Bara en väg för att skapa fler jobb

 

I en debattartikel i dagens DN (22 Juni 2010) skriver Patrik Engellau och Thomas Gür om den bistra sanningen om utvecklingen på arbetsmarknaden. De beskriver hur antalet anställda inom privata sektorn i Sverige legat mer eller mindre konstant kring 3 miljoner sedan femtiotalet, medan antalet anställda inom offentlig sektor fördubblats. Vid sidan av dessa har vi en expanderande tredje sektor, ”utanförskapet”, med idag 1,1 miljoner som står utan arbete. Deras slutsats är att vi på allvar och på djupet behöver se över vilka villkor som behöver ändras för att företagen skall kunna anställa och växa. Eftersom utvecklingen av arbetstillfällen i den privata sektorn stått stilla sedan sextitalet är det uppenbarligen inga små kosmetiska åtgärder som krävs, utan mer radikala grepp.

Jag tror på förbättrade villkor för företagande, men likväl anser jag att debattartikeln är baserad på ett fundamentalt feltänk. Vad artikeln beskriver är en logik helt baserad på tanken om underskottsmarknader, dvs marknader som kan svälja en kraftigt ökad produktion förutsatt att produkterna är ok och att företagen kan nå sina kunder. Översatt till anställda bygger logiken alltså på att bara företagen får villkor som gör att de törs anställa, så kommer det att finnas kunder som köper denna ökade produktion av produkter och tjänster. Att underskottsmarknader skulle vara särskilt vanligt förekommande idag är dock en missuppfattning. Idag är nästan alla marknader överskottsmarknader. Det betyder att utbudet av ”likvärdiga” produkter är stort och att därför priskonkurrensen är hård. Många marknader är mättade och utslagningen av företag, nationellt och internationellt, är stor. Förändrade villkor för företagande ändrar inte på denna obönhörliga logik.

Vad krävs för att företag skall kunna växa idag, på de flesta marknader? Det krävs innovation. Företagen måste erbjuda produkter och tjänster med ett påtagligt större värde än de som redan marknaden är mättad av, och det åstadkommes genom innovation i teknik, processer, affärsmodeller. Bara genom att leverera något annorlunda, något som tillför nytt värde, kan man få kunder att köpa på marknader som annars är mättade.

Men inte heller med innovation är det säkert att marknaden som helhet växer. Innovation bidrar ju i hög utsträckning till produktivitetsökning, vilket vi haft med i snitt ca 6% per år inom tillverkningsindustrin och med 2% per år inom tjänstesektorn under de senaste decennierna. Produktivitetsökning innebär ju att vi kan producera motsvarande volym produkter och tjänster men med mindre åtgång av resurser, inklusive mankraft. Resultatet av produktivitetsökningen kan ju följaktligen bli en minskande privat arbetsmarknad istället för det omvända.

Förutsättningarna för en reell tillväxt i den privata sektorn är alltså förutom innovation, att det framförallt rör sig om innovation och nyskapande inom nya områden. Alltså produkter och tjänster som inte bara levererar motsvarande värden som tidigare produkter och tjänster fast effektivare. Samtidigt måste det ju vara inom områden som vi som konsumenter, företag och samhälle är beredda att betala för. Detta är höga krav i ett post-materiellt samhälle, där vi är påtagligt trötta på överskottet av produkter som vi inte behöver och produkter som inte har någon differentiering relativt alla sina konkurrenter.

Var hittar vi då dessa nischer för nya produkter och tjänster? Jo, det gör vi förstås inom områden där samhället befinner sig i snabb omstöpning i synnerhet kopplat till tekniska landvinningar, till exempel kopplat till grön teknik, energisektorns transformation, transformation av infrastruktur, nästa generations IT- och telekominfrastruktur, vårdsektorns transformation, medicinsk teknik, bioteknik, nanoteknik.

För att generalisera, vi hittar de enda riktiga tillväxtbranscherna inom högteknologiska områden och inom områden starkt kopplade till hållbarhetstransformation, såsom energisystem, infrastruktur, återvinning. Om tillväxtpotentialen är väldigt starkt kopplad till enskilda branscher, är det då generella ”åtgärder för företagande” som är lösningen? Eller är det snarare, å ena sidan, branschspecifika behov kring innovationssystem, kluster, forskningssamverkan som krävs? Och å andra sidan, åtgärder som skapar förutsättningar för infrastrukturell transformation inom energisektorn och energiintensiva branscher, såsom skatteväxling, standarder och regelverk inom energieffektivisering m m som behövs?

