The James Martin 21st Century School - Blog

From Complexity to Collapse

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:14:00 -0000

Geoffrey West highlights the tension between growth and sustainability in 21^st century cities.

"I shall not today attempt to define ‘complexity' and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so, but I know it when I see it.......!!"

Geoffrey West, an associate fellow at the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, opened his talk in the 21^st Century School seminar series by defining ‘complexity science' using the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 ‘definition' of pornography. Though tongue-in-cheek, it highlighted the difficulty in pinning down a topic as interdisciplinary, and well, complex, as the study of dynamic, adaptive systems.

His talk sought to answer the question, "How can the fundamental scaling laws of biological organisms help us understand social organisations such as cities and corporations?" Using his background in physics, West has developed a theoretical, quantitative and predictive framework that uses what he calls ‘stunningly simple' scaling laws and mechanisms to draw connections between systems at all levels, from particles to biological systems to social systems like cities, using the common denominator of networks.

Like biological networks, cities and other social networks have evolved to efficiently distribute energy and resources to all corners. Also in parallel to biological systems, cities go through many phases in the course of their development:

Living/maintenance
Growth
Aging/death
Evolution
Sleep/repair
Disease/cancer

According to West, there are systematic and fundamental laws underlying biological systems, pertaining to resource distribution and economies of scale. He presented a series of compelling examples drawing on cellular systems, neural networks and metabolic structures.

For example:

The basal metabolic rate of any animal scales as the 3/4 power of body mass. This holds true for all animals, from single-celled organisms to the largest mammals.
Heart rate scales as -1/4 power of body mass and metabolic rate sets the pace of life. Small animals live fast and die young (the rock stars of the animal world!). Across aerobic (oxygen-breathing) animals, the number of heartbeats in a lifetime is more or less a constant one billion.
The relationship between the number and size of branches in a tree is analogous to the structure of blood vessels and the patterns of white matter in the cerebellum.

Having laid out these biological patterns, West set out to explore to what degree these can also be used to describe cities and corporate structures.

His findings show that while the infrastructure patterns of cities - roads, water lines and other resource distribution networks - tend to follow similar economies of scale to biological ones, the social systems of cities operate very differently.

In opposition to biological properties, social benefits and ills both increase by a power of 1.15 when the size of a city increases.

Doubling the size of a city results in a 15% increase in income, wealth and innovation per capita, as measured by number of patents. On the downside, crime, pollution and disease also increase by the same amount per capita in cities in the US, Europe and Asia. As 50% of the world's population now live in cities, heading towards 80% in 2050, West is interested in using this data to construct a general theory of cities and social organisations that is quantitative and predictive.

Biological systems differ from cities

in another key way - their growth is self-limited. When organisms no longer have access to the resources (food, water, energy) they need to survive, or those resources are distributed in a sub-optimal way, there are natural limits to growth. Human-designed systems, such as cities, however, can continue to grow unchecked until they run out of resources. When these resources eventually do run out, the consequences can be stagnation or even collapse. According to West, the only way to head off this consequence is a major innovation or paradigm shift that enables a whole new growth curve.

West presented data from a variety of sources to demonstrate that in order to maintain continuous growth, there must be continuous major innovations or paradigm shifts at an accelerating rate, and the time between such innovations must systematically decrease. This presents a continuous tension between ‘innovation & wealth creation' and ‘economies of scale' to create a situation that is not sustainable.

These findings have dramatic implications for growth, development and in particular sustainability: innovation and wealth creation that fuel social systems, if left unchecked, potentially sow the seeds for their own breakdown. Theorists have estimated that society will reach this point of ‘singularity' within the next 20-30 years, and West is seeking to develop scenarios for avoiding what some say is an inevitable collapse.

West's talk sparked a provocative discussion about paradigm shifts, the nature of continuous growth, and ways in which society might avoid this point of singularity.

Join the discussion

Are there other systems besides biology and cities that follow resource distribution laws?
Can cities continue to grow without multiplying societal ills?
What are the paradigm shifts that might bring us to sustainability?

Post a comment on the blog or subscribe to the seminar series podcast to be alerted automatically when an audio podcast of Geoffrey's talk is available.

This blog was written by Susan Curran, Web and Publications Officer, at the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society.

The dynamics of banking systems

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:13:00 -0000

Launching our new seminar series on "Complexity and Systemic Risk", Professor Lord Robert May, a renowned expert in ecosystems, spoke at the 21st Century School on Thursday 21 January about what lessons the financial world might draw from the study of stability and complexity in the natural world.

Hosted by the 21st Century School, the seminar series was convened by Dr Felix Reed-Tsochas and the CABDyN Complexity Centre, in association with the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society. The seminars aim to showcase the contributions that leading experts in complex systems can make in a variety of areas of research, from finance and ecosystems to urban systems and human societies.

In a fascinating lecture, Lord May applied some of the insights gleaned from his years of experience in ecosystems to the networks that make up the global banking system. In both finance and ecology, system stability will often depend on the number of links between individual 'nodes' and the strength of the interactions between those nodes. Lord May was specifically interested in discovering whether the study of natural systems might help bankers to design more stable financial systems.

Lord May began by setting out a simplified, 'cartoon model', of a banking system. He then asked how an initial shock (such as the failure of a particular asset, or bank) would be transmitted from one bank to another and what factors might affect the likelihood of total system failure. He pointed out that such failures propagate through interbank connections, rather like an infectious disease. Shocks can be propagated via interbank lending and borrowing, via liquidity problems (caused by the discounting of external assets held by failing banks), or via liquidity hoarding (when other banks "take fright" and become reluctant to lend).

