Decision Makers 2010   Executive Summary Conclusions Papers Program Participants Book List

				Dr. Joop de Vries 1. What will be the key "rules of the game" in future societies, and which actors are shaping them? Technology is a major force for change. But although technological change will have a profound impact on our lives and lifestyles, I would not regard technology as the 'key actor.' The concept of 'actor' implies action, which in turn implies that there is a degree of freedom and choice. In that sense, 'the people' collectively are the actors shaping the 'rules of the game,' not the leaders. People will decide how new rules will be developed and in modern democracies, the leaders follow. As a result there will be more opportunities for choosing a personal lifestyle. We will see more people who make their own choices regardless of developments at the macro-level. 2. Who are the likely winners and losers? When we refer to winners and losers, we have to define what game we are playing. In business, this seems currently to be quite clear. Companies are de facto restricting themselves to survival. More interesting is the 'winners and losers' issue when applied to countries. In today's world, a country does well when it has a growing economy, creates jobs, has large multinationals, high productivity and key technologies, and when - as a result - it gains recognition and respect, and can exercise political and military influence on other countries. Looking at societies and individual people, the situation is less straightforward. At the macro-level, winners are those who have challenging jobs, are part of networks, are on-line, and financially well-off. Losers are the people with low skills and little money, and who are afraid of change. However, for society as a whole the main question is whether people see themselves as winners or losers. They apply their own criteria, which only in part are connected with the 'winners and losers' criteria at the macro-level. 3. What element of social change (e.g., globalization, individualization, regionalization) is likely to be the most important? Regionalisation is a major force in many countries which at first sight is not driven by technology. It is an example of developments initiated by 'the people'. Globalization is, in first instance, driven by the pre-determined forces at work, in particular technology and global limits. The outcome of this process is neither pre-determined nor predictable. We do not know whether the global community will now see the need to develop 'global rules.' And the answer to how a globalized world will look like depends on the people who will make up their minds and respond. As a consequence, I tend to consider individualization the most important development of the three. In this context, I would define 'individualization' not as the growth of individualism and ego-centred attitudes. Instead, I would define it as the historical process whereby individual people identify, develop and pursue their personal values and aspirations. We can identify groups of people who are driven by similar aspirations and priorities, and whom we can understand. The same groups are identified in all Western countries, and in general, socio-cultural differences within countries are considerably larger than the differences between countries. Segmentations along lines of nationality are becoming less relevant than the international groups of like-minded people and networks of kindred spirits.
	Project Background | Events | Reports and Essays Zukunftszeugen | Contact Us | Home Page Last Modified: 2002-04-23 TOP