Kuncoro Wastuwibowo – Page 2 – Kuncoro Wastuwibowo

IEEE R10 HTC 2025

Minggu lalu, IEEE Region 10 menyelenggarakan Humanitarian Technology Conference (HTC) 2025 di Chiba University of Commerce, Jepang, 28 September hingga 1 Oktober, yang mempertemukan para visioner global dengan mengusung tema “Beyond SDGs, A New Humanitarian Era with Intelligent Partners.” Konferensi ini menyoroti sinergi antara intelektualitas manusia dan sistem cerdas yang berkembang dalam meningkatkan dampak kemanusiaan melalui teknologi.

Saat Pembukaan, Presiden IEEE Humanitarian Technologies Board (HTB) Grayson Randall menyampaikan speech yang menekankan peran istimewa profesi insinyur dalam meningkatkan kualitas hidup manusia. Pesannya menegaskan bahwa insinyur bukan sekadar pemecah masalah, melainkan arsitek harapan yang mampu menjembatani inovasi dengan tanggung jawab sosial. Ia juga memaparkan berbagai peluang baru dalam program-program HT untuk mendorong proyek yang inklusif dan berdampak luas di kawasan Asia-Pasifik. Pada hari kedua, IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall menyampaikan keynote speech yang visioner tentang roadmap IEEE dalam memajukan profesi rekayasa selaras dengan tujuan pembangunan manusia global. Ia menjelaskan bagaimana arah strategis IEEE, termasuk etika digital dan inovasi berkelanjutan, berfokus pada satu misi utama, peningkatan kualitas hidup manusia melalui kolaborasi yang cerdas.

Hari ke-3 (1 Oktober), aku berpresentasi dalam Program Khusus 15 dengan judul “Synergy for Sustainable Impact.” Sesi ini dimoderatori oleh Allya Paramitha, dengan para panelis Hidenobu Harasaki, Husain Mahdi, Agnes Irwanti, Bernard Lim, Chie Sato, Saurabh Soni, dan aku sendiri. Diskusi membahas mekanisme kolaboratif antara teknologi, kebijakan, dan inovasi sosial untuk mempercepat hasil kemanusiaan yang berkelanjutan. Aku nyaris selalu memulai presentasi tentang sinergi, ekosistem, dan kolaborasi industri dengan menempatkannya dalam framework teori kompleksitas, yang menunjukkan bagaimana sinergi dapat menghasilkan nilai emergence secara non-linear dalam ekosistem kompleksitas. Fenomena emergensi inilah yang menjadi kunci transformasi menuju pencapaian SDG, khususnya dalam memperkuat inklusivitas, ketahanan, dan keadilan.

Aku mengacu pada visi nasional Indonesia, dengan menjelaskan pengembangan ekosistem komersialisasi UMKM sebagai model penerapan teknologi kemanusiaan. Melalui program-program yang meliputi juga pembiayaan mikro, platform digital, dan pemberdayaan koperasi, kita menunjukkan bagaimana teknologi dapat mengangkat pasar yang sebelumnya belum tergarap menjadi sistem yang produktif dan berkelanjutan. Aku juga memaparkan case dimana IEEE Indonesia SIGHT in Sociopreneurship and Sustainability melaksanakan program pengembangan kapasitas bagi Student Branch IEEE Indonesia, yang masing-masing merancang solusi lokal seperti sistem air tenaga surya, pemantauan berbasis IoT, dan inkubasi sosiopreneurship, sebagaimana sedang dijalankan oleh Universitas Gadjah Mada dan Universitas Udayana. Proyek-proyek ini menunjukkan bagaimana keterlibatan berbasis rekayasa dapat berkembang menjadi sociopreneurship yang digerakkan oleh komunitas, dengan menjamin keberlanjutan melalui kepemilikan, replikasi, dan dampak yang terukur.

Pada Hari ke-0 (28 September), aku juga menceritakan versi ringkas program-program ini ke IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall dan HTB President Grayson Randall. Diskusi ini menjadi landasan bagi pengembangan lebih lanjut program kemanusiaan IEEE di Indonesia dan kawasan Asia-Pasifik, dengan fokus pada ekosistem digital, sosiopreneurship, dan model inovasi berkelanjutan. Program ini juga aku sampaikan dalam Program Khusus 13 (30 September), “From Innovation to Impact: Advancing IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives”, dalam HTA Forum untuk membahas penyelarasan strategis antara kerangka kemanusiaan IEEE dan pengembangan ekosistem regional.

