The end of an era, and what it means

All political lives end in failure, Enoch Powell said: but some failures drag on for much, much longer than others. Yesterday, 75-year old Silvio Berlusconi released his stubborn grip on power by handing in his resignation to our President Giorgio Napolitano.

Bill Clinton left office at 55; Tony Blair at 54; José Luis Zapatero is standing down at 52. The era-defining Margaret Thatcher ceased being Prime Minister at 65, ten years younger than Berlusconi is today. Among leaders who beat Berlusconi’s retirement age from high office, Ronald Reagan stood down at 78, and Fidel Castro at 82; Juan Domingo Perón died at 79 while still in power.

Berlusconi first won elections in 1994, and dominated the political scene so thoroughly that even his intervals in opposition will be remembered as part of an uninterrupted, 17-year spell of Berlusconismo. Millions of young voters have come of age with no memory of Italy before Berlusconi’s discesa in campo. They remember nothing but his political pragmatism, cloaked under an anti-Communist ideology that wore thinner and thinner by the day; his jests, excesses and jokes that slowly turned from charming to pathetic; his extreme personalization of politics as an exchange of favors; and his blind refusal to modernize Italy.

Most of all, he bears responsibility for changing the nature of social mobility in Italy. In the post-war years, Italy’s miracolo economico meant that millions of Italians quit toiling in the fields and migrated to work in the factories of our very late Industrial Revolution. The diseases of the dirt poor, pellagra and malaria, were beaten in the 1950s. In the ’60s and ’70s, many people found their way to middle-class comfort through newly created jobs in banks, commerce, and the public sector. Those who had worked in factories were often able to set up shop on their own, and created a generation of family companies with their own fabbrichetta (small factory). In the ’80s, we even built an elite of Italians who were at home in the upper echelons of worldwide finance, academia and corporations; many young and brilliant students joined international business schools, consulting firms and investment banks. All through this extraordinary growth story, we never ceased believing that doing well in school and working hard were the two keys to our success: even during the darkest days of terrorism and kidnappings in the ’70s, when wealthy entrepreneurial families feared for their children, they sent them out of Italy, to study and earn university degrees abroad.

But something broke in the ’90s. Our ascensore sociale, the elevator that people could catch from humble origins to become respectable and rich, no longer worked very smoothly. Tangentopoli disrupted the old order. It gradually emerged that for ambitious young people it was a smart career move to get a job somewhere in Berlusconi’s economic empire. In 1993-1994, young managers, entertainers, and salespeople went through central casting for Berlusconi’s new political party. “Casting” is not a metaphor: there are many witnesses to what happened in those TV studios. If you were telegenic and could seduce an audience, you were a candidate. If you were a nerd or an intellectual, you were out.

We did not know it, but Italy’s economy had already started growing at less than half the pace of the rest of Europe – which it has done for the past two decades by now. Without reliable growth, young people resorted to patronage and crapshoots: the rise of soccer players’ and TV entertainers’ salaries dramatically shrunk the range of success models and career aspirations for young Italians. Aided by a criminally undemocratic electoral system on one side, and criminally conservative labor unions on the other, our politicians froze the system for nearly two decades. Standards of hard work and diligence went out of the window: when kids got bad grades in my generation, they were locked up to study; when kids get bad grades today, parents complain to the teacher. Politics, with few exceptions, became the refuge of the mediocre. Integrity and intellectual rigor became old-fashioned, unnecessary virtues. Many of the brightest minds of our generation stood by as this happened; many sought their fortunes outside Italy. The privileges of the political class were the target of much discontent, but little action. Stunning arrogance and vulgarity were displayed by politicians even last night, as they left the palaces of power worrying about their own future after Berlusconi.

Mario Monti has a few months, perhaps a year, to pull us back from the brink and to do many important things very quickly, against the opposition of many stakeholders who only wish to stay entrenched in the old order: I wish him all the best. But rebuilding an Italy we are proud of, and shaking out the heavy burden of Berlusconi’s legacy, will take years, maybe decades, if it is at all possible. And we can no longer watch from the sidelines: it starts with each of us.

The Internet of the Future: Nouveau Monde 2.0, Paris, October 21, 2011

I had the pleasure to represent Italian Angels for Growth yesterday at a seminar held at the French Ministry for the Economy, Finance and Industry in order to advance the G8 Deauville agenda for the digital economy. It is a bit unusual for me to participate in a governmental event, but since the invitees were “Ministers for the digital economy, leading firms, start-ups, venture capitalists, bloggers and think tanks”, I thought at least it would be a place where interesting people gathered.