In conclusion, Lord May highlighted a paradox which had emerged from his research. While the diversification of assets can be good for each individual bank, it seems to be bad for system as a whole. This is because, when each bank holds a diverse range of assets (as opposed to specialising in a certain asset), a shock to any particular asset will have an impact on a larger number of banks. This shock is therefore more likely to propagate through the banking system, raising the likelihood of a total system failure. Yet it is, of course, in an individual bank's interest that its own failure should have such dire consequences for the system. Such a bank is likely to be bailed out by the government, as it cannot be allowed to fail.

This paradox has important policy implications, highlighting the tensions which often exist between minimizing risk to individual banks and minimizing systemic risk. Policy makers need to be aware that while individual banks may have legitimate arguments against certain regulations, these arguments may not be in the best interests of the financial system as a whole.

A lively date followed Lord May's presentation. Questions included:

Is there any way to model the collapse in trust that characterised the recent financial crisis?
There appears to be a large gap between our understanding of the external world and our understanding of human behaviour. What does this work tell us about the importance of building capacity in and understanding of the social sciences?
Does this work imply that biodiversity a bad thing? Are diverse systems inherently less stable?

You can listen to a podcast of this lecture here. Please continue the discussions and add your comments below.

George Soros on reflexivity, fallibility and the financial crisis

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:39:00 -0000

On Friday 11 December, investor and philanthropist George Soros came to Oxford to lead a special panel discussion at the Sheldonian Theatre on the topic of "Lessons from Financial Crises: Paradigm Failure and the Future of Financial Regulation". A podcast of the event, and a video are now available from the resources section of our website.

Joining Mr Soros as panellists were Dr Ian Goldin, Director of the 21^st Century School (Moderator), Mr Anatole Kaletsky, Editor-at-Large for The Times; Prof David Soskice, Research Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Fellow of Nuffield College; Prof Roger Goodman, Head of the Social Sciences Division at Oxford University; and Prof Paul Beaudry, Professor of Economics at Oxford University.

Although Mr Soros' arrival in Oxford was unfortunately delayed due to the thick fog which descended on England this morning, the panellists were able to proceed with a debate on some of Soros' key ideas, as set out in an audio recording from his recent Budapest Lectures, and on what these ideas might mean for disciplines across the Universtiy.

In his Budapest Lectures, Soros laid out a new conceptual framework (described in more detail here) which rested on two concepts: fallibility (our view of the world is often partial and distorted) and reflexivity (distorted views can influence the world which we are observing).

Soros has previously argued that this framework is crucial when thinking about the social sciences, as 'human events' have a different structure from natural phenomenon. While in pure science the mind is only involved from a cognitive point of view (interpreting events), in the social sciences we have to make allowances for the fact that our reaction to events, and to any knowledge gained through such study, will influence the very events which we are observing. The importance of this observation lies in the fact that we are so unwilling to accept the consequences of reflexivity and to incorporate them into our thinking.

Launching the discussion, Prof Goodman began by applying Soros' conceptual framework to the social sciences in general. He pointed out that social anthropologists had long drawn connections between how people construct the world around them and how society comes to constrain their activities. So that different assumption about the person can lead to different ideas regarding economic exchange. Prof Goodman wondered if this new thinking on economics might not be a signal for the social sciences to move beyond a search for fixed rules of behaviour and to put the social system back at the heart of the social sciences.

Prof Soskice agreed that the financial crisis had exposed a major problem in the social sciences. He called for more 'big picture' analyses of major events, such as the financial crisis, which would allow us to develop the necessary tools to improve the accuracy of our observation of the world. He argued that there was a need to integrate thinking within different subject areas and to take a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of major events.

Prof Beaudry welcomed the broad questioning of the failure of economics to understand the financial crisis, and had particular comments on some of the finer points of Soros' framework. He argued that the boom and bust system (highlighted as a negative effect of Soros' concept of 'reflexivity') was in fact an asset which helps us to learn the limits of new opportunities and technologies. Going further, he argued that 'financial stability' should be prioritised over a system which would seek to minimise the boom and bust cycle.

Anatole Kaletsky agreed with Prof Beaudry regarding the inevitability and desirability of the boom and bust cycle, arguing that it was an evolutionary process, a sort of creative destruction. However, he disagreed with Soros' earlier statement that perfect knowledge (as opposed to fallibility) is a critical assumption of all capitalist economies.

Following these comments, Soros took the opportunity to outline some of his thoughts on economics and politics in the wake of the financial crisis. In the case of the financial sector, he argued that reflexivity is a key factor influencing the characteristic boom and bust cycle of our economies. Reflexivity creates a feedback mechanism, in which our misconceptions of the world, (e.g. regarding the availability of credit) reinforce a pre-existing trend (e.g. a rise in the value of real estate) and hence reinforce our belief in the original misconception.

Finally, Soros provided a more detailed discussion of the recent financial crisis. He strongly believes that the globally adopted strategy of quantitative easing was the correct short-run reaction to the crisis and pointed out that the strategy was successful, to the extent that the system has mostly survived the crisis intact. However, he warned that the financial sector had to take on board the key lesson of the crisis, which is that a longer term strategy is now needed to ensure that financial markets are regulated more closely.