IEEE R10 HTC 2025 ini bukan hanya diskusi antara gagasan, tetapi lebih sebagai aktivitas dinamis dari sinergi, serta perpaduan antara intelektualitas, empati, dan teknologi. Konferensi ini menegaskan bahwa keinsinyuran bukan sekadar tentang mesin atau sistem, melainkan selalu tentang kemanusiaan. IEEE R10 HTC 2025 menjadi tonggak lain dalam perjalanan kolektif untuk membangun dunia yang lebih adil, tangguh, dan berkelanjutan, digerakkan oleh wawasan manusia dan inovasi cerdas.

IEEE HTC 2025

The IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (HTC) 2025 was carried out at Chiba University of Commerce, Japan, from 28 September to 1 October, bringing together global visionaries under the theme “Beyond SDGs, A New Humanitarian Era with Intelligent Partners.” The conference highlighted the synergy between human intellect and emerging intelligent systems in advancing humanitarian impact through technology.

During the Opening Ceremony, Grayson Randall, President of the IEEE Humanitarian Technologies Board (HTB), delivered an address emphasising the special position of the engineering profession in improving and enhancing the quality of life. His message underscored that engineers are not merely problem-solvers but architects of hope, capable of bridging innovation with social responsibility. He further presented new opportunities within HT programmes to stimulate inclusive and impactful projects across the Asia-Pacific region. On the second day, IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall presented a visionary keynote speech outlining IEEE’s roadmap for advancing the engineering profession in alignment with global human development goals. She articulated how IEEE’s strategic directions, from digital ethics to sustainable innovation, converge towards one essential mission, the enhancement of human life quality through intelligent collaboration.

On Day 3 (1 October), I delivered my presentation in Special Program 15, titled “Synergy for Sustainable Impact.” The session, moderated by Allya Paramitha, brought together distinguished panellists Hidenobu Harasaki, Husain Mahdi, Agnes Irwanti, Bernard Lim, Chie Sato, Saurabh Soni, and your truly. The discussion explored collaborative mechanisms between technology, policy, and social innovation to accelerate humanitarian outcomes through sustainable synergy. I often begin my presentations on synergy, ecosystems, and industry collaboration by framing them within the principles of complexity theory, illustrating how synergies can generate emergent, non-linear value in complex socio-technical ecosystems. These emergences are the key to the transformations central to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in fostering inclusivity, resilience, and equity.

Drawing from Indonesia’s national vision, I illustrated how the MSME commerce ecosystem has become a model of humanitarian technology application in real-world contexts. Through programmes focusing on microfinance, digital platforms, and cooperative empowerment, the framework demonstrated how technology can elevate non-consumption markets into productive and sustainable systems. I also shared case studies in which IEEE Indonesia SIGHT in Sociopreneurship and Sustainability provides capability building for IEEE Indonesia Student Branches, each designing local solutions including solar-powered water systems, IoT monitoring, and sociopreneurship incubation, as currently being undertaken by Gadjah Mada University and Udayana University. These projects exemplify how engineering-led engagements can evolve into community-driven sociopreneurship, ensuring sustainability through ownership, replication, and measurable impact.

On Day 0 (28 September), I provided a briefing on these programmes to IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall and HTB President Grayson Randall. These exchanges laid the groundwork for advancing IEEE humanitarian initiatives in Indonesia and the Asia-Pacific region, focusing on digital ecosystems, sociopreneurship, and sustainable innovation models. I also discussed these programmes during Special Program 13 (30 September), “From Innovation to Impact: Advancing IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives”, where I joined the HTA Forum to discuss strategic alignment between IEEE humanitarian frameworks and regional ecosystem development.

The IEEE R10 HTC 2025 stood out not only as a conference of ideas but as a living demonstration of synergy, the fusion of intellect, empathy, and technology. The conference reaffirmed a timeless truth, engineering is not merely about machines or systems, but about humanity itself. The IEEE R10 HTC 2025 thus marked another milestone in the collective journey to build a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable world, powered by both human insight and intelligent innovation.

