 I'm the director of the program on transatlantic relations at Harvard University. And I want to thank the organizers by the Guilheret Thierry for having me here, for allowing us to have this panel with young leaders of the conference. We're going to address a set of issues that interlink innovation, change, disruption, and political economy. That's the overarching theme of the panel. I'm going to give a diagnosis of where I think innovation is and how it's affecting our political life. I'm going to try to land some of the debates that we've been having on innovation and change and look at their political consequences. It's just going to be a diagnosis. And then I'm going to run through the panel. We have a group of entrepreneurs and people that are practice-oriented, so you will see a big difference between what an academic can make a living out of and then what real entrepreneurs and action people do. So they're going to come up with deep dive analysis and solutions about what's going on. So I'll be quite quick, because I don't want to take too much of your time. So I want to start with this graph. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it runs from 2000 BC to our time, so it's 4,000 years of history. And the two lines you see, one is world population, and the other one is social development index, which is a measure of material wealth. And essentially, you have them pretty flat scientific revolution, industrial revolution, and boom, right? Both skyrocket. So we live on that curve of accelerated change, both in terms of population and material wealth. This is the same graph in world GDP in trillions. So again, 10,000 years of history, boom, right? In terms of our capacity to essentially have economic development, there's only one significant historical development, which is the application of science and technology to the economy and to productive processes. This is happening because of Moore's law. This is one of the big drivers, which is the collapse in the cost of processing power. McKinsey Global Institute has cataloged the various vectors where this change is taking place into these categories, but you can come up with many others. Energy, cloud, robotics, whatever it is, is the convergence of all of these that makes change exponential and very, very hard to predict. Now, how is this related to the theme of the panel? Now, I'm going to say that this brings many challenges, this rate of change, but I'm going to say that two are particularly important. One is it producing unprecedented shifts in the jobs market, and the other one, it's leading to wage stagnation and growing inequality. Shifts in the labor market have occurred in the past, and they've been produced by technological change. This is the decline of the population labor force employment in the United States in agriculture from 1850, 60 to our time. So it went from the up 60s to 3%, 4%. At the same time as you had an explosion in productivity, this also happened in manufacturing. This is from the 70s to 2018. This is millions of Americans working in manufacturing, and the bars are the installation of robots in factories in the United States. But now it's starting to happen in services. This is from a report from the Oxford Martin School, and the graph is a little bit hard to read, but essentially about 47% of current jobs are estimated to be in high risk of automation in the next 20 years. These are jobs in translation, in legal services, accounting, tax advisory, self-driving cars, which we're gonna explore later, put at risk about three million jobs just in the United States. So this is now affecting services. This might be, I think, the most important graph in the entire presentation. It shows something that has happened from the 70s onwards. This is US data, and it's the decoupling of productivity and hourly wages and labor wages. So from the 70s, our entire economic model is based on this assumption that with increases in productivity that eventually trickles down to wages and that feeds into the middle class and creates a solid middle class. From the 70s onwards, this has ceased to work in the United States. So productivity has increased by 2.4 times, 243%, hourly compensation has remained stagnant. As I will say at the end of the presentation, I think this is a fundamental breach of our social contract, and this has huge implications for the way we think about the future and how to build a new equilibrium. This is producing at a time of growth, because curiously, we live at a time when we've never been more prosperous. The United States returned to pre-crisis GDP levels in 2012. So the United States just elected a president on a platform to break the system at a time when they've never been more prosperous on the aggregate. But because of that decoupling that I showed you, most of that income is going to capital holders, and this is one of the consequences. This is from a McKinsey Global Institute report titled Poorer Than Their Parents. Upwards of 90% of Italian households in that nine year period saw their household income stagnate or decline. That's also true of 80-something percent of US households, 70-something percent of UK households. My thesis in this talk is that this is sort of dynamite right at the heart of our democracies. This is not sustainable politically. This is aggregate income concentration in the top 5% and top 20% of American households in this period from the 70s to today, and this is at the global level wealth concentration in the top 1% versus the bottom 99%. In 2015 it was the first time that the top 1% had more aggregate wealth than the remainder of the planet. And the consequences, and I'm gonna fly through these, are in my mind three, although there are many more. One is a growth in anti-systemic sentiment, and I followed the Brexit debate quite closely. This is, these bars show you the level of trust in those collectives, economics, economies, Bank of England, and people that voted for leave or remain. Essentially, Brexiteers were highly suspicious of experts. There was an avalanche of expert reports saying that Brexit was a bad idea and you still got Brexit. So the breach of trust between the elites and those they represent has been growing and growing and it's now producing completely unpredictable political outcomes, right? This is about pessimism and optimism and support for Hillary and Trump. So to the question compared with 50 years ago, life for people like you in America is, Trump supporters, 80-something percent would say it's worse. Well, Hillary supporters would be in the 19th. So if you're a pessimist, there's a high chance that you prefer Trump as a candidate and those were the people that were ultimately voting for him. I have a short video that explains this in a very visual way. So final experiment that I wanna mention to you is our fairness study. And so this became a very famous study and there's now many more because after we did this about 10 years ago, it became very well known. And we did that originally with Capuchin monkeys and I'm gonna show you the first experiment that we did. It has now been done with dogs and with birds and with chimpanzees, but we started out with Capuchin monkeys. So what we did is we put two Capuchin monkeys side by side. Again, these animals, they live in a group, they know each other, we take them out of the group, put them in a test chamber and there's a very simple task that they need to do and if you give both of them cucumber for the task, the two monkeys side by side, they're perfectly willing to do this 25 times in a row. So cucumber, even though it's really only water in my opinion, but cucumber is perfectly fine for them. Now if you give the partner grapes, the food preferences of my Capuchin monkeys correspond exactly with the prices in the supermarket. And so if you give them grapes, it's a far better