Pankaj Ghemawat: Actually, the world isn't flat

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

Prevodilac: Stefan Lucic Lektor: Tatjana Jevdjic

I'm here to talk to you about how globalized we are,

Ovde sam da pričam o tome koliko smo globalizovani,

how globalized we aren't,

koliko nismo globalizovani

and why it's important to actually be accurate

i zašto je važno biti precizan

in making those kinds of assessments.

pri pravljenju ovakvih procena.

And the leading point of view on this, whether measured

Glavni način sagledavanja ovoga, bilo da se meri

by number of books sold, mentions in media,

brojem prodatih knjiga, pominjanja u medijima

or surveys that I've run with groups ranging from

ili anketama koje sam organizovao sa grupama

my students to delegates to the World Trade Organization,

studenata do grupa delegata u Svetskoj trgovinskoj organizaciji,

is this view that national borders

je mišljenje da državne granice

really don't matter very much anymore,

više nisu previše važne,

cross-border integration is close to complete,

prekogranična integracija je skoro potpuna

and we live in one world.

i živimo u povezanom svetu.

And what's interesting about this view

Ono što je zanimljivo u vezi sa ovim

is, again, it's a view that's held by pro-globalizers

je mišljenje pobornika globalizacije

like Tom Friedman, from whose book this quote is obviously excerpted,

poput Toma Fridmana, iz čije knjige je ovaj citat,

but it's also held by anti-globalizers, who see this giant

ali to je i mišljenje protivnika globalizacije, onih koji vide ovaj džinovski

globalization tsunami that's about to wreck all our lives

cunami globalizacije koji će nam uništiti živote,

if it hasn't already done so.

ako to već nije uradio.

The other thing I would add is that this is not a new view.

Želeo bih da dodam da ovo nije nova misao.

I'm a little bit of an amateur historian, so I've spent

Pomalo sam i istoričar amater, zato sam proveo

some time going back, trying to see the first mention

neko vreme gledajući unazad, pokušavajući

of this kind of thing. And the best, earliest quote

da nađem prvo spominjanje ovoga. Najbolji, najraniji citat

that I could find was one from David Livingstone,

koji sam našao je citat Dejvida Livingstona,

writing in the 1850s about how the railroad, the steam ship,

napisan 1850-ih o tome kako su železnica, parobrod

and the telegraph were integrating East Africa perfectly

i telegraf savršeno integrisali istočnu Afriku

with the rest of the world.

sa ostatkom sveta.

Now clearly, David Livingstone

Očigledno, Dejvid Livingston

was a little bit ahead of his time,

je bio ispred svog vremena,

but it does seem useful to ask ourselves,

ali zvuči korisno zapitati se:

"Just how global are we?"

,,Koliko smo stvarno globalizovani?",

before we think about where we go from here.

pre nego što pomislimo kuda ćemo odavde.

So the best way I've found of trying to get people

Otkrio sam da je korišćenje podataka

to take seriously the idea that the world may not be flat,

najbolji način da ljudi ozbiljno shvate ideju

may not even be close to flat, is with some data.

da svet možda nije ravan, čak ni blizu toga.

So one of the things I've been doing over the last few years

Jedna od stvari koju sam radio nekoliko prošlih godina

is really compiling data on things that could either happen

je skupljanje podataka o stvarima koje se mogu dogoditi

within national borders or across national borders,

unutar ili preko državnih granica

and I've looked at the cross-border component

i gledao sam procenat prekogranične komponente

as a percentage of the total.

u odnosu na celinu.

I'm not going to present all the data that I have here today,

Neću vam prikazati sve podatke koje imam ovde,

but let me just give you a few data points.

ali ću vam pokazati par njih.

I'm going to talk a little bit about one kind of information flow,

Pričaću malo o jednoj vrsti protoka informacija,

one kind of flow of people, one kind of flow of capital,

protoka ljudi, protoka kapitala

and, of course, trade in products and services.

i naravno o trgovini proizvoda i usluga.

So let's start off with plain old telephone service.

Počemo sa starim dobrim telefonom.