While current regulation schemes are nationalised (as demonstrated by the fact that rescue schemes launched during the financial crisis had to be undertaken on a national basis) Soros concluded by calling for a global system of regulations, which would apply uniform standards across national markets. He recognised that such a system would be hard to achieve, but argued that, unless there was a global process of regulation and reform, the current, US-centric, system of international capitalism would find itself replaced by a more national brand of capitalism, of the sort championed so successfully by China.

Lessons from Getting to Zero

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:20:00 -0000

In a century of globalization, when the life of every individual is directly affected by a vast network of forces beyond their control, the concept of "Global Zero" has the power to inspire action on some of the most intractable problems of our time.

Hosted in association with the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, the seminar series on the theme of 'getting to zero' aimed to generate fresh insights on translating bold concepts into concrete action.

While some presentations in the series explored in-depth the concept of 'Global Zero' as it relates to the campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons, others considered what 'zero' would mean in a variety of fields, from weapons control and poverty, to disease and the environment.

The seminars covered a wide range of issues, but participants generally agreed that, despite the immense difficulties faced by any 'Global Zero' campaign, there could be tremendous value in working towards the total elimination of a particular threat. Many participants spoke of a new optimism about the potential to tackle problems that only a few decades ago would have seemed insurmountable: participants referred to President Obama's Prague speech on nuclear weapons, the current global campaign to eradicate polio, and a new sense of energy surrounding climate change negotiations.

David Rodin of the Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict commented: "I have been impressed by the practical lessons that have emerged about how an ambitious multi-lateral regulatory project can be advanced by a dedicated combination of NGOs, civil society and responsible State and regional organisations. Successful campaigns often do not start with universal buy-in, but move forward with a core of participant States who are willing to sign up to a robust set of norms."

It was also highlighted that the real value of the 'Global Zero' concept was in its ability to breathe new life into campaigns on complex global problems. It is the very effort involved in 'getting to zero' that brings the real potential for positive change. While a 'Global Zero' on nuclear weapons would be an incredible achievement, there can be few who would argue that a world with fewer nuclear weapons, less pollution, less poverty and less disease would not be a better place.

The scale of the challenges involved in eradicating poverty, disease, pollution were fully acknowledged in the presentations, but many managed to offer practical solutions, often drawing inspiration from unrelated fields - from previous success in eliminating smallpox and banning the use of landmines and chemical weapons, or from progress made in the original 'Global Zero' campaign itself. Ultimately, the most important lesson to arise from this fascinating series was: when dealing with complex global challenges, look for inspiration beyond your immediate field of expertise.

For more information on individual seminars, please read previous seminar summaries on this blog. You can also listen to podcasts of individual lectures below:

Getting to Zero in carbon emissions

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:07:00 -0000

Unfortunately, the final seminar in our 'Getting to Zero' series, which was supposed to be delivered by Professor Schellnhuber on 'restitution of the atmosphere', was cancelled. Fortunately, Professor David Keith (University of Calgary) was speaking on 3 December at the Smith School for Enterprise and the Environment about using geoengineering techniques in the efforts to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions.

Professor Keith's talk certainly provided a wealth of insights into the problems involved in bringing about the necessary reductions in carbon emissions. Professor Keith, a co-author of the Royal Society's recent report on geoengineering, argued that the main problem we face when considering what to do climate change is the combination of uncertainty about the exact effects of about global warming and the fact that most solutions, from reducing emissions to geoengineering, will take a long time to have much effect. So, even if we did manage to reach 'zero' carbon emissions, we have already polluted the atmosphere to such an extent that this may not avoid the potential dramatic consequences for humans and ecosystems.

This situation is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of further geoengineering research. We are not responding fast enough to the threat of global warming and so, despite the risks, geoengineering may be necessary in order to buy us more time to implement more perfect strategies. Geoengineering is not an ideal solution but, as other authors of the Royal Society report have pointed out, we need a more coherent research programme to ensure that this resource is available if it is ever needed and to make sure that learn we know about any potential problems (whether technical or governance related) as far in advance as possible.

We have had a lot of events in Oxford recently about the case for geoengineering and you can read our blog following the lecture by John Shepherd, the lead author of the Royal Society report on geoengineering here.

As the term draws to a close, we have also taken the opportunity to reflect on the lessons that have emerged from the 'getting to zero' seminar series. You can read more about this in a separate posting here.

A global zero for infectious disease?

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:13:00 -0000

On Thursday 26 November Dr Jodie McVernon, Deputy Head of the Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group at the Melbourne School of Population Health, Australia, gave the penultimate lecture in our seminar series on 'Getting to Zero'. She spoke on the subject of "Global Eradication of Infectious Diseases: can 'Not Very Much' undermine the goal of 'None at All'?" A podcast of this lecture is available here.

Dr McVernon began by highlighting the 'global burden' of disease. Between 14 and 17 million people die each year due to infectious diseases, accounting for about 25% of all deaths, and children are particularly vulnerable. Yet, despite the well-publicised success of global smallpox eradication, 'zero' remains an elusive goal for the majority of vaccine-preventable diseases.

So, why did vaccination work so well in the case of smallpox? Dr Mc Vernon argued that smallpox was a 'golden ticket', an unusually simple case which is unlikely to be repeated. In the case of smallpox, the disease was easily and quickly identifiable, the vaccination developed was able to bypass the infection stage - reducing the pool of susceptible individuals and, crucially, once people were vaccinated they retained immunity for life. This made it very hard for the virus to re-establish itself in an area where smallpox had previously been eradicated.

