 It was interesting also listening to some of the conversations was in terms of key actions that need to be taken and one of the views that really what Europe needed to do was put in place the structural forms that the IMF or the threat of the IMF actually had led to take place in Asia and it was really Europe's time to look at those challenging issues. What was that all about? Exactly. That is how the global group like ours can contribute to lift our vision a little bit from the pure intra-European and US problems. And what's quite clear is that in many parts of Europe and also the US, many of the reforms that are needed now would be to restructure the financial system, to direct investment towards more productive sectors, to liberalize the economy, to demonopolize it in many parts. All these kind of structural forms which the IMF imposed on a number of Asian countries during the Asian crisis about 13, 40 years ago which were at first bitterly resisted and then after a while when the countries had seen the effect that actually was quite good for us and we see it actually today. These countries are pretty strong. They're not affected much by the current crisis. They don't have one of their own. Just feel some of the effects. And now the key question is can Europe actually accept this? Can Europe show enough humility to accept that many parts of Europe have to undertake the same reforms with hopefully then later the same results? So my own takeaway and that was not much discussed in our group because we didn't have time. There's actually silver lining in all of this. If Europe really does reform, could it emerge stronger as East Asia did? It's just a question mark, but perhaps to consider the future meeting. So actually it may be a wisdom in having the head of the IMF always been a European so it should make it easier for Europe to understand and implement those reforms. Now when we go from the issue of dealing with the crisis of today and some of these rebalancing issues and other core issues that's come up very much, Yoko Ishikura has been this whole issue of employment and job creation and growth and that's what your group focused on. What were the insights that came out of that conversation? I think there are three things that came out as an issue and the first one is that as we all know how important jobs are today for the politicians, public policy makers as well as the business people as well as the people in general. But we are very much stuck with the vicious cycle of less investment, loss of jobs and no entrepreneurship. So that gets into this how do we break this vicious cycle. That's the first one. And the second one is that when we talk about the jobs or inclusive growth and the employment creation we tend to think of like study, work and retire but when in fact we are talking about lifelong capacity building. So that's another thing which we really need to look at. That's the second one. And another issue or another keyword that I come across with the linkage and we often tend to think about the supply side of human capital like education and training and so forth. But it really has to be linked with the jobs or the demand. So that's the part that we are missing. So those are the three things that I have sort of raised or our group has raised as key issues for the jobs. And so we talk about so kind of a double cycle issue. The issue of the vicious or virtuous cycle in terms of its disinvestment loss, jobs loss confidence, therefore economic downturn and so on versus restoring this virtuous cycle and now that Daniel's group has come up with some of the structural solutions we can build on that in terms of the investment and actually how do we get the job creation and the relevant skills. That's one cycle but also the cycle of the human being. That actually this idea of study, work, retire needs to actually be changed in terms of a more ongoing interaction of learning while doing the active in too much longer age. Any in terms of the new models, new perspectives, how do we actually do this particularly during the time of fiscal tightening? Yeah, sure. I think one of the conclusions that we came up with is that there isn't any one new model per se which works everywhere because we have to have a differentiator approach depending upon the stage of the economic development. Developing countries have a different kind of infrastructure build up and so forth. We really need to have a different model. We may have best practices which can be applied to a lot of different occasions whether that's the government or the business, but we really don't have any particular model per se which works everywhere. That's one. However, I think one of the things that we can develop as a new model is that the metrics of the well-being of the people rather than just the GDP per se. So in other words, we need a new concept of development. How do we define economic development in the future? And I think that's one of the things. And because we need to convince policymakers to make some investment in infrastructure and so forth for the education and skill building, they need some kind of metrics to show that they have made a progress or where they are ranked in terms of the well-being of people. And I think that may boost or that may drive the policymakers' action to regain the confidence of people of creating jobs and so forth. One of the interesting comments that I heard in your group was this challenge if we've traditionally looked at we need to grow in order to be able to increase employment, but maybe we need to turn it on ahead. We need to increase employment so we can grow. And if that's the case, what are the implications for government policy? What are the implications for corporate policy