上市公司必须抓党建&专访《何殇》苏晓康

在中国改革开放的历史上,电视片《河殇》起到了不可磨灭的作用。这部6集政论系列片1988年在央视播出后,以其振聋发聩的气势打动人心,风靡全国,激励中国人反思因循守旧、固步自封的传统,大胆寻求融入当代世界先进的“蓝色文明”,对当年促进解放思想,推动改革开放做出历史性的贡献。89民运改变了中国的历史进程,《河殇》也成为反民族文化和否定共产党领导的反面教材。近30年过去了,我们今天如何看待《河殇》?它在中国改革开放历史上占据什么地位?围绕《河殇》当年中共高层出现了怎样的政治博弈?《河殇》的创意和逻辑对当今中国还有没有意义?

Source: http://www.voachinese.com/a/3745018.html

The Digital Workplace in the Cognitive Era by Forbes

The Digital Workplace in the Cognitive Era by Forbes

The Digital Workplace in the Cognitive Era by Forbes. Positioning for the future: Intelligent IT for the Anytime, Anywhere Workforce

INTRODUCTION

There is a tectonic shift in the way we work. We expect the same kind of intuitive, tactile experience with our workplace technology that we now take for granted with our smartphones, tablets and gaming systems. We expect our devices to talk to each other and update automatically. Virtual meetings should be as easy to set up as a video chat, and whatever we need to do our jobs should be as easy to tailor as a streaming music or video application.
“In the workplace, there is a shift from ‘one size fits all’ to a more personalized experience in IT support and service,” says Richard Esposito, general manager of IBM’s GTS Mobility Services. “Users want to choose their own devices, and they expect the kind of experience they have with consumer devices. At the same time, the idea of renting versus buying has transformed the way most organizations pay for new IT infrastructure. The infrastructure-as-a-service model has revolutionized the way IT resources can be deployed for many of our clients.”
Perhaps the most dramatic change to the digital workplace comes from the potential for cognitive support to combine intelligence and sentiment for a true sense-and-respond experience. Cognitive systems will change the workplace in ways we haven’t yet imagined.
There is no question that technology gives us more choices and better tools. Yet what most of us want is less complexity and, if we are paying for it, lower costs. Planning for the workplace of the future means striking the right balance between finding the right tools for each user today and accessing an infrastructure that can expand with the intelligence and the power of the technology of the future.
We will explore some of these shifts in the workplace through a series of publications beginning with “The Digital Workplace in the Cognitive Era.

Does the UN Security Council need reform?

Source: https://www.weforum.org

Author: Jakkie Cilliers

The world is changing, but not the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Established by 51 countries 70 years ago, the UN now has 193 member states that coexist, compete and cooperate in a world that is very different from the situation in 1945.

Beyond a threefold increase in the global population, the rapidly changing world of the 21st century is characterised by a diffusion of power (away from states); an accompanying shift in relative material power and influence from the West to the East; and an ongoing transition from a brief period of unipolarity to multipolarity.

Transnational threats such as terrorism and cybercrime are straining national capacities, while globally armed conflict has been rising for several years; reversing the sharp downturns seen after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Yet we are stuck with a global peace and security governance architecture from the first half of the previous century. Greater multipolarity does not imply instability, but the global transitions that accompany these and other shifts in power are inherently disruptive. In short, in the years ahead, the world will need an effective and legitimate UNSC.

In the years that lie ahead, the world will need an effective and legitimate UNSC.

There is near unanimous consensus on the need for the UNSC to be reformed, but progress is rendered impossible by power politics. After the 1965 enlargement of the non-permanent members of the UNSC from six to 10 members, reform has been on the agenda since Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s appointment as secretary-general in 1992, but has delivered nothing. Meantime, the roles and influence of civil society organisations in global governance has expanded.

A new campaign by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) called Elect the Council advocates that civil society should bring its weight to bear on the task of major structural and procedural reform that would make the UNSC representative, allow it to retrieve its legitimacy and relevance, and enhance its effectiveness.

The ISS proposes a global initiative in which civil society and ordinary citizens use the power of an interconnected world to advocate for a specific set of fair and equitable proposals to amend the UN Charter. Our goal is to consult and develop a detailed set of proposals and then to establish a broad-based global partnership of civil society organisations. This partnership will work with states to ensure action by two-thirds of the members of the UN General Assembly, including the permanent five (P5) members, to reform the UNSC in line with the global norm of elected representation.

It is not possible to reform the UNSC without amending the UN Charter – and while only member states can effect such an amendment, they have repeatedly proven themselves unable to grasp this nettle on their own. In accordance with Article 109 of the UN Charter, Elect the Council will advocate for a simple majority of members of the UN General Assembly (currently 97 out of 193 members) and a vote by any seven members of the UNSC, for a General Conference of UN member states to amend the UN Charter. The amendment would subsequently need to be ratified by national legislatures as set out in the Charter.

Member states have repeatedly proven themselves unable to grasp this nettle on their own.

Civil society have not been actively engaged in UNSC reform to any meaningful extent, but the global village effect and the marked increase in new forms of instability (terrorism, cybercrime, events in Syria, etc.) demand new approaches. We do not intend to advocate for a commitment for reform – nominally that already exists – but rather on the precise modalities of such reform.

Consultation is important, but this cannot be an open-ended process and like member states, civil society will need to compromise in search of a common position based on principle. Our initial proposals are set out on the Elect the Council website. They are based on a formula of one five-year member per 24 countries, and double the number of five-year members to be elected for three-year terms. This gives a UNSC membership of 24 (similar in total to both option A and B contained in the 2005 report by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, titled In Larger Freedom), consisting of eight countries elected for five years, and 16 countries elected for three years.

The two distinct terms of membership – for three and five years respectively, based on minimum criteria – will allow for global powers and regional leaders to be re-elected on the five-year ticket, while the three-year category of membership would ensure flexibility and representativeness. We are currently looking at additional proposals that would encourage a transition from permanent seats and veto rights to normal elections and majorities.

The first version of our proposals also sets out a detailed position on the development of rules of procedure, voting, transitional arrangements and next steps, and is now open for comment at www.electthecouncil.org.

By balancing fairness, transparency and efficiency, a new lease of life can be provided to an institution that will be tested as globalisation and shifts in power take their toll.