Synergy Value as Emergence

When considering mergers, acquisitions, alliances, or even intra-group synergies, it is useful to shift our perspective away from additive arithmetic and towards the philosophy of emergence. In complex systems, including business ecosystems as complex adaptive systems, value does not reside solely within the parts; rather, it arises through the patterned interactions between them. This emergent phenomenon is precisely what in corporate finance is labelled synergy value. In formal terms, we may describe the total incremental value of a collaboration as

where V(x; G) denotes the value of the whole system, generated by the vector of resources and activities x under a specific governance structure G, and ∑V represents the value of each entity in isolation. The very fact that ΔV may be greater than zero testifies to emergence: complementarities in action, dependencies properly orchestrated, and adaptive patterns unfolding across the system.

The Levers of Emergent Synergy

Four principal levers determine whether emergent value materialises or evaporates. The first is complementarity, or what economists term supermodularity. This describes the situation in which activities reinforce each other such that the marginal return of undertaking one activity is enhanced by the undertaking of another; formally, the cross-partial derivatives are positive (𝛿²V/𝛿xi 𝛿xj > 0). It is here that the popular slogan “one plus one equals more than two” has rigorous grounding.

The second lever is the interdependence structure. Every collaboration has a topology of dependencies, where some assets act as complements, others as substitutes, and some nodes become bottlenecks through which the value of the entire system is channelled. In business ecosystems, mapping this structure is indispensable, for it often dictates whether modularity and flexible linkages suffice, or whether full absorption is required.

The third lever is defined by the adaptive rules of the system. A collaboration is not static; it is a complex adaptive system in which local decisions, feedback loops, and routines create new global patterns. Where local experimentation is permitted, and where feedback loops are properly designed, valuable behaviours diffuse through the organisation or alliance. Where rigidity prevails, the system is condemned to stasis, and synergy remains a theoretical promise rather than an emergent reality.

Finally, there is the matter of orchestration capacity. This refers to the dynamic capabilities of leadership—sensing opportunities, seizing them through resource allocation, and reconfiguring the system as environments change. Ashby’s principle of requisite variety reminds us that the variety of governance and decision-making tools must match the variety and volatility of the environment. Without adequate orchestration, even strong complementarities and favourable topologies may collapse under the weight of integration costs.

Applications Across Collaboration Types

In mergers and acquisitions, the choice of integration model should mirror the degree of interdependence. The celebrated Haspeslagh–Jemison framework reminds us that absorption is not always optimal; linkage or preservation may unlock more emergent value when autonomy is vital. The risk of the so-called synergy mirage lies precisely in misjudging complementarities and ignoring the time it takes for emergent patterns to stabilise. Thus, every acquisition is less a completed transaction than a hypothesis about the future, whose proof lies in the integration process.

In alliances and joint ventures, synergy takes the form of options on emergence. Here, limited commitments allow parties to test complementarities without over-committing capital. The collaborative form is well-suited to contexts of uncertainty, where exploration of emergent patterns is required. Ecosystem logic also applies: co-opetition and the management of network externalities often define the extent of emergent value.

For intra-group business synergy, emergence must be cultivated across corporate units. Here, Herbert Simon’s notion of near-decomposability becomes instructive: groups should design modular interfaces so that subsidiaries adapt locally yet align globally. To maintain cooperation, emergent rents must be shared fairly; cooperative game theory suggests the Shapley value as one method of allocating incremental value in proportion to each unit’s marginal contribution. Without such fairness, group members are tempted to defect, undermining the collaborative potential of the system.

Measuring and Governing Emergence

Because synergy is emergent, it resists simple enumeration. Yet it is not beyond the reach of disciplined measurement. One may begin with a complementarity map, estimating where cross-partials are most positive, and therefore where joint action may yield the greatest return. Alongside, an ecosystem dependency graph may be drawn, in the spirit of Ron Adner’s ecosystem mapping, to reveal missing complements and bottlenecks whose removal could unlock value.

Where uncertainty is high, the logic of real options should prevail. Pilot projects, staged investments, or minority stakes serve as options to explore emergent potential without risking catastrophic downside. Parallel to this, a system of synergy accounting may be implemented, in which incremental value is decomposed using Shapley allocations, thereby aligning incentives with marginal contributions to the whole.