Of all the voice-calling minutes in the world last year,

Od svih poziva na svetu prošle godine,

what percentage do you think were accounted for

koliko procenata mislite da su zauzimali

by cross-border phone calls?

prekogranični telefonski pozivi?

Pick a percentage in your own mind.

Izaberite procenat u glavi.

The answer turns out to be two percent.

Ispostavlja se da je odgovor dva procenta.

If you include Internet telephony, you might be able

Ako uračunate i internet telefoniju, možda uspete

to push this number up to six or seven percent,

da pogurate ovaj broj na šest ili sedam procenata,

but it's nowhere near what people tend to estimate.

ali to nije ni blizu onom što ljudi uglavnom pretpostavljaju.

Or let's turn to people moving across borders.

Hajde da pređemo na ljude koji prelaze granice.

One particular thing we might look at, in terms of

Posebna stvar koju možemo posmatrati, u pogledu

long-term flows of people, is what percentage

dugoročnog protoka ljudi, je koji procenat

of the world's population is accounted for

svetske populacije čini

by first-generation immigrants?

prva generacija imigranata.

Again, please pick a percentage.

Ponovo, izaberite neki procenat.

Turns out to be a little bit higher.

Ispostavlja se da je malo viši.

It's actually about three percent.

U stvari je oko tri procenta.

Or think of investment. Take all the real investment

Pomislite na investicije. Uzmite u obzir sve investicije

that went on in the world in 2010.

koje su se širom sveta desile 2010. godine.

What percentage of that was accounted for

Koji procenat su činile

by foreign direct investment?

direktne strane investicije?

Not quite ten percent.

Malo manje od deset procenata.

And then finally, the one statistic

I konačno, statistika

that I suspect many of the people in this room have seen:

za koju mislim da ju je većina ljudi u ovoj prostoriji ranije videla:

the export-to-GDP ratio.

odnos izvoza prema BDP-u.

If you look at the official statistics, they typically indicate

Ako pogledate oficijelne statistike, one obično prikazuju

a little bit above 30 percent.

nešto iznad 30 procenata.

However, there's a big problem with the official statistics,

Međutim, postoji ogroman problem sa zvaničnim statistikama,

in that if, for instance, a Japanese component supplier

u tome što ako, na primer, japanski snabdevač komponentama

ships something to China to be put into an iPod,

pošalje nešto u Kinu da se ugradi u ajpod

and then the iPod gets shipped to the U.S.,

i onda se ajpod pošalje u SAD,

that component ends up getting counted multiple times.

ta komponenta se prebroji više puta.

So nobody knows how bad this bias

Tako da niko ne zna koliko ovo utiče

with the official statistics actually is, so I thought I would

na zvanične statistike, pa sam pomislio

ask the person who's spearheading the effort

da pitam osobu koja prednjači u naporima

to generate data on this, Pascal Lamy,

da se skupe podaci o ovome, Paskala Lamija,

the Director of the World Trade Organization,

direktora Svetske trgovinske organizacije,

what his best guess would be

koja je njegova najbolja procena

of exports as a percentage of GDP,

o izvozima kao procentu BDP-a,

without the double- and triple-counting,

bez duplog i trostrukog brojanja

and it's actually probably a bit under 20 percent, rather than

i ona je nešto ispod 20 procenata,

the 30 percent-plus numbers that we're talking about.

pre nego 30 ili više procenata o kojima smo pričali.

So it's very clear that if you look at these numbers

Veoma je jasno da, ako pogledate ove brojeve

or all the other numbers that I talk about in my book,

ili sve druge brojeve o kojima pričam u svojoj knjizi,

"World 3.0," that we're very, very far from

,,Svet 3.0", veoma smo daleko od

the no-border effect benchmark, which would imply

bezgraničnog cilja, koji bi podrazumevao

internationalization levels of the order of 85, 90, 95 percent.

nivoe internacionalizacije reda veličine 85, 90, 95 procenata.

So clearly, apocalyptically-minded authors

Jasno je da apokaliptični autori

have overstated the case.

precenjuju stvar.

But it's not just the apocalyptics, as I think of them,

Ali nisu samo apokaliptični, kako ih zamišljam,

who are prone to this kind of overstatement.

podložni ovakvoj vrsti precenjivanja.

