Latest news with #WhyNationsFail
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Business
- Express Tribune
TTAP urges top judge to probe sugar scam
Opposition leaders attend the first day of the two-day All Parties Conference in Islamabad on July 31, 2025. Photo: X An opposition parties' alliance has urged the country's top judge to take suo motu notice of "a systemic policy manipulation" in the sugar industry that has allowed "a select group of sugar barons" to reap immense profits "at the direct expense of common citizens". The "urgent appeal" sent to Chief Justice of Yahya Afridi by Tehreek Tahaffuz Aine-e-Pakistan (TTAP) Vice Chairman Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar stated that the recent sugar crisis is a stark testament to how entrenched interests exploit national policy for personal gain. It claimed that an alarming increase in sugar pricesto an unprecedented Rs200 per kg since Januaryis not a mere market fluctuation but a direct consequence of deliberate policy choices and demands an immediate and decisive intervention of the Supreme Court. It said Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government, in a move that defies logic and public interest, first approved the export of 765,000 metric tonnes of sugar between July 2024 and May 2025, despite clear warnings of impending supply shortages. "This decision allowed a select group of sugar barons to reap immense profits. Subsequently, when local prices skyrocketed, the government paradoxically approved the import of 500,000 metric tons of sugar, further facilitating the same beneficiaries through preferential tax treatment." "The cabinet waived all duties and taxes on these imports. This tax exemption has rightly drawn the ire of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), clashing with loan conditions and exacerbating Pakistan's fiscal strain." According to the appeal, this export-import cycle, repeated over the past 24 months, unequivocally exposes the profound influence of the sugar industry over national policy. It raises serious questions about economic stewardship and, more critically, about who really benefits from these decisions. Citing "credible reports", it said a staggering 50% of sugar mills are owned by politicians, including prominent affiliates of the ruling PML-N coalition. This direct involvement of the political class, holding parliamentary seats, represents a profound conflict of interest and cements their "entrenched political clout". The appeal stated that this blending of political muscle and commercial interest has effectively entrenched a near-monopoly, enabling a calculated strategy to maximize gains for a privileged few. It said the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) previously imposed penalties totaling Rs44 billion on 81 sugar mills in August 2021, underscoring a history of cartelization and exploitative practices. "This situation is a textbook example of "extractive institutions" as described by Acemoglu and Robinson in 'Why Nations Fail', designed to 'steer the economic rewards toward a relatively small elite'. "The crisis mirrors how concentrated political power is used to create immense wealth for those who wield it, while the vast majority of Pakistanis suffer from inflation and a strained economy." It claimed that the policy shifts in the sugar sector are not accidental but are deliberate mechanisms, crafted by a politically connected elite, to extract wealth from the masses.
Time of India
31-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Economics Nobel 2024 and an Ecopinion from 2021
Atul has 19 years of experience in the field of banking, financial inclusion, macroeconomic analysis, and market research. Statistical and financial analysis have been his area of interest and he is an expert in multivariate statistical modeling. Atul has worked in several countries of Asia and Africa. He has conducted workshops on microfinance and multivariate analysis for national and international corporates. As co-founder at Prime M2i Consulting, Atul leads development of new products and clients. He has played a leading role in developing M2i's assessment frameworks and tools. LESS ... MORE In December 2021, I had argued in an Ecopinion piece that strong institutions of governance are not a luxury for developed nations – they are the essential scaffolding for any society that aspires to sustainable prosperity. It was a conviction born from observing the divergent paths of nations: why some thrive and others stumble despite comparable resources or economic potential. Three years later, the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson, eminent scholars whose work provides empirical and historical backing to this very idea. The Nobel Committee recognized them for showing that inclusive institutions, those that uphold the rule of law, ensure participation, and prevent elite capture, are the true engines of long-term development. Their research has painstakingly established what many in the field of governance, development economics, and public policy have intuitively known: that no amount of investment, aid, or natural resource endowment can substitute for institutions that are transparent, responsive, and fair. Where institutions are extractive, where power is centralized, where rules serve the few, and where voice is suppressed, economic growth, even if it occurs, remains brittle and unequal. What's striking is how much of their award-winning work mirrors the themes I had emphasized in my 2021 article. I had written that 'good governance is