 Well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, my name is Tamika Tilliman. I'm the director of the Digital Impact and Governance Initiative at New America. It is my distinct pleasure to welcome all of you to today's session of Transformation, which is our digital events series on how technology can reshape the way institutions serve society. Today's conversation is coming to you in partnership with the Prosperity Collaborative, which is a coalition of organizations that are working together to harness the power of technology and digital public goods to address public finance challenges worldwide. And I want to recognize New America's fellow founding members in that effort, the World Bank, MIT Connection Science, EY, and the Michael DeCoccas Institute for Leadership and Innovation. The substance of our conversation today is as urgent as it is important. And I think what we have seen over the last couple of months is that the coronavirus pandemic didn't just break systems. It revealed what was already broken. And many of our institutions, the picture that has emerged from that process, isn't that pretty. Many of our institutions are being revealed as far too brittle and dysfunctional to respond effectively to this crisis. That reality, as we all know, is imposing extraordinary hardships on communities, on families, on individuals around the world. And we hope that out of that great chaos and suffering, there's an opportunity to pivot toward a more resilient way of doing business, that we're going to, by virtue of being forced to re-examine the way our institutions are operating right now, be able to build back in a way that provides a higher degree of resilience in the face of challenges on the other side. That is our goal, and we have to help us reach that goal. Two important contributions today. The first is a masterful report entitled The Great Correction, which is authored by Dante Despartes, with me playing a very distant second fiddle that's being released today by New America. It's on the New America website. And the second is an extraordinary group of leaders who have come together for this discussion to help us think through that challenge. We have, in no particular order, but we're thrilled to have you all here. Kira Bronke, who leads the World Bank's work on fiscal policy and sustainable growth. Dante Despartes, who is a guru on all things risk, but is also the founder and chairman of Risk Cooperative and a member of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Advisory Council. Susan Garfield, who spearheads EY's work on life sciences and is a key player when it comes to a number of the technologies that are going to help get us out of this crisis. And Sandy Pentland from MIT, a professor there and who spearheads the connection science work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We are grateful to have all of you, Dante. We are going to begin with you. And I'm going to ask for a brief distillation, if you're willing, of the key findings of The Great Correction, the new report that we're putting out today. As you've started to dig into this basket of issues and as we all have, what are emerging as the key lessons and takeaways that we need to be focused on in the months ahead? Great. Well, thank you to Micah and thank you to fellow colleagues and panelists for the opportunity. So I suppose my way of coping with this pandemic, where every day feels like a Monday, has been to really begin to chronicle in this new report The Great Correction all the areas going into the crisis that were vulnerable beforehand. And as our country today nears a debt burden where the sum of our public debt will be as big as our economy for the first time. This is very likely early into 2021. It raises a lot of core questions about fundamental resilience going into this type of crisis. So this is the very crisis to Micah, as you know, that has animated all of my work in the domain of risk readiness and resilience. It has animated my career as an entrepreneur. But this is the motherload. And every month in 2020, we have compounded enough risk to really keep my field busy and public emergency responders and others busy as well. But if you look at it in order, we went into a public health crisis as a country where millions and millions of people needed employer-provided health care. So we had a problem there in the lack of universal access to the health care system. And so that created a spiral of all kinds of perverse incentives to not conduct the basic checks. As we'll certainly discuss in today's call, we still continue to fly blind in terms of reliable information on the numerator and denominators of confirmed cases. As of now, the confirmed number is roughly 6.1 million in the United States. And we've lost more than 185,000 lives so far. But we still don't yet have reliable, near real-time public health information on the spread and where the hotspots are likely to reemerge. So I think in many respects, the public health authorities are flying blind. This says as much about trust in public health institutions as it does about the ability and the ubiquity of technology that can then reliably relay information that's active. So that was another area of obvious vulnerability going in. And then the other areas relate to infrastructure. But for today's use of technologies, of which sadly, still in America, whether you have access to reliable technology and reliable internet speeds, is very much dependent on a postal code or a zip code lottery. And so but for the advent of the private sector and but for technologies like Zoom, the very one we're using today, all facets of operating continuity, whether it was educating kids at scale, whether it's keeping a business running, came at us very fast. And so all this to say, I remain very optimistic that, like past crises, which created the global financial system and the Bretton Woods Accord and others that came out of the detritus of the Second World War, I think we need to