 People will die today because they can't access public health. It isn't there for them. And meanwhile, the wealth of billionaires increases. In India, I know a woman there called Pratima. She lost her twins very recently because her local clinic didn't have medicine, didn't have a doctor. But that's a country where billionaires have increased for the last decade, doubled. But it's also the country with one of the lowest investments in health. Pratima's children didn't have to die at birth. So we are in a world where governments do not tax wealth enough, do not tax the rich enough. They allow them to dodge. They are paying their fair share of taxes. And in the meantime, public services are crumbling, health and education in rich and in poor countries alive. And that's definitely something that we're going to talk about in this conversation when we talk about some action-oriented approaches. But first, I'd like to turn to you, Bob, because you are running one of the world's largest auditing consulting firms. You're on a panel right now on a social revolution. Tell us, where does business fit into this equation? How do you see businesses' role in combating inequality? I think business has a huge role to play in battling the issues that we're going to be talking about today. And the reason for that is, as you look at the last 20, 30 years, two phenomenons have happened. First, the business community acknowledges and I think are becoming more acknowledging of stakeholders, the communities in which they're operating in, the climate change issues that they're actually dealing with, and the responsibility that they have to be part of that solution. The second phenomenon is that the world is now their judge and jury. Artificial intelligence, social media, and the like gives the world a voice. Where in the past, you didn't have that opportunity. So as they think about their brand, as they think about their reputation, as they think about their sustainability, they've also got to be much more conscious of that voice. That is the world that they are living in and the world that Winnie just talked about in terms of the challenges that are there and the role that they play within it. And I want to ask you, perhaps, throughout this conversation, if that corporate social responsibility is going far enough, and how you might be able to push that forward, especially in your role consulting many of these companies. But first, I'd like to turn to you, Amitab, because you're running the Indian government's policy think tank. You are essentially the planners of India's economy. I mean, and this is a country where you see such extremes. I mean, you see the very wealthy. You see the very poor in your country. How do you see the prospects of closing the wealth gap in India? My belief is that governments need to focus on nutrition, health, education. But for all these to deliver, you need more of technology and not less of technology. Classic example is of India, where every Indian today has biometric. Every Indian today has a mobile and every Indian today has a bank account. Between 2014 and 17, Indian government ensured that every family has a bank account. 55% of the bank accounts opened across the world were in India. What this has enabled India to do is to put direct benefit transfer straight into the accounts of people. And therefore, what technology has enabled to do is leakages to end. A huge amount of benefits have flown to poor people, and there's been a massive emphasis on nutrition, health, and education. Just to give you an example, we are tracking students across the board using longitudinal and latitudinal methodology, much like you track Uber today. So you are able to assess the learning outcomes, which is a huge challenge in India. Learning outcomes and you are able to focus on students who are performing weekly in maths or physics. And similarly, on the health, we've rolled out the biggest scheme called the Ayushma and Bharat, where we've linked up 150,000 primary healthcare centers with the district hospitals where specialists are available and they're all linked digitally. But close to 500 million Indians today have been provided health insurance care, which is more than the population of USA, Europe, and Mexico put together. So my belief is governments must focus on nutrition, health, and education, use more of technology. That is what is going to be the differentiator between making people live, living below the poverty line, cross-poverty lines. You know, Oxfam's methodology is questionable, but my belief is highly questionable. But they have a very major point that governments must focus, must focus on its issues, which will make a radical difference to people below poverty. And to your point, just to point out for our viewers, in fact, Oxfam recently said that inequality is increasing in your country, something like more than 70% of the population, excuse me, 70% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the population. So perhaps we can talk a little bit more in the conversation about how we leverage that. Winnie, I could see you want to jump in here, but first I'm going to go to Hillary because she hasn't had an opportunity to talk yet. And Hillary, you actually wrote the article from which we got our title today, A Fourth Social Revolution. It's a topic that you've really been focusing on. Also, when you're working with families who are reliant on social benefits, what inspired you to take on this cause? And what is a fourth social revolution? What's the vision? So I think I work in communities. I've worked in communities across the world, but the last 10 years in the UK, with many, many people for whom it's really obvious that the brilliant welfare systems that we designed after the Second World War no longer work because they have health conditions which can't be met because we've got aging populations because the world of work is changing so fast. What's really clear is that in every industrial revolution we have a social revolution. And actually what's also really important to Winnie's point is that there is always a moment with every industrial revolution where inequality grows, where there's a financial bubble and there's trouble. I mean, we had the huge recession of the 1930s. And then what happens is that we have to design a social revolution because without that, it's not just, this is not just an argument about how corporate should do good. Without the social revolution, in fact the industrial revolution keeps misfiring. We can't make the transition to the new economy. We don't have healthy, skilled workforce. We don't have consumers earning at the level that can demand the goods of the next industrial revolution. But I think also the critical point, which is why I'm so glad we're debating this