This article is published in collaboration with ISS Africa. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

To keep up with the Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Author: Jakkie Cilliers is the Executive Director and Head of African Futures and Innovation Section at ISS Africa.

Image: Members of the United Nations Security Council vote. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri.

Our global institutions are not fit for purpose. It’s time for reform

source: https://www.weforum.org

Author: Mary Kaldor

The Brexit vote and the candidacy of Donald Trump are not exceptional developments. They are symptoms of a wider global phenomenon – a pervasive distrust in the political class, an expression of alienation and anger by those who have been bypassed by globalization, and an awareness that our institutions, designed in the 20th century, are not fit for purpose, that is to say, they cannot address the problems of the 21st century.

The paradox is that at the very moment when we need to construct the building blocks of global governance, institutions like the European Union and the United Nations are under attack from the rising tide of populism and xenophobia.

I’d like to make two observations on these developments.

First, global governance is a way of addressing the democratic deficit that is experienced everywhere, not by democratizing global institutions – though that might be desirable – but rather through the role that such institutions can play in devolving power to local levels closer to the citizen. In the British debate about membership of the EU, the leave campaign talked about “taking back control”; my argument is that in a globalized world, it is only possible to do so through membership in global governance institutions like the EU.

Second, xenophobic populism will only lead to insecurity, and global institutions need to develop a cooperative security policy both to address this insecurity and to establish legitimacy.

The global democratic deficit

In democratic theory, a useful distinction is made between procedural democracy and substantive democracy. Procedural democracy is about formal rules – elections, freedom of the media, or freedom of association. Substantive democracy is about political equality; it is about the ability of every individual to be able to influence or participate in the decisions that affect their lives. There’s a huge deficit in substantive democracy. This is the frustration that animates new movements on both the left and the right. “They call it democracy but it isn’t” was the slogan of the Spanish indignados. Similar arguments are made by the populist right.

So what are the reasons for our substantive democracy deficit?

First of all, it has to do with globalization. Procedural democracy applies largely to national levels; we vote to elect a national government. Yet the decisions that affect our lives are taken in the headquarters of multinational corporations, on the laptops of financial whizz kids, or by institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the WTO, the EU or NATO. However perfect our democracy in procedural terms at national levels, we cannot affect those decisions. In theory we should be able to influence decisions through national membership in global institutions, but in practice such institutions are shaped more by the interests of the global elite than by ordinary citizens.

Secondly, the global democratic deficit is also the consequence of what I call the sclerosis of the nation-state. I would emphasize three aspects of this:

1) The technology of elections. The combination of polling, focus groups, messaging, and emphasis on swing voters has hollowed out politics and made it very difficult to hold genuine public debates. National politicians often seem wooden, speaking from a prepared script, compared with the insurgent politicians of right or left, or even compared with local politicians.

2) The growth of finance in relation to manufacturing, especially since the 2008 crisis, has meant that political elites are increasingly accountable to their financial backers and to the media that they control. We used to talk about the “resource curse” to explain the political problems faced by states, whose revenue depended on oil and not domestic taxation. It is an argument that applies to all rentier states and the growth of finance has meant that more and more states have an increasing share of revenue that comes from rent.

3) The deep state – the legacy of the Cold War, the entrenched bureaucracy, and the inner tendencies for surveillance and control – is embedded in the 20th-century state. The bureaucratized routines, the pressure from an often outdated security sector, and the career preoccupations of officials and politicians all make it very difficult to depart from knee-jerk 20th-century reactions to problems.

These factors help explain why our institutions are locked in backward-looking mind-sets, and systematically pursue policies that backfire and produce the very problems they are supposed to solve.

Borders to stop migrants merely increase the dangers for migrants; air strikes to kill terrorists produce more terror; engineering solutions to floods or fires exacerbate the underlying causes of these phenomena. And these reactions are reproduced in global institutions composed, as they are, of national members.

Reclaiming democracy

So what needs to happen to reclaim democracy? The task of global governance has to be reconceptualized to make it possible for citizens to influence the decisions that affect their lives – to reclaim substantive democracy. Because such institutions are distant, the answer is not necessarily more democracy at global levels, though that might be important. Rather, what is needed is more democracy at local levels, in cities and regions where institutions are closer to the citizens, and where the nation-state can be bypassed to some extent.

For that to happen, the job of global governance is to protect and enable local levels of democracy by constraining global “bads” and promoting global “goods”. For example, global bads might include tax evasion by global companies or short-term financial speculation, environmental damage, or wars. Global goods might include global redistribution, peace-building, or global environmental standards.

We need institutions that tame globalization so that its benefits can be allocated in participatory ways. This is not how they act now but the possibilities for change are greater because they are not constrained by national sclerosis.

It should be stressed that regional organizations like the EU should be conceived as models of global governance. The EU is not a state in the making. Nor is it a classic inter-governmental organization, since it involves an element of supra-nationality and much denser connections. Potentially (and paradoxically in the light of Brexit) the EU is an experiment in the kind of 21st-century institution that we need.

The consequences of populism and xenophobia

The rise of populism and xenophobia and the increasing number of authoritarian regimes has to be understood in the context of the democratic deficit, where frustration and marginalization is attributed to an “other”. In today’s open world, the classic closed and militaristic societies of the 20th century, which gave rise to the great wars of that same period, have been supplanted by a different sort of societal condition – an extreme version of neo-liberalism in which weak formal structures benefit a small predatory and kleptocratic globally networked elite, legitimated by a populist rhetoric, and violence replaces the market as a mechanism for the allocation of resources. Instead of 20th-century wars, what is experienced are “new wars” – a combination of political violence and criminality.

Unlike the 20th-century wars, which were clashes of will, new wars are perhaps better described as mutual enterprises in which the various armed groups benefit from violence either in economic terms or because it is a way of mobilizing around extremist political ideologies. Battles are rather rare. Instead, most violence is directed against civilians. One particular characteristic of such wars is expulsion – displacement on a large scale. Such wars are difficult to end because the various groups benefit from violence and they are difficult to contain because of the global character of the various political and criminal networks.

