Introduction
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has developed five scenarios on how the world will unfold by 2040 (Strategic Futures Group, 2021). The first three revolve around the form and level of US-China rivalry. The remaining two assume that globalization has broken down and been replaced by either separate security and economic blocs, or by some form of revolutionary change.
All these scenarios have one thing in common: they all assume that climate change is a real thing. Further, the authors of most of the scenarios have misunderstood the popular interpretation of COVID-related actions, and they assume that communist or socialist forms of government are economically self-sustaining as long as they’re not too authoritarian. This is highly indicative of the political state within the DNI.
This paper describes and analyzes two of these scenarios that seem likely – or rather least unlikely. The underlying assumptions of each are described, and a PESTLIED (political – economic – social – technological – legal – international – environmental – demographics) analysis (Eaton Business School, n.d.) is performed on those scenarios. Next, one of the scenarios is compared to Fukuyama’s “end of history” theory. Finally, an alternative scenario that seems more likely is described.
Map from Alicja Hagopian of The Independent
Scenario 4: Separate Silos
In this scenario, the world fragments into economic and security blocs centered around the US, China, the EU, Russia, and India. These blocs are “inward looking,” focusing on self-sufficiency and defense. Developing countries that are not aligned with one of these blocs are on the verge of becoming failed states. Climate change is ignored.
Viewing this scenario through the lens of PESTLIED analysis, we see that politically, the blocs avoid direct armed conflict but do use small wars to divert attention from domestic political problems. Smaller countries that are not part of these blocs become unstable.
Separating economies results in massive financial losses and inefficient supply chains, according to the DNI. Prices for consumer goods rose dramatically, presumably due to inability to outsource. Because of limited travel, the travel and tourism sectors collapse. Because of reduced offshoring and inability to recruit from other nations, countries devote resources to domestic education. Nations not aligned with any of these blocs are expected to be abandoned economically, which can lead to radicalization and civil unrest (TRADOC, 2007, 3-4).
Technological advances within the blocs include energy technologies, AI, and additive manufacturing. Technology, however, is restricted to within the individual blocs, and states not in one of the blocs are left behind. Progress in technologies flounder because separate blocs cannot recruit global talent.
States adopt legal systems that are mixtures of authoritarianism and democracy, adopting surveillance and repression. On the international stage, these political blocs are the major players. Small wars occur along the borders of the blocs. Nuclear weapons proliferate.
Due to the self-sufficiency of the blocs, there is no joint effort to protect the environment and fight climate change. Similarly, other leftist causes such as poverty or healthcare discrepancies are not addressed.
Waves of immigrants attempt to enter wealthier countries but are rejected. Between this and the inability to recruit globally, the demographics of each bloc remain stable.
The DNI faults this scenario because climate change is not addressed. The authors also assume that economic success is not sustainable without outsourcing or importing foreign talent. The prediction that small wars (or proxy wars) would be common does seem like a reasonable prediction. The declining population of many first world countries is not factored into this scenario.
Scenario 1: Renaissance of Democracies
The “Renaissance of Democracies” scenario predicts extreme economic and technological growth in western nations. The rise of China is no longer seen as inevitable. China, Russia, and other authoritarian regimes become less predictable and more aggressive. Within the democracies, though, free speech is a secondary concern, taking a back seat to social tranquility.
Applying PESTLIED analysis to this, we see that countries become either democracies or more authoritarian. China becomes more authoritarian, and as mentioned above, the rise of China is no longer seen as inevitable. Russia continues to be authoritarian and invades Soviet-bloc countries. The DNI describes this as being done to divert attention away from internal problems.
For the countries that shift to democracy, their economies open, allowing for innovation and growth. Russia and China remain authoritarian, and their economies stagnate as a result.
Education is more widely available due to remote learning platforms developed in response to COVID-19. Civic nationalism is reinvigorated by increased transparency and improved accountability. This comes with the price of rejecting freedom of speech.