However, other diseases have proved to be more challenging. Polio, whooping cough and influenza (as well as their associated vaccinations) have very different characteristics to small pox, and eradication may not be realistic in these cases. Dr McVernon laid out some of the most problematic characteristics, arguing that these make 'getting to zero' difficult, if not impossible, for most infectious diseases:

Many polio cases are asymptomatic, making it impossible to isolate infectious individuals; and similarly, whooping cough can be infectious for three weeks with patients not showing any symptoms at first.
The whooping cough vaccine appears to be better at preventing disease than infection - simply preventing the transition from the asymptomatic to the symptomatic phase of the diseases. So, while fewer people are falling ill, the disease continues to circulate at the same rate.
The polio vaccine continues to be shed for some time after vaccination and there have been reported cases of vaccine-derived polio cases where large amounts of the vaccine have infiltrated water supplies.
In some cases, the immunity conferred by a vaccine does not last for life. For whooping cough, it lasts for just six years; with influenza, the pace of mutation necessitates a new round of seasonal vaccinations every year.
There is some (disputed) evidence that those who receive seasonal flu vaccines are more vulnerable to outbreaks of pandemic flu.

Dr McVernon concluded that success in the case of smallpox may have raised unrealistic hopes about our ability to eradicate disease. However, while a global zero may not be a realistic target, there are other strategies which may help to reduce the 'global burden of disease' (the resultant number of deaths, and disabilities). Dr McVernon argued that, in most cases, efforts to reduce the circulation of disease or to protect of highly vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, could offer more achievable strategies than a global eradication campaign.

The discussion following the presentation touched on a wide range of issues. Questions included:

What are the implications of a failed 'global zero' campaign in the context of disease control?
Why was the SARS epidemic controlled, where swine flu was not?
Given the huge cost of vaccination programmes, how much of a financial incentive is there to eradicate individual diseases?
How much of a barrier do local superstitions pose to the eradication of polio?

We invite continued discussion and comments below.

A new approach to nuclear disarmament

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:37:00 -0000

In the latest contribution to our Michaelmas term seminar series on 'Getting to Zero' Dr Patricia Lewis, Deputy Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, gave an insightful lecture on nuclear disarmament. A podcast of this lecture is available here.

Entitled 'A new approach to nuclear disarmament: learning from international humanitarian law success', Dr Lewis' lecture asked what nuclear disarmament might have in common with other weapons control campaigns and what lessons we might therefore be able to draw from those movements.

Dr Lewis began by setting out some of the characteristics of nuclear weapons, arguing that they do not pose a unique problem in international relations. Nuclear weapons are characterised by the number of causalities which they inflict, the indiscriminate nature of those casualties and their long-lasting effects. However, Dr Lewis pointed out that firebombing, as used in the Second World War, inflicted casualties in a similar manner and of a similar magnitude, while landmines and cluster munitions can have similarly long-lasting effects on an environment. Given these similarities, Dr Lewis argued that the nuclear disarmament movement had a lot to learn from campaigns to ban other types of weapon, such as landmines, small arms, cluster munitions and chemical and biological weapons.

Dr Lewis then moved on to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in the world today, questioning the effectiveness of the so-called 'nuclear deterrent'. She highlighted the fact that historians are now questioning whether the Japanese surrender at the end of the Second World War was primarily due to the use of nuclear weapons. Instead, many now argue that the key factor was the Soviet declaration of war in 1945. Dr Lewis also pointed out that nuclear weapons have not changed the nature of humanity, that nations will continue to go to war, no matter how many states have nuclear weapons. Dr Lewis believes that if we don't disarm, these weapons will inevitably be used at some point in the future.

Turning to some of the more successful weapons campaigns which she had mentioned earlier, she then asked what might be responsible for the success of these campaigns. She laid out what she saw as four defining characteristics of a successful campaign:

Presenting the issue of disarmament as humanitarian action - a key characteristic of all successful weapons bans
The presence of a core group of governments who feel strongly about the issue at hand
Including a diversity of perspectives in negotiations; from politicians and activists to victims and academic experts
Thinking about security 'in human terms', which helps to put the prohibition of use at the centre of the debate

Echoing the message of a previous lecturer in our series, Professor Richard Price of the University of British Columbia, Dr Lewis concluded by arguing that the nuclear disarmament movement should try and create a strong treaty, without worrying too much about whether or not the 'key players' would sign up to it. She pointed out that weapons treaties could do a lot of good, even without the support of powerful states such as the USA and China.

As Sir Malcolm Rifkind, another recent contributor to the series, pointed out: a less ambitious treaty may not ensure the swift global elimination of nuclear weapons, but reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the world would nevertheless be hugely significant - bolstering the non-proliferation treaty and reducing the amount of fissile material at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists, potentially saving thousands of lives.

Geoengineering the climate

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:00:00 -0000

On Wednesday 18 November Professor John Shepherd, Chair of the Royal Society's recent report on "Geoengineering the Climate" gave a lecture at the 21^st Century Ocean Institute. Professor Steve Rayner, Director of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (part of the 21^stCentury School) was a member of the multidisciplinary group of 12 working experts who conducted the study for the Royal Society.

The report set out to provide "an independent scientific review of the range of methods proposed [for geoengineering the climate] with the aim of providing an objective view on whether geoengineering could, and should, play a role in addressing climate change, and under what conditions."