today, is that this does not happen by accident. It happens by design and it needs different sectors to come together, communities, corporate sector, government. The state also has a really critical role to play in designing the new architecture because without that others can't come in. And that's why we really need to, well, we need to think about it. And then I hope we can move to this. We need to roll up our sleeves and we need to get going on designing the architecture so we can make the transition. And, Subey, I'm curious to hear if you agree with Hillary's assessment because as an academic, you also have this historical perspective on the trends currently at play right now, in the current ecosystem. And typically when you have seen advancements in technology, you've also seen advancements in prosperity, advancements in health. I mean, is that the track that you see us on right now? And if not, how do we get there? So good morning, everybody, and thank you. Sarah, I think the moment is a tale of two cities, right? The best of times and the worst of times. And we've seen some of the contrasting facts, all of which are true, and they may even relate to one time and place, India, today. But that's just a microcosm for the world at large. And Hillary's point about the institutions that got us here seem to be quite fragile. That's why we meet in Davos. That's why we have these conversations because institutions are social innovations. They are social technologies. And we're trying to innovate those social technologies as well, and Hillary's very, very right. I quite agree with the points that she's made. My own sense on this, Sarah, is that technology is an incredible boon, incredible from our eyeglasses to the shuttles that we take to come here, let alone AGI or something like this. So I don't think we can... I mean, technology is a tool and a method or technique. Lean manufacturing is a technology. It's incredible. And what does technology give us? Productivity, protection, pleasure, power, and today even personhood. The biometric system that he talks about in India makes people respected, identified. So technology is an incredible thing. Second point, it's dual use. It's always been dual use. All technology is dual use. But how do you see the impact on inequality? So the question then is, how would we use the technologies? Not whether technology is good or bad. Don't forget, Sarah, society itself, we talk about social revolution, society itself is a technology. It's a technology to manage our independence. So how we use technology is a big thing. And if you look at the countries with the highest well-being, usually it's the Nordic countries. They are among the highest adopters and developers of technology. So the problem is not technology. Inequality is not high in the Nordic region. We know that if we believe the statistics. So let's talk more about, so why does that happen and why is the Nordic situation not reproduced in other places? And there again, government and business and civil society, we need all of these voices. Absolutely, and let's get those voices acting right now because one of the conversations that's come up this week here at the World Economic Forum is a sort of new type of capitalism. And Bob, with your connections to big business, perhaps I can start with you. What do you see as capitalism's excesses and what opportunities do you see to sort of get it on the right track in order to deal with the inequality that we are facing in the fourth industrial revolution? So I think as you look at what we've experienced and the outcomes that have come from it, it's clear that we have had a tremendous amount of benefit, but we've left a lot of people behind. And again, that's something of a theme that we've had here in Davos. You think about billions of people that have come out of poverty, but that's done nothing for the people that are still in poverty. And as I said earlier, that social media aspect actually gives a tremendous amount of transparency to that and creates a tremendous amount of opportunity to voice the frustration. So the question becomes what does business government and the local communities do about it? The business community sees, I think, three opportunities. One is how do I help governments actually create the infrastructure to allow for technology to enable connectivity and accessibility to information, to trade, to education, to healthcare, nutrition, and the like, as was said earlier in the panel. The second thing is how can I actually leverage those platforms to deliver those goods and services so they're accessible to even those that are in the public deliverals and the like more effectively, more efficiently, with quicker and better access? But I want to come out of the other way, which is how do we actually leverage technology to make sure that people have opportunity for jobs as well as opportunity to retain jobs and be fit for purpose as you look forward? And this goes back to what are we doing in the education system to actually skill the people of the future and the people of today to say, are we fit for purpose? Is that the responsibility of the corporations or of the government? Well, that's where I was going to go because the reality is, when you look at the education systems in the world, they're not moving fast enough to change. What's happening is the business community is saying, you know what, I need to do something. In a recent survey that we just did at the CEOs, we do it every year here at Davos, 46% of the people that we surveyed, the CEO said, I can't find the right skills, therefore I've got to do something about it. And they're actually going after reskilling and putting programs in place to do that, as well as then work with the local community leaders to dedicate time, money and resource to help educate and work together with those local teachers. But then go to those teachers, those deans, those presidents and school leaders in the local communities, and wherever to actually change the curriculum. So education, a very important factor for reasons which you have just illustrated. But the reality is, is that the economy is not working for enough people, as you've also highlighted. And one of the ideas that has come up in this idea of new capitalism is a universal basic income. Our audience here, you've been weighing in on this. And in fact, we see here that 61% of you do not support a universal basic income. This would be essentially a minimum wage for people who might be displaced. It turns out that the majority of our panel also doesn't agree with it. And Winnie, I'd just like you to perhaps weigh in because you've called for a more human centered economy, an economy which values people over profits. How do you see us getting there? You see, we now talk a