food than you create inequity between them. So that's the experiment we did. Recently, we videotaped it with new monkeys who had never done the task thinking that maybe they would have a stronger reaction and that turned out to be right. The one on the left is the monkey who gets cucumber. The one on the right is the one who gets grapes. The one who gets cucumber, note that the first piece of cucumber is perfectly fine. The first piece she eats, then she sees the other one getting grape and you will see what happens. So she gives a rock to us, that's the task and we give her a piece of cucumber and she eats it. The other one needs to give a rock to us and that's what she does. And she gets a grape and she eats it. The other one sees that. She gives a rock to us now, gets again cucumber. This happens a number of times. They do it like 20 times in a row. She tests the rock now against the wall. She needs to give it to us. And she gets cucumber again. So she's testing the rock. Everything is going well. So this is basically the Wall Street protest that you see here. So this, which is a very deep sense of equity and what justice means is producing this in our societies. At least this is my thesis, right? And these are the barbarians at the gates. Some of them are no longer at the gates actually. Some of them have broken into the political system. This is support for extreme right and left parties in 33 European countries over this 15, 20 year period. This is the decline of support for the EU as a project across a number of European countries. This is Eurostat data. And this is what the economy is called draw bridges up, which is this anti liberal era. It's anti trade, anti globalization, anti cosmopolitanism, et cetera. Why is this anti liberal? Because liberalism is quite technical. It relies precisely on that trust between elites and the people to be there. It's very long term. It's very counterintuitive. So the EU and other projects that require deep and technical analysis. And for people to trust those people, actually negotiating some of these agreements, it's gonna be one of the big victims of this, but also free trade and others. Now, you know, one of the things that I'll just point out very quickly is how death liberal elites have been to this entire process. We have built these huge echo chambers for us. We've been quite relaxed about what was going on. In some cases even ignorant about what was happening to our middle class and the erosion of our middle class. This is our capacity to predict Brexit and the Donald Trump victory, but it's happening many other issues. So my thesis is that the direct short term political risks are weakening of the EU, weakening of NATO, weakening of the global trading regime which we're gonna see in the next few months. Now, you know, on trade, this I'm just gonna fly by, but I'll just show you this graph is what happened to international trade between January 1929 and January 1930, which was the last period where we had this level of interdependence and complexity and also an anti-trade mood essentially collapsed to a third of what it was in January 1929. So it's a very international trade is incredibly fragile to tariff wars and revision of treaties, which is precisely what we're starting to see. Now, the third consequence, and this is the graveston here, I'll finish and I'll give the word to the panelists is a collapse in the support for democracy as a system of government. This is in my mind the deepest structural consequence of this. This is data from a very recent study by two colleagues of the government department. This is people saying that it's essential to live in a country run in a democracy in the United States. People born in the 1930s and 40s, you know, sort of it's up in the 70% of the people saying it was essential. People born in the 1980s, you're down to 20% of the people saying it's essential to live in a democracy. This is the other side of the same coin, which is support for authoritarianism in the United States. In the latest data about a third of Americans were willing to accept in World Value Survey interview that an authoritarian regime in the United States was something that was desirable. So people have now voted Democratic, Republican, now they've literally voted an independent into the White House. If he does not deliver for the people that have been left behind, it's not just the elites and the parties that are being questioned is the political framework that's starting to be questioned. I think the Trump phenomenon is unexplainable without this data about authoritarianism. So I'll finish here. I think the driver of what we're seeing is a big structural shift in the structure of the economy in the way wealth is generated and distributed. I think this is producing a political convulsion of which we're only seeing the beginning. I think that it's gonna have geopolitical consequences of which we're already seeing some, but fundamentally the weakening of the EU, NATO and the global trading regime. And I think the solution will require something that will resemble a new social contract. We've been here before. I think the period is similar to the beginning of the 20th century where we also had a big shift in the structure of the economy. We had the emergence of a new political class. At the time it was the proletariat. I think in our time is the precariat. All of these underemployed, sub-employed, precariously employed people, those that have lost in the process of technological innovation. And the big question, and I'll leave it here, perhaps we can discuss it later, is how do we build a new equilibrium? What is the equilibrium after the convulsion? In the case of the 20th century was the expansion of the vote and it was also the establishment of the welfare state. In our time, we can have a debate about how that looks, but I think that the fundamental message for me is that this is far more structural than we think and we need to think very deeply about how these dynamics are interplaying and what the consequences are. And I'll leave you with a final note. The liberal order is a huge generator of prosperity. We have basically found the way to eliminate extreme poverty. This is a collapse of people living in extreme poverty in that period of time. This is the same graph, including the increasing population in the light of blue. So we've managed to reduce extreme poverty at an incredible rate at a time of population growth. So the system, the rule of law, free trade, all of these things as an incredible generator of wealth. So what we're literally failing at the management of prosperity. I mean, it's a failure of intelligence what we're going through right now. And this is GDP, world GDP per capita in that period. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is David, I'm an entrepreneur from China. Today I wanted to just talk about a very specific thing. How a specific technology go about disrupting the world. So my company name is He Sai as we were originally founded in the Silicon Valley and now we're in China. And we make different type of laser sensors and we have different applications. Today I wanted to share two examples of the technologies and the product we make and its changes and the impact on the world. So before I do that, actually I want to share a photo. Does anyone recognize this, where this is? Can you raise your hand? All right, a few. Yeah, this is us, this is Doha. And can anyone believe this is a photo I took yesterday? No? Well, that is true. That is the photo I took yesterday during the coffee break. I had a drone. It's designed and made by a Chinese company called DJI. I had it with me because it was so small. So I had it, I was like, I wanted to see what's Doha like from hundreds of meters above. So it took me 20 minutes. I let go of the drone and I had this amazing photo. So a point I'm trying to make here is we're looking at things in a different dimension now. While you're still trying to make your Ferraris and Lamborghinis run faster, someone else in California is really making an electric car that's way faster than any of the existing gasoline cars. While you're trying to push the limit for those electric cars, maybe, or this is actually true, someone in China is making your car fly. So I think in this fast evolving world, we're trying to see things in a different dimension where you can jump out of this 2D dimension to look at it in a different angle and you come to a complete different solution and it is always disruptive. So today, I want to show you two products our company has been working on and how this technology has been able to disrupt or at least make people change their minds about the existing industry. Briefly background about my company. So three of us, we were originally funding this company in the Silicon Valley as we were discovering this new laser technology that we had with this Mien and partner. We got this from Stanford University and then we made this product out of this research result and then we realized that using laser, we can do a lot more things than the lab could. So we decided to take this technology and then we took it back to China and tried to commercialize it. So this is the first product we made. It actually has a lot of things to do with all your gas. So traditionally, if you want to inspect gas pipelines or gas stations or any leaks, you have this very bulky and some way backward machine, you do that. But now we work with the best drone company in the world and we provide the laser product on top of it. Now we put it together to a fully autonomous system. This drone, it's able to autonomously inspect gas pipelines, gas stations to find our leaks and then return without any human intervention. And we are the first one in the world to commercialize this product and it's a very beautiful and a mature product and this is one of the things it's been used for high-rise apartments. If you couldn't get in, my drone can tell you through the glass what's happening inside the room. And this improves the efficiency by more than 50 times because simply using a drone, it's much faster than human labor. Also, we worked on another product that's related to the auto industry as you probably all heard of for the driverless car. First, maybe I should share a few reasons why driverless car now is so big. There are a couple of reasons people think it is the key factor of this boom of driverless car. First, the sensor cost has been declining like crazy from the past 10 years. A radar used to cost you about 10,000 US dollars. Now it's in the range of hundreds of dollars. Second, the emergence of artificial intelligence and those deep learning technologies allows people to interpret the results better. It allows the cars to know its problem. And also the change of paradigm because of the sharing economy. If you think now you buy a car because you want to own a car, in the future you don't have to own a car. Some other company will own this car and it will pick you up and drop you off without you having to purchase it. And that's a huge difference because now you can afford to have smarter and better cars. And last but of course that's not the least, everyone around the world is aware of it. Global legalization has very specific times for certain functions to realize. For example, in the United States by 2022, you have to have AEB, it's automatic emergency braking. That means that even if you want to drive the car onto a wall, your car wouldn't allow you to do that. So with all those given benefits, driverless car becomes reality. But we're not making driverless cars because it's too big a project. As you know, Google is making driverless cars. Uber is making driverless cars. We as a small company, we make a very small part of the driverless car. If you ever seen a Google car on top of the Google car, there's something called LIDA. It's a laser sensor. It gives you 3D image of what's around you. Pretend you are the computer in a driverless car. What do you want to know? You want to know the exact position and distance and the speed of the objects and the obstacles in front of you. The image processing technologies is not good enough. That's why people rely on laser to do that. A laser can travel to the object and be bounced back and we analyze the difference. Then we know exactly each of you and obstacles are. Actually, believe it or not, a LIDAR is the single most expensive part on the driverless car. The one on the top of a Google car, it costs more than $100,000 US dollars. And that's actually more expensive than the car. And we decided to focus on this part because it is so such a crucial thing. And no more than five companies in the world can make commercially available LIDARs. And we're working on that. And this is actually a result just to give you some intuition of how it works. Our product is on the bottom right. And if you look at the white Cadillac SUV, our LIDAR is on top of it and gives us 3D image. And this is going to make your driverless car a hundred times safer. And that's why everyone uses it. And then there are some future applications because we're not only making essentially the eyes of a robot or any moving objects, we're making the brain of it. With our devices, we see objects moving past just in the brain. That's why we're also planning to expand to different applications that essentially helps the world be more automated. I wanted to conclude with this slide because now if you still look at a conventional problem trying to make your car run faster, jump out. There's always a better disruptive technology that's going to give you this perspective that you never had before. And I believe this is opportunity of our time. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Lionel Baraban. I'm the co-founder and CEO of a French company called Famoco. When I arrived here and I read the subject of the session and it was disruption, technology and populism. And I started to ask myself, what do I have to say about populism? Perhaps nothing. And I looked at no portfolio of customer and our technology and hear what I found. Sorry. Okay. So, basically, populism is a lack of trust. And in the real world, like in the digital world, you need to bring trust. Now, today, trust, the trust technology, is for transaction. So we know very well how to secure a financial transaction. If you have a credit card and with your credit card you pay on a POS, the level of fraud today is zero. There is zero fraud when you take a credit card and you actually pay on a POS, not online but on a POS. Now, today, the need of securing transaction goes much beyond only financial transaction. Crossing a border is a transaction with the government. Voting is a transaction. Access control is a transaction. Internet of things. Internet of things, objects are transacting together. Now, we need to bring trust and security between objects and people. Now, let's take how we have applied those concepts to something which is perhaps more familiar to your world. That's what we do for the World Food Program. This is the digitalization of humanitarian vouchers. Today, World Food Program, it is the number one NGO in the world. They're transacting $10 billion every year. They have under management 80 million beneficiaries. The project is about having 19 million beneficiaries under management. We give them a card, which is exactly like a credit card, and they can go to merchants with a small POS and approach the card to the POS and see what are the vouchers that are available to them. By doing that, this is real-time monitoring and tracking of the transaction. But now, if you think about what it means exactly is we have created a new money. A new money that has