In these circumstances, traditional approaches do not work. Military intervention merely legitimizes further violence. Talks are very difficult because of the vested interest in war, and only succeed if they offer a privileged position to the various predatory networks. The only possible way to address these conflicts is through global cooperation and a far-reaching shift in the way we conceive of the world. The traditional geopolitical way of thinking about conflict needs to be replaced by a rights-based way of thinking, and this has to be associated with multilateralism and global cooperation. The only way to reconstruct security is through the establishment of legitimate political institutions and the opportunity for making a living through legitimate occupations. Armed groups need to be framed as criminals rather than legitimate enemies. And a global enforcement capacity is required that is more like policing than either military intervention or peace-keeping.

Security is at the heart of legitimacy. We trust our institutions if they keep us safe. The main source of insecurity today is new wars – what is going on in places like Syria, Libya, Ukraine or Myanmar. It is new wars that produce refugees – on levels most of us have never seen before – as well as transnational criminal networks. And it is in new wars that terrorism is nurtured. The failure to address these wars offers an example of the backward-looking attitudes of nation-states. They have to be addressed in a different way by the institutions of global governance, and that in turn could help underpin those institutions.

Getting from here to there

So how can this be achieved? Seen from a post-Brexit British context, Europe and the world seem to be spiralling towards a global new war. Yet if we look beyond the top-down national lens that dominates current discourse, we can observe a lot of social experimentation – civil society networks, for example, that assist refugees, that promote municipal ceasefires, or that establish new sources of livelihoods. Precisely because global governance is less deeply institutionalized than nation-states, there is a possibility of greater responsiveness to this type of civil initiative.

Those parts of the global elite that remain committed to a cosmopolitan outlook need to reach out to those at local and regional levels who are swimming against the tide in their own communities. Perhaps this sounds over-idealistic but these dark times call for a little innovative thinking.

3 reforms the UN needs as it turns 70

source: https://www.weforum.org

Author: Jeffrey D. Sachs

The United Nations will mark its 70th anniversary when world leaders assemble next month at its headquarters in New York. Though there will be plenty of fanfare, it will inadequately reflect the UN’s value, not only as the most important political innovation of the twentieth century, but also as the best bargain on the planet. But if the UN is to continue to fulfill its unique and vital global role in the twenty-first century, it must be upgraded in three key ways.

Fortunately, there is plenty to motivate world leaders to do what it takes. Indeed, the UN has had two major recent triumphs, with two more on the way before the end of this year.

The first triumph is the nuclear agreement with Iran. Sometimes misinterpreted as an agreement between Iran and the United States, the accord is in fact between Iran and the UN, represented by the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US), plus Germany. An Iranian diplomat, in explaining why his country will scrupulously honor the agreement, made the point vividly: “Do you really think that Iran would dare to cheat on the very five UN Security Council permanent members that can seal our country’s fate?”

The second big triumph is the successful conclusion, after 15 years, of the Millennium Development Goals, which have underpinned the largest, longest, and most effective global poverty-reduction effort ever undertaken. Two UN Secretaries-General have overseen the MDGs: Kofi Annan, who introduced them in 2000, and Ban Ki-moon, who, since succeeding Annan at the start of 2007, has led vigorously and effectively to achieve them.

The MDGs have engendered impressive progress in poverty reduction, public health, school enrollment, gender equality in education, and other areas. Since 1990 (the reference date for the targets), the global rate of extreme poverty has been reduced by well over half – more than fulfilling the agenda’s number one goal.

Inspired by the MDGs’ success, the UN’s member countries are set to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – which will aim to end extreme poverty in all its forms everywhere, narrow inequalities, and ensure environmental sustainability by 2030 – next month. This, the UN’s third triumph of 2015, could help to bring about the fourth: a global agreement on climate control, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Paris in December.

The precise value of the peace, poverty reduction, and environmental cooperation made possible by the UN is incalculable. If we were to put it in monetary terms, however, we might estimate their value at trillions of dollars per year – at least a few percent of the world economy’s annual GDP of $100 trillion.

Yet spending on all UN bodies and activities – from the Secretariat and the Security Council to peacekeeping operations, emergency responses to epidemics, and humanitarian operations for natural disasters, famines, and refugees – totaled roughly $45 billion in 2013, roughly $6 per person on the planet. That is not just a bargain; it is a significant underinvestment. Given the rapidly growing need for global cooperation, the UN simply cannot get by on its current budget.

Given this, the first reform that I would suggest is an increase in funding, with high-income countries contributing at least $40 per capita annually, upper middle-income countries giving $8, lower-middle-income countries $2, and low-income countries $1. With these contributions – which amount to roughly 0.1% of the group’s average per capita income – the UN would have about $75 billion annually with which to strengthen the quality and reach of vital programs, beginning with those needed to achieve the SDGs. Once the world is on a robust path to achieve the SDGs, the need for, say, peacekeeping and emergency-relief operations should decline as conflicts diminish in number and scale, and natural disasters are better prevented or anticipated.

This brings us to the second major area of reform: ensuring that the UN is fit for the new age of sustainable development. Specifically, the UN needs to strengthen its expertise in areas such as ocean health, renewable energy systems, urban design, disease control, technological innovation, public-private partnerships, and peaceful cultural cooperation. Some UN programs should be merged or closed, while other new SDG-related UN programs should be created.

The third major reform imperative is the UN’s governance, starting with the Security Council, the composition of which no longer reflects global geopolitical realities. Indeed, the Western Europe and Other Group (WEOG) now accounts for three of the five permanent members (France, the United Kingdom, and the US). That leaves only one permanent position for the Eastern European Group (Russia), one for the Asia-Pacific Group (China), and none for Africa or Latin America.

The rotating seats on the Security Council do not adequately restore regional balance. Even with two of the ten rotating Security Council seats, the Asia-Pacific region is still massively under-represented. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for roughly 55% of the world’s population and 44% of its annual income but has just 20% (three out of 15) of the seats on the Security Council.

Asia’s inadequate representation poses a serious threat to the UN’s legitimacy, which will only increase as the world’s most dynamic and populous region assumes an increasingly important global role. One possible way to resolve the problem would be to add at least four Asian seats: one permanent seat for India, one shared by Japan and South Korea (perhaps in a two-year, one-year rotation), one for the ASEAN countries (representing the group as a single constituency), and a fourth rotating among the other Asian countries.