I've also spent some time surveying audiences

Takođe sam proveo neko vreme anketirajući publiku

in different parts of the world

u različitim delovima sveta

on what they actually guess these numbers to be.

o njihovim pretpostavkama ovih brojeva.

Let me share with you the results of a survey

Dozvolite mi da podelim rezultate ankete

that Harvard Business Review was kind enough to run

koju je Harvard biznis pregled sproveo

of its readership as to what people's guesses

među svojim čitaocima o njihovim pretpostavkama

along these dimensions actually were.

o ovim brojevima.

So a couple of observations stand out for me from this slide.

Par zapažanja se izdvaja iz ovog slajda za mene.

First of all, there is a suggestion of some error.

Prvo, postoji sugestija neke greške.

Okay. (Laughter)

OK. (Smeh)

Second, these are pretty large errors. For four quantities

Drugo, ovo su poprilično velike greške. Za četiri brojke

whose average value is less than 10 percent,

čija je prosečna vrednost manja od 10 procenata,

you have people guessing three, four times that level.

ljudi su pretpostavljali tri-četiri puta više.

Even though I'm an economist, I find that

Iako sam ekonomista, smatram da je ovo

a pretty large error.

poprilično velika greška.

And third, this is not just confined to the readers

I treće, ovo nije samo ograničeno na čitaoce

of the Harvard Business Review.

Harvard biznis pregleda.

I've run several dozen such surveys in different parts

Sproveo sam nekoliko desetina sličnih anketa u različitim delovima sveta

of the world, and in all cases except one,

i u svim slučajevima osim jednog

where a group actually underestimated

u kojoj je grupa potcenila

the trade-to-GDP ratio, people have this tendency

odnos izvoza prema BDP-u, ljudi imaju ovu tendenciju

towards overestimation, and so I thought it important

da precenjuju i zato mislim da je važno

to give a name to this, and that's what I refer to

nazvati ovo i to zovem

as globaloney, the difference between the dark blue bars

globalonija, tu razliku između tamno plavih poluga

and the light gray bars.

i svetlo sivih poluga.

Especially because, I suspect, some of you may still be

Posebno zato što sumnjam da su neki od vas još uvek

a little bit skeptical of the claims, I think it's important

pomalo skeptični u vezi sa ovim, mislim da je važno

to just spend a little bit of time thinking about

provesti malo više vremena u razmišljanju

why we might be prone to globaloney.

o tome zašto smo podložni globaloniji.

A couple of different reasons come to mind.

Nekoliko različitih razloga mi pada na pamet.

First of all, there's a real dearth of data in the debate.

Prvi, postoji prava oskudica podataka u ovoj debati.

Let me give you an example. When I first published

Daću vam primer. Kada sam prvi put objavio

some of these data a few years ago

neke od ovih podataka, pre nekoliko godina

in a magazine called Foreign Policy,

u časopisu zvanom Strana politika,

one of the people who wrote in, not entirely in agreement,

jedan od ljudi koji je odgovorio, ne u potpunosti u saglasnosti,

was Tom Friedman. And since my article was titled

je bio Tom Fridman. S obzirom da je moj članak bio naslovljen

"Why the World Isn't Flat," that wasn't too surprising. (Laughter)

,,Zašto svet nije ravan", to nije bilo previše iznenađujuće. (Smeh)

What was very surprising to me was Tom's critique,

Ono što me je iznenadilo je Tomova kritika,

which was, "Ghemawat's data are narrow."

koja je bila: ,,Gemavatovi podaci su usko prikupljeni."

And this caused me to scratch my head, because

To me je zbunilo jer kako sam prolazio

as I went back through his several-hundred-page book,

kroz njegovu knjigu od nekoliko stotina stranica

I couldn't find a single figure, chart, table,

nisam mogao da nađem nijednu cifru, grafikon, tabelu,

reference or footnote.

napomenu ili fusnotu.