liken our challenge in this great correction, as we're calling it in the report, as a call to action on marshaling public and private ingenuity. And we've got to innovate our way through this crisis. It's not enough to say, help is on the way. What's become clear is that the very agencies in the public sector that were to respond to this were constrained. And we needed to very rapidly blur the lines of one organization's resource and asset base versus the other. And so if ever there was a case for a whole of society and whole of planet resilience, this type of pandemic is it. And it's ironic that it came at the world at a time of national retrenchment and de-globalization that the world threw a threat our way that would require extraordinary collaboration. So there's a lot in there. And there's a lot in the report which I hope people will read. But I'm eager to dive in today. Kiarra, let's turn to you. Because if, as Dante says, we need a whole of civilization approach to addressing this. And there's certainly a very strong case that that is the only thing that's going to get us through this. There are few institutions that are better equipped and better positioned to take that approach than the World Bank. What are you seeing at a 30,000-foot level six months into this and more than six months into this in terms of which countries are responding well? And based on those examples, what should we all be looking at to move us beyond this crisis and build back more responsibly on the other side? Thank you, Tomica, for this question. First of all, I would say Dante's and yours report is a very nice panoramic and overview of all the issues that we should take into consideration. It's a lot of dimensions. So I don't want to give you the impression that the World Bank addresses all of them. We are supporting countries in economic development and, of course, human capital development. What we have seen in the pandemic, let me give you. Initially, we really thought it was, as you know, all of us thought it was going to have a short-term short-lasting and that we would have seen basically a short period of closing down but then recovery faster. So kind of what we call the among economies of each shape. Now we have realized actually that precisely because of the diversity of our member countries, especially, you know, we're focusing on low income countries and emerging economies. These are our main clients. We cannot speak of this Vichy in a uniform way. And I can tell you that I just recently looked at some consolidated data for luck for the Latin America, which is a lot of emerging economies. And they also struggle, although compared to low income countries, they are definitely more advanced and with more resources. So I think Dante put the fingers down. There were some preconditions and some countries were better able to address. That's what we see, that those countries are able to recover faster out of this crisis, had some system in place, a social contract in place, a pretty solid public finances in place, a technical or leveraging ICT systems of technology and data, but because they have the ecosystem in place and highly educated administration as well to be able to put a response, a rapid response in place. Where we see the struggles is certainly in low income, low capacity countries or in countries that have really founded their society mostly on individualism. And therefore, erosion of public health services and public education services have basically have not provided the foundation to be able to respond because there are a lot of lobbies that need to be broken through. Let me give you an example. Of course, we are all looking at good examples. And also, I want to give you two examples so that certainly in South Korea, it's quite an interesting example. There were solid, solid finances, pretty good fiscal cash in, fiscal space I mean, so ability to cash in part of the crisis and also heavily invested over many years, decades in technology and education engineering. So they have been, and also preparedness because they've lived through different pandemics. But let's be honest, there's been a learning process. But that learning process did not go wasted. They learn and they improve and they strengthen their systems to be better prepared. This I think it's, they're not many countries. I think it's New Zealand, we see South Korea, very good at that, some Nordic countries, but with some slippages. And as I was saying, the social path is also breaking in some cases. As I think down to, and you put in the report, there is clearly an equal redistribution or a skewing of the wealth towards the upper decile of the income distribution, most of the countries. And therefore we also see the less advantage part of the population losing out tremendously in this situation. What we see in some cases, even in developing countries is that countries that have been able to at least leverage technology, understand the importance of big data and mind you, the World Bank has been supporting countries on disaster risk management for many, many years. So data use of data preparedness, it was specific though, mostly on natural resources, not on this major pandemic that has held economics, you know, financial and fiscal. But there is a lot of learning that can be expanded and I can see that in some countries, I'm very familiar with this in Africa for example, they are actually also leveraging this information and data to reach out to parts of the population that are otherwise isolated through satellite data, through drones, through delivery in remote. It's quite amazing how some obstacles can be jumped. I stop here, we can continue later, but just to say that there are also good sales coming out of this that we can learn from. No, and Kaira, you mentioned the use of data, Sandy, you've been pushing the greater use of data by governments since before it was hip. Susan, I'm hoping you're gonna help us get granular on this in a moment, but Sandy, help us understand