more trust than the actual money. A money where you can build a purpose inside the money. So the big disruption in FinTech is not putting more application around the money, but is the fact that the money itself becomes an application. So this new money that has been invented with the United Nations is a money where you can say, I'm a donor, I'm going to give you $100, but I want those $100 to be used for food, not for munitions, not for alcohol, not for tobacco. I want those $100 to be used for books for your kids, not to buy a flat screen TV. Now, you can also create a date. Those $100 must be used in the next 30 days. We can also create education against food. If that kid goes to school more than 100 days per year, the family is going to get food. So by changing the paradigm, by creating a money that has a purpose, that the money that becomes an application, we build trust between the donors and the beneficiaries. Now, I happened on this conference to meet Dr. Aracap, and I'm sure that if he can prove to the donors of the refugees that he has now a way to make sure that the money going to be used properly, or what he was intended for, that is a good step forward towards stability. So building trust in the digital economy is, I believe, a way to fight populism in our real world. Thank you very much. Hi, everyone. My name is Caroline. I'm one of the co-founder of DataVise, which is a company specialized in data visualization and human-data interactions. So I'm going to speak in French, so please put your headphones. Okay. In my company, DataVise, we work to improve the relationship between humans and donors. That is to say that our daily work is to make sure that people are more comfortable to understand donors, to work with donors, and more generally to live with donors every day. And the fact that there are teams, like mine, who are specialized in this subject of the relationship between humans and donors, is the proof that this relationship is not going to be. And what I'm going to try to do this afternoon is to make you a little bit of a place of this relationship between humans and donors linked to the subject of the day. So to start, why are we talking about donors today? It's because they have experienced a very strong massification over the last few years. These donors are now everywhere, in a lot of information support. This is given the privilege of encapsulating the information that circulates around donors, and that circulates in very important volumes. So that represents fantastic opportunities. That's what a lot of people thought, which I'm part of. It represents opportunities for companies, first of all, opportunities to improve their productivity, to improve their process, opportunities to improve the way they respond to the needs of their clients, to improve their business model, opportunities also to find new ways to innovate. And so we can take, for example, the case of Procter & Gamble, which equipped 50,000 of its employees with a tool to visualize these marketing data to help these people take better decisions in the daily life, to have clearer decisions. The data also represents a strong opportunity for public organizations, and in particular through this current that we call Open Data. So it's the opening of public data in the largest number of companies and citizens. And that represents interesting opportunities to change relations between governments and citizens, between elected and public. And so we can see, for example, cities like New York, which have not only opened significant data games, but which have also set up conditions to create experiments, programs that will associate companies, citizens and elected in the use of these data. Data is also a great company for cities. It's the opportunity to become smart cities, as we say, smart cities, cities that will be better able to face the challenges of human development, to be better able to face the natural limited resources by optimizing their network thanks to the use of data from sensors, thanks to the optimization of these data and their treatment, and decentralization also of management. So we can cite, for example, Barcelona, which has been elected among the most smart cities in the world recently, in particular, because it manages their route flow very well and their public light thanks to an optimized management of data. Data is also an opportunity for everyone, for the largest number of people at home. It's the opportunity to have smart assistants, to have a little bit of smart objects that will make our daily lives easier. So the example we often take is that of smart counters, those of thermostats that will all adapt to the data of our environment, to our personal data, to help us to make energy savings, to help us to better manage our electricity consumption. And more generally, this great opportunity for data, is to understand things that we wouldn't have understood so far. A little bit like, you know, there are sounds that humans can't grasp, well, in the way our world is organized today, there are things that we can't quantify, that we can't qualify without looking at data. And so it was this promise that data will allow us to understand things that we wouldn't understand otherwise. So a world full of promises, as you can see, and yet, what we hear today, what we feel, what we read in the media, it's not exactly this nice landscape, full of opportunities, it's rather a series of criticisms and suspicions. So I'm going to take a few examples drawn from the recent American election, since this election of Donald Trump added a very strong discredit to the polls, and more generally, on all our predictive methodologies, all our ability to anticipate what is going to happen thanks to data. And that's annoying, because we realized that data here didn't serve us to better understand the world. It had us rather far from the reality of the field. And in the crowd of this election, there are also a lot of criticisms that appeared on the Facebook algorithm, so the algorithm that organizes the news feed, the page where people consult their information, because in fact, this algorithm was accused of propagating false information that encouraged populism. And there too, it's a phenomenon that we've been observing for quite some time now, it's what we call filter bubbles. That is to say, the personal data that the internet provides online, by consulting different supports, are used to personalize the information that is presented to the internet. And so we present information always more personalized, which is supposed to be as interesting as possible for the person who lives there. But by doing that, we also isolate the users and the internet in a world where they are no longer confronted with exterior opinions, they are no longer confronted with other ideas. And we see that there too, the use of data, it does not serve a better understanding of the world, it serves a retreating of our understanding of the world. And maybe another subject to draw, another example to draw from this American election, what it can show us, it is also our difficulty to do society. So it's undoubtedly something that we observe in the United States, in Europe and in France, in particular. So I'm not going to go into the social or philosophical mechanisms that can lead me to say that, but if we really look just at the side of the data, today we have the ability to collect data at a much finer level than the other time, at the level of individuals. So we can do statistics at an individual level. And so in this context, it doesn't make much sense to talk about large categories of populations. Social classes don't really exist when we look at data, the same for the idea of nation. What we see when we look at data at such a fine level, which is now possible, it's an infinite of individual motives, an infinite of patterns in