as key social actors during this tough time? I think it's being often said, but we still need public-private partnership in that area. And we really need to have our sort of jobs and entrepreneurship, the innovation is the key and small and medium-sized companies. And that's pretty much what it is. David Blumen, we go from the challenges of today to also the ongoing challenges of tomorrow with the stress of success as more people go into the middle class and their resource consumption, but also some of the population curves and possibilities which are actually on the screen right now. Your group was looking at how do we deal with resource scarcity on the one hand and changing demographics of growing and aging population on the other. So actually, I mean there was a lot, we covered a lot, but there were a few very interesting insights that I just mentioned. Jeff Seabright actually started us off by reminding us that we only have one world and he said it was too big to fail. And we all thought it was cute and laughed as well, but actually upon further reflection, I think we also recognized that's probably not true. It's not too big to fail. And failure would look really nasty in terms of mass, you know, misery and deprivation and poverty and under nutrition and what have you. So I think that was kind of important to keep in mind, not too big to fail. Second interesting insight is that the challenges that we face are not inevitable. We get to define them in terms of their nature and their scale. So yes, if you look at the chart that's up on the screen right now, it's true that whether you look at the low fertility scenario, the high fertility or the medium scenario that the UN population division has, population grows under all of those scenarios, but the fact is that the implications for resource scarcity and human well-being are going to be hugely different. Okay, if we basically face up to our next energy crisis or food crisis or what have you, okay, with 8 billion people, and if we're having to face it with 10.5 billion people, and we really do have something to say about that. We have options. The point here is that our demographic future and its economic and social consequences are not destiny. Okay, we can adapt to them. Now, by way of adaptations, we talked about a bunch of interesting points. I would say first and foremost is that it has to do with just bringing back a renewed emphasis on family planning and reproductive health. Okay, we have in the world every year about 130 million births at this point in time. Okay, and many of those births are occurring to women who say that they don't want to have children now or they don't want to have children, period, and they just don't have access to contraception. Okay, there are over 200 million women in the developing world alone that don't have access to contraception and family planning services, and that is having a big impact on population. And for many of us, it seems like a no-brainer to address that because it's what they want and it's good for them, and it's good for the rest of the planet. And now, second model. And this, I think, I don't know, perhaps sounds like a little boring and tired, but we really need to get out of the dark with respect to our understanding of what's coming in the future. And I think there was a lot of emphasis on renewed data collection and hard thinking and rigorous research that's gonna map the links and make sure that we understand the mechanisms that are generating the outcomes that we're very, very worried about in the future. And what's new here, if anything, is that we need to look in different places than we've been looking. We need to look at the overlaps. We need to look at the spillovers. And we need to look much more long-term than we've been focusing on. Third, new model, perhaps, innovation. Now, it's not new in the sense that all of these issues about all of these doomsday scenarios we've all heard before in the 1960s when Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome talked about rapid population growth. And, in fact, world population did explode between 1960 and 2000. It went from 3 billion to 6 billion. Absolutely unprecedented historically. But the fact is that the doomsday scenarios were wrong in the sense that during that same time frame, income per capita more than doubled. Many, many more kids got into school. Enrollment rates at primary and secondary levels went up. And life expectancy increased in the world by more than 15 years or so. And it appears that the lesson from that is that we adapted, we innovated. And we need to basically do the same now. And a lot of that is going to involve the government catalyzing the kinds of innovations that just don't do it for the private sector in terms of the short-term profit motive. And then finally, and I think maybe this is a lead into some of the other things we'll talk about in terms of new models, national policy and global governance. In many countries actually aren't facing rapid population growth now. What they're facing is a situation of workforce shortages and the prospect of people dissaving because of growing older populations in the world. And we basically live in a world where life expectancy has gone up in the world by 20 years over the last 50 years. Phenomenal human achievement, but the age of retirement, the legal age of retirement hasn't moved more than a half a year on the dial. And that's something from a policy framework that we can do. And then I think also on the global governance part, clearly a new effort to define and commit to principles about what we owe each other and also what we owe to future generations and to establish mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing them. And