this in a little bit more detail. Kaira brought up something really important, which is that many of the countries, many of the governments that are responding most effectively to the crisis have world-class digital infrastructure that they are using as the backbone of their response. And we see this as she alluded to in cases like South Korea, we see it in Taiwan, but you also see it in some other countries that haven't had prior experience with pandemics like Estonia. And what seems to be the common denominator as we've looked at this is that all of these governments have very efficient instruments at their disposal for moving information, resources, and people in order to respond on an agile basis to the challenges that they are facing right now. That rests on good data. Why is good data important at a macro level and what do you see as some of the key lessons around the use of data that we should be taking away from what's unfolding right now? So the situation today is probably most analogous to the end of World War II. We had huge public debt. You had economies and tatters. And as Franklin said, we either had to hang together or we were going to hang separately. And the same is true within countries also. So what can we do to make this work better? How can we come together? And one of the lessons of the pandemic is that the institutions that we put together at the end of World War II, the ones that many countries have, are too slow, they're too influenced by politics. They're not things where data and response just happens. And it's interesting that countries like Korea, Singapore, some of these others actually have their digital infrastructure much more recent than countries like the US, right? And the institutions, of course, that go along with them. And so the analogy I think that is easy to understand is that payment systems, financial systems still work. They work very quickly. You pay something and money gets there immediately. You can pretty well trust that it happens. And what that's built on is, first of all, private data, not that you can access it. Your bank account is not available, but there is an ability to do a test station. Yes, he has enough money to pay for this. This will actually deliver it. That sort of ability to have fluid agreements, fluid training of data that you need, that just the data that you need and just in time, begins to suggest the model for doing this more generally, between countries and within countries. So we're all familiar with the census. Every country has it. It's the basis of a lot of government, a lot of services. And part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is this idea that we should have rich census, that we should be able to actually measure things not the census, but to include things like inequality, like educational level, like sustainability, et cetera, et cetera. And countries are slowly moving to that, but to be able to coordinate both within countries and across countries, that sort of rich census data needs to be everywhere. That's the basis on which you make data-driven, correct policy decisions. Otherwise, you're flying blind, which as Dante said, is what we're doing in a lot of cases. So countries that are doing this well, well, China is doing it pretty well. They have a smart city infrastructure, some blockchain structure. They have a test pilot that includes something like 150 million people. They have a digital currency they're rolling out. Singapore, the same. And Singapore is moving this to all the countries where Temasek, their investment, Southern Wealth Fund operates, which is around the Indian Ocean. We helped the Swiss nation, Switzerland, deploy this. So this is deployed, this is sort of early warning. Next month, you're gonna see it. Logistics chains based on blockchain to be able to manage all sorts of assets in that sort of fluid way. And of course that'll spread across Europe and hopefully other countries will be able to begin to do this. I wanna just add one thing, which is that, you know, this sort of upgrading system so that we can know what we're doing, know what needs to happen, have it done quickly, because they're in a pandemic or in an economic crisis, you need to move quickly and correctly. In this type of economic environment, again, analogous to World War II, World War I, the normal sort of financial engineering, the normal sort of way we do things will no longer work. Low interest rates, it's actually high inflation. Not of the CPI, the core inflation, but education, property, things like that. And what we have to do is we have to adapt policies so that underserved poor communities can begin owning productive physical assets. That's the only way they're gonna survive the economic onslaught that's beginning now. So rather than paying rent, they have to be buying their housing rather than paying some big corporation for internet, they need to own their own internet corporation, et cetera, et cetera. And so policies that help communities, I think, are one of the core things we need to do as opposed to trying to say one uniform policy for everybody, which means one size fits none. Sandy, as you were speaking, I was thinking back on a favorite axiom that we've adapted from Madeline Albright, my friend who said that we are right now living in a world of institutions that were designed in the 19th century using technology from the 20th century to try and solve the problems of the 21st century. And unfortunately, this is playing out to pretty spectacular effect before our eyes. Susan, you are trying to build some of those 21st century systems that are gonna help governments deal with these challenges more effectively, specifically when it comes to the task of track and trace, which most governments have recognized as really vital to getting us back in business prior to the advent of a vaccine. I'd be interested if you could build on a couple of things Sandy said around the use of technology and specifically digital identity to solve these