lot about the fourth industrial revolution and technology and technological change. I'm as excited as everybody else about technological change and the possibilities of living in a decarbonized world, of having health and working less. But the truth is that we are now in an economy that is really rigged in such a way that a few get better off and many others don't. With this kind of extreme inequality, many will remain stuck in poverty and technological change isn't going by itself to change their lives. The World Bank tells us that the rate at which poverty was reducing has slowed and continues to slow. 3.4 billion people are just a crop failure away or a medical bill away from falling back into extreme poverty because they are at about $5.5 a day. So, and it's not difficult to see why it's like that. It's like that because rich companies, rich people have been able to write the rules of the economy so that they are winners and others are losers. So we have to get governments to get behind managing the economies better. And that means, one, taxing those who create wealth, taxing them so that there is space, fiscal space to pay for health, for education, for social protection of people. Right now in the rich countries themselves, you're seeing austerity that is pushing what should be care services provided by the state onto women. So women are pulling out of work to take care of the sick, of elderly, of disabled people. This is because governments have sat back and are not doing their job and are allowing a few to take away the bulk of the wealth. So my point is that universal basic income can be a way to do some social distribution, yes. But ultimately what we need is that wealth is generated in such a way that most people participate in its generation, in its production and also have time to have leisure. Absolutely, I see a lot of hands. But first I wanna get to Amitabh just really quickly because he's our policymaker on the panel. Is that something that you have in mind when you're making policy in India? I mean, do you envision more of a state steered capitalism where you do have a higher tax rate, for example, for the wealthy in your country? Or what is your vision? So you need a series of policy measures. One of the key things to my mind is to ensure that resources flow far more efficiently to make an impact to the lives of people living below poverty line. And technology today enables you to do that. India was used to be a very highly inefficient country, only 15% of the resources of men for the poor used to reach them. Through the direct benefit transfer, which we now do using the biometric methodology, money goes straight into the bank account because you open bank accounts for poor people, straight into the bank account, 70% of them have been opened in the names of women in India, go straight into their bank account. And therefore, leakages, what technology is enabled is biometric is enabled, mobile telephony is enabled, that leakages vanish from India. They've completely vanished in 500 schemes of India where money goes straight into the bank accounts. But let's talk about tax though. Yeah, let me, see, I'm not a great believer that excessive degree of tax creates huge amount of distortions. I'm a great believer that oxfam loves fancies and idolizes poverty. You know, it's, you know, no, no, let me question. I think they're trying to. So my belief is, to a great extent, my belief is that you need to put a huge massive difference to the lives of people through education, through health, through nutrition. Now how do you make an impact? You make an impact through technology. But can I ask you that? In terms of tracking women, you know, if one in two women are anemic, how do you do this? We are doing an aspirational district program where we are actually tracking the performance of 115 backward districts of India through 49 indicators of health, education, and nutrition. Create a sense of competition amongst them. If you create a sense of competition, all of them are competing. You're putting their ranking in public domain. Good governance becomes good politics. And you are naming and shaming those who are not performing well. So what you are actually doing is putting the resources in a far more efficient manner through technology. Hillary, I'm going to give you a chance to respond, Winnie will get to your interview. Yeah, I mean, I have so much to say, I'm not quite sure where to come in on, but... Like, what? I always want to jump in. I know, but one thing I want to say is that I actually also want to move the conversation up a level, because for me, the concept of the fourth social revolution is about flourishing for all. So I really take Winnie's points about inequality. But I also think it's, you know, we're here because, you know, WEF is committed to improving the state of the world. And what I want to say is that at the moment, this world is not functioning for anybody, actually. We have problems of huge inequality, but at the affluent end, we also have huge challenges of stress, of, you know, chronic conditions. The point is that things are not working and that we're at this kind of very, very difficult moment. And so I'm not really interested in conversations that are about, oh, you know, we've got these health systems, how can we get a few more people into them? I'm interested in a conversation which is that actually these systems are not working and that we cannot keep having this conversation about how we get a few more people with the exam certificates. You're talking about this, Bob. We need a different form of learning. We need a system that is based around core capabilities for absolutely everybody in this century to flourish and take part. And, you know, around learning, around being part of community, of having the relationships, because, you know, one of the key points that Winnie is addressing is inequality. But inequality is not just about money. It's about who you know more and more. You know, your path to good education, to a good job, is relational. And these are things that the current systems can't even see. Your technology is not even going to measure that. We have to have a fundamental revolution. Bob, Winnie. You asked the question of Winnie around the taxation system. And obviously, having spent a little bit of time in that space for us, it is clear that the taxation systems that we have had in place are old, outdated, and not fit for this future. And the reality is the governments that have set them up, have set them up, A, for protectionism, in terms of how to then send people to actually come to their countries and operate within their countries. And second, basically being for what I'll call the third revolution, not the fourth. So as we step back, we actually have to rethink. You