role of the government and what do they play in this picture and and how do they help sort of soften those impacts right so there's a lot of policy sort of just you know things that they can do at their disposal to help sort of you know manage that transition whether it's retool the labor force whether it's you know investing in infrastructure or other ways but but but they're you know you you cannot let trade in and of itself move I mean I think government's do certainly have a role to play in that how we look at that so let me just share a couple of things so the areas that that the the team that I work with covers so I cover all of Asia East Asia South Asia so 32 countries where we invest it's a massive area right so last year so I oversee a portfolio five billion last year we put in about one and a half billion across Asia and we're constantly good ways how we can deploy capital to enhance economic activity right one of the areas that we look at would be agribusiness so food specifically to answer your question James sort of what is one impact so let me give you a couple of numbers here right so between now and 2030 we expect the demand for food to grow by fifty percent between now and 2030 right because of rising median incomes because of growing population urbanization number of different different different reasons right the demand for food will go by by 50 percent however the arable land that can be used we only have about 25 cent more so how do we square that equation right does that mean some people go hungry right so that's where I go to see direct impacts of you know parking technology aside which I fully agree has created globalization at the individual level but going back to sort of the bricks and mortar of enabling you know people to get out of poverty right global value chains trade globalization is very much embedded into the global food food value chain right and the only way you can square that 50% growth for a demand for food with only 25% of arable land of it increased arable land availability is one through trade but - that's where technology comes in right enhanced technology can increase productivity of the the farm line that you're using now right and of course these new like no meat or never meat I can't know what it's called but sort of new ways of introducing protein into the population you know I've talked to some people now who are investing in bugs I think that's the future of protein of bugs I'm not sure I'm fully there yet but but but you know it does hit it does impact in terms of what we see and how we see sort of people coming and trying to lift them out of poverty food is essential if I can talk sort of about the impact on sort of globalization just infrastructure let me talk a little bit about that there's a lot of infrastructure that's being deployed around Asia led by for example Bri right you know it's deploying capital around the around the globe it's enhancing increased trade right but there's one thing that we are seeing at least I would see as a financial investor as I look at that one cautionary word is right so for example just like pointing to China for example you know China has been deploying a lot of capital in infrastructure in many countries Pakistan Sri Lanka Kazakhstan wherever the thing is just to keep in mind it's not part it's not part of the the international agreement going back to the comment about sort of international multilaterals international agreement in terms of how countries look at addressing and restructuring debt because I can tell you some of those loans will go bad for sure some of those loans will go bad and right now there's no protocol in place to say how do we work through them because China's doing this many of this on its own not part of the International how they're gonna work through these we don't know right what will be the result and what further disruption that will cause so all of these things I would say trade is good for us we have to look at it differently we do look at it as to how can we help a country in enhance its competitiveness and it's it's self dependency as much as possible but understanding that there's limitation and at some point you've got to have trade right to bring in food to bring in goods to bring in raw material right so that will create disruption and we see that that that will certainly happen there are a few statistics that I shared but some of this stuff is unknown right and so as we now we look so this year as we look at how we're gonna deploy our capital across Asia these are some of the things that we look at we're looking what happening in China we're looking at what's happening economically in India now saying ok so where can we put our capital to help shore up the private investor the private sector so that it doesn't collapse so that they don't have too much strain on their balance sheet so they can continue to hire people so they can continue to create productivity in the economy so a lot of different thoughts and answer to that question but I think a lot of serious global implications as well great thank you so much Danny I mean one short question one one longer question the short question is so in your opening remarks you posited this idea that there's a sort of optimum level of globalization and so we shouldn't think always more is better so that begs the question sort of where are we at the moment about right not enough a little bit more needed what's your sense so that's the long question that's the longer one is about China yes I think depending on which country we're at obviously for the US u.s. has festered over the last its political conversation has festered on a number of sorts the emissaries ation of the poor in the United States in most other countries inequality has risen we accept that that's part of our dealing with the