As the UN enters its eighth decade, it continues to inspire humanity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains the world’s moral charter, and the SDGs promise to provide new guideposts for global development cooperation. Yet the UN’s ability to continue to fulfill its vast potential in a new and challenging century requires its member states to commit to support the organization with the resources, political backing, and reforms that this new era demands.

This article is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

To keep up with Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Author: Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is also Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals.

Image: Tourists walk past the United Nations Headquarters in New York. At left is the U.N. General Assembly building and at right is the U.N. Secretariat building. REUTERS/Mike Segar

联合国如何才能维护世界和平

联合国秘书长安东尼奥·古铁雷斯在今年年初的达沃斯论坛上做了演讲。在讲话中,他提及,如今世界上的诸多冲突,本质上都是互相联系的。古铁雷斯呼吁联合国“以综合性的方式解决冲突”,这要求联合国所有部门通力协作。这对于一个原本“支离破碎”的组织来说,是一次极佳的转变。

但是长远来看,如果我们仅仅只重点关注将联合国各部门联结在一起,各地冲突的关键变化仍很有可能被忽略。联合国的每一个下属机构——无论是和平与安全、人权还是发展委员会——都倾向于在国家、各州的层面上开展工作,缺乏将国家与地区相联系的机制。最近的政策评论以及古铁雷斯本人也都在呼吁采取更加“以人为本”的解决方案,但如何实现这一目标仍不甚明朗。以下三种方法可以使得人们不再仅仅关注国家层面上的事务,并把联合国冲突管控的职能深深地根植于冲突发生地的土壤之中。

 

新技术:更有效地预防冲突

在达沃斯论坛上,古铁雷斯强调了创新和新技术的重要性,他认为二者在解决全球危机时能发挥关键的作用。然而,新技术带来的风险也是众所周知的:无人机技术落入恐怖分子手中,后果将不堪设想;基因突变导致的的疾病危害极大;ISIS还会利用社交媒体招揽成员。正如Anja Kaspersen和Jean-Marc Rickli在之前的议程文件中指出的那样,新技术的出现,使得无数非国家行为体接触到能够导致冲突的事物。

然而,现代通讯技术对于联合国来说,同样是一个机遇。新的技术使得各组织能够与人们保持密切联系,让人们了解冲突的潜在动因以及有效解决冲突的方法。

运用新技术,联合国在倾听冲突地区当地人民的声音这一方面取得了进展。例如,在民主刚果东部使用社交网络来确定可能发生暴力冲突的地点。在科索沃地区,人们还利用社交媒体进行更为系统的监控。但这只是很小的进展,我们还需要更多地运用新技术。人们的主动行为通常也只是针对系统中相对较为模糊的部分。试想:如果联合国能够系统地处理2012年从开罗塔里尔广场中传出的海量社交媒体数据(而非仅仅依靠少数记者在房间里报道着他们从卧室窗户都能看到的画面),事情的结局恐怕完全不同。2015年,当飞毛腿导弹从也门射往沙特阿拉伯时,民众们在推特上的帖子成为第一手信息来源——而非国有媒体或是联合国的官方发布。关于叙利亚问题,一位化名为Brown Moses的普通网民成为了国际权威,因为他能够运用多重信息来源,如推特或是脸书,证实各方的军事行动。

因地制宜地分析

当人们审视一场冲突的时候,联合国作出的绝大多数的分析要么关注社会经济数据(失业率、飞涨的物价等),要么关注一国政治层面的问题(宪法、选举等)。这样一来,联合国的干涉就会注重建立国家的各项制度,忽略了干涉的出现会给权力的变动带来怎样的影响。

决定在哪里铺设道路,投资哪所学校,将哪些群体纳入政治进程中,是否支持选举,这些都会在社会结构的框架内展开。这些问题绝不是中立的。如果一国政府采取掠夺性的国家行为,或是未能在各群体间达成平衡,更为有力的国家制度实际上甚至可能会加剧紧张局势。

因此,我们应当呼吁跨部门、跨领域的冲突解决机制。秘书长本人也应当呼吁更多的区域利益相关者——比如当地的商业领袖们——参与到对于地区局势的分析中以及发展计划的制定中。人们还应赋权于联合国工作人员,建立一种预期的关系,使他们能在冲突发生之前就有效地进行预防。

这种做法对于尚未拥有联合国维和部队、但极有可能发生冲突的地区来说尤其有用。在这些地区,联合国发展委员会以及人道主义行动的参与者们是“去政治化”的,他们在执行任务时不会深入到冲突的“浑水”中(尽管规劝人们采取和平和发展的方式,在某些国家的确行之有效)。这也是联合国了解一国情况的途径,有时甚至就像直接给一个国家“把脉”。如果古铁雷斯想要实现他的愿望,构建更具激励性的冲突预防平台,现在就是大胆改革驻地协调员机制的绝佳时机。这样一来,驻地协调员机制就具备了必要的方式和能力,能够更加有效地预防冲突,让国家领导人真正地对他们的人民负责。

不必循规蹈矩

联合国应当放弃其线性的、以国家为中心的解决方式,也就是其“金钱+制度=稳定”的模式。冲突产生于复杂的政治体系中,个人的利益与公共利益、国家甚至是跨国的利益交织在一起。这一切的关键点都在于政治意愿:掌权者选择和平路线的动机是什么?核心群体的利益是如何与冲突交织在一起的?比如,卡比拉是否担任刚果民主共和国总统,与他对于他本人以及更广泛的关系网络中的人们(如当地的社群)的安全与利益的理解密切相关。建立国家制度却不解决这一问题,无异于逆着风,在大海中笔直地向前航行

关于如何介入复杂的政治体系(包括易发生冲突的地带),人们有过郑重的考虑。秘书长呼吁人们采取一种崭新的方式预防冲突。这是一个绝佳的时机,让这一思考深入联合国的核心。在面对冲突时,我们应当问自己:“做出改变的理论依据是什么?我们怎样才能影响相关人员的政治意愿?”我想再次强调,这需要人们因地制宜地分析,更清晰地了解金钱和权力是如何在一个系统内运转的。关键点在于,通往和平的道路并不是平坦的,只注重结果的冲突防范是行不通的。相应地,联合国的计划应当更具灵活性,更加“以人为本”。

古铁雷斯试着让人们一同努力,让联合国系统能更加有效地开展工作,他主要针对的是政治领域的大人物。框架外交、朋友圈、地区及国际合作伙伴关系——这些都是一个成功的预防平台的必要元素。此外,人们的态度、行为模式以及所涉及的利益,也是冲突产生和发展的原因。这些元素同样应当成为冲突防范工作的核心。2016年发生的事件表明了忽略人们的恐惧和愿望所带来的恶果。现在正是合适的时候,在人们身边开展联合国的维和工作——联合国正是为了服务人们而存在的。

Can the UN restore international peace? Maybe, but only from the ground up

Speaking in Davos at the start of the year, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres laid out a vision of the interconnected nature of today’s conflicts, calling for a “comprehensive approach” by the UN that will bring together all of the organization’s pillars. This is a good move for a deeply fractured organization.