mean everybody's desperate to pay more taxes, but the systems aren't there, so they can't. No, no, no, the reality is we want to pay, we want to pay our fair share of taxes, but the reality is the tax laws and regulations that we have today are absolutely antiquated and not fit for the multiple stakeholders that we have to actually focus on as we've created them from way back when. Bob, you're right, and I'm hopeful when I hear a CEO of a business saying this, admitting that we have a tax system that's full of loopholes that's not fit for purpose for a digital economy. And this conversation has to be about, how do we pay for those services that are so important for people living in poverty, but also for economies to thrive? You can't have a thriving economy without healthy people, well-educated workforce, rule of law, infrastructure, and all these, we have to pay them with tax. And my point is the role of governments here, because in 1970, the top income tax rate was around 62%. Today, 2013, it was down to about 38%. In poor countries, it's even as low as 20%. So we have seen rich people and rich companies negotiating themselves out of the tax bracket. And the result is that public services are collapsing. Having technology is just not enough. Technology isn't going to solve a problem of not having the resources to plow into infrastructure and people. We've been talking about technology. We've been talking about education. We've been talking about taxation. And I just wanna make sure that we also don't forget one point that has been brought up in this whole idea of new capitalism. And that is that our economies are going to increasingly be data-driven. And who owns that data? How is it monetized? How is it leveraged? With that, I'd like to turn to you Amitabh, because how do you envision that? Because wouldn't data ownership, owning your own personal data be an incredible opportunity for the people in your country living in rural areas, perhaps working in agriculture? If they could monetize that, couldn't it help lift them out of poverty? So let me first say that in India, we tax the rich quite heavily. We tax quite heavily, but the governments across developing countries work in a very, very inefficient manner. And therefore, the usage of technology can radically transfer this. We've seen this transformation through the Aadhar biometric system. We've seen this happening by monitoring learning outcomes. We've seen this happening through digital methodology of tracking all 49 indicators and creating a huge sense of competition on a real-time data basis. That is what is needed. Real-time tracking of every single animic woman, real-time tracking of every single stranded children, this is what is required today. So it's efficiency, it's better governance, it's better focus on nutrition, education, and health, and putting resources into digital connectivity between the primary health centers and the district hospitals. Let us not... So my belief is that you need more of technology, not less of technology to transform. But how to make the gap between how that benefits, though, the people? If you efficiently use technology, you really transform in a very basic manner the lives of citizens because you're monitoring, you're ensuring better implementation, you're doing away with more leakages, and so on. But let me come back to your basic issue about data. I mean, your government will ultimately control that data, no? No. So data, to my mind, data is the data of the individual's citizens. That is the data. The data belongs to you and me, not to the government. And that needs... We need to create a data marketplace for individuals to work on. Thank you for clarifying. And that's my belief, that data does not belong to the government. Like it doesn't belong, to my view, Google and Facebook. In China, it shouldn't belong to Tencent and Alibaba. In India, the data... But India has created a very different model from the Western world or the Chinese world. We have created public entities who are responsible. So Aadhar is a public entity. GST is a public entity of data of taxes. Aishwan Bharat is a public entity of health data. Data belongs to the individual, but we've allowed data to go out into the marketplaces where private sector can come and innovate, where academicians and research can come and innovate and do more intellectual work around data. But data belongs to individuals and not to governments and not to private entities. Subi, Wayan. So my sense is there's a lot of talk about the government, and I think government is really important, but if you look at trust, trust in government has been declining. Despite all of, now it would have declined even more if the government hadn't been doing the kinds of things that Amitabh was talking about. So let's be clear on the counterfactual. Going back to the point, inequality is not the issue. It's concentration. Height differences are... What's the difference? Height differences are highly unequal. We don't go and say let's control height inequality. Let's reduce that or weight inequality. It is concentration of wealth that leads to concentration of power and how that power is used, whether by government or by wealthy companies or individuals. And when it is misused, that's when trust goes down. My big point is that government requires enterprises to step in. This challenge that we face in this century, the 21st century, has to involve enterprises enabling and engaging. And there are three challenges, Sarah. One is what I call the aspiration challenge. A second is the adjustment challenge. And the third is the authority challenge. The aspiration challenge is what are we going to use technology for? We are moving from an economy focused on output to an economy that should focus on outcomes. The outcomes we care about are fairness, well-being, expanded humanity. If we are not able to make that transition, we will not trust technology. Let me just finish, let me just finish. The adjustment challenge is really about how do we take this human capital, both within firms and outside firms, the youth, women, elderly workers, and of course, the others who may not be included already in the market economy. How do we adjust without enterprises engaging on the adjustment thing? As Bob talked about, we're not going to be able to make it. All the government programs are not going to be enough. Education and skills are two different things. And we focus too much on education, too little is like food or hunger versus nutrition. They are not the same thing we now realize. And thirdly, on the authority challenge, what do we want machines to do? Whose data is it? How will AI, will AGI be artificial general intelligence or artificial good intelligence? Companies need to focus on these things and then