some of that can be ethically based and some of it can be based in an international legal framework. So those are the new models we talked about. Well, what's interesting across both the population challenges, whether it's growing population in certain parts of the world or aging population across the world and the natural resource challenges is they seem to not be the long tail risks that we talk about in the financial. But they're actually the long horizon risks. You see them, they're going to happen. The world's going to age. But actually it's easy for people to put off the decision for another two or four years. It won't be on my watch. If you're elected with a four year mandate, you don't have to deal with the pension crisis in 25 years. But if you don't, it will happen. It's not a long tail. It's just a long time horizon. Which does bring us to the question of governance. Which is why we thought, Nari Woods, you could actually help resolve all these different issues through your group's view on governance and governance reform. Right. Of course. So I think what's been very interesting, what was interesting in our discussion was that whereas in previous years there were calls for more leadership, today's discussion was much more focused on governance. It reminds me a while ago when I had to take a reference on someone for a leadership role and the referee had written, his men always follow him and I rang the referee to find out what that meant and said, you know, so his men always follow him and the referee said, yes, mainly out of curiosity. And you know, that's not enough. And so I think what our group's discussion was really focused on was the governance within which leadership takes place. So there was really the discussion group really highlighted a fatal lack of trust among countries as we stand on the brink of a crisis which will, in the absence of decent governance and leadership lead to a cascade of trade protectionism, a global credit crunch, a seizing up of production and all of that happening against a background of pretty fragile political orders. So I think the insight of the group was really about how in that context do we take governments and their citizens who all believe that other countries will not do their part, that as each leader tries to get their country to come along with them, their citizens are saying, but how do we know that other countries will do their bit? Do you want the solution to that? That would be great. Okay, so I think the solution is an interesting one because some in the group pushed very hard for a model of global governance which is coalitions of the willing. Coalitions of willing governments combining with coalitions of willing private sector firms and non-governmental organizations because they're quick, because they're adaptive, because they can put things on the agenda, because they bring different resources to the issue. But there was also some real skepticism about that from other countries. So as Robert heard, one of the groups said, this is a Western crisis. So why should we be engaged or how should we be engaged in solving what is essentially a Western crisis? And then highlighted that for many emerging economies, coalitions of the willing simply look dangerous. It looks like status quo established countries trying to have their way because they can't in the United Nations or because they can't in the World Trade Organization. So they're simply trying to corral off into some informal group and push ahead. And I think the solution to it that we all came to was a very interesting mix of the way coalitions of the willing can push things onto the agenda, can push international institutions to rejuvenate themselves, to update, to adapt, so that they are trusted by a larger group of countries. And so in a way it's not a new model, it's saying we need to rejuvenate the old institutions. We can't just throw them away. We do need to rejuvenate them, not least because the countries we most need to engage at this point are countries who prefer to work through established international organizations and don't trust the purely coalitional form of governance. So we see that interesting mixture where one catalyzes the other and helps it to rejuvenate and the two can keep moving forward. I think this insight is that actually leadership is contextual. It's not just contextual in terms of the challenge of the time, but it's contextual in terms of the structure and the customs within which they actually have to work. So if Chancellor Merkel is trying to make some very difficult decisions within a coalition government, within a certain structure of governance, that's different than other presidential systems, for example. How does one deal with that challenge though if you actually have a situation where in many cases these are global issues that require individual trade-offs in order to actually come up with an optimal solution and yet the structures of governance aren't designed that way. I mean, the U.N. is at a global level, but it's not involved in the key economic decisions making. The G8 or the G20 is essentially a compilation. It's not even a coalition. It's a compilation of individual national interests. How does one overcome that structurally or what's the role of leadership in terms of overcoming some of those structural challenges? What Chancellor Merkel has to do is communicate to German people, to German voters and taxpayers that they are part of a cooperative solution. What they want to know is that it's not they alone who are going to bear the costs. And in order to persuade a population that they alone are not going to be paying costs, you have to be able to point to an institution of cooperation which has the information, which