During his discussion of the report, Professor Shepherd divided potential geoengineering solutions into two broad categories:

Solar Radiation Management (including mirrors in space, stratospheric aerosols, enhanced reflectivity of clouds and even painting all our roofs white)

Carbon Dioxide Management (including ocean fertilisation, engineered carbon capture, enhanced weathering and the use of biochar)

The first category of approaches (SRM) would directly modify the radiation balance of the Earth, but without doing anything to reverse the original problem of high greenhouse gas emissions. It therefore creates a potentially serious new problem in which we would have to balance the effect of one major human intervention (emissions) with that of another (geoengineering). However, SRM techniques would be effective over a timescale of a few years and hence, could provide a useful solution in an emergency.

The second category (CDM) has the significant advantage of moving the environment back towards its natural state. This state of affairs is inherently less risky than the balancing act which would result form an SRM solution, as we already know what to expect if we return the environment to this state. It should also be noted that CDM approaches would address the problem of ocean acidification due to high CO2 levels, which SRM solutions could not tackle. However, all 'carbon dioxide management' approaches operate over a relatively long timescale and it would take many decades for them to reverse the damage already inflicted.

"Geoengineering the Climate" contains a more in depth review of each of these approaches, each of which is rated on effectiveness, timeliness, safety and affordability. (You can download a copy of the report here.)

The report concludes that all proposed geoengineering solutions run the risk of creating regional effects with regard to rainfall patterns, weather systems and ocean current. Professor Shepherd argued that a geoengineered solution to climate change could probably be achieved, but that this solution was far from ideal, due to the significant degree of uncertainty surrounding almost every aspect of the proposals. While geoengineering the climate is not an alternative to emissions reduction, he advised that more research be carried out, so that we could make appropriate and effective decisions in an emergency.

In the run up to December's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Professor Shepherd's message to the politicians was: try harder to reduce emissions, or else we may have to implement some of these methods. And we would much rather that we didn't have to.

A podcast of this event is available here and a video will be available shortly. We invite continued discussion of these issues below.

The End of Business as Usual?

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:47:00 -0000

On Thursday 12 November, Dr Mohammed El-Erian, Co-CIO of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, and one of the world’s most respected economic analysts, came to the 21st Century School to deliver our Michaelmas term Distinguished Public Lecture at Oxford's Sheldonian theatre. A podcast and video of the event are now available. Photos from the event are available on our Flickr site.

In a lecture titled 'The End of Business as Usual: Navigating the New Normal', Dr El-Erian spoke about the state of the global economy in the wake of the recent financial crisis. In contrast to predictions from other financial experts, Dr El-Erian made the provocative argument that the global economy is not on route to return to its pre-crisis state, but is instead on a 'bumpy road to a new normal'. He shared his thoughts on what this might mean for the future.

El-Erian began by setting out where the global economy finds itself today. Following massive government interventions and some of the biggest stimulus packages of all time, we have successfully avoided a major depression. The general consensus appears to be that the economy is now in the middle of a cyclical bounce, or recovery. However, Dr El-Erian pointed out that longer term indicators are not reacting in quite the same way as the short-term indicators on which this consensus has been built, and argued that investors should not assume that an increase in growth can be interpreted as a recovery that will extend beyond 2010.

A key point in this thesis is the idea that the 2008 financial crisis was not 'a flesh-wound', it was something far more profound. El-Erian believes that this crisis was unprecedented in its significance because it shocked the financial system at its very core, the US economy. He argues that when the core of the global financial system is shocked, investors, and policy makers need to step back and ask what the consequences will be.

In El-Erian's view, we do not currently have a full understanding of how consequential the financial crisis will prove to be. The global economy is undergoing a paradigm shift, in which the slow process of realignment from a US-centred to a multi-polar global economy, has been accelerated. The world is now in a transition phase, at what Dr El-Erian referred to as the 'point of maximum confusion'. This process will affect every level of society, from individuals and firms to national governments and international institutions. In Dr El-Erian's words: we are on a bumpy road to a new normal, but no-one knows exactly what this new normal will look like, or how to navigate the road.

However, this does not mean that the outlook is bleak. Dr El-Erian ended his lecture with the advice that the key to successful navigation was to be agile, but also adaptable. Firms and institutions that fail to change their behaviour, that respond with more of the same, will not prosper in the new global economy. It is those who are willing to adapt, to respond to the realities of the new global economy, who will be best equipped to navigate the road to the new normal.

The discussion following Dr El-Erian's lecture touched on a wide range of issues, from the role of the IMF in this new economy, to how Kindleberger's 'public goods' (traditionally provided by the US) would be provided in a multi-polar economy, and from the implications of putting the human element back at the centre of economics to what effects a new climate change agreement might have on the global economy.

We invite continued discussion and comments below.

Nuclear Weapons: a crime against humanity?

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:14:00 -0000

The latest seminar in our 'Getting to Zero' series was given by Dr Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. Speaking on the topic of nuclear weapons, Dr Johnson made a passionate argument about the importance of marginalising the use, possession and supply of such weapons.

Dr Johnson began on a positive note, referencing a quote from 'Weapons of Terror', a 2006 report by Hans Blix's WMD Commission, to which she was a Senior Advisor:

'Weapons of mass destruction cannot be un-invented. But they can be outlawed, as biological and chemical weapons have been, and their use made unthinkable. Compliance, verification and enforcement rules can, with the requisite will, be effectively applied. And with that will, even the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is not beyond the world's reach.'

She went on to argue that, while doctrines such as nuclear deterrence are accepted, the world will never be free of nuclear weapons and that banning the use of all such weapons would be a key step on the road towards total abolition. In order to achieve this goal, Dr Johnson would like to see the use of nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, classified as a crime against humanity.