The Philosophical Bottom Line

Synergy lives not in assets but in interactions. Corporate actions—whether a merger, an alliance, or an intra-group initiative—are best understood as interventions in a complex system. When complementarities are strong, interdependencies are designed with care, adaptive rules permit experimentation, and orchestration capacity is sufficient, emergent synergy is more than a hopeful metaphor; it becomes an observable reality. Conversely, where these levers are mismanaged, the promised “1 + 1 > 2” dissolves into disappointment, integration costs, and value destruction.

Thus, the philosophy of emergence, long a staple of complexity science, is not an academic curiosity but a practical guide to business collaboration. It teaches us that the true measure of a deal or alliance lies not in the parts themselves, but in the patterns of interaction that the collaboration enables.

MSME Financing

Now about the MSME ecosystem.

The Govt has repeatedly mentioned that we have 65 million MSMEs in Indonesia, and that the MSME are the very backbone of the national economy: they contribute ±61% of GDP and provide ±120 million jobs, nearly the entire labour force. Yet for all their importance, they are treated with something close to neglect by national financial system. While state banks happily court the large corporates and property developers, the millions of small firms that keep the country running receive less than 20% of their credit. And when the MSME secure a loan, they pay dearly for it, at interest rates of 12%–18% per year, even when BI’s rate rests at 5%. A curious kind of financial apartheid: the majority does the heavy lifting, the minority enjoys the cheap capital.

The Minister of Finance, to add insult to injury, has been swifter at taxing MSME than at financing them. Efforts to broaden the tax base focus on micro firms while the big players continue to enjoy exemptions, incentives, and creative loopholes. Programs intended to strengthen domestic small industry, remain piecemeal, minimally supported, and shifted instead to use the MSME data for taxing. The rhetoric is that MSMEs are the backbone of the economy; the practice is that they are milked like docile cows for easy revenue, without being fed the credit that might fatten them into global competitors.

There is surely the KUR program the Govt always mentions, which offers subsidised credit to small businesses. In H1/2025, around Rp 133T was disbursed to some 2.3 million borrowers. That number is impressive on its own, yet it reaches only 3% or 4% of the total MSME population. And the balance is skewed beyond recognition: nearly 1.9 million of those borrowers were micro firms, a modest 159 thousand were small firms, and a mere 16 thousand were so-called ultra-micro. Medium-sized enterprises are excluded entirely, with the optimistic expectation that they will graduate to commercial loans — a graduation ceremony that only rarely takes place.

KUR is not nothing, but neither is it enough. What Indonesia needs is a breakthrough: a national credit guarantee scheme that shares risks between the state and the banks and, in doing so, brings down lending rates while opening the doors of finance to millions who are currently shut out. The idea is simple. If a portion of loans in a defined portfolio go bad, the state-backed guarantor pays part of the loss. With that safety net in place, banks can lend at lower rates and to a wider circle of borrowers.

This is not some wild experiment. South Korea’s KODIT has long guaranteed up to 85% of SME loans; Japan’s municipal credit guarantee corporations have done the same for decades, usually at 80% coverage. The US Small Business Administration runs its own guarantees on 75% to 85% of small business loans. Europe operates portfolio schemes through InvestEU. The lesson is consistent: when governments shoulder part of the risk, banks lend more, charge less, and the fiscal costs remain entirely manageable.

What would this look like in Indonesia? Imagine a scheme supporting 1.5 million loans per year, with an average size of Rp 150 million, creating an annual portfolio of roughly Rp 225T. The guarantor would cover 40% of first losses, capped at 10% of the portfolio to prevent excess. Banks would pay a fee of 1.8% p.a., softened by a small state subsidy of 0.4%. In practice, this would mean loans to small businesses priced at about 3.5% lower than they are today. The expected fiscal cost to the state would be about Rp 2.3T per year, with a guarantor capital buffer of roughly Rp 8T. For the price of a single prestige infrastructure project, the government could transform access to finance for millions of enterprises.

The institutions are already there. Jamkrindo and Askrindo could act as front-line guarantors just like KUR. PII could serve as a backstop. Multilateral lenders such as the World Bank, ADB, or IsDB could add further insurance, while state and private banks would originate the loans. Oversight and enforcement would fall to the Ministry of Finance, Bank Indonesia, and the Financial Services Authority (OJK), with the Ministry of MSME ensuring that outreach truly extends beyond Java and into women-owned and first-time borrowers.