problems. How does that play into the work of track and trace and also privacy? Tell us why at this point we're six months into this and Virginia is the only state that has rolled out a track and trace solution in the US using technology. I live in Virginia and I have it, but that's a pretty small slice of the population. Why aren't we further along and what types of solutions do we need to develop in order to get us where we need to go? That's interesting. I think we're seeing the breakdown of individualism in conflict with collective good in the context of public health right now. Kara, Sandy, Dante, you all made points that kind of broke my heart a little bit as a public health person trying to fight this pandemic because technology alone can't do it, right? And so I think that's one of the big misunderstandings of innovation that even as we develop integrated platforms that can share data and create the connectivity between the different stakeholders to solve these complex problems at scale unless the incentives are there to drive the type of collaboration that's needed, the technology breaks down. And you mentioned data privacy, which is another critical component to gaining public trust. We have a huge trust gap right now that's growing between individuals, especially those individuals at most and most need our communities of color, those at economic disadvantage and that trust gap between the people we're trying to help and the institutions that have been developed to help them undermine our ability to leverage these incredible technological solutions. So I think the challenge that I'm seeing in the market and you mentioned contact tracing where all of this comes in a very unfortunate case study where for the first time in history we now have digital contact tracing leveraging things like GPS and Bluetooth and proximity monitoring that could actually very effectively warn people if they've been in contact with someone with COVID. But in order for the technology which exists to work, everyone has to adopt it. And then not only does everyone have to adopt it but they then have to opt in to sharing their private information with the contact tracers, with the public health organizations. And those multiple steps of both behavior change and trust are what's curtailing the deployment of these systems at scale. So you mentioned Virginia, there's other states that are gonna be coming online soon with digital contact tracing but as we see in the numbers it may be too late. And as we look forward to say what is the role of containment efforts like contact tracing and other kind of mainstays of public health and an infectious disease context, I look at other technologies in combination with contact tracing, the innovations around testing when individuals can take control of their own COVID status and then deploy public health interventions like quarantine and others. But it's gonna be a big challenge moving forward. And so as we move from this kind of early stage to the middle, which I think we now are in where testing is becoming more available, we have to overcome challenges of infrastructure tools like contact tracing and then look ahead to how we're going to ultimately address this and overcome the broader burden of disease with vaccines. That trust gap I think is something we all need to consider. I wanna pick up on a few of the points that Susan made and also something Sandy said earlier about institutional architecture. And the aftermath of the Second World War, which was the last time the entire planet experienced a big crisis virtually simultaneously. We did see a string of institutions created to help resolve the imbalances that occurred in that situation. And there was a recognition on the part of many of the world's governments and leaders that we had just witnessed a really devastating blow to civilization as a whole. We didn't wanna do that again. And so we wanted to create some structures that would solve for that problem. You saw the World Bank, you saw the United Nations, you saw the whole family of Bretton Woods institutions that were designed to put in place some safeguards, some mechanisms to ensure that things would operate more effectively going forward. And Dante, one of the key findings of your report, the report is that staffing is policy on this stuff. And a lot of our institutions just aren't staffed for this. So I'm gonna ask this question around the panel, but Dante, I'm hoping you can kick us off. What are some of the key changes in staffing and institutional structure that need to occur if we are going to construct a better future going forward with a greater focus on resilience? Yeah, obviously it's not an easy to answer question, but I think parts of it relate to many of the points that Susan just made, which are, we take for granted in a crisis the types of things that people should have universal access to. So in my view, contact tracing only works to the extent it is ubiquitous in the population, no different than insurance only works when there's sufficient uptake in the population, no different than access to the healthcare system requires not only a share of hospital beds per capita that is befitting of a population facing mass casualty risks, irrespective of the cause, but also that there's functional personnel on the other side with the right material. We should not negate the supply chain shocks that the COVID crisis has invoked as well. And then, you know, to other points, right? We as a country have put $5.5 trillion down a taxpayer down payment that will forgo many a retirement as a deposit on the future. And I think to merely argue for building back the way it was before this would in my view be a big disservice to the healthcare providers that have been fighting on the frontline, the scientific and medical community that have been fighting on the frontline and the emergency management and other communities that are very much the human shields trying to guard against any semblance of normalcy