But in aiming big, and in focusing on bringing the major pieces of the UN architecture together, there is a risk that the crucial local dynamics of conflict will continue to be overlooked. Each of the key UN institutions – peace and security, human rights, and development – have a strong tendency to work at the national and state-institutional level. None has adequate mechanisms to link the national with the local. And while recent policy reviews and Guterres himself have called for a people-centred approach, it is less clear how that will be achieved. Here are three direct ways to combat the tendency to focus on the national level and to firmly root the UN’s conflict-management in local soil.

United Nations peacekeeping operations

New technologies as a force multiplier for preventing conflict

In Davos, Guterres underlined that innovation and new technologies can play a critical role in addressing global crises. The risks associated with new technologies are well known: from the imminent threat of drone capabilities in the hands of terrorists, to genetically modified pandemic threats, to ISIS using social media as a recruitment tool. As Anja Kaspersen and Jean-Marc Rickli pointed outin an earlier Agenda article, this has allowed a far greater number of non-state actors access to the tools of conflict.

But modern communications technologies also offer the UN an opportunity to maintain closer links to populations, to understand potential drivers of conflict, and message more effectively against them.

The UN has taken some positive steps to bring local actors’ views into play through technology. This includes, for example, use of social networking in the eastern parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo to identify where violent incidents are likely to occur, and more systematic monitoring of social media in Kosovo. But these are minor steps where a major one is needed, and initiatives tend to be in relatively obscure parts of the system. Imagine if the UN had been able to systematically process the enormous amount of social media data coming out of Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2012 (rather than relying on a few staff reporting on what they could see from their bedroom windows). When a SCUD missile was launched from Yemen into Saudi Arabia in 2015, the first news of this was from civilians tweeting from the ground, not a state-run source or the UN. On Syria, a civilian nicknamed “Brown Moses” became an international authority because he figured out how to use multiple sources of information on Twitter and Facebook to validate claims of weapons use by the parties on the ground.

The UN has people on the ground in 193 countries in the world, but they tend to be limited by what they can see and who they know. Dedicating meaningful resources to harnessing the enormous power of social media and big data – both to pull in information and also to communicate more effectively with affected populations – would be an immediate force multiplier for the UN that would also bring its work closer to the people.

Locally-grown analysis

When examining conflict, the vast majority of UN-related analyses are focused on either socio-economic data (unemployment rates, rising prices) or national political issues (constitutions, elections). As a result, interventions tend to be focused on building up the institutions of the state, without sufficient regard for how underlying power dynamics might be affected by a new intervention.

Deciding where to build a road, what schools are selected for funding, what groups are included in a political process, whether to support elections – all of these will play out across a social fabric. None of them are neutral. More capable state institutions may in fact raise tensions if they play into predatory state practices or fail to deliver equitably across groups.

The call for a cross-pillar approach to conflict is appropriate, but the secretary-general should also demand more systematic inclusion of local stakeholders – including business leaders – in the development of analysis and planning, and empower UN staff to build the kind of anticipatory relationships that will underpin any effective prevention effort.

This is particularly the case in countries without a UN mission already in place, but where the likelihood of conflict is high. Here, UN development and humanitarian actors are on the whole viewed as “apolitical,” carrying out their programmes without delving into the murky waters of conflict resolution (though the use of peace and development advisers in some countries has helped). These are also the eyes and ears of the UN and often have their finger pressed most directly on the pulse of a country. If Guterres is to realize his vision of a more proactive conflict prevention platform, now is a good time to be bold about reforming the Resident Coordinator system to give it the necessary tools and capacities to be effective at preventing conflict and holding national leaders accountable to their people.

Don’t follow a track, tack with the wind

The UN should also move away from its linear, state-centred approach, which assumes that money + institution = stability. Conflicts arise within complex political systems, where individual interests intersect with communal, national and even transnational ones. The key factor in all of this is political will: what are the incentives for those individuals in power to adopt a peaceful path, and how do the interests of key groups intersect around conflict? Whether President Kabila decides to step down as head of state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, has everything to do with his personal sense of security and the interests he sees for himself and his broader network, including in the local communities. An approach that builds state institutions without accounting for this is equivalent to trying to sail a boat in a straight line against the wind.

Serious thought has gone into how to intervene in complex political systems, including in conflict-prone areas. The secretary-general’s call for a whole new approach to prevention is an excellent time for that thinking to be brought into the heart of the UN: when looking at conflict, the question should be “what is the theory of change and how can we influence the political will of those involved?” Again, this calls for a locally-driven analysis, and a better sense of how money and power flow through a system. The main point is that there is no straight line to peace, no results-based budget with prevention as a deliverable, and the UN’s planning should become more flexible and people-focused in response.

As Guterres tries to knock heads together and make the UN system work more effectively together, there will be a tendency to aim for the big hitters. Framework diplomacy, groups of friends, regional and international partnerships: all of these are necessary elements of a successful prevention platform. But people’s attitudes, behavioural patterns and interests are what drive and sustain conflict, and should therefore be at the core of the UN’s prevention work. The events of 2016 showcase the perils of ignoring people’s fears and wishes. Now is the right time to ground the UN’s work in the people it serves.