Dr Johnson believes that this classification would be justified because nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, annihilating combatants and non-combatants alike and destroying habitats and the environment on a massive scale. It was argued that this classification would simply turn a widespread ethical understanding into a legal norm. Responsibility for this crime would rest with individuals, governments and anyone responsible for supplying, or enabling the supply of the materials for such weapons.

While Dr Johnson accepted that declaring the use of nuclear weapons to be a crime against humanity could not eliminate all the associated dangers overnight, she believes that it would both reduce the value and attraction of nuclear weapons to existing and aspiring nuclear powers, and provide clear legal mechanisms allowing the international community to hold to account any individual or government involved with nuclear weapons.

As for how the goal of declaring nuclear weapons use a crime against humanity might be achieved, Dr Johnson suggested three possible approaches:

Amending the definition of ‘crimes against humanity' in the 1998 Rome Statute.
Using the Security Council to recognize or make the use of nuclear weapons a crime against humanity.
Encouraging a series of unilateral declarations by individual governments.

The discussion following Dr Johnson's presentation touched on a wide range of issues. Questions included:

Framing the debate in the context of crimes against humanity sets a very hard target. Would a more gradual approach not be more successful?
What does this debate imply for the future of nuclear energy?
Would it be fair to say that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dying?
Has the international community ever been successful in banning any weapons with a comparable standing to nuclear weapons?

A podcast of this lecture will be made available shortly, on our 'Getting to Zero' podcast page. We invite continued discussion and comments below.

Bottom billion or bottom zero? Eliminating global poverty

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:17:00 -0000

The third seminar in the 21School seminar series on "Global Zero" was given by Professor Tony Venables, Director of Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies and Professor of Economics University of Oxford. In the spirit of the theme of the seminar series, Professor Venables talked about the prospects for global poverty elimination - what are the means, mechanisms and obstacles for rapid and radical poverty reduction.

While achieving an end state of zero in terms of poverty may be an impossible goal, Venables started his seminar with a review of the different concepts and measurements for poverty. Is poverty a relative or absolute concept? Should it be measured in monetary values (the so-called $1/day threshold identified by the World Bank) or by outcome indicators, such as health, nutrition and attainment? Certainly, any monetary measures would need to be complemented by outcome indicators to develop a picture of a nation's poverty levels, but should we worry also about lifetime poverty - the increase or decrease in wealth attainment during individuals' lives - rather than capturing an instantaneous picture in a "slice of time"?

Venables continued by showing an optimistic starting point for assessing the state of global poverty levels. Under practically all major development indicators, there has been an unprecedented rate of world poverty reduction over the past 20 years. Venables identified the main driver of poverty reduction as economic growth - i.e. it is through economic growth that human development outcomes will be achieved.

But what drives rapid economic growth? Venables identified five main characteristics, gained by examining the success of fast-growing economies:

Openness to the world economy
Macroeconomic stability
Future orientation (investment)
Market allocation (prices guide)
Leadership and governance

However, there are some major obstacles to developing effectively these criteria. These include: the "poverty trap" - breaking the cycle of low income > low saving > slow growth > low income geography; the need for adequate legal and political systems to provide incentives to invest; and the provision of public goods to support investments. And there are also other obstacles to consider, such as geography (how can a country integrate into the world economy if it is remote, landlocked and with bad infrastructure?) and resources/endowments (the trouble of "Dutch disease", when resource exports dominate at the expense of more diverse - and stable - markets). There is also the sheer size of the task to consider, to convert vicious circles of stagnation into virtuous circles of growth, and the issue of governance, building the limited capacity of governments into leadership and long-term commitment to growth.

Despite all the obstacles to growth, Venables ended as he started, on a positive note. Noting that there were 500 million fewer poor in 2005 than in 1981 despite a population increase, Venables believes the future will continue on the current trajectory of growth. Rapid poverty reduction in Asia will be ongoing and there will continue to be marked improvements in the quality of policy and performance in many African countries. The progress will be uneven, but it will continue.

A lively date followed the presentation, with such questions as:

Are free trade agreements the best method to pursue in encouraging the integration of developing countries?
What is the role of democracy in economic performance?
What has been the impact of the financial crisis? Doesn't it seem to indicate that it has fundamentally changed the trajectory of growth?
Is there a role for redistribution of wealth and resources to eliminate poverty - not just encouraging economic growth as a driver?

You can listen to a podcast of this lecture here. Please continue the discussions and add your comments below.

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:26:00 -0000

On Thursday 22 October, Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, former Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence, gave a seminar at the 21st Century School. Sir Malcolm, a leading spokesman for the Global Zero campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons, outlined some key issues concerning nuclear disarmament, arguing that any action taken towards this would need to be multilateral, not unilateral. The seminar was this second in the School's Michaelmas Term seminar series on "Getting to Zero".

At the peak of the Cold War there were approximately 65,000 nuclear warheads in the world. This has since fallen to 23,000, 95% of which are to be found in the US and Russia. Yet in the last decade, progress towards disarmament has stalled. Sir Malcolm's lecture focused on the arguments in favour of a multilateral disarmament process and on some of the challenges that might be involved.

He argued that, while nuclear disarmament during the Cold War would have been impossible, the situation today was significantly different. During the Cold War, one of the main arguments in favour of nuclear weapons was that they reduced the chances (particularly in Europe) of a third world war. Today, there is little risk of war in the truly global sense, and so one of the strongest justifications for holding nuclear weapons is gone. In addition, nuclear capabilities are proliferating at an increasing rate and there is a very real concern that terrorist groups could come into possession of fissile materials.