we can get trust back and then we can have more people flourishing. So you're putting the ball basically in the enterprise. Enterprise, absolutely. Bob, I'd just like to ask you if that's fair, because you also know the realities, for example, that CEOs deal with when it comes to their shareholders who expect them to create value, generate revenue for the companies. So how do you balance that? And what do you see as that relation between the government's role and the enterprises role in dealing with inequality? Let me try to bridge a couple of things that have been said so far. If you go back to this trust issue, decades ago, people looked up and saw individuals with power, authority and leadership responsibilities in government or business and inherently said, they have information. We call it data today. Information and the question is, are they going to do the right thing? We have more transparency now and more evidence that in fact we've got examples that it doesn't happen as much as we wanted to. Second thing they did, those individuals with that power, they would actually help the masses. And now with more transparency, we don't see that. We've got inequality, in fact, the richer getting richer, the poorer getting poorer. And number three, when they looked up and saw that individual, they said, with hard work, a little bit of luck, I can get there. And today, they don't. They don't see that opportunity, again, with transparency. So the point around trust is, how do we actually think about what in fact is going to regain that? Now let's talk about the revolutionary side for a second. These individuals now have voice. Are we using voices to actually make the changes that we want in those leaders? Now I want to come back to your point around the enterprise, either political or corporate. Today, we argue that the business community isn't doing enough, but the reality is the investors that supposedly have an interest in environmental, social responsibilities, community responsibilities, and the longevity of their digital skillsets, do they see them doing the right things? Are they voicing that opinion with, I'm not going to invest in that company anymore. I'm not going to stay there anymore. Likewise, in the politicians that are not doing the job, are we voicing with enough revolution, the voice to say, get them out and get somebody else into the mix? So again, if you want to talk about the revolution, hopefully it's a peaceful one, let's make sure that we are using the voices that we have more to affect the changes we're talking about. Well, it will be peaceful if we get going. I think that's the point. And so, I mean, one of the things that I think is really important is that the state is the head gardener. You know, like, after the Second World War, the state created the operating framework and then we had the United Nations, we had welfare states, we had a trade union movement and so on. So it is time, and actually this happens in every industrial revolution, eventually the state has to step back in. And in my book Radical Help, I propose a new operating system for this century. And as you know, Sarah, my work is to actually build these new systems. I mean, that's what my day job is, actually creating new welfare systems. And they do rely on technology because we don't only have new problems in this century, we have massive abundance, which is people that want to get involved if we design, by which I mean people in corporates, you know, citizens, as you're talking about voices everywhere, if we design systems with the grain of people's lives, they want to help others and they want to be involved. And so in the work I do, I use technology actually to subvert in a peaceful way the way that we're currently thinking about how we find work, how we support people with chronic conditions, how we challenge issues such as demographic challenges, aging, migration, so on. What are the lessons learned from that that can then be taken away, you know, from people who are doing their own work perhaps here? So I think that the first thing is that something that is very powerful is that in all the solutions that I design, everybody joins in. So I have, for instance, enterprises that support people into work and most importantly, to progress and work because in the UK, anybody can find a low-paid job. What you can't do is progress out of that job. And so, for instance, I create communities where people in work, out of work, and in between join together. And through that, and through simple facilitated exercises, and people want to join, of all walks of life, for different reasons, which we don't have time to get into, but they do want to join, people make the connections and take the next step and move on. Now, the traditional way of running our welfare systems is to say we've got these massive problems, we've got very little resource, we need to keep everybody out and try and find, as you're all suggesting at Yamatab, who are the people that most need it? But technology enables us to completely turn that on its head and say, look, what is most important is that everybody joins in, we need these relationships, we need these connections to each other, whether it's as citizens or business, entrepreneurs. And so what we can do is we can use those platforms and the more people who join, the more effective they are, the more relationships, the more opportunities. So for instance, with an employment service, I can have a small team of four, I can use existing technology, mobile phones, CRM systems, a community of 2,000 people in each place, it costs one-fifth of any existing approach and is six times as successful. So this is the kind of way we can think, but not using technology. I do have to disagree with you a bit, Amitabh, or on some of the quite a few things, but I think that what we can't do is use technology to underpin the existing systems. It's not about further efficiency, it's about thinking about how do we radically transform now so everybody in and that is the social revolution I'm talking about. Let's talk a little bit more about that revolution. Winnie, I want to get to you in just a second, but Amitabh, first respond to Hillary's point there, because we are talking about a revolution here. So, you know, perhaps we can all say how we get there. So my belief is that let's not damn growth. Growth is important. China has been able to lift very vast segments of population above the poverty line with growth. In India, we've seen, we've lifted 250 million people because we've grown consistently with growth and with technology. And technology today enables you to use artificial intelligence to track people, focus concerted attention on them, monitor it, provide extra dosage of health standards. What artificial intelligence enables you to do if you're able to link all your primary healthcare centers is to track health standards, regularly provide specialist care, focus on nutrition of every animic woman, focus on stunted children. You know, I mean, technology enables you to make a radical difference to the life of people below poverty line. And that's why the biggest difference will be made today by using technology to make a quantum leap forward. And that, to my mind, is the critical thing. So let's not damn growth. Let's not damn technology. This will be the differentiator in making countries. And I've seen this happening with biometric. I've seen this happening with the Chamtrinity in India. I've seen this happening with India Stack. 