about predictability, voice, and fairness: qualities that attract investment, foster trust, and sustain peace.' Acemoglu and Robinson's earlier work, Why Nations Fail, and their continued scholarship argue precisely this: that nations prosper not because of geography or luck, but because of inclusive political and economic institutions. Their findings on the long shadow of colonial institutional frameworks – where settler mortality shaped whether inclusive or extractive institutions were built – underscore the deep historical roots of inequality, and the importance of institutional reform in postcolonial states. It's heartening, and somewhat validating, to see global academic recognition converge on themes that many practitioners, policymakers, and development thinkers in the Global South have long championed. But this Nobel Prize also carries a deeper message for emerging nations: the work of institution-building is never done. As our economies modernize and societies digitize, new forms of institutional apathy can creep in – opacity as well as rising centralization of power. Institutions must not only be strong, but also adaptive. In this age of multifaceted uncertainties, the question is not just whether we have institutions, but whether we have the right kind of institutions – those that serve citizens over systems, inclusion over inertia, and resilience over rigidity. The 2024 Nobel Prize reminds us that the true infrastructure of prosperity is invisible: it lies in our laws, our norms, our accountability systems, and our collective trust in them. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Business Upturn
25-07-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
Daron Acemoglu, Chris Bangle and Michele De Lucchi awarded the Ethic Award at the Oscar Pomilio Blumm Forum 'Happy Chaos? Rethinking Ethics in an Age of Global Change'
By GlobeNewswire Published on July 25, 2025, 21:45 IST From geopolitics to technology, from economics to architecture, the 2025 edition of the Oscar Pomilio Blumm Forum gathered three leading voices of the global debate at the Aurum in Pescara to reflect on the profound transformations reshaping our time. The event, titled 'Happy Chaos?', explored the systemic changes redefining institutions, society, and the very language of contemporary culture. The Forum awarded Daron Acemoglu, Chris Bangle, and Michele De Lucchi with the 2025 Ethic Award, in recognition of the ethical value of their contribution to society: individuals who, through research, design, and creativity, have expressed an original, deeply civic vision — capable of pointing to new directions. 'With this Forum, we wanted to explore the fractures of our time through the lens of three visionary minds,' said Franco Pomilio, President of Pomilio Blumm. 'The extraordinary participation and high level of debate confirmed that ethics can—and must—be the driving force behind innovation and global citizenship.' Daron Acemoglu: 'AI must empower people, not replace them' The Forum opened with Daron Acemoglu, Nobel Prize winner for Economics in 2024, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and author of the landmark book Why Nations Fail , which argues that it is institutions—not geography or culture—that determine the prosperity or decline of nations. In his keynote, Professor Acemoglu focused on the concept of 'Remaking Liberalism', that is also the main topic of a book he is working on, and he warned of the dangers of artificial intelligence designed to replace human labor: 'The current model reinforces the power of elites and increases inequality. We need technology that is built to democratize opportunity.' He called for a new social contract to guide digital development: 'We can build tools that assist teachers, doctors, artisans, and citizens—but it requires democratic rules and long-term vision.' Chris Bangle: 'Design is pulling us away from ourselves' Next to speak was Chris Bangle, the American designer who transformed the aesthetics of BMW, MINI and Rolls-Royce, and is considered one of the most influential creatives of our time. Bangle offered a provocative reflection: 'We have built a world where good design means hiding the human hand. But this paradigm is consuming us.' He criticized the impersonal, algorithm-driven aesthetic, stating: 'The meaning of an object lies not only in its form or function, but in the human input behind it. If perfection is inhuman, then imperfection can become value.' Michele De Lucchi: 'Every project is an equation—and the unknown variable is humanity' The Forum concluded with Michele De Lucchi, the renowned Italian architect and designer, founder of AMDL CIRCLE, creator of the iconic Tolomeo lamp and of numerous international architectural projects. 'Today, architecture must be conceived as an environmental installation capable of responding to the unpredictable changes triggered by human beings,' he explained, presenting his personal 'equation' of design. De Lucchi reminded the audience that the role of the designer is not only to shape objects, but also to inspire behaviors, desires, and collective imagination. 'We can no longer design for eternity in a world that is changing so rapidly,' he stated. 'Architecture must be reimagined as something adaptable, sustainable, and deeply human.' Attachment Oscar Pomilio Forum 'Happy Chaos? Rethinking Ethics in an Age of Global Change' Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash GlobeNewswire provides press release distribution services globally, with substantial operations in North America and Europe.