which we no longer necessarily find things that are common that will help us do society. There are many other examples that I could take. Facebook, Google are recently, they are very regularly criticized for the changes in their algorithms because these great giants of the web use the personal data of the internet, so the data that these internet leave on online services, and they don't necessarily do it with the transparency that they would need, with the pedagogy that they would need, or the deontology that they would need, so that the users don't feel a little bit caught in the trap or don't feel in danger, from the point of view of their protection of their private life or their capacity to be forgotten. We have one last example, maybe more on deontology. If we look at connected cars, a connected car is a system that uses a lot of data, and it's a system that becomes very complicated. It's difficult for most of us to understand how a car works autonomously. And yet, these autonomous cars will be led to manage situations that we would manage ourselves if not. Imagine that you are on a very narrow road in your autonomous car, and a school bus arrives in front of you, you can't avoid it, the accident is inevitable, and what will happen? What will your autonomous car do? Will it choose to depart the school bus and the dozens of children? Or will it choose you, the driver of this car? These questions, imagine that in reality, you have the time to ask yourself the question, you would have made a decision with your free will, with your sensitivity, your moral values. Well, this decision will be taken by the autonomous car, maybe in the future, this car that would have been coded, designed to make a decision, in any case. And so, it opens up quite frightening perspectives, since we realize that we are in a... More and more, we are building a world that we are no longer able to understand. The algorithms that today lead to financial markets, the value of the raw materials, or even what is broadcast as online advertising, are algorithms that most of us can't understand. And it still poses a problem to live in a world in which we are surrounded by dark zones, in which we are surrounded by robots and algorithms that work like dark boxes. And that's good for that, you absolutely have to change approaches. And that's what we work at DataVice. You have to change approaches on at least three subjects. The first is the question of meaning. Data is something that has to contain a lot of meaning. And our ability to make this meaning come out is very important. The usual language of data is the language of mathematics or code. And it's a language that is not mastered by most of us. And so it is very important to adopt a new language of data, a language that is more heuristic, a language that is simply better understood by humans so that we become more capable of appropriating this first subject. Data visualization is exactly the object of this discipline. It is to translate visually, interactively, complicated elements into data so that these data become much easier to understand. It is to try to allow humans, not necessarily addressing their verbal logic and purely rational, to understand the information that is in the data. And for example with my team, when we work on a project of visualization of data, of notation of hospitals in France, it is a project that we have been able to work on, we will transform very complicated data, very technocratic data into a platform on which citizens, whatever their level, will be able to learn about their hospital, about the quality of the care compared to hospitals. There is a second axis that is very important in our approach to data. It is the use. It is the final user. Because finally, these data become interesting when they pass in someone's hands, when they allow someone to do something, when they observe someone. And the goal is to try to build systems that use data to allow us to have a better decision-making capacity, to allow us to improve our hybrid. It is the idea of building systems that increase in human beings rather than building systems that make decisions in our place. So that is, for example, things we work on a daily basis. At the moment, we work, for example, on the issue of public transport and cards in the subway. So we can make cards that show the state of the network, that show where there are problems, blockages and slowdowns that will help us to make a decision on how and what we are doing in a place where there is another. But we can also, and this is the approach we have written, make cards that we will integrate into the city beyond the network. And what is happening in the city? Where are the events that are taking place? Where are people? And who are therefore going to try to bring you to make a decision, not only according to the state of the network, but also according to the city of the city. And that is an important point, the question of use at the level of individuals, but it is also a very important point at the level of companies. Because in fact, what we are seeing today, is that many large companies are equipped with tools to treat their data, to value their data. And yet, it does not see a lot in the use of the company and it does not see a lot in their productivity. And that is a paradox that we have already seen at the end of the 80s. It has been presented by Robert Solo, qualified as the paradox of productivity, which consists of saying that in fact, we see information everywhere in companies, except in productivity numbers. Because in fact, what allows to solve this paradox is simply the use. Indeed, if you equip at the end of the 80s companies with computers, but in the end, we continue to print emails on paper and to work on paper. There is no use that goes with technology and so it does not change much in the way we work people. Well, it's exactly the same to give them. That is to say that indeed, large companies can make a lot of investments in big data technologies. They can equip data centers, they can equip a chain of complicated data treatments. But at one point, if they do not think about the question of how the employees and the members of these organizations will use data in their job, how will it really change the way people work? Well, it will not have much interest. And finally, and to finish, the third axis on which we have to change approach is an axis of the government, it is the axis of deontology. Because indeed, there are important economic issues in the use of data in particular. And it will deserve that we really ask the question by being actors around the table. It will necessarily bring questions of regulation, the production of norms. And this subject, it is precisely this subject that the entrepreneurs alone can not solve in their corner. And it is precisely on this subject that we all need of you around this table. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Pierre. I'm the CEO and founder of Open Classrooms, a Paris-based startup company. It's about education. Today, we've heard discussions about the pace of change in today's world and in the global economy. To embrace these changes, education is key. The world of tomorrow needs new knowledge, new skills, companies need digital skills and they need them right now. By the end of the year, there'll be 750,000 unfilled digital jobs in the UK alone. The digital skills gap is already estimated to cost the UK economy 63 billion pounds a year, 63 billion pounds. These are the figures for the UK alone. The European Digital Progress Report says almost half of the people in the EU do not have basic digital skills. And studies show that 70% of the jobs in 2050 don't exist right now. This is a worldwide problem. Education needs to evolve, to become closer aligned to tomorrow's needs. Populism spreads in less educated populations, in regions with high unemployment rates. We need to fight this with a better education system. Education. So what about education today? There are three main programs with the status quo when it comes to equipping people with the right knowledge and the right skills that industry is trying out for. First of all, it's a problem of scale. We need to train hundreds of millions of people for digital skills and new skills in general. Right now, the current system cannot produce enough people with the right qualifications and skills. And when the curriculum exists, it isn't quick enough to produce them. It's a matter of scale and speed. To go only, it's way too expensive. Therefore, access is limited. Tuition fees can reach as much as 100,000 US dollars for a degree. This is way too much. And last but not least, there needs to be a much stronger link between learning and employment. Today, recent graduates are struggling to find work that matches their skills. In fact, one in three are now employed in low-skilled jobs. One in three. Is that worth investment in time and money? I don't think so. So what do we need to do to close this skills gap? We need to widen access to education. We need to provide the best education to millions of people. We need to do it at a fraction of the cost. But not only that, we need to combine great, highly relevant educational content with a new form of pedagogy. We need the model that enables people to gain mastery of often difficult technical subjects. Because we must not only target undergraduates, but also workers, job seekers. This education has to be flexible and highly personalized so people can get learned the specific skills they need in the way that suits them best. Finally, we have to ensure that the qualifications they achieve have real meaning and wide acceptance. We need widely recognized certifications and degrees. These are the lessons we learned by funding and growing open classrooms since 2013. It's still a young journey, but our experience goes back to 1999. And as you can see, I'm still pretty young. I was a sixth grader back then. My co-founder and I create and publish free online courses for 17 years. We know train 3 million people every month. Our vision for open classrooms is very simple. To make the best education for tomorrow's skills accessible for everyone. What we all need to achieve here is nothing less than a revolution in the way that anyone anywhere can access the skills needed in today's industry, workplace and the wider global economy. We need education that anyone can access and afford. Fully online with no prior crisis. We must move towards a better pedagogical model. We do not seek to throw out everything that's great about traditional education. For example, we recognize that success depends not just on great content, but more on the educator that helps you, mentors you. Individual mentorship is one of the most efficient pedagogy and we know that since the 80s thanks to Benjamin Bloom's research on education sciences. But we must not talk exclusively about models important that they are. We deal with people. People like Roli from Gabon. Roli decided to take one of our basic courses in web development but found it so useful he decided to undertake full certification. He applied to a fully online first ever bachelor's degree. No prior crisis. And he's now just a few weeks away from completing. He will be awarded a European bachelor's degree without leaving Gabon unique and he already got a job. He's one of our students and they are the pioneers of the future of education. They are leading the way. They are showing businesses, policy makers, governments, universities, educators how we can all solve the education crisis and bring out a new model that is much cheaper and far more accessible for everyone. And when I say cheaper I don't mean 20% cheaper. I mean 10 times cheaper. We must be ambitious and together we must create the university of the future where real education, qualifications, degrees are delivered in a wide range of new ways in settings as diverse as schools, universities in the workplace or at home. When people talk about an education crisis I don't see that. I see an opportunity for all of us in this room. That is the real challenge we face. How we together can help people to achieve the career, the life that until now has been out of reach. Thank you. Peace be upon you. And good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Aisa Menai from Reach Out to Asia an un-for-profit organization based in Qatar Foundation that focuses on providing quality education for needy communities around Asia. But locally in Qatar our focus is in youth community service and volunteerism. So it's been really interesting to hear my colleagues within the panel talking about the world today and how technology is really erupting but also not only that drones are available within everyone's hands but also how information is changing cities. We're hearing about smart cities but also education and how education is evolving. But my input within this session would be about how about the people, the people who are going to live within those cities in a number of years from now, once we are too old that someone would have to push us in a wheelchair. You know, how about that person? Who is he and she and how engaged are they in the shaping of that world? So I'm going to talk about the youth and since we're talking about governance and policies, I'm going to refer to the World Humanitarian Summit that reach out to Asia have supported in the coordination and implementation of the youth and the youth consultation leading to the Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul and hearing their voice about how the humanitarian system should be changed. So I'll leave you with this video that takes around three and a half minutes. Please. I'm hoping to engage finally youth in the policy for UN and finally to have some concrete action plan for youth. It's easy to get people excited about running such a major youth forum globally and I'm just delighted that we've been able to include youth in our consultations. This event will provide hopefully a platform for youth to enhance their knowledge on current global and regional challenges to meet the humanitarian needs and facilitate discussions on youth contribution to humanitarian actions. We see them in every conflict all across the world from Latin America to the Middle East to everywhere. So it's getting so far from the real core of the issue that we are talking about human life. So we need to shift this. This youth consultation has impact the first since the quarter century and this acknowledgement for the role of young people. I think the message of the youth of the world who are gathered here in Doha that it's time to engage them in a strategic way not only as beneficiaries or refugees but also as partners and the early responders who are going to connect the dots from the early response of a crisis to helping the recovery and the road to recovery is all about youth. I think it's very important that youth are the ones that are speaking and finding solutions because there's something that older like the older generation lack which is communication and thankfully that's the main focus that we have as youth. Like really strong communication skills. We have experienced the change that has been taking place in our world and this is only a milestone and this is not the end. It is campaigning and lobbying and advocating and writing to your members of parliament. And at VAC we basically said what is Brutus Youth's legacy? The last two days have been a historical event during this turn of reshaping the world humanitarian agenda for the 2016 summit in Turkey. Rota has been very privileged and proud to be an active partner during this dialogue. She's the advocate for the youth world. We have