250 million people lifted above poverty line. So my belief to a great extent is that technology will be, and India, countries below the poverty line in Africa, India, all must use technology to make a difference in education, in health, in nutrition by tracking every single person below poverty line on indicators, on outcome-based indicators, which is what we are doing. And 49 indicators, we are tracking every single individual in 112 districts of India. And we've seen the massive difference it has made today. And therefore, my belief is that in all these countries, growth is essential. Without growth, you can't lift poverty. Without technology, you can't make a difference to the life of people. And without technology, you can't make a difference to education, learning outcomes, and health outcomes. These are basic essentials. Winnie, weigh in here. We actually, we have a question. I know there's a lot for you to weigh in on, and I'm also gonna give some more food for thought, because somebody in the audience wanted to know the following. Beyond the definition of fair tax and enforcement thereof and efficiency redistribution, do we really have any other real solutions? Because, I mean, Winnie, the reality is, I mean, you're here, you're talking about taxation, but we know, for example, corporate taxes are on the decline in the United States. The European Union, for example, is struggling to pass a digital tax. I mean, the trend is going in the opposite direction, isn't it? Well, tax is one solution. It isn't everything. But I want to say I share the excitement about technology and what it can deliver for us. But we have to look at how the economy is structured in order to understand where the technology is going to benefit everybody and make thriving economies where everybody is a winner. I like the point made by Soobie that concentration of wealth, concentration of power, even though he doesn't want to use the word inequality. Yes, there's concentration of wealth, continuous, and that's the data we keep producing every year. Concentration of wealth. And that wealth doesn't go to the few people, they don't use it just to buy another yacht, another jet, go into space. They use it for that, but they also use it to buy the democracy. They use it to get out of the tax bracket, as I've just said. They use it to buy the judiciary and impunity from the law. They use it to buy the media and capture the public voice. They use it to disempower the majority. So unless, unless we talk about, and that's why I say it's not just about tax, unless we talk about how the economy works for all, we will not get technologies leading to monopolies. We now have big tech companies that control our data or information that don't pay their taxes. I think you know about the tax scandals of the big, there is no regulation of these companies. So we need an economy that is better regulated so that when profits are made, they are not plowed back just to shareholders, but they come back to the company to work hard. But I just want to ask you, just briefly. To have a minimum wage, a living wage to the environment, to communities. We must get value being shared by most shareholders and just shareholders. What is the catalyst though for revolution? Because I mean, that's really what we're talking about. Everyone is having a conversation about it. But what is the action-oriented? Both talked about trust. And indeed, I want to add to trust. Anger. There's public anger. People are angry. And we are seeing populist rise because of this anger. So until people organize and say the economy isn't working for us, change is going to happen in little, little bits. Not the kind of change we need. And they are organizing. The yellow vests are on the streets of Paris. Populous politics is on the rise. Suvi Wayan. So if you want to know how change happens, and we've seen this over the centuries, and we have some hypotheses, one is the kind of bottom-up, you know, moral entrepreneurship. It's not social entrepreneurship. This is moral entrepreneurship. Keeping those fundamentals. Hillary's book is about relationships. That is a fundamental thing. Technology should enable and strengthen that. And we should use that to address those deficiencies, the outcomes that we don't kind of find. At the same time, academics and academic institutions, we need to be working on the paradigm. We are all operating within a big paradigm of the economy. We call it capitalism, let's say. But whatever ism that is, we've got to kind of, and if you are entrepreneurs and business leaders here, my plea to you would be even as you build this data, even as you move into the cyber capital world and deepen your cyber capital, please deepen your moral capital. And I assure you that academics are starting to work, very late, but we're starting to work on improving the paradigm. If you want to scale change, you need paradigm change. Of course, we learn from practice. We learn from what individuals are doing, both in the private sector, in the civil society, in the public sector, but we need this moral capital to complement cyber capital. And that starts with caring, courage, and sacrifice. If you are not willing to sacrifice things, there is going to be no trust. And it's the powerful who have to sacrifice. It is the big enterprises. They cannot be waiting for the shareholders. No, Bob runs a huge firm. He can persuade his partners and he has to put his career in the line. I'm doing research, which may not be a strategy professor. I do research on moral capitalism. I work with philosophers. Now, I have tenure, so it's much easier. But in one sense, we all have to step forward and sacrifice otherwise we're not going to go into the flourishing world. We can do it. It's absolutely possible. And to your point, I mean, there are stakeholders in the room here. There are people who can influence change. So, Hilary, let me turn to you. What do you see as the catalyst to inspire this social revolution? We've talked about the fact that there is this feeling of disenfranchisement among many. Also here