Hamilton Spectator
25-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Daron Acemoglu, Chris Bangle and Michele De Lucchi awarded the Ethic Award at the Oscar Pomilio Blumm Forum 'Happy Chaos? Rethinking Ethics in an Age of Global Change'
From geopolitics to technology, from economics to architecture, the 2025 edition of the Oscar Pomilio Blumm Forum gathered three leading voices of the global debate at the Aurum in Pescara to reflect on the profound transformations reshaping our time. The event, titled 'Happy Chaos?', explored the systemic changes redefining institutions, society, and the very language of contemporary culture. The Forum awarded Daron Acemoglu, Chris Bangle, and Michele De Lucchi with the 2025 Ethic Award, in recognition of the ethical value of their contribution to society: individuals who, through research, design, and creativity, have expressed an original, deeply civic vision — capable of pointing to new directions. 'With this Forum, we wanted to explore the fractures of our time through the lens of three visionary minds,' said Franco Pomilio, President of Pomilio Blumm. 'The extraordinary participation and high level of debate confirmed that ethics can—and must—be the driving force behind innovation and global citizenship.' Daron Acemoglu: 'AI must empower people, not replace them' The Forum opened with Daron Acemoglu, Nobel Prize winner for Economics in 2024, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and author of the landmark book Why Nations Fail , which argues that it is institutions—not geography or culture—that determine the prosperity or decline of nations. In his keynote, Professor Acemoglu focused on the concept of 'Remaking Liberalism', that is also the main topic of a book he is working on, and he warned of the dangers of artificial intelligence designed to replace human labor: 'The current model reinforces the power of elites and increases inequality. We need technology that is built to democratize opportunity.' He called for a new social contract to guide digital development: 'We can build tools that assist teachers, doctors, artisans, and citizens—but it requires democratic rules and long-term vision.' Chris Bangle: 'Design is pulling us away from ourselves' Next to speak was Chris Bangle, the American designer who transformed the aesthetics of BMW, MINI and Rolls-Royce, and is considered one of the most influential creatives of our time. Bangle offered a provocative reflection: 'We have built a world where good design means hiding the human hand. But this paradigm is consuming us.' He criticized the impersonal, algorithm-driven aesthetic, stating: 'The meaning of an object lies not only in its form or function, but in the human input behind it. If perfection is inhuman, then imperfection can become value.' Michele De Lucchi: 'Every project is an equation—and the unknown variable is humanity' The Forum concluded with Michele De Lucchi, the renowned Italian architect and designer, founder of AMDL CIRCLE, creator of the iconic Tolomeo lamp and of numerous international architectural projects. 'Today, architecture must be conceived as an environmental installation capable of responding to the unpredictable changes triggered by human beings,' he explained, presenting his personal 'equation' of design. De Lucchi reminded the audience that the role of the designer is not only to shape objects, but also to inspire behaviors, desires, and collective imagination. 'We can no longer design for eternity in a world that is changing so rapidly,' he stated. 'Architecture must be reimagined as something adaptable, sustainable, and deeply human.' Attachment
![[Daron Acemoglu] A Sputnik moment for AI?](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F02%2F10%2Fnews-p.v1.20250210.ff6fc8e9f9e042ada41fbc48ee97ca13_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Daron Acemoglu] A Sputnik moment for AI?](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
10-02-2025
- Business
- Korea Herald
[Daron Acemoglu] A Sputnik moment for AI?