very concrete outcome in terms of a position paper. This position paper we try to articulate what are the different issues? Why are they related to youth and what would be the concrete action that youth can do to solve the humanitarian crisis? I am very confident that humanitarian issues are in good hands for the future. It seems that there has been some technological problem between the pictures and the sound. But I'll go back to my presentation. So the youth have voiced their opinions and out of the Doha Youth Declaration the youth consultations came, the Doha Youth Declaration on reshaping humanitarian work, humanitarian system, putting youth at the center of the humanitarian work. This is available online if you would look for it. And it has been discussed on a high level panel discussion in the Humanitarian Summit. But taking some scripts from the declaration itself, we can hear that the youth themselves are asking basically to be put not just in the other side of the table as a recipient of the humanitarian work but more as an active, engaged, responsible player within the process itself from putting the policies, from the preparedness, from the response, recovery, monitoring and evaluation and all spectrums of the process. In addition to engaging the young people that youth bring a unique perspective and insight as they are more adaptive to fast evolving systems. And my colleagues from the panel have talked about how fast the world is changing around us when it comes to technology and all of the things that we're, that are becoming a day-to-day activities within our daily life. So looking from an NGO's perspective and how did we make it this far? How did we look into engaging and governing youth programs within our work? So looking at our programs, thinking about engaging youth, we came to realize that we shouldn't just provide services and programs. Actually, the best way to engage youth is to get them to serve youth. So the youth should be the ones who are leading the processes. So within government, within governance, ownership is a task thing, you know, is a main thing when it comes to youth engagement. This is why we had a Rota Youth Advisory Board, 14 members of actively engaged youth as the ones who would say yes to the programs that they want, how these programs would look like and who should be engaged and how does the program look like. And through starting the loop basically on a leadership training program where they will be equipped with the skills and the toolkits on what is community service, what is global citizenship and how is the world is changing. So we would equip them with the knowledge that they need. So from knowledge then we move to action. And through action, we have the Rota Youth Service Clubs where the youth will divide themselves after this training that's given for 40 youth into clubs and each club will have a main mission, a main idea or a program that's based on community service that they would like to make. And then comes advocacy. So knowledge, action and then advocacy and how they could be more of the voice of the change that we want to make through an annual conference which is called Empower. So they will be able to come and to discuss and learn from each other. And then we have also a United Nations General Assembly task forces, advocacy task forces and also side events that will help for them to come into those international platforms and see and shape the change themselves. So the Rota Youth Advisory Board, this is a picture of the members from the advisory board and you can see gender equality is something that we take into consideration. But also the leadership training and the same thing you can see. Well, United Nations defines youth as from the age of 15 to 25. With the reach out to Asia, we stretched it a little bit from 15 to 30. Now looking around us here in the room, I wonder if we have anyone from that age 15 to 25. Okay, so or 20 to 30 maybe. Okay, so we have two, three. So only three in that room and we're talking about international governance and you two, sorry, I missed you. But so we have four maybe. But anyway, youth maybe is in the heart, not a number of age. But this is an eye-opening thing for us here is that we're talking about how the world is changing but those who are going to live in it are not here in that room. And this is what the declaration is about is about including them as responsible, committed citizens who will be able and responsible in shaping that world. And this is the Empower Conference that we take. It started as a very small conference and then from the power and the engagement of the youth now for the ninth year, it expanded of becoming regional and now international. The youth also as delegates in the United Nations General Assembly. But talking about that and apart from our programs, it's not just about the programs. With governance also has to be based with a very strong monitoring and evaluation framework that you will have to get the youth engaged into it. And monitoring and evaluation is not just a checklist where you will take things into considerations and KPIs and you will put, it's a very lengthy process that requires true engagement and ownership from all stakeholders, from planning the results to collecting the data, the data quality assurance to analyzing them, storing the data, reporting the results, using the data when it comes to advocacy and PR and media to the evaluation and also then disseminating the results. And one of the lessons that we've learned is that me and my team can do almost the minimum when it comes to our youth programs, when it comes to that. Within our Empower conference, even the registration is done through a committee and an interview panel that me and my team, we do not interview the youth. We actually have a youth panel that's been trained on interviewing skills who interviews the youth and they are the ones who says who comes to the conference and who doesn't. That boosts the energy and boosts the ownership of the conference. Even our Twitter and Instagram account, we give it to a youth media panel and within the last three conferences, our conference would trend internationally as sometimes it even goes to number one trending topic worldwide. We even bet Lady Gaga, can you imagine that? It's only through the power of youth that you'll be able really to showcase how this ownership looks like but also advocacy and shaping their voice on how they want to see the world look like. And again, it didn't happen overnight. It started on our strategy. How did we want this engagement to look like? And then the early years of Empower and how did we develop a team, a small team of dedicated youth who would then take over the ownership of the mobilization of these programs. And then four years of Empower conference leading to a youth advocacy campaign holding the consultation summit here in Doha, taking it back to Istanbul. And now the conference is even in a much better shape. And finally, proper planning and more engagement of youth. And as you can see, from each Empower conference from 2012 and 14, post the intergovernmental negotiations that took place in 2015 in New York. And then the first week of September holding the youth consultation here in Doha, then another Empower conference where the youth advocacy task force continues its work. And then they went together to Istanbul within the high level session. And then coming back to another Empower and then now is the discussion on what's gonna happen after the World Humanitarian Summit. So these are some of the lessons learned that we have from our programs that we move forward. And we also have some handouts on the governance structure that we have and the monitoring and evaluation that comes in parallel with it for whoever wants to take a copy of that. But I'll end my note with basically the main