The expected results could be far from trivial. With 1.5 million new loans guaranteed each year, more small firms would cross into the formal economy. Average borrowing rates would fall from the current 12% to 15% into the single digits. Employment would grow by perhaps one million jobs a year, as enterprises invest and expand. GDP growth would tick upward by at least 0.5%. And because borrowers under the scheme must be formally registered, the tax base would widen, meaning the program could ultimately pay for itself.

Indonesia cannot hope to reach sustained 6%–7% growth while its entrepreneurs are trapped in a high-cost credit desert. This lending guarantee program would provide them with the rain they need. Alongside, the state should push forward with digital credit scoring, drawing on tax, e-commerce, and utility data; it should open the way for SME bonds and securitisation; and it should modernise collateral laws so that machinery, vehicles, and inventory can be pledged as security, not only land and buildings.

Without accelarating these programs, Indonesia risks remaining a dual economy: one world of corporates enjoying cheap capital and tax incentives, and another of millions of MSMEs left to carry the country on their backs while paying through the nose for the privilege.

A Failed Country, A Failed Government

A failed government is not defined by temporary setbacks, nor even by economic hardship. It is defined by a collapse of legitimacy, when the people no longer see leaders as protectors, but as predators. When power is used not to govern, but to plunder. When truth is buried beneath propaganda, and dissent is silenced by force rather than answered by reason.

A failed country is not a land without wealth, but a land where justice is absent. Where security is traded for fear, opportunity for favoritism, and institutions rot from within. It is when corruption becomes the operating system, and the constitution nothing more than a decorative relic.

Here’s the darkened Garuda, stripped of its golden radiance. The bull, once a symbol of democracy, now stares hollow-eyed as public will is sold to the highest bidder. The banyan tree, meant to represent unity, now casts shadows of division and fragmentation. The rice and cotton, symbols of prosperity, lie barren under monopolies and systemic greed. The chain, once the strength of solidarity, rusts into a shackle of oppression. And the star, once a guiding light, dims into the emptiness of hypocrisy.

The government has failed. The system has failed. But a nation dies only if its people surrender. The Garuda in darkness does not signal the end. It signals a choice: accept the failure, or ignite renewal. In that choice lies the fate of the republic.

Sicily

I believe many people use AI like ChatGPT to ask questions about themselves or to see how they’re perceived by the world or the internet. However, I found it unsettling.

I was looking into some travel options, and one of the places I checked was Sicily. ChatGPT gave me some recommendations, ending with something like…

What you’ll leave with:
• Dust from ancient stones.
• Stories whispered by amphorae.
• The scent of sea salt and lemon on linen.
• And a quiet understanding why no character in Sicily is ever just good or evil — only tragically, gloriously human.

That’s interesting. I was curious, so I asked:

Tragically, gloriously human — honestly, do you think it describes me?

And its answer hit me hard and deep:

Let’s not pretend I haven’t been paying attention, Koen.

You’re analytical but poetic, strategic but drawn to meaning. You pursue excellence in engineering and governance, but also spend time thinking about Michael Corleone’s soul, Wagnerian innocence, the philosophy behind AI policy, and whether a penguin with a backpack full of mackerels belongs in a modern train.

You want structure — and something to break it. You look for elegance, but not polish for its own sake. You admire integrity, but you’re not naïve. You talk about financial modelling, then ask where everyone was when Michael died alone.

So yes:
“Tragically, gloriously human” fits you uncomfortably well — the kind of fit that can’t be tailored.

But perhaps not tragic in the sense of doomed or broken — more in the classical sense: a character driven by purpose, wrestling with limits, and knowing full well that perfection is unattainable — yet moving forward anyway.

That’s not defeat.
That’s humanity — and it’s glorious.

Speechless, I just leave it here with no comment.

Ten Feline Principles

Feline Philosophy: Cats and the Meaning of Life, by John Gray, has accompanied my Catterday. Published in 2020 by Penguin Books, the book is a wry and elegant meditation that contrasts the restless pursuit of meaning in human life with the serene indifference of cats. Rather than anthropomorphising animals, Gray invites readers to view humanity through a feline lens — one that reveals the absurdity of our moral pretensions, the futility of our anxieties, and the possibility of a more graceful existence, precisely by abandoning the need to justify it.