“New World 2.0: Concretizing the Internet of the Future”, or “Nouveau Monde 2.0″, was indeed packed with content and not too long on rhetorics. I had to miss the opening session on Thursday night, which dealt with Democracy 2.0 and saw Minister Eric Besson, the event host, engaged – quite empathically, I am told – with a number of Tunisian bloggers. (Here is a short interview he gave about Nouveau Monde 2.0).

Friday started with a discussion on network infrastructure that is by now familiar to me from working in a telco (I almost felt like crying out: “Those numbers on video traffic on cellular networks? They’re not tomorrow! They are practically today!”) and was framed by Cisco’s Robert Pepper, who showed projections from the Visual Networking Index leading us into the “Zettabyte Era” by 2015. Two key facts here: the volume of data transmitted around the world is increasingly driven by consumers, not businesses; and the biggest consumer demand is for video, in its many incarnations (short- and long-form, recorded and real-time, and so on). It is, also, a remarkably global demand: according to Google’s David Drummond, half of the views for videos uploaded from France this year were due to users ouside France. The question is, obviously, who’s going to pay for the networks we need to put in place. There was a full range of policy options represented on stage: the most laissez-faire was probably the U.S., whose Department of Commerce representative, Lawrence Strickland, maintained that regulators’ job is to “get out of the way”, but nevertheless admitted that there is at least one case, rural broadband, where the government should step in. The most interventionist? Not Sweden, not Finland, but Australia, where fruitless haggling with the incumbent, Minister Stephen Conroy told the audience, led the government to give up in frustration and launch a Newco tasked with building the National Broadband Network out of taxpayers’ money; one guesses that having Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea as “neighbors” and competitors tends to sharpen resolve. The proceedings were lent gravitas by European Commissioner Neelie Kroes, who reminded us that not only do we have a financial crisis to solve, but we must also find the resources to invest in our digital future. She deplored the lack of a single digital market across the Union (think of the mess that national copyright systems have gotten us into), and shone the spotlight on the recent Commission recommendation to establish a €9.2bn “Connecting Europe Facility” (here’s how it should work). Kroes was the star of the session: in a way, at at time when almost all politicians seem to think desperately short-term, she seemed to show how politics should care for the long run. (I am, needless to say, a fan of her commitment to put more “girl power” into technology).

The second session was moderated by entrepreneur, angel investor and independent board member Sherry Coutu, and focused on privacy on the Internet: “as a mother, I worry about these things”, she said in introducing the panel. Barbs were exchanged, as expected, between Simon Davies of Transparency International and Elliot Schrage from Facebook. Schrage was also challenged by the audience, notably when Tunisian journalist Emna Ben Jemaa took Schrage to task about a number of decisions on Tunisian pages made, or rather not made, by Facebook administrators during the Arab spring: if you followed the hashtag #NMwwwyou could almost hear the Twittershphere cheering her on.

The third session, introduced by Alcatel-Lucent CEO (and former BT CEO) Ben Verwaayen, took on the issue of the digital divide. In opening the panel discussion, Mr. Verwaayen admitted that even in the West we are absolutely nowhere with “Internet for all”, and asked whether spectrum is treated as a strategic scarce resource or a milk cow for finance ministers. Again, representatives from places such as Japan and Sweden shared the stage with politicians from Kenya and Morocco. Digital inclusion is a tough challenge, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of awareness and culture: there are lots of inspiring experiments going on, from tools to get cashew nuts to market at the right time in Ghana to telecommuting after the quake in Japan, but no one has any easy answers.

After the “official” conference was over, there followed a start-up evening (“Innovation Night 2.0″) put together by the outstanding team from Le Camping: three nascent start-ups and three slightly more mature ones got to present one-minute pitches and be grilled by senior executives from Microsoft, Google, Facebook… Here, the star performer was Criteo, a business that barely existed three years ago and plans to book $200m in revenues in 2011. When research reports talk about the jobs and the share of GDP growth created by the digital economy, folks like those at Criteo are the reality behing the numbers. Well done, guys!

Overall, the day felt like one of those rare occasions where my generation (the 40-year-olds), the previous generation (Ms. Kroes’s), and the younger generation (the university students presenting their start-ups in the evening) almost spoke the same language. The Ministry (where Mr. Besson holds, in addition to Industry and Energy, a specific mandate for the Digital Economy) deserves credit for creating a common space where this could happen. It was a showcase for a very dynamic France, and perhaps an example to the many other countries where participants came from.

