 Welcome everyone to Markets of Tomorrow and over the next half hour we're going to explore the interventions that the public and private sectors can take to foster the new markets. And again, when we look at new markets coming out of the pandemic, we're looking at how we can create more high quality growth. And when we talk about high quality growth, we're really talking about not just economic value add but also value add from an environmental and from a societal equity perspective. Today I'm joined by four thought leaders relevant to this topic and how we create the environment to spur innovation that creates more inclusive and more sustainable growth. Before we get into the panel, I just want to highlight a few, a few points of this session is being recorded so you can pick it up later on the form website. Again, this session will be closed caption and we'll go for about 30 minutes once we've completed the public session. Then we will have 15 more minutes for a private meeting for additional Q&A with our top link community. Once the live stream has concluded, we will pose questions to our panelists via the chat function. So with that, just to introduce our topic and panel, you know, throughout the pandemic here, I've thought many times how similar the situation is with respect to the wildfires that have really devastated my home states of California and Colorado in the United States. But from wildfires we can draw inspiration and nature has shown over many, many centuries the ability to renew itself so long as the environment is there for plants and a diverse set of plants to seed themselves and grow. And so much like recovering from a wildfires we recovered from the pandemic, we need to consider the environment that's going to foster this new economy and so to dive into this topic I'm honored to introduce our panelists today who will help us through this topic. And so, first I'd like to introduce Mariana Mazucato, who is a professor at the University College London. And again, she has is the currently the founder and director of the innovation and public purpose. She has authored several books related to entrepreneurship and the interventions that and basically correcting misconceptions about both the public and private community role. I'm also so welcome Mariana. I'd like to introduce Andrew McAfee, who you see with the MIT backdrop he is a principal research scientist and co director and co founder of the Institute on the digital economy at the MIT Sloan School, and again has authored several books, again relative related to the basically the coming digital economy and we'd like to tackle that with you in a few minutes, Andy. Next I'd like to introduce Akeem Steiner. Again, Akeem has had a very distinguished career at the United Nations and is currently the administrator and lead of the United Nations Development Program. And he has a long history of providing economic and technical and policy advice to the United Nations and has sponsored a number of initiatives in different countries related to spur growth. And then last but not least, Glenn Weil. And again, Glenn is, I think, going to share with us some accelerants for change in creating this new economy. Glenn currently is the founder and chair of the Radical X Change Foundation after a very distinguished academic career. So again, welcome to all of our panelists. And with that, let's jump into our topic. And so, Mariana, I'd like to turn this over to you if you can love to hear your thoughts on actually those experiences and case studies you've explored and written about related to creating basically the environment for fostering change. Sure. So thank you. I'm going to put on my timer because you said three minutes and the only way to do that is to time yourself. Otherwise, three minutes turns into 20 very quickly. So right, I've just written here some notes for myself as you were talking because I think, you know, we need to sort of take this at different levels. So the first thing, you know, West, the World Economic Forum organizes every year, the Davos event, the Great Davos event where last year at least all the talk was about stakeholder value. I think even the year before and probably even the year before. And I feel like this is the moment. This is the coven moment to really test that talk in terms of how do we walk the kind of stakeholder value approach. But to go beyond the notion that it's just a corporate governance issue and to actually bring that concept of purpose and purpose led kind of capitalism and stakeholder value at the center of how public and private and third sector institutions co create value. This is why I actually wrote a whole book on value to kind of debunk some of the myths about values. So the myth is really that value is created in business and what the public sector, for example, does is just fix problems as they come about. So fixing market failures and even though market failures do happen, there's a lot of them for positive externalities, negative externalities, asymmetric information and so on. We wouldn't have gotten the big technological changes of the past had the public sector simply just bandage things up along the way. And this is why I think that in order to address the problem at hand here we need to really think of it as a process of co creation and co shaping of markets. So it's not so much about what are the markets of tomorrow. It's how do we govern that process that actually then also achieves the kind of outcomes that we require in order to have an innovation led inclusive and sustainable form of capitalism. And here I think also history is useful. You know, the big technologies actually what what economists called general purpose technologies came about from problem solving right the Internet called the problem. No one was worried about the Internet they were worried about getting the satellites to communicate GPS same thing. And you know where would Google and Uber be today without the Internet and and GPS. The question the kind of modern question is what are the big problems also the societal problems, the wicked problems around climate or on health around inequality that might have that same level of dynamism and catalytic effect spillovers right software was a spillover along the way to get to the moon and back again. And for this I think a useful concept is the concept of predistribution. So how do we actually embed within the public private partnerships ecosystem ways to really build a more symbiotic and mutualistic ecosystem between the