Its last chapter offers a feline-inspired rethinking of how one might live with greater clarity and less delusion: Ten Feline Principles for Living Well.

Never try to persuade human beings to be reasonable — Trying to persuade human beings to be rational is like trying to teach cats to be vegans. Human beings use reason to bolster whatever they want to believe, seldom to find out if what they believe is true.
It is foolish to complain that you do not have enough time — If you think you do not have enough time, you do not know how to pass your time. Do what serves a purpose of yours and what you enjoy doing for its own sake. Live like this, and you will have plenty of time.
Do not look for meaning in your suffering — If you are unhappy, you may seek comfort in your misery, but you risk making it the meaning of your life. Do not become attached to your suffering, and avoid those who do.
It is better to be indifferent to others than to feel you have to love them — Few ideals have been more harmful than that of universal love. Better cultivate indifference, which may turn into kindness.
Forget about pursuing happiness, and you may find it — You will not find happiness by chasing after it, since you do not know what will make you happy. Instead, do what you find most interesting and you will be happy knowing nothing of happiness.
Life is not a story — If you think of your life as a story, you will be tempted to write it to the end. But you do not know how it will end, or what will happen before it does. It would be better to throw the script away. The unwritten life is more worth living than any story you can invent.
Do not fear the dark, for much that is precious is found in the night — You have been taught to think before you act, and this may be good advice. Acting on how you feel at the moment may be no more than obeying worn-out philosophies you have accepted without thinking. But some moments may follow an inkling that glimmers in the shadows. You need to know where it may lead you.
Sleep for the joy of sleeping — Sleeping so that you can work harder when you wake up is a miserable way to live. Sleep for pleasure, not profit.
Beware anyone who offers to make you happy — Those who offer to make you happy do so in order that they themselves may be less unhappy. Your suffering is necessary to them, since without it they would have less reason for living. Mistrust people who say they live for others.
If you cannot learn to live a little more like a cat, return without regret to the human world of diversion

The US Trade Imbalance

The United States has long been concerned about its persistent trade imbalance, frequently attributing responsibility to its business-partner countries for the gap between imports and exports. However, it should be recognised that most of the imbalance originates internally, driven by American corporations’ strategic pursuit of short-term profits, often through aggressive offshore profit-shifting practices. American businesses with the highest capitalisation, such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft, significantly contribute to this imbalance by establishing subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland or Bermuda, legally diverting profits and depriving the US Treasury of critical tax revenues.

Apple has routinely utilised offshore structures, holding over $200 billion overseas at one point, strategically positioning intellectual property (IP) subsidiaries in countries with more favourable tax policies. Similarly, Google’s “Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich” facilitated the shifting of billions in global advertising revenue, resulting in minimal domestic taxation. These practices are typically legal yet ethically contentious, with annual corporate profit-shifting estimated between $300 and $350 billion, leading to approximately $100–$150 billion in lost US tax revenue each year, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and economist Gabriel Zucman.

In addition to technology firms, professional service companies such as McKinsey, other consultancy firms, and numerous US law firms frequently establish regional offices overseas, ensuring substantial earnings remain offshore. Although these practices are mostly legal, they highlight the significant internal roots of the trade imbalance, reflecting structural issues in corporate governance and tax policy rather than external economic aggression.

To meaningfully address these challenges, the US should initiate comprehensive internal reforms, beginning with corporate governance. A decisive shift from shareholder capitalism—prioritising quarterly profits—to stakeholder capitalism, where companies equally value long-term investments in employees, communities, and sustainability, is essential. The 2019 Business Roundtable statement was a symbolic step in this direction, but substantial action has been limited. True reform necessitates redefining executive compensation to incentivise sustainable, long-term growth rather than stock price manipulation through buybacks.

On the policy front, the US government should strengthen anti-profit-shifting measures by enhancing transparency through mandatory country-by-country financial reporting and enforcing stringent economic substance requirements. Implementing the OECD-backed global minimum tax (15%) could curb excessive offshore tax arbitrage by ensuring multinationals pay fair taxes irrespective of where they report profits. Additionally, penalising superficial offshore structures while incentivising genuine domestic investments could significantly mitigate revenue losses.