at the World Economic Forum, we've been hearing all this week that the economic outlook is not as rosy as it was in the past years. What do you see potentially on the horizon to get this change going? Well, okay, first thing I just want to say about the tax question, let's not reduce it to that because the reason I do my work is because I work with communities where the existing welfare systems, and by the way, this is not just in the UK, it's also in Denmark. I mean, you talked about the Nordic model where people are trapped in those systems and their lives aren't changing. So it isn't just about finding money to fund old models, it is about changing the model. So with that starting point, nothing changes without a vision. And actually I think the vision has to be positive. We don't join something that is about, I don't know, kind of losing something. And we need, I mean, the biggest challenge, of course, is the environment. We need something that is organized around a smart green revolution which we know will create jobs, which will create different standards of living. So we have to have a big vision. We have to paint it in a way that everybody can feel, they can see themselves as part of that story, whether in my community in Peckham in South London or whether at the board of PWC, this has to be a big story. And then we have to think about what are the practical steps we need to get there. And I posit a capability framework. But what I'd also like to say is that this work is everywhere. Everywhere I go in the world, I see work that is already in the new paradigm. But the problem is, it's marginal at the moment. It's struggling for a source. It's not well-funded. We've also had a big conversation here at Davos about metrics. It doesn't fit existing metrics. But we could move very, very fast by, as I say, having a simple operating system and then funding and supporting everything that is marginal. And that's what's happened in the last industrial revolution. When we created our welfare states and the UN and so on, not everything was new. But people stood up and they said, this is the vision. It's a vision of flourishing for all. We're not going to worry about war or this huge recession we're part of. We're going to be bold and we're going to say that everybody is going to gain from this industrial revolution. Not everybody is done. I want to come back to that. But the thing is, is that then, things that already existed were funded in a different way and were folded into this new framework and the lives of billions were transformed. And that's what we need to do again. Bob, what is your response to this? Because I mean, you have a lot of influence when you're consulting companies, for example, to sort of shape that vision as you help them work through efficiencies within the firm. Is there something more that you see that you could do, for example, or that leaders could do, for example? So a couple of things. As I said at the opening comments, the business community is definitely now seeing the needs of the many, not necessarily just the needs of the investors. And again, I don't want to generalize. We have a tendency in Davos sometimes to make it absolutes and generalizations. But that trend is getting better. That trend is getting better. And there's more acknowledgement of it because, again, the voice, the voice of the employees that actually want to do this. You want to talk about one element of optimism, and actually there was somebody in the audience that was on a panel with me yesterday. He was hugely optimistic. Why? Because of the students he was interacting with that get this and are really having an impact and doing something about it. And the world of possibilities for those that were not as privileged to get the opportunity to actually have the impact. The second thing that's really interesting is when you've gone through the previous revolutions, if you look back in history, the systems that you talked about were primarily dominated by one part of the world that had influence on the rest of the world. What's really interesting now with the concepts and the megatrends that are out there, we actually have moved from singularity when you go back to British colonialism or the American point of view, et cetera. We have got different views on what those systems look like. So the comments around monitoring information and some of the words used in terms of how to use technology, while in India it may work that we can monitor, but there's a big concern in other parts of the world where a big brother is going to be watching over me, that's got a risk of another revolution coming. So we've got to operate within now a whole bunch of different systems. And how do we actually think about systems that might be regionalized with maybe some common frameworks, but maybe there's some level of specificity. And that's where the corporates are really worried about, what's this world order? Because if you're going to be in the fourth industrial revolution, data does not have borders. And oh, by the way, that transparency point I made earlier does not have borders. So how do I operate in this world where I've got now different systems driven by different countries with different points of view? Is it a US view, a China view, an EU view, eventually an India view? Is it a Russian view? Whole bunch of complexity in terms of what do I do in that regard? And it's not a one-size-fits-all, even though the principles and the framework absolutely are. I'd like to give our audience, by the way, a chance to weigh in. Amitabh, I'll give you a chance to response, but there's a roving mic, so just raise your hand and then you'll ask the next question after your response. Amitabh, the floor is yours. You know, I've worked in the traditional fishery sector of Kerala for long. You know, we were providing new technology to enhance the output, but opening their bank account was a nightmare. It used to take nine, 10 months to know your customer. We are now able to do this in less than a minute in India. Sheer technology. Government has put in massive amount of resources into education, health and nutrition in India in recent times. The only difference now and then was that earlier you could not track very efficiently. Now, technologically, you can track on a real-time basis and put out data in public domain, so Oxfam or anybody else can question whether it's efficiently being implemented, whether someone is going below the poverty line or else, and similar thing with nutrition. My personal belief, working for long amongst by creating, working with self-help groups for women, by working in rural areas and fishery sector is that you need government to put more emphasis, increasingly huge resources into education, health and nutrition, and those are