Jag vet vad jag tror på.

The really long-term equation of Growth, Resources and Energy

Our entire economy is based on continuous growth. Growth makes our society increasingly prosperous in monetary or material terms, and growth has increasingly become the measurement of success.

In a market without growth our pension systems collapse, the employment market collapses, and all desired investments disappear. Not a very attractive scenario to a government or to the population of a country.

So, we are highly dependent on continued growth.

Yet, at the same time, growth is in a way a drug which kills us. Economic growth is based on an ever increasing flow of economic transactions, which are in turn based on a similar increased flow of products and services. These products and services consume physical resources, whether it is in the form of fish, water, mined minerals and metals, or fossil fuels. The current growth paradigm is highly unsustainable and we are seeing how many resources are becoming scarce or shrinking on a global scale. Ecosystems are under heavy pressure with accelerating art extinction. Fossil fuels are becoming more and more risky and expensive to explore, as are many desirable minerals.

"Sustainable growth" is seen as the answer. Sustainable growth sounds compelling, but how much do we really know about sustainable growth? The truth is that noone has managed to prove that it can be achieved on a larger scale and for a a longer time. 

Yes, we can think of products or services which add to financial growth while making the planet more sustainable. I e, we can find products, which replace other products and use less of limited resources.

This is called "relative decoupling". It means that we do things that make our accelerated overuse of limited resources go slower. It is based on the assumption (or fact?) that all products or services use limited resources to some extent. "Absolute decoupling" means that a product actually uses a negative amount of resources, or that it frees more resources than it uses. 

We can think of such products or services too. A recycling service which takes products, separates them into useful resources and returns them. Wouldn't that be an example of "absolute decoupling"? Well, it could be. But we have to look at that service from a systems perspective. The energy and other resources consumed in delivering the service needs to be produced sustainably too. Services that demonstrate "absolute decoupling" can be constructed, but can we create an entire society based on "absolute decoupling"?

In theory, we can think of a society, where we become increasingly better at recycling everything and returning the resources, and that we also get faster and faster at spinning this resource recycling wheel. Growth comes from increasing throughput of material resources and energy. This would be a society built on growth and yet sustainable from a resource perspective. Is this society possible or is it a purely theoretical construction?

Well, today it is theoretical, of course. We are very far away from this society. To transform our current society in this direction is a tremendous societal endeavor. The greatest challenge in achieving such a society is energy, because recycling is an energy intensive process. What is more, the need for energy in the process is exponential. When we move from recycling 80% of the resources to recycling 90% we don't do it by adding 10% more energy. We probably need 100% more energy. This is an estimate to serve as an illustration, the point being that the energy need grows exponentially. When almost all our finite resources on the planet shall be recycled in a fast spinning wheel, then it is going to require a LOT of energy. 

Do we have sufficient sources of renewable energy to solve this equation in a sustainable way?

I am afraid that is unlikely. Calculations have been made on the available sources of renewable energy. Studies show that even if we add all the different sources together in e g UK, it would still not add up to provide the energy needed at current level of consumption, and this is not including a transformation to a recycling society. The population is too big compared to the land area. In e g Sweden, the equation is  easier, since the population is smaller while the land is bigger. The available resources by capita for wind power, solar power, hydro power, wave power, biofuels etc are much bigger. There is of course a great potential for becoming more efficient in how we use energy in all parts of the world. If this potential was used, the energy would last longer, but not indefinitely. 

Globally, we could possibly make it work at today's level of consumption, with unsustainable flows of material resources. However, if and when we transform to a recycling economy requiring immense and ever increasing quantities of energy for the recycling of all material resource flows, it is doubtful how long the planet's renewable energy resources would last.

Are there any other ways?

Yes of course. One way is to use nuclear. Next or next to next generation of nuclear holds the promise of being much more efficient, with Thorium reactors and other new nuclear processes. This kind of breakthrough would certainly be needed, because at the current  efficiency of nuclear power, that energy source won't last very long. Current estimates show that we reach a peak for the production of Uranium in about 60 years, depending on the growth in that industry. And we have still not solved the huge problem of nuclear waste in any way, which means that the nuclear road is not very attractive in the really long-term perspective until we have seen some major scientific breakthroughs.

Another way is to look at outer space. Enormous solar panels in space beaming down the energy to earth is an interesting proposition with lot's of benefits. The panels can in principle be as big as we wish, with no limitations in land use, and they would constantly be facing the sun. Is it realistic? Can we get the whole system to work safely, and with high energy efficiency? We don't know. But the technology could be reality ten years from now.