Innovation is occurring, especially in robotics, AI, the Internet of Things, energy storage, biotech, and additive manufacturing. Unfortunately, some of this technology is applied to censorship.
Laws and international agreements are put in place to limit the harmful effects of technologies… and disinformation. Multilateral cooperation on issues such as climate change, rules for managing space, the seabed, and the Arctic. Environmental and climate issues are seen as solvable due to innovation, economic strength, and societal cohesion.
In Russia and China there is an aging population, which entails population collapse. This, together with debt and the inefficiencies of their state-directed economy, lead to internal discontent. Any change in the demographics of other countries is not mentioned.
One thing that the DNI gets right is that Russia would invade former satellite countries. The reason that is given – to divert attention away from political infighting and other forms of internal strife – is not completely plausible. A better explanation is that they invade in order to collect resources and drain the invaded country’s economy.
Fukuyama and the Renaissance of Democracies
The global resurgence in democracies described in Scenario 1 is eerily similar to the outcome predicted in Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man” (Fukuyama, 1992). According to Fukuyama, a perfect democratic utopia emerges on a global scale, and political-historic evolution ends. This is forward-looking, as opposed to the historical analysis presented in Bradford DeLong’s "Slouching Towards Utopia" (DeLong, 2022). DeLong reviews the history of the 20th Century and how technology has impacted the global economy, whereas Fukuyama is concerned with the end-state of society. Even China and Russia are expected to reject communism in favor of democracy, according to Fukuyama.
Not mentioned in DNI’s Scenario 1 but alluded to in Fukuyama is a way where a "renaissance of democracies" can occur. Let's call it "convergence to acceptable levels of socialism" (CALS). The idea is that governments will impose only so much socialism as the populace is willing to tolerate. This can go in two ways: liberalization of communist countries (demonstrated by China and by Russia after the fall of the Soviets), or creeping socialism (as seen in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and other countries).
Fascism and communism cannot satisfy human needs, and the only alternative end state is democracy in the misty-eyed and soppy sense of the word used by Fukuyama (and apparently by the DNI). The core problem with DNI's scenario, Fukuyama's plan, and this CALS theory is that "democracy" is confused with "republic" - democracy is tyranny of the majority and as such there are no individual rights.
Besides this confusion of democracy with limited republics, there is another problem: democracies can fail. Examples include the French Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, the Arab Spring, etc. Indeed, the last two revolutions are seen by Samuel Huntington (Huntington, 1996) as direct counterexamples to Fukuyama's "end of history" theory. Why should we even imagine democracies as something that could fail? In the case of the Arab Spring, Samuel Huntington explained this by noting that allegiance to political theory is mostly a Western concept, but other cultures adhere to tribal, racial, or religious allegiance, Islam in particular.
Conclusion
The five scenarios presented in “Global Trends 2040” are interesting future histories, but none are terribly convincing. The two considered here can be considered the “least wrong.” The DNI assumes that self-sufficient economies are unworkable, thereby rejecting Scenario 4. Recent history shows that a “renaissance of democracies” – described either by Scenario 1, Fukuyama’s “end of history,” or the CALS theory – are very prone to failure.
A scenario that seems more likely begins with the US adapting a populist nationalism blueprint, adjusting military and economic policies accordingly. This is duplicated in Argentina, East Germany (see above map), Romania, and some others. The resulting economic strength gives to the US a “bargaining chip” against the leftward swing in allies such as Canada, the UK, Germany, and Australia. We cannot predict that the US can halt this creeping socialism, but we can predict that our relationships with those allies will be reevaluated.
References
DeLong, B. (2022). Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century. Basic Books.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
Eaton Business School. (n.d.). "The PESTLIED model that matters in the 21st Century." Eaton Business School. https://ebsedu.org/blog/pestlied-model-in-21st-century The Strategic Futures Group. (March 2021). "Scenarios for 2040: Charting the Future Amid Uncertainty". Office of the Director of National Intelligence. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/introduction
TRADOC. (2007). Terror Operations: Case Studies in Terrorism. https://irp.fas.org/threat/terrorism/sup1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment