by Alex Evans | Jul 7, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Global system
From the FT today:
Food prices are set for a period of “significant and long-lasting” inflation because of demand from China and India and the use of crops for biofuels, according to the head of Nestlé . Peter Brabeck, chairman of the world’s largest food company, said rises in food prices reflected not only temporary factors but also long-term and structural changes in supply and demand.
The Nestlé chairman cited population growth, rising demand from “the phenomena of India and China” and the use of food products by biofuel producers as causes of pressure in international food markets.
Reports from two international organisations this week forecast food price rises of between 20 and 50 per cent over the next decade.
by Alex Evans | Jul 7, 2007 | Cooperation and coherence, Global system, Influence and networks
George Packer at the New Yorker has a terrific post asking why it is that bad news rarely seems to permeate to the top of organisations, and why those at the top often seem to know less than everyone else. He writes: “At different stages of the war, I’ve had different theories, and have sometimes held them all simultaneously:
1. They’re lying. They don’t tell the truth in public—bad for morale, bad for them—but they know.
2. Bad news doesn’t get to the top. According to Sy Hersh in this week’s New Yorker, that was General Antonio Taguba’s initial explanation for why Donald Rumsfeld claimed not to know about Abu Ghraib long after he could have read the General’s investigative report: his underlings kept it from the boss, fearing his wrath.
3. They don’t want to know, so they insulate themselves from bad news. Hersh reported that this was the real reason for Rumsfeld’s ignorance about the details of the Abu Ghraib abuses: he refused to read the report.
4. They hear bad news and then immediately dismiss it. George Tenet, on page 447 of his new memoir, offers this bit of evidence: “As early as the fall of 2003, it was becoming clear that our political and economic strategy was not working. The data were available, the trends were clear. Those in charge of U.S. policy operated within a closed loop. Bad news was ignored.”
There’s an important link here to management literature about a particular class of organisations called High Reliability Organisations – places like nuclear power stations or aircraft carrier flight decks that are both (a) inherently unsafe and yet (b) tend to have very good safety records. (For an excellent discussion of HROs, see Managing the Unexpected by Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe).
One of the features that such organisations tend to share is a preoccupation with failure, which is seen as an opportunity for learning. Weick and Sutcliffe note that,
Research shows that people need to feel safe to report incidents or they will ignore them or cover them up. Managerial practices such as encouraging questioning and rewarding people who report errors or mistakes strengthen an organisationwide culture that values reporting.
The reason: any lapse is seen within an HRO as “a signal of possible weakeness in other portions of the system”. What’s so striking about HROs’ preoccuptation with failure is that governments and foreign policy agencies tend to be organised along diametrically opposite lines: they are pathologically preoccupied with success. Junior officials in government agencies often find themselves under pressure, whether implied or explicit, to report “good news stories” up the information food chain, in order to show that the current approach is working.
While senior policymakers will, inevitably, always want to have good news to tell the outside world, it’s crucial to ensure that internal communications give the unvarnished truth – and that, in turn, relies on clear signals to officials that they will be rewarded for telling it like it is. None of this will come as news to good ministers. Conversely, a failure to remember it lies at the very heart of why the US and UK went to war in Iraq.
by David Steven | Jul 7, 2007 | East Asia and Pacific, Global system
These days, the American right – sinking ever-deeper into a paranoid, unreasoning funk – is mostly obsessed with Islam abroad and immigrants at home. But there are still some old-style commie-fighting cold warriors out there, and they have China in their sights.
Larry Kudlow – National Review’s economics editor and a CNBC presenter – is in the vanguard. Thanks to him, we can now see what the dastardly reds are now up to. They’re trying to kill our children.
Is China trying to poison us, our kids, and our pets? Are Beijing’s communist hardliners waging some clever, clandestine, economic/military war against U.S. citizens? Now, before flatly dismissing the idea, consider that China freely admits a lengthy record of safety woes.
Check out yesterday’s Wall Street Journal for Pete’s sake. According to China’s own findings, almost 20 percent of Chinese goods fail to meet quality standards. 20 percent…
Could this be a calculated Communist strategy? Is China trying to poison our pets and our kids? Maybe the folks suspicious of China are right after all?