rest of the world means but it's really only the United States where the bottom 50% have seen an actual decline in the absolute levels of their income nowhere else listen I suspect that we cannot look at us and say yeah this is kind of working for America it's not something needs to be done there but obviously for a nation like China and you know Tom you've referred to how hundreds of millions of people have been lift our poverty China is the epitome of that six hundred twenty seven million from the backs of nothing but exporting to the rest of the world low value shallow things lifted themselves out of poverty so as we you know take a tour of the world I suspect that you know nations are gonna line up on different points of those two extremes but there isn't one fit answer so let me serve both rauner and Tom mentioned China and I'll bring you in on this in a minute but so you said in a sense we all have to ditch this image that globalization was driven by the United States it's gonna be different and more complicated but it brings China into mind we have a question here from our audience you can send me questions so Eric asks Eric Chang China it's apparent the Beijing participates in the International rule-based order when it's in their favor but not when it isn't and so in a sense are you optimistic about what's going on here somebody just are you are you optimistic about a model of globalization that is less American and more Chinese the quick answer is yes because I can see how structures are emerging that are going to allow that to happen but let me just quickly take on that question directly as well there is no nation in the world that will agree to do something that is not in their own interest no nation no nation ever does that that you that you know china is accused of no just participating when it suits and you know pulling back when it doesn't is a description that would apply regardless of which nation we're talking about yeah I see we're more distracted by sorry about that I didn't realize when I go into the questions that this would happen behind me actually since one China can I uh can I press a bit on some of the things that this panel has said I think there is a there's a narrative that says that the us-china conflict just to pick up on that to be very concrete is yes part of the narrative is about a divergence in values part of it is about good old-fashioned needing to be number one girl for whatever deeper reason it's not really necessarily very well articulated or well understood it's learning and in fact if we go to you if we take that scenario then it could well be you know as part of my answer to James or how the future global order looks like America has for a large part of its life been extremely or talking right after the the end of the civil war it viewed herself as out of step with the rest of the world its record and human rights was actually spotted relative to that in Europe it viewed mercantilism as the way to go it couldn't compete with the rest of the world it was very happy being autarkic and it took from 1865 until 1945 before it fully came into the world so I am NOT I'm not I I don't discount the possibility that an extreme bifurcation could occur it would actually be consistent with that part of history I wish it didn't but I'm willing to accept that it would and and so on that point maybe I might push back a little bit Tom on on the idea that it is values that separate that we see a convergence and values we could forget the needing to be number one part of the narrative I would actually come together and part of my might by worried about this we said there are some values for which two sides will never agree the centrality of the individual versus that of society the the trade-off between the trade-off between individual rights freedom of expression expression and social stability but the areas where they come into contact on far way around technology it seems to me the two nations aren't necessarily that far apart and it's true that you know the great worry about huawei is that the government the Chinese government will come in and use up all the security data that come through but America also has section 7:02 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment of 2008 that already gives the National Security Agency the right to all the data of non-citizens that flow through big tech companies and America's internet pipes so the two nations are actually quite comparable in terms of their views on security and the use of Internet information hardware it seems to me that there is a convergence but that convergence is not in the space of values but in the space of actually meeting to see how we can use these data because their approach to these are already quite comparable it's a very good point I mean do you want to come back on that I mean say a little bit more about your view of US China so you had the view that the engine of the high period of globalization let's say from the 1990s through to the financial crisis was a positive us-china relationship now we have a less positive relationship so say a little bit more about how you see that in the future Tom I'll put it in the context of the current news just to dive in you know and so the whole Trump question because I've I've I've broadly but at a very high you know level of abstraction supported president Trump on the China question my view is Donald Trump is not the American president that America deserves but he is the American president that China deserves and so and why why do I feel that um I feel that because um if you look at how China grew from poverty to middle income the last 30 years I I would argue as a three silo strategy and I'm very interested in your reaction to there's a pushback from business from my perspective a one silo I think the most