has the rules, and which has an enforcement capacity to make sure others really do do their bit. And their institutions do something very simple, which is help build trust. Trust that others will play by the rules and do their share. Just the last question on it. We've talked about governance as governance. And when we look at so many of the issues and part of the conversation last two days, in fact, in terms of understanding the issues, let alone coming up with the solutions, many more actors are more involved than governments alone. Did your group try to deal with this issue of how to deal with this complex world from a multi-stakeholder perspective as well? Or what that might mean for governments in the future? Absolutely. And many of the groups had many of those stakeholders and talked about how those other stakeholders can be involved. I think if I were to try and sum it up in one sentence, it would be that the multi-stakeholder groups can be part of the coalitions of the willing, but they won't be the trusted rule makers. And that if we want some global rules to help us through this crisis, we need to use more institutions which all countries that we need to bring along in this trust. And that's why the multi-stakeholder groups and coalitions and efforts are helpful, but they won't in the end command the same trust from all different governments. Now, Rosemary, we've been talking about the kind of governance almost in the physical world, but one of the elements that we've been seeing over the last year is so much going on in the cyber world, whether it's Sony having to deal with hackers, whether it's the whole Wikileaks issue, whether it's now digital agents that may not even be controlled directly by humans anymore, and the whole issue of who are personas in the cyber world. Your group was looking at this whole issue of cyber or digital governance. What was for you some of the key issues or insights that came out of that? Well, digital governance really has resulted from the proliferation and access to enormous amounts of information and technology. And how is governance changing as a result? We looked at five questions around this issue, including rights, hyper-connectivity, and the sort of concept of one versus many. What was fascinating in our group was how everyone embraced the idea that examination of digital governance in the WEF arena is a fantastic place to have that discussion as a multi-stakeholder body. We looked at both the practical and on a philosophical basis. We looked at individuals and governments. It is a complex issue because of the multitude of constituents, and clearly the world is changing. But it's time for a new model, a new model for governments and corporates that have to acknowledge that there is a new model of governments really required. What we looked at specifically was embracing the idea that the structures are changing from hierarchies to networks. So from a governmental basis, it was very much formal structures are moving to informal, multi-stakeholder groups are becoming more necessary as borders fall, individual feudal governments are not as relevant as they were. National boundaries, as I said, are falling, and it's just happening very, very fast. And because of the digital nature, it's always changing. I think we looked at how the application of technology to business and government, for instance, EGOV, that can actually engage citizens and help to spread this information and how powerful that is in the transparency debate. We actually looked at new forms of democracy, really how from the old model of, you know, I vote versus you govern. Now it's very distributed. People have access to information and can make decisions. And then we looked a little bit about this sort of examining the governance of models for the Internet itself because it has become such a powerful system in distributing information. And this was both practical and philosophical, which were some great debates. On an individual basis, we looked at sort of the cross-section between physical, legal, and digital, and how it all fit together on a sort of individuals versus network basis, how some individuals actually didn't have access to the Internet, the older population, and were they included, in fact, in digital governance at all. So I think that it's a very timely issue. And as we see all kinds of government changing, whether it's in Egypt where we've had one that became many or it's in the U.S. where we have, you know, on Wall Street, bankers actually getting together and filing protests, we're seeing very big changes coming in the way that governments, government, and corporates have to listen to the constituents. What was very interesting with the conversation is it's, whereas in Nairi's group, there was almost a sense of going from formal governments to engaging more informal governance systems. In fact, in the cyber world, you actually have many of the governance systems being informal, in a sense, coalitions of the engaged, coalitions of the willing to participate, and now the debate seems to be, do you actually need more formal, traditional government governance structures? And what was the thinking on that, the degree to which kind of the state of nature in the cyber world was actually going to be maintainable or whether there was going to be inevitably a shift towards more direct government engagement? Well, because boundaries are falling, you know, from a cyber, for instance, in cyber security, you're having to look at transnational issues. So governments can no longer focus just on their own people. You have to look, there's competition now among governments on how, you know, one is governing better, and those that seem to be moving ahead are the ones