The final way then, would be to tweak our global financial and economic systems so that we become less dependent on continued economic growth and increasing physical throughput of products. The economy is invented by man and part of our social system. Can it be harder to change than to beam down the future earth energy supply from outer space? 

Can we mentally decouple from increased flow of material products?

Open innovation, Sustainability and Social Media

The future calls for radical change, we all know this. Although many small things are happening, it is quite clear that much bigger shifts are needed in order to meet the major challenges posed, in climate change, energy, water, poverty eradication and in restoring ecosystems.

Big changes calls for quantum innovation. We need to move away from thinking small to thinking big changes. These changes require more strategic and more innovative rethinking and redoing of current practices. We need to seriously rethink and redesign how many businesses and systems work to build our society. This is not the regular habit of most organizations. On the contrary, almost all organizations are systematically working with incremental innovation or development, which means that you look for small improvements that can be done without really changing the way you work.

Incremental innovation unfortunately has diminishing returns. You can only achieve so much if you're not prepared to make more radical changes to how you operate. You pick the "low hanging fruit", but when that is done, continued improvements are more difficult.

How do you achieve more radical, "quantum innovation"? Let's strart by saying that you do not do it by asking the same people as last year to come up with new solutions to the same problems as last year. Typically, however, this is how most organizations work. Innovation is addressed "inside the box" by a development team inside the organization.

Quantum innovation require innovation processes of a different kind. Typically, break-through innovations are not made within disciplines or within companies. Rather, they are done at the unexpected intersections between disciplines or unexpected cross-overs between businesses. This is more difficult, but it is quite possible to stimulate.

There are essentially two ways to stimulate cross-over innovation. The first is controlled, where you use a defined process for cross-over innovation and bring together a team with complementary, cross-fertilizing competencies.

The second is to turn to open innovation systems. Open innovation is characterized by a process where you define the boundaries of the area, but then let go of the control and let people contribute to the innovation in a collaborative manner. This can be done in different ways, but it is clear, that the use of social media to bring a lot of people into the system can be an effective way. Internet and social media as channels for collaborative open innovation can be very powerful, as can be seen as in the case of Linux.

Fortunately, the processes of innovation are getting faster and faster. Increasing efficviency in social media and intermediary innovation platforms are incredible. Additionally, the increasing wealth of knowledge increases the opportunities for cross-over innovation.

There is also an additional connection which is important. Sustainability issues pose great challenges. The nature of these challenges are typically that they need to be approached from a systems changing perspective, since it is our current systems structure that have created the problems. "We cannot solve problems by applying the same thinking which created the problems", as Einstein put it.

This means that there are several reasons why systems changing, radical innovation is needed in order to address sustainability issues. On one hand the required speed of change, and the diminishing returns from incremental innovation. On the other hand, the fact that the issues are indeed systems issues that need to be approach on a higher level.

This means that we have an interesting and necessary convergence of disciplines, between sustainability, open innovation and social media. By applying the latest knowledge and tools in these fields, we can achieve remarkable and necessary results for the world.

Social media and collective intelligence

In my previous post about a vision for a thrivable future, I received the question from a friend, how such a vision can be created and by whom. I answered that I believe the engagement and the fluid, democratic possibilities of the social media will have an important role in creating the vision. "Clearly, this vision should not be formulated with nation states and borders as a starting point. It has to fluid, borderless and participatory, which happen to be interesting aspects of social media."
Today, someone on twitter forwarded this important article.  I lost track of who forwarded it. Someone deserves a thank you, it is a very interesting piece!
The article touches on what I was referring to above, about the fantastic power in the decentralised web of social networks. Through the article above I realize that what I am really looking for is collective intelligence. I am thrilled by the perspective introduced in the article, that twitter and similar tools allow us collectively to emulate the function of a brain, through synapses and neurons. A meta brain.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." is a famous quote by Thomas Watson, former Chairman Of IBM in 1943. We have seen Watson proved wrong, as the world is increasingly populated by more and more computers. The interesting development is that the computers are soon all to be connected over the net. They interact more and more, and the functionality is increasingly network based. What used to be many discrete computers are increasingly working together as one big machine, however decentralised and distributed. With the next generation social network tools we will be able to work together symbiotically with the big machine to form one giant meta brain, with immense capabilities for aggregate thoughts. In this perspective it also becomes clear that we have only started to explore the potential of collective human computer interaction, and the future of learning and science.

The use of the big machine and the meta brain obviously lies far beyond our formal democratic processes. The question arises, how can we use this to mobilize for, and to build a better society of tomorrow also in the formal sense?