public and private sectors and you know this is really about making sure we're governing intellectual property rights around even the vaccine, or around the go that they're COVID therapies but all health innovation in such a way that really fosters innovation and not rent seeking How do we make sure that the prices of drugs, for example, really embed within that price that collective value creation so the 40 billion a year that the NIH and the US spends on drug innovation also then gets reflected in the prices, but also conditionalities and I'll end on that because in 20 seconds over conditionalities so that it's not about subsidies guarantees and kind of different types of handouts that the government gives, but actually, you know that it provides a huge benefit to society but that is also conditional so the COVID recovery schemes in some countries have been conditional on the business is receiving the funds to, for example, reduce their carbon emissions or not to evade tax, etc. But that needs to be done ex ante, not expose just through redistributive policy. So the more we can really think through that predistributive public private partnerships to achieve that kind of growth we want the better. So how do we design those into our solutions. So understood. Thank you, Mariana. Yeah. Andy, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the role of and the potential for digital innovation and specifically the in your writings, how you see the role of these public, both the public sector and the private sector in realizing the potential of the future digital economy in a way that can make it more accessible, but also more achieve the inclusion ends that we've described. Yep. Thanks, Jim. And thank you everybody for for joining us today. One of the things that a lot of us are worried about with the markets of tomorrow is what we see with the markets of today, especially in high tech industries. These markets are dominated in most cases by a pretty small number of very big, very powerful, very profitable companies. And a lot of people are worried about that. And we are revisiting antitrust arguments where we want to be able to constrain, shrink, break up these dominant tech companies. And we can rattle off which ones are dominant today. What I find really interesting, though, is that my career is just long enough to remember when we were having a very similar kinds of arguments about very different companies. I remember when we were in deeply worried about the stranglehold that IBM had over the last couple of years. And I remember when we were in the high tech industries, when we were deeply worried about the stranglehold that Microsoft had over just about everything digital. When we were worried that Netscape, or AOL, was a very dominant with the internet, when we were worried about the stranglehold that research and motion and Nokia had on the mobile phone industry. And I remember when we were in the high tech industries, when we were deeply worried about the stranglehold that Microsoft had over just about everything digital. When we were worried that Netscape, or AOL, was going to become too dominant with the internet. When we were worried about the stranglehold that Nokia had on the mobile phone industry. I hope all of these are striking us as quaint, because we're really not worried about those things anymore, even though in some cases, as with Microsoft, we still have large, powerful, very, very successful companies. None of us worry about the stranglehold of innovation that these companies have anymore. And to me, that's instructive. And it drives home the point that the pattern that we see over and over again in high tech is one of dominance and then disruption. In other words, these companies don't fade from prominence, and they don't voluntarily give up their stranglehold. I don't think government intervention via antitrust or anything else is very effective in getting them to give up a stranglehold. I think something happens out there in the fast changing world of technology that they miss. And when they miss it, they become research in motion, Nokia, IBM, Netscape, and we just stop worrying about them. I want to be clear. I do not know what is going to disrupt the incumbent giant technology companies of today. But that actually doesn't bother me very much because I didn't know what was going to interrupt the last generation of them, either when we think about bringing out the very powerful tool of antitrust and taking action against these companies, which America just announced today I was doing against Alphabet. I think we've had for about half a century in America a standard that works pretty well. People are revisiting it now and I don't think that's a good idea. The standard is a good old fashioned consumer welfare standard are consumers better off as a result of these companies. To me, the answer to that is a pretty unambiguous yes, and the really simple question that I asked myself over and over is, think about these these giant dominant technology companies of today. Are they still behaving as if their markets are contested. And to me the answer to that question is a resounding yes they continue to drop prices they continue to innovate to spend heavily on R&D. They are not the actions of lazy complacent monopolist. So, I categorically agree that all great concentrations of power demand vigilance they demand oversight. In some cases we might need to take action about social graph portability for example or about strengthening privacy protections. Absolutely. But before we get out this really really blunt very powerful cudgel called antitrust and breaking companies up. We do well to take some lessons from history, and I think that would calm us down. Yeah, any that's, that's really well said and I'm, thank you so much for highlighting kind of lessons that some of us have have lived through and very instructive. And to some extent, going against some of the, you know, prevailing community thought around how we should regulate or how we should intervene to avoid the concentration of tech power if you'll have it. So, taking a slightly different tack a keen having, we all respect the United Nations has been a very important catalytic body for the global community to tackle areas of common interest including health, agriculture, economic development and I would love to hear your experiences with respect to what we've learned from past United Nations initiatives and how we may that apply them to foster markets of tomorrow. It's a great pleasure