returning and fighting this crisis back to the shadows from whence it came. So I think, yes, staffing adequately is a key part of the puzzle, but also creating mandates that are evergreen is a key part of the puzzle, right? So many of the government entities, and I don't wanna speak out of turn, but FEMA being one example, are answering blue sky emergencies for which they were not geared to address. So we gotta not only ask questions of, do we have the right institutions with the right people with the right mandates? Risk is an evergreen issue, but the United States, like many governments around the world, we fund risk on an ad hoc basis. We don't accrue. Resilience accrues. Levy's built three feet taller in New Orleans provide three additional feet of protection. And as a country against an array of complex risks of which the pandemic is just the latest to hit us, we don't necessarily have a national strategy for how to address comprehensively as a society or what these risks looks like and nor have we empowered every aspect of our government to address that. So one of the points we asked for very specifically in the report to Micah is should there be a chief risk officer as a cabinet level function in the federal government? And again, that's where staffing does start to meet some of the requirement, but I think it goes deeper than that. It's also about the mandate of those organizations. And critically, I think creating skin in the game so that resilience begins at the household level and then works its way up through communities and eventually in the aggregate, it improves the state of play for the country. Sandy, I want your help on this because Dante raises a really critical point. We are now gonna spend trillions and trillions of dollars and we are putting that money in too many cases into pipes that are broken and we know they're broken. We know the systems that we are relying on to fix these problems aren't what they should be. We had a great question come in and I'd encourage all of you in the audience to continue submitting questions through the chat about benefits and specifically the food system and how we can do a better job of getting nutrition to people. I know you've done a lot of work around public benefits and how to build better systems for public benefits. What are some of the key changes that we need to be thinking about? And the prosperity collaborative, we've worked a lot on taxation and how you get taxation systems to function more effectively. And I'm gonna ask Kiera about that in a moment. But on the benefits side, what can we do to hopefully not just push all of these resources into broken pipes? Well, I think there's been some discussion about individualism versus collective good. Contact tracing is an example of something like this. One of the problems is that most people aren't literate about the sort of things that data say, how to read it. You see these crazy debates in national news where it's just people clearly don't understand the very basics of what it means to make decisions based on data, to build systems that are sustainable, that can deal with dynamic things. And that's got to start in kindergarten and it's got to go for the legislators and it's got to be everything in between. Most of our institutions are built on this sort of static view, the way it is now we have to maintain it. So it's homeostasis. In fact, the world changes and we don't have a mindset to do those sorts of things. So I think data about what's actually happening in real time that everybody agrees is pretty solid data. So that has to be transparent, accountable, continually audited, literacy to understand what it means and how we read it. Those are fundamentals to a lot of this stuff. If you take the example of food, there's an example where we've done actually better than you might have thought because the food system was so oriented to particular things that when the pandemic hit, it broke and people turned off the AI systems, turned off the optimization things and did it by hand and we're able to at least sort of cover things, right? It's not great, but they're able to cover things. It's this notion of not building risk into it. The system was just over optimized and there were these hidden points in the system that were singular points of failure and now it's shown up. So this mindset of looking at things as dynamic systems, that it's not just stability and optimization, it's resilience that you need to design for. Everybody has to be, all the stakeholders have to be able to see, comment, raise red flags. It has to be a distributed system, not a centralized system. It's going to be different in one state versus the next state because the population distribution is different, education level is different, the needs are different in various ways. So again, it's this sort of idea that we need to have distributed systems that learn from each other, that cooperate with each other in real time, using people that know what's happening, so literacy all the way down. I think you're not going to get things that really work until you have that. So Kiara, with the prosperity collaborative, the bank and a number of our organizations have stepped forward and recognized that types of systems Sandy is describing don't build themselves. These are actually pretty challenging to put together in the right way. And many countries and governments around the world lack the capacity to do all of this work on their own. It is not a simple thing as we are finding with the track and trace work that Susan is involved in to start from the ground up and build really high quality structures. So we're looking at how you can use open source technology what are called digital public goods to create easily shareable infrastructure that can be adapted by many different governments around the world to meet the specific needs of their community, but still hardwire in very high levels of accountability, efficiency, transparency, the things that citizens need