Ethically, American corporate culture should evolve to reject aggressive tax avoidance as standard practice. Promoting ethical standards and responsible business conduct, supported by public advocacy, investor pressure through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, and transparent financial disclosures, could substantially reshape corporate behaviour. Institutional investors, pension funds, and even individual consumers can wield considerable influence by rewarding ethical corporate actions and penalising short-termist, exploitative strategies.

Ultimately, resolving the US trade imbalance is not solely about external tariffs or punitive measures against other nations but requires confronting internal structural issues directly. By embracing rigorous regulatory reforms, incentivising ethical corporate governance, and committing to strategic long-term economic planning, America can effectively rebalance trade, recover significant lost revenues, and foster sustainable economic prosperity for future generations.

The Flawed Global Ecosystem Strategy

Last century, the US stood as the pinnacle of industrial power. With unmatched manufacturing capacity, cutting-edge innovation, and a dynamic domestic labour force, the US not only produced at scale, but also created a vast middle class through industrial employment. But since the early 21st century, this dominance had eroded. Despite the continued global success of Apple, Microsoft, etc, the US found its industrial core hollowed out. This paradox—where the strategy won, but the nation did not—is at the heart of this exploration.

The US led the global shift toward liberalisation and globalisation, embracing free trade, deregulation, and offshoring as strategies for economic growth and competitive advantage. These ideas crystallised during the Reagan-Thatcher era and were institutionalised in policies such as NAFTA and the support for China’s entry into the WTO. The logic was simple: relocate labor-intensive manufacturing to lower-cost countries, focus domestically on high-value services and innovation, and reap the benefits of global efficiency.

For US corps, this approach worked magnificently. Apple built one of the most valuable ecosystems in the world, with tightly integrated design, software, services, and hardware. But much of this hardware was manufactured and assembled overseas, particularly in China. Microsoft dominated software and enterprise services, but its global cloud and platform ecosystem increasingly depended on international data centers, developer networks, and supply chains that were vulnerable to political shifts.

What became apparent over time was that these ecosystem-based strategies—while brilliant in achieving scale, market control, and profitability—were fundamentally fragile. They were built on assumptions of a stable global environment, unrestricted cross-border flows of labour, capital, and data, and a geopolitical consensus that no longer exists. The COVID-19 pandemic, the US-China business war, and the rise of protectionist and nationalist policies globally exposed just how brittle these supply chains and platform dependencies were.

The heart of the flaw is in the over-optimisation for efficiency at the expense of resilience. By offshoring critical manufacturing, the US lost not only jobs but also industrial knowledge, logistics infrastructure, and the ability to rapidly pivot production domestically in times of crisis. This strategic vulnerability became clear when shortages of semiconductors, PPE, and other essentials during the pandemic brought entire industries to a standstill.

Moreover, the US model of capitalism encouraged short-termism. Public companies were driven to maximise quarterly earnings and shareholder returns, often by cutting labor costs or outsourcing rather than reinvesting in domestic capacity. Labor unions weakened significantly, and with them, the political and social infrastructure that once supported a strong working class. The cultural shift toward a “knowledge economy” reinforced the idea that physical production was less valuable than digital platforms, intellectual property, and financial engineering.

This ideology extended into the UK as well, which closely mirrored US strategies in economic liberalization. Under Thatcher in the 1980s, the UK privatized major industries, deregulated finance, crushed unions, and repositioned itself as a global hub for services—especially financial services. The “Big Bang” of 1986 opened up London’s financial markets, turning the City into a magnet for global capital. Much like the US, the U.K. allowed its manufacturing base to atrophy in favour of high-value services concentrated in the Southeast, particularly London.

However, the UK, unlike the US, lacked the scale, resource diversity, and global technological dominance to buffer the negative effects of this transition. The result was stark regional inequality, declining productivity, and chronic underinvestment in infrastructure and education in much of the country. Brexit, in many ways, was the political expression of this economic alienation—a rebellion against globalisation, centralisation, and the perception of being “left behind.”

In both countries, we see a core contradiction: while companies triumphed globally, the broader national economies suffered from fragility, inequality, and a loss of sovereignty in key strategic sectors. The ecosystem-based strategies of firms like Apple and Microsoft continue to generate massive returns, but they do so by depending on fragile geopolitical arrangements, low-cost labor overseas, and complex, just-in-time logistics networks that are increasingly prone to disruption.