So my point is, I haven't presented a lot of data here

Moja poenta je, iako nisam pokazao mnogo podataka ovde

to convince you that I'm right, but I would urge you

da vas ubedim da sam u pravu, već da vas podstaknem

to go away and look for your own data

da sami pronađete svoje podatke

to try and actually assess whether some of these

i pokušate da procenite da li su neka od ovih

hand-me-down insights that we've been bombarded with

prenesenih shvatanja kojima smo bombardovani

actually are correct.

u stvari tačna.

So dearth of data in the debate is one reason.

Dakle, oskudica podataka je jedan razlog.

A second reason has to do with peer pressure.

Drugi razlog je povezan sa pritiskom vršnjaka.

I remember, I decided to write my

Sećam se da sam odlučio da napišem

"Why the World Isn't Flat" article, because

,,Zašto svet nije ravan" članak zato što

I was being interviewed on TV in Mumbai,

sam držao intervju na TV-u u Mumbaju

and the interviewer's first question to me was,

i voditeljkino prvo pitanje je bilo:

"Professor Ghemawat, why do you still believe

,,Profesore Gemavat, zašto i dalje mislite

that the world is round?" And I started laughing,

da je svet okrugao?" Počeo sam da se smejem

because I hadn't come across that formulation before. (Laughter)

jer mi niko nije tako postavio to pitanje. (Smeh)

And as I was laughing, I was thinking,

Dok sam se smejao, razmišljao sam

I really need a more coherent response, especially

kako mi je potreban koherentniji odgovor, posebno

on national TV. I'd better write something about this. (Laughter)

na nacionalnoj televiziji. Bilo bi bolje da napišem nešto o ovome. (Smeh)

But what I can't quite capture for you

Ali ne mogu da vam tačno opišem

was the pity and disbelief

sažaljenje i nevericu

with which the interviewer asked her question.

sa kojom je voditeljka postavila to pitanje.

The perspective was, here is this poor professor.

Njena perspektiva je bila, ovo ovde je jadni profesor.

He's clearly been in a cave for the last 20,000 years.

Očigledno je proveo poslednjih 20 000 godina u pećini.

He really has no idea

Stvarno nema pojma

as to what's actually going on in the world.

šta se dešava u svetu.

So try this out with your friends and acquaintances,

Probajte ovo sa svojim prijateljima i poznanicima,

if you like. You'll find that it's very cool

ako želite. Videćete da je veoma kul

to talk about the world being one, etc.

pričati o svetu kao celini itd.

If you raise questions about that formulation,

Ako postavljate pitanja o tome,

you really are considered a bit of an antique.

postajete pomalo starinski.

And then the final reason, which I mention,

Poslednji razlog koji pominjem,

especially to a TED audience, with some trepidation,

posebno TED publici, sa pomalo straha,

has to do with what I call "techno-trances."

je povezan sa onim što zovem ,,tehno-transovi".

If you listen to techno music for long periods of time,

Ako slušate tehno muziku duži period vremena,

it does things to your brainwave activity. (Laughter)

ona utiče na aktivnost vaših moždanih talasa. (Smeh)

Something similar seems to happen

Nešto slično se izgleda dešava

with exaggerated conceptions of how technology

i sa preteranim koncepcijama kako će tehnologija

is going to overpower in the very immediate run

da nadjača, u veoma brzom roku,

all cultural barriers, all political barriers,

sve kulturne prepreke, sve političke prepreke,

all geographic barriers, because at this point

sve geografske prepreke jer u ovom trenutku

I know you aren't allowed to ask me questions,

znam da vam nije dozvoljeno da mi postavljate pitanja,

but when I get to this point in my lecture with my students,

ali kada dođem dovde u svojim predavanjima sa studentima,

hands go up, and people ask me,

ruke se dižu i ljudi me pitaju,

"Yeah, but what about Facebook?"

,,Da, ali šta ćemo sa Fejsbukom?"

And I got this question often enough that I thought

Ovo pitanje su mi postavili dovoljno često da sam pomislio

I'd better do some research on Facebook.

kako bi bilo dobro da sprovedem istraživanje o Fejsbuku.