After the release of DeepSeek-R1 on Jan. 20 triggered a massive drop in chipmaker Nvidia's share price and sharp declines in various other tech companies' valuations, some declared this a 'Sputnik moment' in the Sino-American race for supremacy in artificial intelligence. While America's AI industry arguably needed shaking up, the episode raises some difficult questions. The US tech industry's investments in AI have been massive, with Goldman Sachs estimating that 'mega tech firms, corporations and utilities are set to spend around $1 trillion on capital expenditures in the coming years to support AI.' Yet for a long time, many observers, including me, have questioned the direction of AI investment and development in the United States. With all the leading companies following essentially the same playbook (though Meta has differentiated itself slightly with a partly open-source model), the industry seems to have put all its eggs in the same basket. Without exception, US tech companies are obsessed with scale. Citing yet-to-be-proven 'scaling laws,' they assume that feeding ever more data and computing power into their models is the key to unlocking ever-greater capabilities. Some even assert that 'scale is all you need.' Before Jan. 20, US companies were unwilling to consider alternatives to foundation models pretrained on massive data sets to predict the next word in a sequence. Given their priorities, they focused almost exclusively on diffusion models and chatbots aimed at performing human (or human-like) tasks. And though DeepSeek's approach is broadly the same, it appears to have relied more heavily on reinforcement learning, mixture-of-experts methods (using many smaller, more efficient models), distillation and refined chain-of-thought reasoning. This strategy reportedly allowed it to produce a competitive model at a fraction of the cost. Although there is some dispute about whether DeepSeek has told us the whole story, this episode has exposed 'groupthink' within the US AI industry. Its blindness to alternative, cheaper, more promising approaches, combined with hype, is precisely what Simon Johnson and I predicted in Power and Progress, which we wrote just before the generative-AI era began. The question now is whether the US industry has other, even more dangerous blind spots. For example, are the leading US tech companies missing an opportunity to take their models in a more 'pro-human direction'? I suspect that the answer is yes, but only time will tell. Then there is the question of whether China is leapfrogging the US. If so, does this mean that authoritarian, top-down structures (what James A. Robinson and I have called 'extractive institutions') can match or even outperform bottom-up arrangements in driving innovation? My bias is to think that top-down control hampers innovation, as Robinson and I argued in "Why Nations Fail." While DeepSeek's success appears to challenge this claim, it is far from conclusive proof that innovation under extractive institutions can be as powerful or as durable as under inclusive institutions. After all, DeepSeek is building on years of advances in the US. All its basic methods were pioneered in the US. Mixture-of-experts models and reinforcement learning were developed in academic research institutions decades ago; and it was US Big Tech firms that introduced transformer models, chain-of-thought reasoning, and distillation. What DeepSeek has done is demonstrate success in engineering: combining the same methods more effectively than US companies did. It remains to be seen whether Chinese firms and research institutions can take the next step of coming up with game-changing techniques, products and approaches of their own. Moreover, DeepSeek seems to be unlike most other Chinese AI firms, which generally produce technologies for the government or with government funding. If the company was operating under the radar, would its creativity and dynamism continue now that it is under the spotlight? Whatever happens, one company's achievement cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that China can beat more open societies at innovation. Another question concerns geopolitics. Does the DeepSeek saga mean that US export controls and other measures to hold back Chinese AI research failed? The answer here is also unclear. While DeepSeek trained its latest models (V3 and R1) on older, less powerful chips, it may still need the most powerful chips to achieve further advances and to scale up. Nonetheless, it is clear that America's zero-sum approach was unworkable and ill-advised. Such a strategy makes sense only if you believe that we are heading toward artificial general intelligence, and that whoever gets to AGI first will have a huge geopolitical advantage. By clinging to these assumptions — neither of which is necessarily warranted — we have prevented fruitful collaboration with China in many areas. For example, if one country produces models that increase human productivity or help us regulate energy better, such innovation would be beneficial to both countries, especially if it is widely used. Like its American cousins, DeepSeek does aspire to develop AGI, and creating a model that is significantly cheaper to train could be a game changer. But bringing down development costs with known methods will not miraculously get us to AGI in the next few years. Whether near-term AGI is achievable remains an open question (and whether it is desirable is even more debatable). Even if we do not yet know all the details about how DeepSeek developed its models or what its apparent achievement means for the future of the AI industry, one thing seems clear: A Chinese upstart has punctured the tech industry's obsession with scale and may have even shaken it out of its complacency. Daron Acemoglu is a 2024 Nobel laureate in economics and a professor of economics at MIT. The views expressed here are the writer's own. -- Ed.