sectors which make a difference to the lives of people. But governments, by and large, across developing world, implement programs in a very, very inefficient manner. There are massive leakages in these programs across the board. And what has enabled today, technology has enabled that you can do direct benefit transfer straight into the bank accounts of individuals. So the money goes into the individual's hand and he has access to resources and you can then monitor and track the growth and progress of that individual. Okay, our first question. Please stand up and ask your question. Okay, thank you very much. My name is Paulo Kouma with the Africa platform, based in Nairobi. Just quickly to just slow count a little bit. Technology just like money is a tool. It doesn't change anything, it's people who do. So if the models and the people don't change, it doesn't matter what technology is capable of doing. So let's be careful about idolizing the power of technology if the hearts and the minds of people are not willing to change. I want to quickly ask Bob a question. And for me, being a Davos, I've decided rather than ask questions, I will put a proposal to you. And I think you're talking very well about what you are trying to do, but your company works differently. The biggest challenge we have right now is how the big four audit firms behave. Their model of accounting still puts companies under the same old pressure that we used to have in the 80s and they've been unwilling, very reluctant to come up with very robust models of reporting and auditing that moves companies forward. And I'm just wondering, if you look for example at what KPMG did in South Africa, you almost brought down the South African economy because of how you keep on reporting. And I am willing to join you and I'll be in your office on Monday. If you are ready to personally say, you know what, I think we are going to begin by ourselves. We can look at other businesses, but we'll begin with ourselves. And I think those of us who are in the big four have a responsibility to change the reporting model to make the companies much more robust. And for you, I really appreciate what you do and I join you within the civil society or what you do that. I just have one little discouragement which I have experienced and maybe you probably do. The businesses and companies merged a long time ago. The conversation we have that somehow there's a line between corporations and governments is one that has become so blood that maybe as civil society, we need to rethink where we direct our energies. So Bob first, I'll give you the chance to respond. Please briefly. Yeah, look, there is a tremendous amount of lessons learned in terms of those that are either advising or providing assurances to the public. And I agree that the professional services firms like the big four have significant change to make themselves. We have to actually do two things. One is to make sure that we're really clear in terms of the financial reporting and where that responsibility lies between management, governance, the auditors, et cetera. Agree with that responsibility, we have to increase the standards. But the reality is the expectation gap. The public wants more than the regulations required today. So we actually have to work together to actually take that issue on and I'm happy to do that. That's what I think is happening in other places in the world. Not so much in Africa at this point in time but I think there's an opportunity to go after that. Yeah, great. I'm gonna have a challenge now for our panel because we said that we wanted an action oriented panel and I'd like to ask you over the next year if you could see one thing happening that would really catalyze meaningful social change on this issue of inequality, what would it be? The challenge is can you do it in two sentences or less because we're nearly out of time. Hilary, I'll begin with you. Yes, I would like people to help me build a new form of worker organization, a new worker collaborative. We need a different compact between workers and employers that brings all the financial architecture that doesn't work to find housing, to kind of reskill. We need to build something that is completely different to which every worker is a part and is connected and this would be the most important stepping stone to moving forward the fourth social revolution and here we can make it happen. So if you can help me, please come and talk to me afterwards. Zubi. So I'd love to invite you to think about three Cs. Competence, Competence, Character, Contradictions. Please, one year from now, when we come back and we see one another, I'd love to see the ratio of character to competence improve. As leaders, as entrepreneurs, as academics, let's engage our character more. Character means caring. Character means sacrifice. Character means putting others before yourself even when that hurts you. And contradictions is the world is full of contradictions. Let's embrace them. It is a messy world and we will often be in second best, not first best. Let's just avoid third best. It's okay, we are doing quite well. I'm optimistic. Amitabh. Focus on nutrition and health. Just one thing. Nutrition and health will make all the difference in the world in developing countries. Bob. A hard thing to do, I'll go back to what China and India has done is create that infrastructure for connectivity and then we can write the rules and re-change the system. The soft thing to do. We need to talk more about compromise. We need to talk more about what we're doing but equally as important, why we're doing it and the impact it's having. We don't do enough about that stuff. Winnie, inequality, this is your topic. I'd like to give you the last word here today. Thank you so much. We need to look at the rules and rewrite them so that the opportunities of technology can come to everybody. I think the world this year, if they could get behind rewriting the global tax rules, that would be a good beginning. As we close those loopholes, developing countries can have $170 billion that today goes through their borders and sits in tax havens. They could have that. And if governments could get behind paying for health and education for all people and not to duck collecting taxes but start giving everybody health, everybody, every child to be in a classroom, I think that would get us into the fourth industrial revolution in a way that everybody benefits and not just a few. I'd like to very much thank our panel for all of their insights, all of their participation today. You have been watching the fourth social revolution, our debate here at the World Economic Forum. This has been the Deutsche Welle Debate. I'm Sarah Kelly in Davos, Switzerland. Thank you very much for joining us. Amitabh. Thank you.