Because, in some sense, it's the ideal kind of technology

U neku ruku, to je idealna vrsta tehnologije

to think about. Theoretically, it makes it

na koju možete pomisliti. Teoretski, ona omogućava

as easy to form friendships halfway around the world

lako formiranje novih prijateljstava širom sveta

as opposed to right next door.

nasuprot sa prvim susedom.

What percentage of people's friends on Facebook

Koji procenat prijatelja na Fejsbuku

are actually located in countries other than where

živi van države u kojoj žive ljudi

people we're analyzing are based?

na kojima su zasnovane analize?

The answer is probably somewhere between

Odgovor je verovatno negde između

10 to 15 percent.

10 i 15 procenata.

Non-negligible, so we don't live in an entirely local

Nije zanemarljivo. Dakle, ne živimo ni u potpuno lokalnom

or national world, but very, very far from the 95 percent level

ili nacionalnom svetu, ali smo veoma daleko od 95 procenata

that you would expect, and the reason's very simple.

koje biste očekivali i razlog je veoma jednostavan.

We don't, or I hope we don't, form friendships at random

Nadam se da ne formiramo prijateljstva nasumično

on Facebook. The technology is overlaid

na Fejsbuku. Tehnologija je postavljena

on a pre-existing matrix of relationships that we have,

na već postojeću matricu odnosa koje imamo

and those relationships are what the technology

i te odnose tehnologija

doesn't quite displace. Those relationships are why

ne menja u potpunosti. Ti odnosi su razlog zašto

we get far fewer than 95 percent of our friends

imamo daleko ispod 95 procenata svojih prijatelja

being located in countries other than where we are.

u državama različitim od naših.

So does all this matter? Or is globaloney

Da li je sve ovo značajno? Ili je globalonija

just a harmless way of getting people to pay more attention

samo bezopasan način primoravanja ljudi da obrate više pažnje

to globalization-related issues?

na probleme globalizacije?

I want to suggest that actually,

Želim da predložim da u stvari

globaloney can be very harmful to your health.

globalonija može biti veoma štetna po vaše zdravlje.

First of all, recognizing that the glass

Kao prvo, prepoznavanje da je čaša

is only 10 to 20 percent full is critical to seeing

samo 10 do 20 procenata puna je veoma važno za shvatanje

that there might be potential for additional gains

da postoji potencijal za dodatne dobiti

from additional integration,

od dodatnih integracija,

whereas if we thought we were already there,

a ako mislimo da smo već tamo,

there would be no particular point to pushing harder.

ne bi bilo ni razloga da nastavimo da guramo napred.

It's a little bit like, we wouldn't be having a conference

Kao na primer, ne bismo imali ovu konferenciju

on radical openness if we already thought we were totally open

o radikalnoj otvorenosti da smatramo da smo već potpuno otvoreni

to all the kinds of influences that are being talked about

prema svim vrstama uticaja o kojima se priča

at this conference.

na ovoj konferenciji.

So being accurate about how limited globalization levels are

Biti precizan o tome koliko je ograničena globalizacija

is critical to even being able to notice

je veoma važno, kako bismo bili u stanju da primetimo

that there might be room for something more,

da ima prostora za još nešto više,

something that would contribute further to global welfare.

nešto što bi doprinelo globalnom blagostanju.

Which brings me to my second point.

To me dovodi do moje druge poente.

Avoiding overstatement is also very helpful

Izbegavanje precenjivanja je takođe veoma korisno

because it reduces and in some cases even reverses

jer smanjuje i u nekim slučajevima u potpunosti preokreće,

some of the fears that people have about globalization.

strahove ljudi o globalizaciji.

So I actually spend most of my "World 3.0" book

Većinu svoje knjige ,,Svet 3.0" sam proveo

working through a litany of market failures and fears

obrađujući litije o krahu tržišta i strahovima

that people have that they worry globalization is going to exacerbate.

koje ljudi imaju i smatraju da će ih globalizacija samo pogoršati.

I'm obviously not going to be able to do that for you today,

Naravno to neću moći da uradim za vas danas,

so let me just present to you two headlines

ali ću vam pokazati dva naslova

as an illustration of what I have in mind.

kao primer onoga što imam na umu.

Think of France and the current debate about immigration.