important was actually hard work delayed gratification um kind of national pulling together around a great mission of invest smart investments in infrastructure and smart investments in education and I think that was the prime engine it was but it was a very important one and we tend to underplay that but there was a second silo the second silo was stealing other people's intellectual property on forced technology transfer non reciprocal trade arrangements and non-compliance with certain WTO rules the third silo which tends to be completely overlooked was the US Pacific Fleet because the presence of our fleet in Asia allowed China to economically dominate all its neighbors without them fearing they would be geopolitically dominated and that created a huge opportunity for China to expand its kind of globalization initiative regionally um China use that three silo strategy to grow from poverty to middle income by making shallow Goods if we were to let China twee America use that same strategy to make artificial intelligence supercomputers and microchips we'd be crazy so so in that sense I thought we there needed to be a rebalancing unfortunately agent of that rebalancing was was Donald Trump and so on the one hand he's the only one who would actually have done what he did unfortunately is also the only one who would have done it the way he did it okay and um and to me the right way to do that was actually for America to sign TPP to bring 40% of global GDP on a platform of shared values on right as the right ready to do this then I would have gone to the Europeans and said to them but you have the exact same problem with China that we have please join us in this alliance and we've got about 70 percent of global GDP around our side on what are the fair and right values for trade going into the 21st century and then I would have gone to China and said you send your top foreign trade negotiators to Hainan Island we'll send our top four we're into all this in secret non private I'm coming with all my friends and we're gonna absolutely nail you but in public we're gonna come out and say everybody was a winner everybody was a winner and no one lost any face instead Donald Trump made about him and Xi Jingping and who's got the biggest tariffs okay and um and as a result it became a huge ego kind of thing among others and um when it should have been America against the world on what are the right trade values for the 21st century had we approached it that way we would have actually leveraged all the economic reformers in China who actually want to go down that route and instead we forced all them to basically wave the nationalist flag and so you actually see Trump doing the exact same thing with Iran so Trump basically decided I'm gonna take on two of the world's oldest civilizations at the same time Persia and China okay and I'm in both cases he created an enormous leverage in both one with tariffs and one with oil sanctions but because of the way he does things he makes it always about him and me versus the other leader not me on these values so he forced all the Iranian reformers have to rally around the national fly as well and we get stymied we get we get less than optimal in both places so I like I like the audience priorities here so you can see now that rather noisy interlude which questions you want us so I'll answer on a-- in a minute about climate because you mention that but tom a little bit further down the list I have a very blunt question even Eloy Mukherjee mr. Friedman are we gonna have another year of four years of Donald Trump and what impact will that have on globalization you're talking about the great man oh yeah outlook so I believe that there are too overwhelming sort of political truths about America today I believe one is that a majority of Americans and I can substantiate this with his morning polls on Real Clear Politics um orange aura T of Americans want to fire Donald Trump as president and the other truth is a majority of Americans don't agree on a candidate to replace Donald Trump so those are the competing truths right now about America and so um the question is as we go forward um will the Democrats be able to agree on a candidate who can unite the left wing and the right wing of the party who can bridge Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren with Budaj and Biden and Klobuchar and maybe even a Bloomberg oh I'm not sure yet he's gonna run actually then um but whatever it is and um I I just don't know but that that's the whole question you can't beat something with nothing at the core of the whole thing is a very simple I would say math problem um Donald Trump won in 2016 because he managed to persuade a hundred thousand voters across just across three states Michigan you know Pennsylvania and Wisconsin he managed to get independence moderate Republicans and suburban women just enough of them to vote in the end for him over Hillary Clinton I thought let's try something new I don't really like mrs. Clinton they said and um how bad can Trump be okay well we discovered that and so uh what happened in the 2018 midterm elections was the Democrats got these suburban women moderate Republicans and independents ah three out of four of them to leave Trump and vote for the Democratic candidates and that's how the Democrats retook the house so at it's very core there's really only one question for 2020 can the Democrats produce a candidate who can keep those suburban women moderate Republicans and independents in the Democratic column and what you have to say about the recent elections in Virginia Kentucky for governor in Louisiana for governor um the last two being deep red states were Trump campaigned vigorously for the governor and he lost in all three is that the public is ripe for an alternative I believe that there is still a