lesson that we learned when it comes to youth engagement in our programs. It's basically true belief on youth as the owners of their programs. Through engagement, with engagement comes ownership and then from ownership comes sustainability. Thank you. Okay, thank you everybody. So we've run through a whole huge range of issues starting with accelerated change technology and how that lands in, how that connects with political economy issues and populism. Then Daniel discussed issues of tech and accelerated change and you saw a few of the technologies that he's working on which might have a big impact on productivity also on jobs and others. We can discuss that also trust in transactions and others, the use of data breaking echo chambers and informing people properly and ultimately investments in human capital across the board. I have a few questions. We only have nine minutes. So I was wondering if there were any questions in the room and we might just collect a couple. There's one in the back there, Mark. Mark Eker, from IFRI. A question for Caroline Goulart on a specific point of her presentation which is the provision of big data. Effectively, during the 2008-2012 American elections we talked a lot about a new American electoral science that would prevent results much thinner than the polls. And this year we saw that the polls have failed but also the provision of big data. So I would like to know if you can explain why the big data has failed at this point during this election. Thank you. Thank you. That's quite simple. At the end, prediction is statistics. So when you say there is 98% Hillary is elected there is still 2% that Donald Trump is elected. And the problem with election is that we can't reproduce the event lots of time to see if the prediction is okay. So you just have one event and it can be in the 80% that were sure but it also can be in the 2% that were not. So predictions and modellization it's still a way to be close to the reality but there is still error margin. And maybe the problem is that when you communicate survey results you not media don't insist on this error margin. It can make the difference. Thank you very much to all of you for these very inspiring remarks. I have a question about the youth that you talked a lot about today. So what struck me in recent elections or referendum that you've seen is that is two things. First of all that the youth or the youth turnout is the lowest amongst age groups generally. But conversely what you see is that the youth overwhelmingly vote for a choice that eventually loses. So you can think about Hillary, you can think about remaining in Europe. So my question is how would you ensure what would be your solutions to make sure that the youth get more involved into politics, into global issues and have their voice eventually heard? Who wants to take that next hour? I think that the reason why one of the reason why the young people are not voting is they don't trust the system. And when we can see in the populism growing everywhere from Trump to Marine Le Pen to everywhere in Europe is we don't trust the system anymore. We don't trust the information what Caroline just spoke about in the US about the Facebook algorithm is no one is trusting the system anymore. I think by building trust, youth believe in technology, they natively believe in technology. So if we all together make that the technology through blockchain for example, I don't know if blockchain is familiar but there are ways to make sure that information that is on internet make it more reliable, trust the information to identify. In China for example, it's now very difficult to publish an information if you are not identifying. Anonymous blogs are now forbidden. And I think this is a step forward. I think we need to build trust in the digital world and we speak to youth through the digital world. Can I add a quick comment on the Brexit debate? I know this was on the press quite a bit that the youth had voted against Brexit but actually if you look at the detail of the data most of the youth that voted voted in prosperous areas. So we are unsure what youth in other areas would have voted but there seems to be a very strong correlation between income per capita and supporting Brexit. So if you were below 30, 40,000 pounds a year you were very likely to be on the Brexit comes. So the economic connection between these things is quite strong. On the AIDS side, on Brexit, it's unclear. And also in the US a lot of the youth supported Bernie Sanders which was sort of again an anti-establishment anti-system candidate. Many people saw him that way. I think he was very, very radical. So the youth is kind of split and the youth I think is gonna suffer a lot of the consequences of this change unless we deal with issues of education and others. I was reading a fascinating piece the other day about how in a world where returns on capital are so significant it is capital holders that do quite well and you have a major development issue problem because when you enter the jobs market you have very little savings, hence very little capital. So unless you are a very successful entrepreneur from the very beginning you have a lot of issue getting your hands on capital. So there's actually, it's very difficult for you to accumulate wealth so the youth are gonna be hit quite hard by some of these dynamics unless we deal with part of the education issues and others. Asa, did you have, did you want to add something on the youth if you wanna, more questions? Yeah, any more questions around the room? There's one here. Thank you very much, Tatsuma from Japan. Thank you very much for very integrating discussion and I feel the pulse of young generation here. Thank you for all. I want question to start from Katal. You know the people of our age talk about the fault lines between East and West or a clash of civilizations or division between the different ethnic groups or sort of things but judging from what you did, your communication and skill and combining all these people, your generation don't feel anything like division between the East and West or fault line of cultures. What is actually the feeling of all those things our generation are talking about? Are we already outdated in that? Thank you. This will be the last question and you have the last word. Okay, well thank you for referring to me as one of the younger generations but one of the I think perks of being born in 1979 is that I was the six years old kid who's played the Nintendo entertainment system. I was a teenager who's played the PlayStation one. I was the one who played Mario and so my neighbor Taturo and all of these things. We lived in a time being generation X where we have witnessed the evolution of the internet and how the world has become a small village. My generation in itself and even looking at my son, even though I consider myself as a global citizen, I got really shocked when I look at younger generations. For example, my one years old son looking to the newspaper one day when I was sitting and he started scratching by his finger thinking it was an iPad and it was a strange thing for me looking at how the world is changing but things like, for example, differences among different cultures even going to their schools. It's been so globalized in a way that even we became now a bit worried about our own identity, about our own culture. I personally believe that it's a good thing to see that the world is becoming one village but are we going to become from white, black, gray to all yellow maybe? We don't know but there are two sides of that equation that we look but it's definitely becoming a more open world that people are more accepting towards each other. Thank you everybody for being in the panel. Thank you for being in the room. I think we have a short coffee break and then the final plenary. Thanks a lot.