Yet despite these changes, there is still an extraordinary range of challenges facing the disarmament movement. Sir Malcolm pointed out that it was vital for the disarmament process to be a multilateral one, in order to preserve the balance of power. He highlighted the crucial difference between the process of the USA and Russia agreeing to a gradual and simultaneous reduction of their weapons stock from, say, 5,000 to 1,000, and more drastic reductions that would fundamentally alter that balance.

For now, multilateral moves towards disarmament would involve only the US and Russia. But eventually, they would have to involve China, the UK and France, and even India and Pakistan. At this point the more fundamental problems of relative powers, local animosities and verification of the disarmament process come into play. Expanding on this point, Sir Malcolm pointed out that countries often acquired nuclear weapons for a very specific reason (as in the case of India and Pakistan) and that individual countries would be loath to give them up without a guarantee that other countries were not cheating. Stringent verification and transparency schemes would therefore have to be in place before serious disarmament could start to happen.

In conclusion, Sir Malcolm reiterated the following points:

Whatever your individual views on nuclear weapons, it is undeniable that there are far too many nuclear weapons in the world today. Beginning with the USA and Russia, there needs to be a sustained, serious and deliberate effort to reduce this number.
Unless there is progress in reducing nuclear weapons, there is a risk that the relevance of the non-proliferation treaty will erode. There is even a chance that it will not be renewed.
The disarmament process must be multilateral. An individual country giving up its nuclear weapons would have little benefit to the country itself or to the global community.
There is an urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced verification capabilities.
The disarmament process will be protracted. We should not expect success in the next decade.

However, Sir Malcolm stressed that while the complete elimination of nuclear weapons may not be possible in our lifetimes, it is still a goal well worth working towards. Even if the Global Zero campaign fails, reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the world would be hugely significant - bolstering the non-proliferation treaty and reducing the amount of fissile material at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists.

Following the seminar, Sir Malcolm engaged in an insightful and animated discussion with members of the audience. We invite further discussion and debate on this contentious issue below.

Repairing Economic Governance

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:16:00 -0000

On 20 October 2009, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, spoke at a packed lecture hall in Oxford University's Museum of Natural History. The lecture on 'Repairing Economic Governance' was a tremendous opportunity to hear from one of the world's leading economic advisors and to discuss the challenges involved in governing globally important issues. You can watch a video of the lecture on the 21st Century School site.

The theme of the lecture was how to meet the challenge of creating effective global governance in a world which does not want a global government. Prof Sachs began by exploring some of the many global crises which international institutions have proved unable to tackle. The financial crisis was the most current example, but he also considered the failure to achieve any real movement on climate change, after more than 17 years of effort and the failure of the international community to meet the millennium development goals, despite the fact that a coherent, practical strategy was agreed in advance.

Prof Sachs argued that the key problem was that global governance is 'an order of magnitude' more complex than national government, requiring a more sophisticated set of institutions. He then set out the main challenges which such institutions would have to deal with:

Managing the current instability of the global economy and putting in place a regulatory system to ensure that this cycle is not repeated.
The transition from a US-centred world to a multi-polar world, which means that more effective forms of global governance will be necessary.
Building a sustainable global society, while still encouraging economic development in poorer countries.
Financing global public goods; e.g. regulating greenhouse gas emissions, containing emerging diseases and ensuring sufficient food supplies.

Having set out these main challenges, Prof Sachs asked what obstacles might be preventing the international community from overcoming them:

National government is broken. Focusing particularly on the US, Sachs highlighted the role of lobbyists in the political process, arguing that this was the greatest challenge to effective global governance.
The public has very little understanding of global issues. These problems are complex and the general public is assailed by information on so many subjects, that it is hard to break through the background noise.
There are no institutional systems to bring expertise to bear on these global issues. Experts will often be given a chance to have their say, but their knowledge is not systematically applied to these challenges.
It is extraordinarily difficult to create a system of global governance in a multi-polar world and we currently do not have the institutions to make this work.
There is currently no 'global ethic' to provide a joint understanding of why we are tackling challenges such as poverty, climate change and disease.

Expanding on this last point, Prof Sachs argued that to produce the stability, collective action and long-term strategies necessary to tackle global challenges from climate change to poverty, it would be necessary to identify a shared 'global ethic' – that is, we need a place for ethics and moral values, not just financial bottom-line assessment, in our global decision-making processes

The discussion following Prof Sachs' lecture touched on a wide range of issues, from the effectiveness of international aid to the need for a completely new set of international institutions, and from the frequency of recent financial bubbles to the lessons that might be drawn from China's rapid economic growth.

We invite continued discussion and comments below.

Aiming for Zero in Weapons Control

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:14:00 -0000

On Thursday 15 October the Getting to Zero seminar series, co-hosted by the James Martin 21st Century School and the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, was launched with a thought-provoking lecture by Professor Richard Price of the University of British Columbia. You can listen to a podcast of the lecture here.

Speaking on the topic of "Zero Chance? Aiming for Zero in Weapons Control", Prof Price drew together three strands of his research, 'tactics', 'diplomacy' and 'ethics', to set the scene for various global initiatives to target zero, especially in the context of weapons control or elimination.