that are looking to these multi-stakeholder organizations and listening to the feedback from those organizations to take that back into their country. Now what were the new models come out? One of the things that surprised me with your group was when people are talking about even the definition of person, say they've been physical people for many hundreds of years in some countries there's now been corporate people or corporate person, but now there's increased this idea of a digital person. And what does that mean from a legal point of view? What does that mean from an identity point of view? What are the new models which we should be trying to think or comprehend let alone govern that space? Well, I think the concept of digital identity in terms of being anonymous, so for instance in a Facebook world you need to be legitimate, you have to have an identity, but if you're doing some sort of political activism you need that anonymity. So it's a contrast between what's necessary from a legal point of view and what's necessary in a group mentality in pulling together support. What I'd like to do is open it up also for questions or comments from the audience. Before I do that though, let me just turn and see from the point of view of new models or leadership any comments that people would like to make that they haven't had a chance. Yoko. Just getting back to this innovation development and the jobs, I think in order to keep on innovating we need good people and human capital development really fits into that and that will lead to the growth. But that requires a new model of education for example and make sure that the educational form is much more sort of transformational and that's where the public and private partnership comes in because the business people can come to the other school and just teach the kids. So even though I mentioned that we don't have one new model for the other jobs I think we have a lot of different sets of new models for education, for macro policy, for the investment and so forth. But if we think that this model fits everywhere then I think we're not advocating that. So in fact new models of education along with new models of work and in fact one of the other elements that came out was we talked about education for employment but in many cases it's actually employment for education that employment is an integral part of a person's educational experience and for young people losing that for three or four years it means they actually lose effectively a key part of their education and formation. What I'd like to do is open it up and what I'd like people to do is if they could address it to either key insights or perspectives that came out of this or came out of their conversations and keep it to 30 to 60 seconds each so we have a chance to get three or four comments and then go back to the panel. Please gentlemen here and then at the back. Thank you very much. Rolf Alter from the OECD. I'd like to support and lend all the support possible to what you said Nair. We need trusted rule makers. I think that like I like to really underline that and I would say it's perhaps the solution of many really other problems. The second point though I was surprised I was in that same meeting I was surprised that we actually can define a regional crisis to say it is the crisis of one part of the world and not one of the other half, three quarters or whatever it is seems to me a bit contradictory what we have heard here today and I would really invite to think about this question again. It's true. I mean you could say you can't say just a crisis of one leg although it's interesting in 1997 many people did call it an Asian crisis then. We have learned sir. That's an excellent point. Sir. Thank you. My name is I'm from Tunisia the youngest democracy in the world now and thank you. And I would like to come back to this beautiful concept of coalition of the willing and attract your attention on potential danger that would become a collusion of some willing I take the G20 today where is the Arab world only the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is sitting there the Arab world is not existing in the G20 in the building of the new governance the government of Saudi Arabia never cooperated with any other population in the Arab world on the G20 fate. So let's look at things as they are that's why the kids in my country in other Arab countries are saying we want to be represented because our future is here this is a missing link that's very dangerous as long as it has not been solved we're going to have Yemen, Syria, Libya etc. And finally looking at another issue that's worldwide Mrs Ishikura was very explicit we need to find employment growth or growth employment wherever you want everywhere in the world today but what about the financial sector after World War II the financial sector's profits in the United States represented 7% of the profits before Lehman brother they represented 45% of the profits are they really adding value to the system we should ask the question today about the real role of the financial sector is it creating wealth is it creating employment or is it creating some tools to make money and give the impression thank you very much there's a gentleman right there Sanjay Padnagar from the Water Gag one of the things that I wanted to comment on was that as we talk about new crisis I think one should not forget the issues that we are currently already dealing with this idea of the nexus between food and water energy that we are trying to come together and solve in forums like this we need to keep at the back of our mind there's important linkages that we need to measure monitor and then find a way to bring to the front of people who can take action on