civic pulse in America but you know we are were a country that's deeply divided right now and I've never been more worried about America I've never been more worried about America not because we haven't been divided before lord knows we have but we're having an uncivil war right now and we are we are deeply divided around the two things that are the seminal foundation of any democracy truth and trust without truth and trust you cannot have a democracy without shared truth what are the facts here and without shared trust how do we come together to mobilize those facts to the greater good you really can't go anywhere and right now I believe the Republican Party has our Conservative Party is completely off the rails and it's caught up in conspiracy theories it's caught up in a cult of personality it has nothing to do with the conservative movement and it's it's a dangerous it's in a dangerous place and four more years of it we can get through four years but we can't get through four more without serious damage to our institutions I just close by saying that I am a Wednesday columnist for The New York Times and my columns appeared on Wednesday for since 1995 and what that means is I get the first column after every election because our elections are all held on Tuesdays so um so I've been I've been used to having to you know write the morning at be the first get the first shot you know when a president is elected or govern or whatever so when Trump was running against Hillary Clinton um and 2016 I wrote three columns that night in a space of two hours the first was tilted slightly that mrs. Clinton was going to win the second was neutral and the third was that Trump won and I wrote three columns in the space of two hours but they all began with the same quote and it was a quote from a friend of mine from Zimbabwe a Leslie goldwasser who said that our town American immigrant who said you Americans kick around your country like it's a football but it's actually not a football it's a Faberge egg you can actually drop it and you can break it and you have to be from a country that's been broken to appreciate that and right now we're kicking around our country on the assumption that we can just do this blithely and nothing will happen when you start kicking around truth and Trust you're really kicking around the crown jewels of the country and that's what we're doing super let some song get it we're gonna head time for a couple of questions from the audience but let's say that the top question we have on our on our list here is about climate change which again I appreciate we spend much too little time in debates like this talking about it I mean Ronnie you you mentioned it Danny I don't know if you want to come in as well I mean that the future of globalization is going to be driven by very different forces from the past of globalization and climate is perhaps the most significant long term change so how do we how do we think about that as we look to the future can I just start by just reacting to something that you said and I think it was such an important commentary and I very much appreciated that and as somebody who was originally from Michigan I was surprised to see it turn turn red it's always been traditionally blue but I'll be there over the holiday so we'll see so I very much appreciated those comments so thank you Tom for that but let me I guess on climate for for from from our perspective you know it's definitely an issue and it's a concern for us we have a mandate that we have to you know focus our investments on climate as well and you know I would just like to share that it's also presents an opportunity for people to invest we launched a report a couple of years ago where we saw that you know if we looked at I think it was 21 emerging economies and if they were to meet their obligations as per the Paris climate Accord mmm what would that mean in terms of investment opportunities for private capital and we defined a 23 trillion dollar investment opportunity 16 trillion just in Asia and so obviously for us this is very important because it impacts food supply it impacts infrastructure it impacts you know well-being you know in in many different ways and we're seeing it play out particularly in the poorer countries and we're trying to find ways in which we can you know help address that by bringing in sort of private sector solutions for example we're looking at things that like disaster resilient housing right so if we take instead of that aid money that comes in at a disaster happens can we bring in an app for upfront work with you know sort of private developers create disaster resilient housing which will then enable these homes to be better insured and therefore become more resilient so rather than bringing the aid after the fact bringing it up in a much more strategic manner so we try to see how we can turn it a little bit on its head to create opportunities but it's definitely something that I think is you know it's very important just one thing you know we were talking about globalization the globalization one thing we we have seen and you'll see if you read the World Bank report is that increased trade obviously increases emissions so it's not always everything and that positive and so then you have to then I go back to the comment that I made then becomes important for the role of governments policies are very important right how do you address these things to counter effect some of the disruptions and impacts that are caused by increased trade and globalization something that we would advocate but you know is what Professor Paul was saying it's not always a net positive it's not linear so how do you create more linear out of the dis linear and that's where we think sort of role of good policy comes into play Donnie seems to me that we're at risk