准则-全球挑战奖2017(Criteria-THE GLOBAL CHALLENGES PRIZE 2017)

Source: https://globalchallenges.org

引言

今天,人类不仅生活在民族社会中,而且居住于全球共同体内。这意味着一些民族国家居民的行为和决定也影响到其它国家居民的切身利益。全球变暖就是最明显的例子:任何特定国家的温室气体都排放会对全球气候变化产生重大影响。

国际社会正面临着诸多严峻的全球性挑战,必须由全体国家通过加强合作和增进对于关联性的理解来共同管理。除了气候变化外,其它重大问题和风险还包括其他大规模的环境破坏和政治暴力(战争、内战、恐怖主义、大规模杀伤性武器)。各国面临的其他问题还有极端贫困和人口的快速增长。

人口快速增长——全球人口在过去100年间翻了两番(正是我们造成当今问题的主要原因之一),预计到2100年将再增长50%——会使所有问题变得更加严重。尽管如此,尽管我们都知道地球上并没有足够的资源可以让全球的人口都达到西方的生活水准,但这个问题却并未被提上政治议程。

为了应对这些挑战,考虑到所有受影响者的利益,包括子孙后代,我们需要通过有效的方式做出具有集体约束力的长效决策。当前应对这些问题的体制(包括联合国及其相关组织)以目前的形式来说都无法完成该任务。今天面临的挑战都是使用以前的工具(易受国家短期利益左右的多边谈判)的代价。因此,人们不是根本不采取必要行动就是反应太慢,问题和风险始终在变大。

基金会要向来自世界各地的参赛者们提出挑战,参赛者要针对现状制定可行方案——可以通过补充、加强和修改现有联合国体制,或通过提出全新的治理形式。提案的起草应尽可能本着确认、预防或减少上述类型风险的目的。

任务

参赛者必须设计一个能够有效应对人类最紧迫的威胁和风险的治理模式。换句话说,这项任务并不能针对特定问题提出直接解决方案,而是会设计出一种通用的决策模式,旨在生成相关的解决方案和能力,掌握可有效实施解决方案的资源。

该治理模式也必须能够在可预见的未来得以实施。这需要获得大国乃至更广泛的国际社会的接受。民间的接受度也是非常重要的。这要求从独立国家的政治体系中去除掉依赖旷日持久且具有争议性变化的模式,比如假设所有国家都应为民主国家的模式。

另外,治理模式必须涉及对于国家主权的最低限制,即只能涉及可确保国家政策不会对他国居民的切身利益产生严重危害的必要限制。换句话说,治理模式中的决策不得涉及独立国家的内政。

投稿必需由以下三部分组成:

1. 摘要(不超过1500字)

摘要必须概括模式的设计,包括所涉及的机构、规章、决策途径和控制机制,以及如何任命关键人员和其它决策机构。必须清楚地界定各组成部分的职能,其责任领域及决策职权的范围。此外,请描述该模式如何应对现有的以及新出现的挑战和风险。

2. 模式叙述(不超过8200字)

文章必须包括带有清晰描述性标题的小章节。参赛者必须明确定义不同部分的功能、责任范围及决策授权的程度。另外,还需对模式如何应对当前及新兴的挑战和风险进行介绍。

3. 论证说明该模式是如何达到评估标准的(不超过4200字)

根据下文所列的每条标准,参赛者必须就拟建的模式如何达到标准提出令人信服的论证。

评估标准

评委根据参赛作品如何应对全球挑战并达到如下标准进行评审:

1. 核心价值观

治理模式中的决策必须以全人类利益和尊重众生平等的价值观为导向。

2. 决策能力

治理模式中的决策通常必须可行,不存在会对充分应对挑战造成阻碍的严重拖延(如因各方行使否决权)。

3. 有效性

治理模式必须能够应对全球挑战和防线,且需包括确保决策得以实施的手段。

4. 资源和融资

治理模式必须拥有可供其使用的充足的人力和物力资源,这些资源必须通过公平的方式融资而来。

5. 信任和洞察力

对成功的治理模式及其体系的信任取决于权力结构和决策的透明度以及深刻的洞察力。

6. 灵活性

为了能够有效地实现目标,成功的治理模式中必须包含可对其结构和组成部分加以修正和改进的机制。

7. 防止滥用职权

如果组织超越了自身的职权范围,如过度干涉别国内政或支持个人、团体、组织、国家或国家集团的特殊利益要求,则必须通过控制系统采取行动。

8. 问责制

对于成功的治理模式而言,基本要求是它应执行应尽的任务,还必须包括可对决策者们的行为进行问责的权力。

Criteria

Introduction

Today, mankind lives not only in national societies, but also in a global community. This means that the behavior and decisions of the inhabitants of nation states also impact the vital interests of inhabitants of other countries. Global warming may be the most obvious example: Greenhouse gas emissions in any particular country will have an impact on global climate change.

The world community is facing a number of major global challenges which have to be jointly managed by all countries through increased co-operation and an increased understanding of our interconnectedness. Other than climate change, the major problems and risks are other large-scale environmental damage and politically motivated violence (war, civil war, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction). Other major problems faced are extreme poverty and rapid population growth.

Rapid population growth – the global population has quadrupled over the last 100 years (which is one of the main reasons for the problem we face today), and is expected to increase by another 50 percent by the year 2100 – exacerbates all these problems. Despite this, and despite the knowledge that there are not nearly enough resources on the planet for the entire population of Earth to enjoy the current Western standard of living, the issue is not on the political agenda.

In order to manage these challenges, we need effective ways of making collectively binding, long-term decisions that take into account the interests of all those affected, including future generations. The system currently in place to manage these issues – including the UN and the organizations connected with the UN – are, in their present form, not up to the task. Today, these challenges are responded to using yesterday’s tools – multilateral negotiations which are susceptible to short-term national interests. As a consequence, the necessary action is either not taken or is taken too late, while the problems and risks continue to grow.

The Global Challenges  Foundation wants to challenge participants from all over the world to formulate alternatives to the present state of affairs – either by complementing, strengthening and revising the present UN system, or by proposing completely new forms of governance. The proposals should be drafted with the aim of identifying and, as far as possible, preventing or minimizing challenges of the kind mentioned above.

The Task

The participant must design a governance model able to effectively address the most pressing threats and risks to humanity. In other words, the task is not to come up with direct solutions to specific problems. Rather, it is to design a general model for decision-making, with the aim of generating such solutions and the ability to do so, and possessing the resources to effectively implement them.

The governance model must also be such that it can be implemented within the foreseeable future. This requires that it be acceptable to major states and the wider international community. A significant measure of civic acceptance is also required. This requirement eliminates models that rely on time-consuming and controversial changes in the political system of individual states, e.g. models that postulate that all states should be democracies.