this great ma'am right here hi I'm Mr. Dyson representing the fostering entrepreneurship group and I just want to everything we've heard today you can't make an absolute and so the solution is not simply entrepreneurs it's a much more nuanced thing and it is fostering small businesses becoming large there's a dynamic tension here because the solution is not large businesses and it's certainly not governments but it's a continuing renewal of this process of taking innovation scaling it at the same time as you scale employment and then being willing to destroy that when the innovation becomes old and starting over fantastic so let me just everything from the issue of the role of lawmakers right from Hammurabi and the whole important issue is coalition collusion if people don't all have voice and critical issue of water fuel food today and this question of fostering innovation and growth of kind of the innovators of tomorrow let me just all these are great comments any comments on our observations on the points being made Ari would you like? Yeah I think collusion of the willing is an interesting description of the G20 but it really highlights I think the difference that I was drawing between what a coalition which the G20 is or be it a coalition of very powerful countries or to put it in Lena Mahalo's terms in our session she said it can't be a coalition of the willing it's got to be a coalition of the willing and able but I think the role for a coalition of the willing and able is to signal that the critical core mass of countries who can take action are willing and able but where they overstep themselves is where they then attempt to act just as the coalition of willing and able on behalf of the rest of the world it's not a justice point that I'm making although many make it in justice terms and rightly and say well we weren't represented it's also an effectiveness point how is it that you can expect countries whether it's Chile or New Zealand or Israel or Namibia to conform to what the G20 have agreed is necessary if they're not only not part of the discussion but they're not even informed about the decisions afterwards now of course that there are moves afoot and we need to focus on those as well for the G20 to actually spread its information spread its consultation more widely but I think a huge amount more needs to be done on that I think the WEF is working on it I think Mark Malik Brown in his comments today was underscoring again the need for a wider constituency representation in the G20 not just as a pro forma way of creating another organisation which is participatory not at all but as a way of ensuring that global leaders have the information that they need from all corners of the world and then report back to all corners of the world on what it is that they're deciding let's do another round one of the things I know to understand that the UAE this year has actually also been engaged in the French process to provide additional voice I think what's interesting is the formal number and then are there other state and non-state actors who become involved and how does one do that while maintaining focus and effectiveness is the simultaneous challenge I think we're seeing in the G20 a venture capitalist from Silicon Valley where I've spent most of my life I also have the privilege of sitting on the foundation board of the World Economic Forum it's easy to get depressed if you go around to all of these global agenda councils and so perhaps a little bit of interesting news I'm coming up on year 45 in Silicon Valley this is the fourth and worst recessions I've been through have all ended they usually end with the invention of something new whether it was the internet or the personal computer and you can go through history I want to tell you our largest problem in Silicon Valley today if we had a global agenda council on Silicon Valley it would be we need more people we do not have a shortage of jobs a shortage of qualified people I'm one venture capitalist from one venture firm we probably have 150 active companies in our portfolio we post jobs on our website for all of them last week I counted 1200 open positions most of them for six figure jobs for programmers for engineers for people who could create by the way for every one of those engineers we can't hire there's four or five or six support people that maybe are a little bit further down the food chain who do not get hired and we also have a fund in China we also have a fund in India we have a fund in Europe a shortage of people qualified for the new economy is a huge problem I'm sitting here next to my friend David Agus and I'm reminded of something Steve Jobs said I had the privilege of working for Apple and he said if you want to predict the future go and invent it and that's what's going on right now thank you that issue of talent mobility and talent training you just want to jump in on that I'm on the skills and talent mobility council and we have so many people who are unemployed but at the same time we have so many jobs which are unfilled because we don't have enough people with the qualifications so what we're trying to do is to move people around or virtual mobility or move jobs to the people extend the other employment pool and so forth and it's specific action that we are planning and we're going to be launching pretty soon is that we'll have online knowledge bank either by the companies or by the government or by the international organizations about any one of those mobility talent mobility issues so if you have some problems of trying to do the mobility you can go to online and find out what other companies have done what other government has done and we really would like to launch pretty soon and anybody can have