to join my fellow panelists and you on on this discussion and I think my, my starting point is a little bit picking up from where Mariana and also Andrew spoke just now if you take a historical perspective I think the first thing that whether it is in a global context and globalization global markets certainly have been at the forefront of our minds over the last couple of decades, or you take a local, you know, agricultural produce market and national economy markets are not something that stand separately from society and I think that's very important. We often have a temptation the discipline of economics certain, let's say, ideological views in that school of thought have also propagated the notion that, you know, markets left under themselves will be efficient. Pareto optimus are achieved and I think history has taught us time and again that this is a fallacy and not just from the perspective of those who in a sense want to regulate markets. In fact, some of the most significant legislation has been market enabling and Andrew it's interesting you mentioned antitrust legislation. That's certainly one area competition is in a sense a paradigm that markets value and that society is generally value, but also fundamental legislation that enables a market to function the notion of intellectual property for instance, was a legislative act in order to enable the kind of investment economy to emerge that drives markets so I think the first thing is markets are not just supply and demand and not just technology led. They are in many ways embedded in a larger set of choices and I think here we we have to put it in the period of COVID-19 realize also how much we rely on the state in moments of crisis to stabilize markets I mean we don't have to, you know, look at the examples in great detail whether it's the Federal Reserve Bank or whether it is the kind of cash transfer schemes that are being put in place right now markets the private sector entrepreneurs large or small rely on the state to provide a degree of risk management and stabilization functions but looking forward and into the markets for tomorrow I think some of them will be led simply because something is invented that people hadn't even asked for but that is, you know, great utility and therefore provides enormous opportunity. The question is, do the markets of tomorrow simply emerge from entrepreneurial ingenuity and opportunity or are they shaped also by the kind of social choices does inequality matter. I led recently a panel for the Secretary General of the United Nations on fintech and the Sustainable Development Goals looking at digitalization and the whole implications for the financial markets and the financial system. And it is fascinating when you look at this because you know digitalization has created extraordinary opportunities including for financial inclusion, but it could also leave behind billions of people and create greater inequality. It is in that confidence I think of both possibility. And if you want to perhaps the managing of risks and choices and preferences that we have as a society that we best will understand the markets of tomorrow. Or at least because more and more people are engaged in a political debate and dialogue about what is a market that we support and what is a market we do not want. Let's remember, we also take the decision based on science sometimes that ozone depleting substances or asbestos should be banned. Slavery was once a market I mean tragic as as it may sound and there are ethical choices science driven choices and also the kind of society we want to be in. I think many companies today and in the World Economic Forum we have spent, I think often sessions trying to understand how will that future business be shaped by things that are not only to do with the realm of what is decided within a corporate or company context, but also by the consumers, by the supply chains and ultimately and this is, you know, part of what the United Nations does, a stable global economy, which has more to attract countries to work together than to be divided. And this is clearly a critical consideration in the midst of a pandemic as much as it is for the future of 10 billion people living together on this planet and being able to be economically active, but also to believe in a market that is called the global market. Thank you team very much hearing in your comments, the need to really design and again picking up on or building on Marianna's comments, those goals that we want to achieve and the United Nations as a powerful organization that we can still all believe in and subscribe to remind ourselves of what we share in common. And so, looking ahead, Glenn, I'd love for you to comment on the potential for accelerants here of changing again. The pandemic has done great economic damage and and you know pressing issues such as climate change won't wait for us. So how do we, how, how do we look at things that can have more than linear incremental effects in shaping the markets of tomorrow. That's a great question, Jim, and I really want to pick up on the themes thus far, and bring them together in maybe a little bit of a radical way to suggest that, you know, as Marianna pointed out, foundational to our growth is the public investments and fundamental research and in fundamental infrastructure that make entrepreneurship possible. And as Andy pointed out, fundamental to that growth being widespread and inclusive, not just for equality, but so that we multiply those productivity gains not just by the number of people living in Silicon Valley or Shanghai, or, you know, Washington State, but by the entirety of the world. If we want both of those things to happen, if we want growth to actually touch everyone so that we get more of it. And if we want growth to be possible in the first place, based on research, we need public investment. However, the public is having an incredibly hard time keeping up with the pace of innovation. We all know this we all, and this really gets to Andy's point, antitrust these sorts of structures, don't really get at the problems before they're already moving on to the next So what we need is new approaches to have public investment public control that's not just tied to nation states or to existing structures, but that actually makes these entrepreneurial endeavors, democratically accountable to their stakeholders, you know, on our Marianna's point. We have new approaches to do this. People like Colin Meyer, people like Michelle Meager are thinking