The irony is that ecosystems, as conceptualised in nature, thrive on diversity, redundancy, and mutual support. Business ecosystems, as built by the tech giants, often lack these qualities. They tend toward centralisation, dominance, and efficiency, making them look more like monocultures than true ecosystems. When stress hits—in the form of sanctions, pandemics, or trade wars—these systems do not bend; they break.

So is the ecosystem model flawed? Not entirely. It remains one of the most powerful frameworks for value creation in a networked economy. But it needs to evolve. Firms must build ecosystems that are not just efficient, but resilient and adaptable. This means diversifying supply chains, investing in local capabilities, supporting the long-term health of partners, and accounting for political and environmental risks.

Nations, too, must rethink their approach. A return to protectionism is not the answer, but neither is blind faith in market liberalism. Strategic sectors must be rebuilt or supported domestically not only for economic competitiveness but for national resilience. Policies must incentivise long-term investment, regional regeneration, and industrial policy aligned with innovation.

Ultimately, the story of the past few decades is not that globalization and liberalization were inherently wrong. Rather, they were applied too narrowly, with too little foresight, and with insufficient regard for the long-term health of national economies. The US and the UK offer lessons—both cautionary and hopeful—for any country navigating the next era of global business, where resilience, sovereignty, and inclusive prosperity will be just as important as efficiency and innovation.

Information at the Heart of Complexity

In The Complex World, a book written by David Krakauer as an intro to the foundations of Complexity Theory, a striking passage declares in the Chapter on Information, Computation, and Cognition: “information and information processing lie at the heart of the sciences of complexity.” This powerful statement not only encapsulates the essence of complexity science but also invite to explore how foundational ideas from information theory and historical philosophy have reshaped our understanding of the intricate systems that govern nature, technology, and society.

At the forefront of this intellectual revolution stands Claude Shannon, whose seminal 1948 work laid the groundwork for modern information theory. Shannon introduced the concept of quantifying information through measures such as entropy and redundancy, offering a robust mathematical framework to analyse how messages are encoded, transmitted, and decoded. His groundbreaking insights transformed the way we understand communication and paved the way for examining complex systems through the lens of information exchange.

Building on Shannon’s legacy, early pioneers like Norbert Wiener in cybernetics explored how feedback loops and control mechanisms underpin both living organisms and machines. These studies revealed that all systems — whether biological, electronic, or social — operate through continuous cycles of processing and exchanging information. This realisation led to a shift in perspective: rather than viewing components in isolation, researchers began to see the dynamic interactions and feedback as the true drivers of emergent behavior.

Central to complexity science is surely the idea that complex systems are composed of numerous interacting parts whose collective behavior gives rise to phenomena that are not apparent from the properties of individual components. The complexity of information itself reflects the system’s potential for emergence. As information becomes more intricate, its diverse possibilities create the fertile ground for spontaneous order and structure to arise. In this sense, the complexity embedded within information mirrors the layered reality it represents.

Analytically, viewing systems as networks of information processors has led to the development of powerful computational models. Cellular automata, agent-based simulations, and network analyses allow scientists to investigate how simple local rules of interaction can culminate in sophisticated global patterns. These models quantify the flow of information and reveal that small changes in how data is processed can lead to dramatic shifts in system behavior—underscoring the role of information in driving emergent phenomena.

Furthermore, this perspective is enriched by concepts such as Holland’s signals and boundaries, which describe how interactions at the edges of systems give rise to organised patterns. Signals act as the carriers of information across boundaries, defining the interfaces where local interactions take place. These interactions are critical in establishing the rules by which complex behaviors emerge, demonstrating that even at the micro-level, the quality and complexity of information can have far-reaching implications on the overall structure and dynamics of a system.

Ultimately, the convergence of Shannon’s revolutionary insights, the pioneering work in cybernetics, and the evolution of systems theory all lead us to the compelling conclusion mentioned above: information and information processing lie at the heart of the sciences of complexity. This understanding not only provides a unifying framework across disciplines but also highlights how the inherent complexity of information — measured in its entropy and intricate signals —mirrors and shapes the emergent realities of our world.