of conflating a number of different issues and the danger is just because they have the word global in them we think they're all the same bundle of things you know there's globalization which has to do with connectivity collaboration trade and then there's global climate change global public goods global institutions and we we lump all these together and we think that they're the same challenge I want to suggest that they're not that we can make a lot of progress on global technologies global exchange and we could be completely hopeless on global climate change here I think the response that's needed to address the question what's the world's future is that humanity needs to change its way of life it's not that we will know that we're at risk of extinction but we cannot live life the same way that we do now we need to find different ways to and that is as much a local response and it says the global one we don't necessarily think of the global policy being able to fix the way in which our attitudes towards use of disposables use of plastic bags use of convenience items that is to that letter it seems to me is what needs to change the provision of global public goods is an important problem it is an important challenge but we need to again dissociate that from the globalization phenomenon itself and part of the problem is that the world has operated so well over the last seven decades with a unipolar structure centered on America as the leader of the world it solved all these problems and they pushed globalization and our muscle-memory is the solution must take the same form who is now going to be the leader of the world well let's separate these things if America decides to go a little bit autarky we will need to come up with some other institutions that will solve global problems to provide global public goods and a lot of the provision of global public goods are not large military footprint ones what's needed are clever ideas the judicious application of technologies all of which small states and middle powers can play a hugely important role so I would say huge problem let's get the top minds to work on this and if we have to ditch the current global order let's do that okay now I was gonna take some questions to the floor but the clock behind us is against us and I know that we have Sri Mulyani the Indonesian finance minister coming in a half an hour and you also want to have a lunch so let me ask Tom for a kind of final thought so apologies for those who wanted to not ask through the app I mean you wrote a book hot flat and crowded you've talked about climate as a function of globalization do you want to sort of say a word on that and respond to Danny and then we'll we'll close well I think Danny hit on a really central point which is that we have a whole set of issues that require global governance but we have no global government and and the challenge of how you manage those climate being the central one but I think electronic currency is gonna be another all of these that are because the technology is driving them you know across border so how do we get global governance on these issues that requires it takes me back to us in China that the the people forget the Paris climate agreement was preceded by four bilateral agreements between the US and China and then one by the US and India so it was really them working together and that's why I I think that's the critical on climate James I would just say that you know climate change is a scale problem if you don't have scale you have a hobby like hobbies they used to build model airplanes I wouldn't try to change the climate as a hobby and so for me my might just sort of brought us way of thinking about this is that um I I think there's only one thing bigger than mother nature and that is Father greed the marketplace and the only way you're going to be able to get scale on climate is if you reshape the market with the right rules and incentives and laws to produce clean green and efficient technologies on SCAD scale and therefore in particular my teacher and friend Hal Harvey talks about the four zeros on zero waste manufacturing net zero energy buildings zero emission transportation and zero mission power and I think what California is down done around SB 100 which is their law that says California as a state will have zero emissions power by 2045 and then creates a stepladder of metrics of how you get there and tells the market you can do it any way you want whatever technologies you want but you will be there that I think that's the way to attack this problem that incentivize the market the greatest engine of innovation and scaling we have to change it because I love things like the Paris climate agreement they're all they're all wonderful as aspirational goals but at the end of the day I think we don't need a space race right now we need an earth race how do we set up a race where China and America are racing to produce the most clean green technologies that give us the four zeros terrific that was a wonderful introduction to our ideas festival in at the deep end far from the shallows now to Tom Brawner and Danny much appreciated [Music]

Channel: Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Views: 3,599

Rating: 4.2888889 out of 5

Keywords: globalisation, deglobalisation, de-globalisation, globalization, what is the world's future, politics, international relations, geopolitics, US China, trade war, economy, governance, governance for the future, danny quah, thomas friedman, Rana Karadsheh-Haddad, James crabtree, lee kuan yew school of public policy, lky school, lee kuan yew, lee kwan yew, future of the world, public policy analysis, public policy crash course, public policy for dummies, public policy explained

Id: _NVRqIgk8ys

Length: 84min 47sec (5087 seconds)

Published: Sun Dec 22 2019