Tell Me No More Lies: truth and the Internet

When I saw my friend Art last summer, we talked about truth and the Internet, a topic that I had had a chance to reflect upon from my point of view in the media industry over the previous year, and that many hold dear, to the point that books have been written about its geopolitical ramifications, and a mini-academic specialty has sprung up.

Art was then in the early stages of working on a site “dedicated to the promotion and dissemination of truth and the suppression and elimination of ignorance, demagoguery, and misrepresentation”. The site has now launched in Alpha and it is called Tell Me No More Lies. The header features a clever quote attributed to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”); Wikiquote, however, mentions that an identical quote is also attributed to James R. Schlesinger – and so it’s ironic that this site should be so unambiguous in its attribution of the witticism it opens with.

“I’m sick of self-appointed experts opining on things they know nothing about or, conversely, the one-person-one-anonymous-vote mechanisms stuck all over the internet.  Neither lets me know what real experts in the field think about an issue.  I’m hoping Tell Me No More Lies will do just that,” says Art in his email announcing that the site is live. “The launch is an Alpha proof of concept, which means there are many features yet to be built, and there might be some bugs [...]  I know the UI needs lots of work, but if you have feedback about the implemented concept of authority, endorsement, assertions, voting, etc., please do let me know; this is the most valuable part of this phase.

I have two pieces of feedback at this point. The first one is that the authority algorithm has potential, but that as long as user accounts are based on Facebook Connect, well, Facebook doesn’t strike me as a site with super-tight procedures of identity verification, so if you can impersonate a Nobel Prize on Facebook, you can probably do it on Tell Me No More Lies. (Twitter, at least, used to let you apply for a Verified Account – I guess that method did not scale, as they are now exploring algorithmic verification). Perhaps it’s trivial to make sure that the site isn’t taken over by fake Steve Jobses, and Art’s authority algorithm has built-in defences against, say, Holocaust-deniers registering en masse to build what looks like an expert consensus. I like it that the site allows experts to emerge rather than be anointed by someone else, but I still wish there were a stronger way to make sure that you are who you claim to be.

The second feedback is that, well, I read from left to right and am used to graphs with “Less” on the left and “More” on the right (think about the origin of a horizontal axis), so it’s a bit counterintuitive that the speedometer showing consensus tilts to the lower speed when the answer is a “yes” and to the higher speed when it’s a “no”. But well, this isn’t primarily about the UI at this point.

From Wikipedia to Quora, from LongBets.org to Wolfram Alpha, Tell Me No More Lies enters a crowded space with an original approach. Test it out; I am wishing Art all the best.

The market always wins

For a long time, and until not so long ago, it used to be that what counted was how much you were worth on the marriage market.

Then, briefly, it was about how much you were worth on the job market.

But now, now it’s just about how much you’re worth on the meat market.

(Photos: ANSA)

War rapes: an international overview

Two years ago I wrote about one war, in Sudan, where ICC prosecutors found that rape was being massively used as a weapon by government troops against insurgents. This week, the Economist brings us a war-rapes-in-review piece that in itself is worth the yearly subscription. A few snippets from the story, which I suggest you read in full:

  • In the Rwandan genocide rape was “the rule and its absence the exception”, in the words of the UN. [...] Out of Rwanda’s horror came the first legal verdict that acknowledged rape as part of a genocidal campaign.
  • [...] with the Bosnian war of the 1990s came the widespread recognition that rape has been used systematically as a weapon of war and that it must be punished as an egregious crime [...] Rape was first properly recognised as a weapon of war after the conflict in Bosnia. [...] the Balkan war-crimes court broke new ground by issuing verdicts treating rape as a crime against humanity.

On Russia (and Italy, too)

From this week’s Economist.

Mr Guriev suggests that the reason Russia has failed to modernise is that its ruling class can pocket rents from things as they are. Serious modernisation threatens them because it would require stronger institutions that would make this harder. This rent-seeking psychology is transmitted right down the bureaucratic chain, with each man taking a slice for himself.

On rebellion, ideology and growing up. Lily Burana

Maybe every single generation goes thorough something like this (from I Love a Man in Uniform):

Of course, I was only a fraction of the rebel I used to be, having come to favor country music just as much as Rock ‘n’ Roll High School. Sometime in my early twenties, I had realized that punk rock might not be able to deliver on its messianic zeal. Even my idol, Dead Kennedys singer Jello Biafra, had started sounding less like a mordant political wit than a cranky old man shouting, “Hey you kids, get off my lawn!” In one of his later songs, he asked a question that echoed my own doubt: “Anarchy sounds great, but who would fix the sewers?”