an access to it not surprisingly with this group we've got lots more interest and we're going to have time so I'm going to beg your indulgence for those of you who are not going to be able to have directly engaged and I'm going to ask those who I do acknowledge to be very brief and to the point so sir and then ma'am and then over here please the point that's just been made I think Jean-Pierre Lehmann IMD the point that's been made is very fundamental and I just wanted to come back very very briefly on the G20 which I think is now being called the G200 it's increasingly where we're talking about it going towards an old model it's becoming the UN I think what we should be looking for I agree that the Arab world should be better represented and my feeling was that it should be Egypt rather than Saudi Arabia but that's another point but I don't think we can expect anything coming out of the G20 in view of the direction that it's taken I'd like to have a show of hands of those people who have not been invited to the G20 summit which I'm sure will be a very very small minority so this is what worries me is this proliferation and I think the G20 is going to disappoint greatly really good point in terms of the trade-off intentions please Laura Liswood from the Women's Empowerment Group I think you'll understand my phrasing on this you've talked about the need to include more in different voices and Lord Milok Brown talked about the multi-stakeholders let's just say that as we have observed historically the decision makers on all of the issues you've talked about there have been some groups who have been historically overrepresented in those groups and several at least one group of women in this case who have been historically underrepresented in these groups there's been some who have been historically empowered in these groups and some who have been historically out of power I would suggest that as we go forward thinking about these new models we should analyze who's been historically overrepresented and who's been historically underrepresented as we think about these new voices yeah excellent and sir the mic's not on I'd like to say that our group strongly endorse what was said about well-being as a major new social goal for our societies partly because long-run growth is becoming more difficult but even more because well-being comes from many other sources and we now know so much about how to improve it we're used not to know we know how management practices could greatly improve the well-being at work and include productivity at the same time we know what schools could do we know other things that governments can do but central as you said and I think this is very important the measurement is crucial and we now have the initiative from the OECD to measure well-being in member countries and we're probably going to hear the same from the UN conference in April for all member countries there we need measurements of children so that we pick up problems in schools and incentivize schools to promote well-being but also employers and this is my question to the panel our recommendation is that firms should measure the well-being of their workers regularly and publish it near the front of their annual account annual reports would you endorse that as members of the panel as well well perfect timing to turn this back to the panel now we only have a few minutes left so also if I could ask you last comments on what you've heard or any last points you'd like to leave with this group Nairi given the many of the issues around complexity diversity, voice and governance systems it's hard including people in decisions and it's hard including governments in decisions at the moment I'm in the middle of setting up at Oxford University and the question I most often asked is I hope you're going to teach benign dictatorship and it comes from a view that the world's in crisis so what we need is benign dictatorship we need it at the national level and we need it at the global level so the argument would go beware of that argument for some fairly obvious reasons some democracies really do work some international organizations really do work they do not solve all your problems international cooperation is extremely difficult and painful you shouldn't seek global governance on all issues you should only seek it where it's absolutely necessary so that national and local government can do what's necessary so I guess my my retort to those who would keep pointing at global governance and saying it's all hopeless is to say no it's difficult but that doesn't mean it's hopeless and don't just look at what's not working look at what is and think about how you can make that work better and do reject the call for dictatorship and by the way we're not offering a masters in benign dictatorship at the Blavatnik school of government thank you your call I think jobs how important jobs are and the employment has no question about that and I think everybody's agreed how important it is and I think even though it's been said many times multi-stakeholder collaboration and the global approach and multi-dimensional approach to jobs and the innovation is critical and we really cannot postpone our actions because education or developing people will take a long time unless we do something today we're going to be very very sorry in a decade or two thank you Danielle we were talking about leadership and I think you said leadership is sometimes to preserve structures sometimes maybe it's also to create new structures or to overhaul existing structures in use we said at least in the area of European integration that without man without individual leaders nothing is possible nothing new but without institutions nothing is durable and I think