On the subject of tactics, Prof Price spoke about the difficulty of defining the issue at stake. He identified the key variables affecting the success of international campaigns as:

The simplicity and clarity of your message
How well your message fits or resonates with the cultures you are dealing with.
Whether or not you are able or willing to take advantage of a relevant crisis to boost the impact of your campaign.

With regards to diplomacy, the focus was on how best to respond to the problem of powerful players (such as the USA or China) who oppose your strategy. Dr Price discussed the nuanced advantages and disadvantages of a) going forward with a strong agreement, and only a few states that are willing to commit to it, and b) settling for a weaker agreement, with the aim of tightening up the commitments later, once everyone is involved.

Finally, Dr Price and Ms. Treasa Dunworth, a Senior Lecturer in Law at Auckland University, who was invited as respondent for the seminar, discussed some ethical considerations such as:

By targeting some of the most distressing, dangerous or inhumane weapons for international bans, are we making war itself a more acceptable prospect?
Should disarmament be approached from the point of view of state security, (e.g. banning nuclear, chemical or biological weapons which are capable of wreaking unacceptable damage)? Or should we be approaching this from a humanitarian point of view?
In this case, should we shift our focus from individual classes of weapon, such as landmines, and start classing acceptable practice according to impact, for example by banning the use of explosive weapons in urban areas?

The lecture was followed by comments and questions from Dr David Rodin, co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, Ms. Treasa Dunworth, and members of the audience.

Questions included:

Zero, in the context of weapons control, seems analogous with previous attempts at prohibition. Why should we expect weapons prohibition to work, where most similar schemes have failed?
Surely it is futile to put so much effort into convincing states to sign up to weapons bans, given the increasing importance of non-state actors (such as the Taliban in Afghanistan) who subscribe to no international conventions and, indeed, often set out to cause harm to civilians.
Isn't the real problem facing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it is no longer seen as wrong to possess nuclear weapons, only to use them?
Would getting to zero in the context of nuclear weapons really result in a safer world? Wouldn't it just mean that states were less concerned about the potential risks of going to war?
In this case, should nuclear disarmament be considered separately to any other weapons disarmament initiatives?

We invite further comments and discussion below.

Dr Helen Johnson reflects on an expedition to the Arctic

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:21:00 -0000

Dr Helen Johnson, Associate Fellow at the 21st Century Ocean Institute, recently returned from a month-long trip to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

She recounts her experiences below:

A long cold night shift doesn't seem so bad when the sun never sets. And who would want to sleep anyway when there are icebergs all around and the possibility of seeing a polar bear?! I was lucky enough this summer to spend a month aboard the Canadian coastguard icebreaker the CCGS Henry Larsen, engaged in oceanographic research in the narrow channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. It's a magical, inspiring, fascinating place to spend a summer! And the measurements we make are helping us to understand more about the ocean connections between the Arctic and the Atlantic, and their role in the global climate system.

I've been involved with the Canadian Archipelago Throughflow project, funded by the US National Science Foundation and the Canadian International Polar Year, since it began in 2003. The project aims to measure and understand the flow of freshened sea water and ice from the Arctic into the North Atlantic through Nares Strait to the west of Greenland, and the other channels of the Canadian Archipelago. Changes in this fresh water input have the potential to affect global ocean circulation, and hence both European and global climate, yet we know surprisingly little about the ocean circulation in this remote corner of the globe. Partly because this is such a difficult place to do science! Packed with multi-year ice that is land-fast for much of the year, Nares Strait is only accessible, even to icebreakers, for a narrow window of time each summer. Which means that we try to use every hour of time on board the ship to take measurements aimed at understanding the complex ocean dynamics and the atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions in the region.

Our principle goal this year was to recover 12 oceanographic moorings deployed in 2007. These have been taking measurements of ocean temperature, salinity and current, as well as sea-ice thickness, faithfully every 15 minutes over the two years. The instruments are attached to heavy anchors on the seabed by hooks which open when they receive a coded sound signal from the ship. They then pop up to the surface, allowing us to download the data, service the instruments, and re-deploy them for another stint.

Over the month we've also measured more than a hundred vertical profiles of temperature and salinity, taken dozens of water samples which will later be analyzed chemically in the lab, and deployed or serviced several weather stations. The ice team on board have drilled through over 2 km of multi-year sea-ice, measuring the thickness and properties of ice floes as they move southwards and gradually melt. And we've taken some of the first oceanographic measurements at the floating tongue of one of Greenland's outlet glaciers. No wonder I feel as if I haven't slept for a year! Fuelled by east coast Canadian specialities such as salt cod and brewis, and aided by the keen, talented and fun Newfoundland ship's crew, the international science team of 16 people (headed by Dr Humfrey Melling of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, British Columbia, Canada) have worked hard to pack in as much as possible.

Along the way we've seen polar bears, narwhal, walrus and seals. We've broken lots of ice, photographed amazing sunsets and worked under fogbows. We've barbecued steaks on the aft deck of the ship, and played bingo and darts with the crew. Cut-off from the rest of the world, problems and challenges with the instruments have had to be solved by those on board, using whatever we already have with us. That's made for an intense and rewarding research experience with an inspirational team of people, and reminds me of the reasons I became a scientist in the first place. And now, back in Oxford, it's time to look in more detail at some of the data! Understanding how the ocean circulation works, especially in polar regions, is an essential part of understanding the role and response of the ocean in a changing carbon cycle, the key focus of the 21st Century Ocean Institute.

A selection of photographs from Dr Johnson's trip are available to view on the 21School Flickr site.