Column : Evolution of the good

The new government?whatever be the acronym of its political combination?will take office against the backdrop of a combustible combination of global threats?terrorism, financial meltdown, energy scarcity, climate change, regional civil strife and possibly a pandemic virus. Each of these threats could (if it has not already) spill over our borders. The question is whether the new arithmetic in Parliament will allow individuals of requisite talent, experience, and competence to handle these emergent threats.

Time will provide the answers. What I wish to draw attention to here is the nature of the responses that will be required to successfully mitigate the consequences. Let me do so by drawing on historical experience.

Thomas Edison illuminated the lower half of Manhattan in 1882. It was not until the mid-1930s that even half of the factories had displaced steam power with electric motors. The reason for this slow diffusion was the design of the factories. They had been built vertically to accommodate the pulley system of steam power generation. Electric motors could not be accommodated within this architectural frame. The factories had to be consequently gutted and rebuilt before they could be electrified.

A century later computers hit the markets. This was a comparably revolutionary breakthrough. The economic benefits were self-evident. Yet it was years before computers occupied the interstices of the economy?a puzzle that provoked Prof Robert Solow to remark ?computers are everywhere but in the productivity statistics?. In this case the reasons were institutional and corporate inertia and the instinctive reluctance of humans to alter ingrained habits.

I have outlined these two experiences to highlight three trends. First the lag between technological breakthroughs and its material impact. Second, the inherent physical and psychological (human) limits to the quick and widespread application of new ideas and products and third the need for a multidimensional and coordinated approach (ie, there are no silver bullets). Let me elaborate this last point further through the lense of energy scarcity and environmental protection.

We all know that global warming is fast reaching a tipping point and that the emissions of GHG must be arrested. Many governments and companies are expending a great deal of R&D effort to commercialise solar, wind, bio and nuclear. These efforts will no doubt pay off sooner rather than later. There will be a technological breakthrough that will sharply reduce the costs of Solar and Wind energy; biofuels from cellulosic material rather than the food chain will be commercially available; and replacements for petrol and diesel as a transportation fuel will be developed. The question is whether the associated supply and distribution infrastructure required to bring these new sources of energy from the production point to the householder will be created within the same period; whether vehicles will be redesigned and produced in mass numbers to use the replacement transportation fuels; and whether people will alter their way of life to accept and adapt to a new energy system. Clearly, if these parallel developments do not take place, then the new energy technologies will be everywhere but in the real economy.

The above has contemporary relevance. It gives a clue as to what needs to be done to tackle existing and emergent global threats. It tells us that there are no quick-fix solutions and that a successful response will depend on the effectiveness with which technology is harnessed to physical reconstruction and altitudinal change. It also underlines the importance of experienced leadership and individual?s capability to walk the tight rope between ?competitive populism? and ?public interest?.

We are three quarters of the way through an election. The generic outcome is foreordained. We will have a coalition government. This is not necessarily a bad outcome. Statesmanship is not the preserve of any one form of political organisation. The big question to my mind is who will wield the levers of key ministerial portfolios. Will it be individuals of competence and integrity?people who understand human behaviour and are experienced enough to understand the complexity of the dangers ahead and the urgency of initiating appropriate multidimensional initiatives?or others. If so, then irrespective of the party configuration of the new parliament, we can be optimistic.

I say that because history is replete with examples of people who have singlehandedly overcame systemic blocks to shift the needle of change. Obama is the most extraordinary recent testament of this fact, but our own PM also offers a good example. His successful fight to secure the civil nuclear 123 agreement was in the teeth of considerable opposition. Less dramatic we also have the example of how Satyam was pulled back from the brink of bankruptcy and saved not just a company but also 50,000 jobs. The point is that when ?good? people take the bit between their teeth they can wreak disproportionately positive change. The fact of coalition governments need not, therefore, be any cause for concern. We simply need the right people in the right job.

?The author is chairman of the Shell Group of companies in India. These are his personal views