in the global arena we have a number of very durable institutions but we have to ask ourselves have they all delivered and I think some of them might have some others have not and I think especially those which were supposed to look after our financial system I think we must say today maybe they worked smoothly at the technical level but maybe they over-emphasized the interests of those in the financial sector and therefore we had this big increase in leverage which then burst and brought us into the mess in which we are right now so I think we should really think about the structure of global coordination and global institutions where we could improve that to avoid falling again to the trap which we are right now thank you close me I guess I wanted to reiterate I'm losing my voice and recognize the importance of digital government and digital governance Naren talked about coalition and old government and if we shift some of that thinking into where we would be under digital governance I think if you want to invent the future actually start to think along those lines moving from hierarchical shifts of power to people who are creating arbitrary groups around needs creating a whole ecology and I think that as we recognize individuals as a group have a voice and we have to listen to that voice not at the expense of polarization while we listen to individuals moving into various groups of organized strengths and ignoring some of the others that are weaker voices I think we just have to be aware of the importance of digital government going forward in digital governance David I have three personal takeaways from the earlier breakout session and also from this one first we absolutely need to get our heads right about both the short term and also and especially about the long term problems that we face there appears to be lots of potential to make better use of existing resources and I really appreciate all of the novel ideas and the new things that I heard it makes me feel more optimistic than pessimistic and then finally I think we need to invest in the development of new knowledge and policies and global governance structures that are functional across multiple leadership cycles and above all trusted so thank you before we actually close the panel we'd like to do one other experiment to get your feedback on each of you actually have this voting system here and what after the rich textured conversation anything that requires you pushing one of five buttons is not going to have that level of subtlety so let me just state that right now but if we could you have this and what I want to ask you to do is to push the buttons that correspond to the choice on what's on the screen on a number of issues if you don't like because things change even in seconds you can press C and then do this again so maybe we could just have the first question up and it's really if we take a look at the five issues we were just talking about which one if we had to nail one this year or the world has to address it which one would you say is critical to address in 2012 I could ask you to all vote please one to five okay Yoko it's you let's go to the next so we're saying this issue of inclusive growth and managing the resource scarcity interestingly and then in terms of actually how to do it some of the governance and cooperation issues which one would you actually say of these is most promising in terms of the possibility of effective international cooperation in 2012 and please vote sure it's right up there if you say which one appears most promising in terms of international cooperation in 2012 so you're saying this is one which you actually we could solve this year you know that there's the ability the willingness it may not be the one you just said before is the most important but which one do you think is actually the the ripest and most able to be dealt with through international cooperation interesting global rebalancing and economic reform and then on the digital governance let me go to the third question which one would be most challenging so this is the opposite regardless of which one you think is most important which one you say ah boy with the international system today this is going to be the toughest one to actually nail if you could please vote some cooperation problems interesting so one of the land managing resource scarcity and demographic challenges identified as one of the top two issues is also seen as actually one of the most intractable because of often key invested interests perhaps and the global governance issue so having a new school at Oxford is coming just in time to help help address it and then finally if we have which one would benefit most from new models you're saying okay as opposed to just fixing or trying to fix on the edges which one would you say boy we would love to see a whole new approach and if you voted on one which one would it be no leading the jury with your views well pretty much across the board but the issue of the employment creation and job growth and also the issue of resource scarcity come out one and two but with the governance systems shortly behind now we actually do have one last question in terms of how we try to approach these which one actually benefits the most from a multi stakeholder rather than a more traditional multilateral or government to government element but to say okay which one of these really would benefit from a true multi stakeholder perspective to nail the issue the issue of resource scarcity demographic change now thank you very much for your thoughts on this for the last hour and a half and let me thank the panels too because one of the things this shows at a time of resource scarcity the one inexhaustible resource we have is all of you