about democratizing corporations using the tools like antitrust rather than just breaking things up. And even more radically we've seen within the blockchain community within a lot of innovative areas in GovTech in Taiwan and other places, mechanisms that actually allow for market based but also democratic funding of new institutions to create sort of optimal public goods using new types of market mechanisms. We need to be experimenting on larger and larger scales with these models which have been incredibly successful in addressing things like COVID in countries like Estonia and Taiwan. And we need to move past the usual division between the public and you know democracies and markets actually fuse them together using these innovative mechanisms to accelerate the process of public investment going into private entrepreneurship going into the right direction to the regulation and governance that we need to actually spread that growth so that they become part of one seamless process. Okay. Thank you, Glenn. You bring up a really good point that maybe we can continue and I'd love to hear the panel's thoughts with respect to sort of investment in basic research that has really been historically a great enabler for innovation but it typically has been handled at the nation state level. What do you think of the potential for cross country, more regional or even global research initiatives here? Mariana? Sure. I mean, we already have those of course in areas like fusion. The reason I speak with an American accent, I'm actually Italian, but we moved to America when I was five because the US government obviously spends a lot on fusion. We moved to New Jersey, Princeton, plasma physics laboratory, but it was all DOE funded, right? A lot of these, you know, our universities in terms of the basic research is often funded other DOE, NIH, etc. And fusion of course is an example where it is already an international collaboration. You know, also CERN, of course, which is where the World Wide Web came from. That's an international collaboration. So I think that's less of a, I think that's less the question because we know that that's required at least for like, you know, the big areas where no one can do it on its own. I think this issue of how do we then govern that? So it actually benefits the global community. So the vaccine is the perfect example, right? That's also currently having lots of both basic and applied research throwing at it. But we're not actually as good at governing that process so everyone actually benefits than we are at the research itself, right? So a vaccine is not going to be effective unless it's universal and it's accessible and it can actually be produced on mass. So the capacity on the ground. And in some ways we haven't thought enough about that problem. But the other thing is just quickly, I think there's a bit of a myth that that's the only bit that the public sector has to do and then everything else is somehow going to happen through, say, venture capital. The reason I wrote my book, Entrepreneurial State, was actually to plot out and map out all the different types of public interventions that were required to get us, you know, all the things in our iPhones today but also Silicon Valley itself. That was basic research funded by the public sector. A lot of applied research funded by both public and private, often in some countries like in Germany, you need institutions to foster the conversation between public and private, so the Fraunhofer kind of institutions. But also patient long term finance, you know, we would not have high tech, sorry, startup nation in Israel without Yosemite public venture capital fund, Incutel, which is a public venture capital fund in the US run by the CIA, very important but even more so procurement policy, which historically through mechanisms like the Small Business Innovation Research Program have actually provided that patient, a repeat patient, long term finance to the companies that actually want to innovate. And so the kind of long lead times, you know, 10 to 15 years can be what you have in the Death Valley phase versus that kind of exit driven venture capital timeframe, which sometimes is just three or five years, which rushes the science in order to exit. And that's what got us in the biotech sector all these PLEPOs, it sounds like a pimple or or disease but it means productless IPOs right if you're rushing just to issue your IPO, then science based industry suffer and Gary Pizano has written a great book on that. And even more downstream, you could look at kind of bold policies right so without suburbanization mass production, which is a big general purpose technology, or you know method of producing would not have been fully deployed and diffuse throughout the economy. And so I think the private sector benefits the most when it is as I was mentioning for co creating co shaping but has a has a public sector that is actually quite present across the whole innovation chain but across each bit is doing its proper job of really doing what the private sector is not doing and through that then crowding in the private sector. But the crowding in dynamic often doesn't happen if the mechanisms through which the state is acting is simply sort of handout which increases profits but not investments. Thank you, Mariana. At this point in time. We're going to have to wrap up our conversation here that's being live streamed a couple of themes have emerged for me, and I think going back to a point that I think Andy made and and some things we can touch on. The point is that when we look at public role and I think Mariana also highlighted this public institutions have a very important role in providing very targeted interventions to achieve the goals we want to. We don't design for something that is inclusive we won't obtain it. I think other points that have have I think come out here is that as we look at the public role. Such as basic research can be have been historically important and enablers and we need to reacquaint ourselves with the history of innovation there so I want to thank all of our panelists. I encourage all of our audience here to read the insight report markets of tomorrow that the World Economic Forum has just published where we talk about 20 new markets that we think can be both inclusive and achieve more sustainable growth and some of the interventions that the public and private sector can take to accelerate adoption and development of these new markets. So with that, I will turn this over to you.