Pomislite na Francusku i trenutnu debatu o imigraciji.

When you ask people in France what percentage

Kada pitate ljude u Francuskoj koji procenat

of the French population is immigrants,

francuske populacije čine imigranti,

the answer is about 24 percent. That's their guess.

odgovor je oko 24 procenta. To je njihova pretpostavka.

Maybe realizing that the number is just eight percent

Možda shvatanje da je taj broj jedva osam procenata

might help cool some of the superheated rhetoric

pomogne da se ohladi uzavrela retorika

that we see around the immigration issue.

koju vidimo u vezi sa ovim problemom.

Or to take an even more striking example,

Ili da uzmemo još upadljiviji primer,

when the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations

kada je Odbor Čikaga za strane odnose

did a survey of Americans, asking them to guess

napravio anketu među Amerikancima, pitajući ih da pogode

what percentage of the federal budget went to foreign aid,

koji deo federalnog budžeta se izdvaja za međunarodnu pomoć,

the guess was 30 percent, which is

odgovor je bio 30 procenata, što je

slightly in excess of the actual level — ("actually about ... 1%") (Laughter) —

malo iznad stvarnog nivoa - (,,u stvari oko... 1%") (Smeh) -

of U.S. governmental commitments to federal aid.

davanja američke vlade za saveznu pomoć.

The reassuring thing about this particular survey was,

Ohrabrujuća stvar u vezi sa ovom anketom je to

when it was pointed out to people how far

da kada su ljudi saznali koliko

their estimates were from the actual data,

su pogrešili u svojim procenama,

some of them — not all of them — seemed to become

neki od njih su - ne svi - smatrali da

more willing to consider increases in foreign aid.

bi trebalo povećati međunarodnu pomoć.

So foreign aid is actually a great way

Međunarodna pomoć je u stvari odličan način

of sort of wrapping up here, because

da završim sa ovim jer

if you think about it, what I've been talking about today

kada razmislite o tome, ono o čemu sam pričao danas je

is this notion -- very uncontroversial amongst economists --

ovaj pojam - veoma nekontroverzan među ekonomistima -

that most things are very home-biased.

da je većina ljudi pristrasna.

"Foreign aid is the most aid to poor people,"

"Međunarodna pomoć je najveća pomoć siromašnima",

is about the most home-biased thing you can find.

to je otprilike najveća predrasuda koju možete naći.

If you look at the OECD countries and how much

Ako pogledate države članice OECD-a i koliko

they spend per domestic poor person,

one troše po jednoj siromašnoj osobi

and compare it with how much they spend

i uporedite sa trošenjem

per poor person in poor countries,

po siromašnoj osobi u siromašnim državama,

the ratio — Branko Milanovic at the World Bank did the calculations —

odnos je - Branko Milanović iz Svetske banke je radio proračune

turns out to be about 30,000 to one.

- oko 30 000 prema jedan.

Now of course, some of us, if we truly are cosmopolitan,

Naravno, neki od nas bi, ako smo stvarno kosmopolite,

would like to see that ratio being brought down

želeli da vidimo kako se taj odnos smanjuje

to one-is-to-one.

na jedan prema jedan.

I'd like to make the suggestion that we don't need to aim

Želeo bih da predložim da ne treba da ciljamo

for that to make substantial progress from where we are.

da napravimo bitniji napredak ovde gde smo sad.

If we simply brought that ratio down to 15,000 to one,

Ako bismo samo smanjili taj odnos na 15 000 prema jedan,

we would be meeting those aid targets that were agreed

postigli bismo ciljeve koji su dogovoreni

at the Rio Summit 20 years ago that the summit

na samitu u Riju pre 20 godina, za koje nije postignut

that ended last week made no further progress on.

nikakav napredak na samitu prošle nedelje.

So in summary, while radical openness is great,

U zaključku, iako je radikalna otvorenost dobra,

given how closed we are,

s obzirom na to koliko smo zatvoreni,

even incremental openness could make things

čak bi i delimična otvorenost drastično

dramatically better. Thank you very much. (Applause)

poboljšala stvari. Mnogo vam hvala. (Aplauz)

(Applause)

(Aplauz)