Furthermore, the governance model must involve a minimum of limitations to the sovereignty of nation-states, meaning that it should involve only such limitations as are necessary to ensure that national decisions do not seriously harm the vital interests of inhabitants of other countries, or of humanity as a whole. In other words, decisions within the governance model must not deal with the internal affairs of individual states.

The entries must consist of the following three parts:

1. Abstract (no more than 1000 words)

The abstract must summarize the design of the model, including the institutions, regulations, decision-making paths and control mechanisms it involves, as well as how key individuals and other decision-making bodies are to be appointed.

2. Description of the Model (no more than 5500 words)

The document must be divided into subsections with clear and descriptive headings. The Participant must clearly define the functions of the various components, their areas of responsibility and the extent of their decision-making mandate. Also, describe how the model is meant to manage both current and emerging challenges and risks.

3. Argumentation demonstrating how the model meets the assessment criteria (no more than 2750 words)

For each of the criteria listed below, the participant must provide convincing arguments as to how the proposed model meets the criterion.

Assessment criteria

Entries will be assessed based on how well they can be expected to manage global challenges and meet the criteria listed below:

1. Core Values.

Decisions within the governance model must be guided by the good of all humankind and by respect for the equal value of all human beings.

2. Decision-Making Capacity.

Decision-making within the governance model must generally be possible without crippling delays that prevent the challenges from being adequately addressed (e.g. due to parties exercising powers of veto).

3. Effectiveness.

The governance model must be capable of handling the global challenges and risks and include means to ensure implementation of decisions.

4. Resources and Financing.

The governance model must have sufficient human and material resources at its disposal, and these resources must be financed in an equitable manner.

5. Trust and Insight.

The trust enjoyed by a successful governance model and its institutions relies on transparency and considerable insight into power structures and decision-making.

6. Flexibility.

In order to be able to fulfil its objectives effectively, a successful governance model must contain mechanisms that allow for revisions and improvements to be made to its structure and components.

7. Protection against the Abuse of Power.

A control system must be in place to take action if the organization should overstep its mandate, e.g. by unduly interfering with the internal affairs of nation-states or favouring the special interests of individuals, groups, organizations, states or groups of states.

8. Accountability.

It is a fundamental requirement of a successful governance model that it performs the tasks it has been charged with, and the governance model must include the power to hold the decision-makers accountable for their actions.

Reach for the stars. The advice that failed a generation?

Clouds are reflected in the Midi Tower, the headquarters of the National Pensions Office, in downtown Brussels in Belgium June 21, 2015. Picture taken June 21. REUTERS/Charles Platiau TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTX1HLJY

What does the future of work look like for Gen Y?

When the Brexit referendum result came in, many celebrated, while millions despaired. The disappointed supporters of British membership of the European Union tended to be younger and better educated.

Many young people felt let down by older Brexit voters. After all, they are the ones who will have to forge careers in less certain circumstances.

Among 18 to 24-year-olds, 72% favoured continued membership of the EU. As one young Briton explained via Twitter: “Today an older generation has voted to ruin the future for the younger generation. I’m scared.” Another millennial complained: “The fact older generations have reaped the benefits & pulled the EU from my generation? Furious.”

With or without a “hard” Brexit, millennials or Gen Y – those born between 1980 and 1995 – are deeply concerned about their futures, all over the world. Whether it’s housing shortages, job prospects or general political insecurity, Gen Y is worried. This has to be of concern for everyone.

The challenges facing American Millennials

Gen Y will soon become the largest living generation and will comprise 75% of the workforce by 2025. The median age of employees of Google, Alibaba, and Tesla is 30 or below. They have a mix of interests and challenges, unprecedented new skills, different insights, and often a flair for entrepreneurship.

Take Rajeeb Dey, for example, named as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. Rajeeb wanted to make a difference to the opportunities of other young people and became an entrepreneur aged 17, while still at school. Rajeeb, like all Gen Y-ers, is one of the first generation of digital natives. Many are well educated, well travelled, digitally literate, ambitious and impatient to pursue activities that interest them.

They embrace casual work environments, co-working spaces, flexible working hours, online learning and flat company hierarchies. Their career values and use of technology is beginning to determine what the future of work might look like.

A business man rides an escalator in the financial district of Pudong in Shanghai September 21, 2011. REUTERS/Aly Song (CHINA - Tags: CITYSPACE SOCIETY) - RTR2RVU1

‘Their career values and use of technology is beginning to determine what the future of work might look like.’

REUTERS/Aly Song

But this is not a simple tale of technological progress and utopian views of employment. Other Gen Y-ers are fearful of the future: half of young Spaniards are unemployed. They live in challenging economic circumstances, where automation and artificial intelligence threaten the future of jobs.

Gen Y’s attitudes towards work were shaped by the global financial crisis, which occurred while they were in high school, university or at the beginning of their career. They watched opportunities for graduate careers shrink and many saw their student debts rise sharply at the same time.

These challenges, and the realization that they will struggle in housing markets, are all the greater as they spent their childhoods during an economic boom. The conventional financial and career limitations they face sit alongside the way their parents raised them to “reach for the stars” and “do what makes you happy”. Rajeeb Dey formed his start-up, Enternships.com, in the depths of the recession.

Many Gen Y-ers are not too concerned about the impact of technology on their work – but they should be. While they are largely fluent in using technology, many are ignorant as to how it works, especially compared to Gen Z, the generation below, who learn digital skills, such as coding and programming, from primary school age. This suggests that Gen Y could be left behind by the next generation of digital technology.

Despite recent rapid changes, younger workers are slightly more likely than older workers to expect that their current jobs will exist 50 years in the future: 84% of workers aged 18 to 29 expect that this will be the case, compared with 76% of workers aged 50 and older. While Gen Y is aware of the challenges of technologies such as automation and artificial intelligence (AI), and confident they can live and work alongside them, it is up to them to create the jobs that allow them to do so. It is also up to them to be active learners and continue to improve their skills so that they do not get left behind.