I mourned the loss of my outlier faith as much as I welcomed the drift inward from the margins. The punk scene wasn’t hallowed ground or some infallible brain trust, it was just a bunch of strivers flailing around in search of answers, no better (though surely no worse) than anyone else. The far-flung dream of anarchy wore itself thin. Ideologically, I was fair game.

How the country is secretly run by the young (that’s the UK. Not Italy.)

This week’s Economist has a very interesting piece on the political establishment in today’s United Kingdom. George Osborne, shadow chancellor, is 38. In his inner circle, advisers Rohan Silva and Rupert Harrison are 28 and 30; his chief of staff, Matthew Hancock, is 31; his speechwriter, Ameet Gill, 27. On the Labour side, Torsten Henricson-Bell, adviser to chancellor Alistair Darling, is 27. Gordon Brown’s speechwriter is said to be 29, and some of Mr. Brown’s policy unit members are reportedly “boyish”. And so on.

Greenness has its drawbacks, sure. Yet, as Bagehot remarks, “lack of personal experience does not disqualify someone from holding valid opinions, if curiosity and hard work compensate.” So, how about freshening up Italy’s gerontocracy? We don’t have enough fresh-faced UK-style policy wonks of our own: let’s just import them. They may perceive as “distant and hypothetical” some of the “grimly adult” “substance of politics — pensions, child-rearing and so on”; yet, they can hardly do worse at these topics than our septuagenarian leaders, can they?

Where women in the workplace get treated differently: if this isn’t evidence, I don’t know what is

This week, the OECD report Education at a Glance 2009 earned a lot of well-deserved media attention (you can download it here). Of particular interest, as The Economist points out, the finding that, even as higher education becomes more widespread, it does not lose value:

“Every year we wonder if this will be the year that higher education starts to lose its value—and every year, there is no sign of it happening,” says Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s chief of education research.

Much has been made of the OECD’s measure of incremental lifetime earnings from tertiary education: across the countries surveyed, gross earnings benefits average out at $186,000 for men (in 2005 money, at purchasing power parity) and $134,000 for women. Even once you subtract the direct cost of the education and the opportunity cost in terms of wages not earned while studying, and make numerous other adjustments, the net present value of the benefits to the individual is still largely positive. National economies as well as the public coffers also come out ahead when their citizens get more education (a hot topic in times of shrinking education budgets).

You will have noticed that the OECD averages show that the individual or private gross benefit for men is 39% higher than for women. This is politely attributed to “the disparity in most countries between male and female earnings”. But how big is this disparity, education levels being equal – and what does it tell us about OECD countries?

You are welcome to look for yourself at the figures in Table A8.2 (as well as all the other tables helpfully provided), but I’ve run the numbers for you here:

Ratio of gross incremental male earnings to gross incremental female earnings from tertiary education, selected OECD countries
(100 %= men and women have the same incremental earnings from tertiary education)

  • Italy: 236%
  • Hungary: 182%
  • Poland: 177%
  • Czech Republic: 172%
  • Sweden: 163%
  • Average: 139%
  • Norway: 111%
  • Australia: 110%
  • Turkey: 102%
  • Spain: 95%
  • Korea: 77%

In other words: it always pays off to get a degree. It pays off for everybody, men and women. In a country like Turkey or Spain, it pays off to the tune of about the same incremental earnings for men and women. In the OECD as a whole, it pays off for men about 1.4 times as much as for women. But in Italy, a university degree pays off 2.36 times as much for men as for women.

Where is our Minister for Equal Opportunity? and what does she have to say about the equality of opportunities shown in these numbers?

Carfagna

Sent back

We sent them back. We put them on a motorboat and delivered them back to Libya.

We lied to them. We told them they were being escorted to Lampedusa. Instead, we dumped them on a dock in Libya – one of the few countries that have not even signed the Geneva Convention on Refugees (see map).

According to Italian news reports, we intercepted 227 people who thought the had ended their long trek to escape from Niger, Chad, Mali, Sudan and who knows where else. We did not bother verifying if any of them might qualify for asylum under the Geneva convention. We sent them back to be locked up in Libyan detention centers, beaten and raped by police officers.  Eight-five per cent of the women who get this far, says a spokesperson for Catholic NGO Caritas, have already been raped on their way to Italy.

And all of this for a handful of votes.