to have in order to trust technology solutions. What do you think is going to be important to getting some of these solutions off the ground? Are digital public goods and our open source tools going to be viable for addressing some of the tough challenges that we'll face in public finance and benefits in some of the areas that we've been talking about today as we move forward and what are the steps that government should be taking now if they wanna rely on those types of tools going forward? Thank you, Tomiak, a lot of questions. So let me first start with saying that... Kiarra, we just lost you, unfortunately. I think you slipped back on the mute somehow. There we go, yeah. No, let me just say that the World Bank has issued an approach paper which is about building back and better. And the better part is indeed about resilience. I think what is the essence of the approach is to putting the people at the center, human beings at the center. And I think it talks to also Susan and Dante and Sandy, all the resources that have been now made available but not necessarily leading us to long-term investments. Equally for developing countries, we do need, unfortunately, if they did not, what I was saying before, they had a sufficient investment in human capital education and health, basic health that ensures that citizens are in good health and able to learn, there are still the elite that will benefit for any innovation that we can put in the system. This is just something that we need to reflect. So, and this is, I think, it's valid. There is a lot of debate we see now even in advanced economies. In Southern Europe, there is another one. The children are too close in another one. Sounds like you're an expert consultant there in the background. Yes. One of the concerns is the future generations. I'd like to remind this before we go into, you know, how we address institutions because it's about also how institution thinks across. So the resilience is dynamic. It's not static, I think, what we said. Now, coming back to our, some of our developing countries and some of our interventions. In a situation where countries have to react to the health crisis and then also the economic crisis and also working as a social distancing, in many cases working from home, where there is no infrastructure or very limited access to IT infrastructure, even if you have the, say, optical fiber. So the hardware, not necessarily the last mile is served. Let me remind everybody. So, and that's what we have learned a lot at the bank as well that we really need to, our programs have to take care of all this. So the hardware, but also how you bring it to the last mile. And that's very challenging and sometimes also controversial and requires resources. But one of the things coming from a fiscal policy group that looks also at these fiscal sustainability of these countries that have to face now, all these challenges, revenues is an important and tax administration business continuity is important because how do these in limited capacity with not so much connectivity available? We are really looking at how to support tax administration to maintain business continuity. It's not that easy. So we see that some, now we see that some governments have a regret that did not advance some of the digital reforms of their administrations because now they see that they could have actually enabled their officers actually to reach out, either improve compliance through access to services online or also being able to work together. So, but again, let me emphasize and I think Susan said very clearly, what we know is that digital technology doesn't take us very far if there's no system in place. So what we found that we also have dealing with tax administration that have been able to distribute computers to their tax collectors or auditors but because of the lack of trust and because of the lack of organization of the institution, people may be sitting at home not having a clear program. So number one, what we find is you need a squat team like in any crisis, it's institutional. So I'm talking now about tax administration. Basically you need to reorganize and rethink the business processes and it needs to be done fairly quickly. And I think where we have been some success is in Central Asia because we're very active working together but we had ongoing relationship. Let me also emphasize that. We're not building from scratch, going in like we were back as a squat team there was an ongoing program that were ongoing reforms. And so that was a trust between them and us that helped us to suggest some ideas. We're also looking at, sorry, I'm digressing, not digressing. I'm taking a little bit of distance in digital technology because we have realized that if there is lack of trust in the system and if there was not a solid functioning system so the conceptualization and the business processes are not clear, accountability, responsibility, focus on results, but also on citizens engagement and because this is really between tax payers and tax collector, even with the most beautiful digital technology, you're not going to achieve a lot. The only example that I can think of right now if there is a PhD student, she's carrying out some pilot testing in Uganda but because there is a political will from the Uganda tax administration to raise revenues to broaden the base in fact, because it's a very narrow. And through the use of satellite data they have been able to identify economic operators that were completely in the informal economy and they've been able to identify them. But there was also the incentive of the political will of the government to pursue and to ensure that these operators moving in the informal sector had to come back to the formalities. So, sorry, I'm taking a bit long but I want to explain that it's- There's a lot of ground to cover a certain way. Yes. And one of the points, go ahead, sorry. No, I just want to give a sense that the complexity that there's not a solution is a system