Evidence that Gen Y is conscious of this is their keen use of online education providers such as Coursera, EdX and Udacity, which offer short, industry-specific courses on the use of new technologies. Udacity – university by industry – is an online provider of nanodegrees, supported by Google, Facebook, GitHub, IBM and other tech giants. It offers courses for self-driving car engineers, iOS developers, and machine learning engineers. Another provider, General Assembly, promotes itself as “the solution to the skills gap”, teaching courses in fields such as coding, UX design and digital marketing. Lynda.com offers more than 4,000 online courses in business, technology and creative skills. But the question remains as to whether learning to code, to work in companies like Salesforce is going to lead to a fulfilling career? Or is coding “the next blue collar job”?

Accessing these courses can be valuable, but there’s a risk that young people will favour them and skip traditional tertiary education, such as going to university. This risks them missing out on developing soft skills, learning the politics, history and cultural components behind their topics, and entering the workforce unprepared to deal with its complexities and uncertainties. They may learn about some of the technical issues of the day, but not how to thrive in the complex and confusing world of tomorrow. Gen Y needs to see these courses as supplementary and not as sufficient in themselves.

Have you read?

With some justification, Gen Y complains government legislation favours older generations in areas such as tax allowances for pensions. Labour laws make it harder to lay off current employees who may be poor performers, which means there are fewer jobs available for young qualified graduates. At the same time, many Gen Y-ers have a strong sense of entitlement and expect to receive appreciation for their contributions. They demand flexibility with their work and lifestyle and change jobs far more often than older generations. This is sometimes seen as being flighty or unreliable.

Matching these high expectations in such unfavourable circumstances requires Gen Y to create its own future. But to achieve its goals, this generation needs to be more involved politically. In the 2012 US Presidential election, 46% of Gen Y voted as opposed to 61% of Gen X-ers, and 69% of Baby Boomers. The expectations of Gen Y-ers have to be matched by their taking more responsibility: they shouldn’t complain about political outcomes they did not involve themselves in.

As technology encroaches further into working lives, Gen Y-ers – the future of the workplace – must ensure they remain necessary and relevant. If they want to continue pursuing their progressive career values they must continue to improve their skills in order to work alongside automation and AI, rather than be made redundant by it. Gen Y needs to rise to the technological, political and social challenges that confront us all and get more involved in shaping the future of work.

Special thanks to Kate Dodgson, a Gen Y-er, who helped research this article.

Source: https://www.weforum.org

Written by:

Mark Dodgson, Director, Technology and Innovation Management Centre, University of Queensland Business School

David Gann, Vice President, Imperial College

Want to solve global crises? $5 million prize seeks fresh ideas

Laurie Goering

Source: http://www.reuters.com

LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – As the world grapples with potentially catastrophic global problems, including climate change, it needs to find solutions by overcoming short-term thinking, risk analysts say.

To drive that, a Swedish risk specialist and philanthropist is offering a $5 million prize for the best idea to create a new international decision-making system capable of tackling the world’s intractable issues, from extreme poverty to the spread of nuclear weapons and growing environmental damage.

“Today’s risks are so dangerous and so global in their nature that they’ve outrun the international system’s ability to deal with them,” said László Szombatfalvy, who fled from Hungary to Sweden in 1956 as a refugee, and later made a fortune in the stock market.

“We’re trying to solve today’s problems with yesterday’s tools,” said the 89-year-old, who launched the Global Challenges Foundation in 2012. “We believe a new shape of collaboration is needed to address the most critical challenges in our globalized world.”

The New Shape Prize – which will be awarded next November, after entries close in May – aims to spur fresh thinking about innovative means to solve problems that cross borders and are hard to tackle when most political terms of office are short and many businesses and markets remain focused on near-term gains.

“The public and even the private sector are underestimating the risks because we are too short-sighted in our decision-making,” said Mats Andersson, a former CEO of Sweden’s largest pension fund and now head of Szombatfalvy’s foundation.

U.N. OUTDATED?

He points to continued government spending on fossil fuel subsidies, for instance, while many leaders resist efforts to put in place a carbon price and trading system that would drive richer countries to pay for their climate-changing emissions while giving poorer ones funds to develop cleanly.

Such a shift could help drive action against global warming. Instead, “we’re sending the bill to our kids and grandkids, and I think that’s deeply immoral”, said Andersson, who has worked on de-carbonizing pension funds.

A U.N.-brokered deal to tackle climate change, agreed by more than 190 countries in Paris last year, aims to limit global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, by getting countries to deliver voluntary emissions reductions and financial contributions that could be ratcheted up over time.

But their pledges for the accord still leave the world on a path to at least 2.9 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial times – enough to swamp many low-lying island states, kill most coral reefs, drive food shortages and far more extreme weather, and potentially trigger melting of the biggest ice sheets, scientists say.

When it comes to solving global problems, “we have the United Nations, but the United Nations was founded in 1946, with the challenges we had at that time. We’re now some years down the road. We need to remodel and find new ways,” Andersson said.

The prize, he said, is not aimed at finding whole solutions to global threats such as climate change, wars and poverty, but rather “a model or mechanism that could provide the solutions”.

“We don’t have any preconceived views,” Andersson said. “We need to look in every corner, turn every stone.”

TOO LATE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?

Rob Bailey, who directs energy, environment and resources research at London-based think tank Chatham House, said it is likely too late to craft an innovative new framework to limit climate change.

“Even if the politics for grand plans was possible, which we know is not the case at the moment, there isn’t enough time for grand plans anyway,” he said. Within two years, existing power plants will lock the world into more than 2 degrees of global warming if used over their full lifetime, he added.

But fresh approaches could help police and make more effective the Paris climate agreement’s voluntary goals, and verify what is being done by businesses, cities and other major players to curb climate-changing emissions, he said.

They could also offer new ways of dealing with the global problems climate change is set to worsen, from food shortages to migration, he said.

“What kind of global and international institutions will we need to have for a stable and resilient international order?” Bailey asked. “It raises questions for our food system, our humanitarian system, for international laws on refugees and asylum, (and) for social protection mechanisms.”

“These are the things we can be thinking about grand designs for, before things get really hairy from 2030 onward,” he said.

Entries for the New Shape Prize close on May 24, 2017, and the winning idea will be chosen by a panel of academic experts and a high-level international jury.

The Global Challenges Foundation will then back efforts to put that idea into practice, Andersson said.

(Reporting by Laurie Goering editing by Megan Rowling)