and that has to work together and a willingness so a political commitment to also achieve results. That is what we observe even now in the crisis is even more important to communicate that message and that commitment and also to clarify what are the ultimate results. We just published, we're just working on a paper on tax compliance with Will Pritchett and again, exploring these issues of trust and how to improve compliance. And this is irrespective of the level of the development of the countries. We are really trying to do it across and hopefully we'll have more time to explore it at another occasion. So, two points that have come in from the audience, Dante and Susan and I'm going to start with Dante and then we'll go to Susan. Dante, you mentioned this idea of a chief risk officer and can you go into a little bit more detail on what that would look like. And then the other point that Chiara was speaking to is this idea of optionality that you need to have different solutions available so that when something fails, you've got some backups in place and people will trust those backups. Can you spend a couple of minutes on those and then we'll go to Susan. Sure, well, yeah, I mean, look, the chief risk officer concept at a national scale is something I actually thought of back in 2015. Where when you think about the cabinet structure around our current administration or any administration in the United States has leadership for kinetic events in the form of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense, leadership for traditional economic events and long-term economic viability and competitiveness. And then every other leader around the table is not necessarily looking at risks that would be shouldered by the taxpayer, i.e. public sector economic risks that for whom we have a fiduciary obligation as a country to ensure these are pre-funded strategically. And so what ends up happening as is the case with COVID-19, you have a massive event that puts the economy off kilter. We have very little private sector mechanisms which I characterize as market failures for how to fund them. And then invariably we turn to inflationary tactics to offset the cost. And those things then short change us when it comes to public infrastructure, education and a range of public investments that require fiduciary obligations and responsibility. So I think part of the role of a chief risk officer at a national level would be to identify those risks, characterize them and then strategically figure out how to fund them in a blended manner so that it's part public, part private or that it's blended and we start to manage them strategically. The question of optionality, anybody listening to today's panel, think about the things that you cannot currently do with technology that you ought to be able to. Like Susan, I don't believe that technology is a panacea, but boy, isn't it nice to be able to have access to funds and instant messaging in a situation where going outside represents a public health risk. We're all faced with a type of Hippocratic decision-making as citizens that are typically relegated to doctors. And so in that environment, the inability to cast a vote at scale using technology, pay people at scale using technology, all of these types of things would increase optionality as a country and therefore increase resilience and not necessarily compete with the existing systems. It's the lack of optionality that is making us vulnerable right now. Sandy, you had a quick two finger. Yeah, so this notion of a chief risk officer, one of the things that's most frustrating to me recently is you talk to our intelligence services and they know who's attacking our infrastructure, but they cannot require commerce or anybody else or the private sector to respond to this. And as a consequence, we get these data breaches, we get all sorts of attacks because there's this lack of cooperation between things. And you see that down at the individual level which has to do with trust. For instance, contact tracing only works if you can also do quarantine. But we have no tradition of doing quarantine in this country, at least not for probably most of the century. And similarly with many of the other sort of risks that we face, it's not just the institutions, it has to be the people that understand that they have to work together in order to be able to achieve a better life. Well, and that's a great segue, Susan, into the question that came from the audience that I want to put to you. There is, I think, a search right now for better models for solving these problems. And specifically the question was on regional models for public-private resilience partnerships. Some of the examples that were highlighted in the question were the Broad Institute which is working on COVID response in Massachusetts or the recovery.net initiative. But what do you see as the promising templates that we might want to look to either at a regional level or at a national or local level that to Sandy's point are bringing together all of the right actors to address these challenges in a way that we really haven't been able to do successfully thus far. Yeah, thanks for the question. It's interesting because I think long-term resilience comes with ecosystem solutions. And by that, I mean, we tend to solve, think about solving problems with one core stakeholder as opposed to bringing together each of the different necessary constituents to drive change. And the models that we're really excited about are bringing together parties that haven't worked together in the past, technology companies with life sciences companies, public sector with transportation organizations. We're now looking at private sector organizations who've never thought about healthcare but have infrastructure and cold chain management who now might help support the vaccine distribution program. So there's a whole host of innovation that's being forced upon us by this crisis and that becomes a really exciting map for how to drive change. And I think the question is getting at it, is there something that's working so well that we should replicate it? And I think the answer is those leaders that are stepping back from their own self-interest and looking at the broader community they serve are the best paradigms of progress, I think, for us. And I mentioned earlier this concept of incentives and we really have to look very, very deeply at the incentives for cooperation and collaboration across sectors, across stakeholder groups, how we're allocating those vast federal resources, how we're allocating the state resources, how private sector organizations are being incented in the near term and the longer term to create some of this infrastructure that we're talking about. I love the chief risk officer concept because to me it elevates this idea that risk is universal and ongoing but our resiliency comes from planning. And I think here we are all very focused on the concept of bio resiliency, kind of the near and longer term things that we can do to help us fight this and future bio and health related threats but the resiliency comes from the platforms, the infrastructure, the collaboration and the intersection of incentives and human behavior to drive that change. So that's what we see working. It's a little bit nonspecific. There's some specific examples. I love the Broad Institute example that you mentioned over a million tests deployed already at very low cost to those who are using them, faster and run times, high accuracy and they're only gonna get even better over time. But that example is a unique one because it's leveraging the thought capital and the intellectual infrastructure of a higher ed organization. And so what we need to do is take some of those organizations that can perform at scale based on an altruistic model and build bridges to those that aren't trying to function in a for profit model, giving them some of the same community and collaborative goals. Let me talk to you. That's a great point. And I think Susan, your overarching comment about the need to move beyond the individual interests of leaders as we solve these challenges has been so crucial. If you look back at the evolution of successful institutions over time, that's one of the real common themes is people are willing to step back and build for the long term. Sadly, it's not something that is very common in the current political dynamics of many countries around the world, but certainly something that we need to push for going forward. We are nearing the bottom of the hour and with that, we are all going to turn into pumpkins. But before we do, I wanna give each of you one wish. Which is that if you were to have a single wish, a single thing you could change to move societies toward this goal of greater resilience, what is that going to be? What is the thing that if you had your druthers, you would shift in order to help us land in a better place? Some of you, I realize, think about this question all day long every day. And Kiarra, I'm assuming you are one of those. So I'm gonna start with you. But what is the one thing that you would suggest we all take away from this conversation as an action item that governments and societies need to do differently going forward if we're gonna get ahead of this problem? Well, I think it's really thinking about long term sustainable growth. So stop thinking short term. And when I say sustainable and inclusive. So now I'm capturing, as a lot of the mentioned that we all discussed now, but that is the end at the foundation again is the human capital side that we need to think about. And that's what I really like. I will continue to work on this. Thank you. Thank you. Sandy. Yeah, so my recommendation is a little paradoxical. It's to empower communities to manage their future. And the reason is that first of all, the circumstances are different, but more importantly, if communities are empowered to manage their future, the citizens will become more engaged in the discussion about what to do. And that's really the key. People have to understand why they're doing it, what it's for, what they have to sacrifice and what they get for it. And that's where you point out where sustainable growth is important, where you point out the disparities in public health, where you point out things like that. And it's the community's responsibility to put global resources together to address it. So we have to provide the resources to empower communities to manage themselves. Fantastic. Susan. So I think my hope would be that the most profitable, exciting, sexy career in the world would be to solve our public health problems for the people most in need. And I think if we put the incentives behind the innovation, it will happen. Dante, I realize that the obvious answer from you is to read the report. And hopefully everyone will do that. And once they do that, that'll solve all of our problems. But in addition to reading the Great Correction, what suggestion would you have for our viewers today? Yeah, I mean, I would say my one wish is in the spirit of not letting a good crisis go to waste is that we all recall our better ideals. The motto, e pluribus unum out of many one, this is a solidarity moment. There are many, many, many millions of people that don't enjoy any of the luxuries we've just had. We have to ensure that this crisis is not in vain. And on the other side of it, we come out better off. Well, on that note, we thank all of you for bringing us closer to that goal over the course of this conversation. Again, the report is the Great Correction. It is on the website of the Digital Impact and Governance Initiative at New America. We encourage you all to download and read it if you haven't already. Sandy, Chiara, Susan, Dante, a pleasure and a privilege talking with all of you. And we look forward to seeing your good work lead us toward greater resilience in the months to come. Thank you. And we'll see you all again next time here on Transformation. Thank you.