Category Archives: ok

Yard-O-Led Viceroy

Yard-O-Led, a venerable British company rooted in the craftsmanship traditions of Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter, has held a distinguished place in the world of writing instruments since 1934. Originally known for its uniquely engineered mechanical pencils that ingeniously carried twelve three-inch leads—hence the name “Yard-O-Led”—the firm eventually turned its attention to fountain pens, marrying mechanical ingenuity with the aesthetics of classic British design. Every Yard-O-Led writing instrument remains a testament to artisanal precision, with each piece hand-assembled and meticulously hallmarked in accordance with the traditions of British silversmithing.

The Yard-O-Led Viceroy Standard Barley Fountain Pen is a shining emblem of this heritage. Crafted entirely in sterling silver, it upholds a lineage of British elegance and uncompromising quality. The Viceroy series, especially the Standard Barley variant, serves not only as a practical tool but also as a bridge to a bygone era, when fountain pens were objects of dignity and status. It contributes to the United Kingdom’s legacy of fine pen-making, standing shoulder to shoulder with other giants of European craftsmanship.

What sets the Viceroy Barley apart in the modern world of fountain pens is its deliberate refusal to bow to trends. It does not chase lightweight materials or space-age aesthetics; rather, it leans into the tactile and visual opulence of traditional silversmith work. The pen’s body is engraved with a Barleycorn guilloché pattern—an intricate diamond-shaped motif that catches the light in an understated yet captivating way. This engraving is not simply decorative; it enhances grip, balances reflection, and underscores the pen’s handcrafted nature. The pen’s clip is die-struck, not merely stamped, with a classic “YARD-O-LED” inscription.

True to its form, the Viceroy Barley is constructed of high-purity 925 sterling silver, a choice not made for mere ostentation. Sterling silver not only carries tactile warmth but also ages gracefully, developing a patina unique to the user—an intimate and evolving signature of ownership. British hallmarking on the barrel, including the sponsor’s mark “YOL”, fineness marks, and assay office insignia, confirms its authenticity and ties it to a centuries-old tradition of precious metalwork.

The nib is an 18ct gold unit, plated in rhodium for durability and aesthetic harmony with the silver body. It is engraved with the Yard-O-Led scrollwork motif, echoing the symmetry and flourish of vintage British design. The nib featured here is a Fine (F) size, offering a precise and consistent line, ideal for both personal writing and formal correspondence. Smooth yet firm, it balances expression with control, much like the pen itself—a dignified blend of subtle luxury and mechanical clarity.

In the realm of contemporary writing instruments, the Yard-O-Led Viceroy Barley is less a competitor and more a category unto itself. It is a pen for those who value tradition, tactile beauty, and a deliberate pace. One does not rush through prose with such a pen; one composes. Each stroke is a continuation of legacy, and in an age of disposability, that is nothing short of revolutionary.

Egyptomania

The Montblanc Heritage Egyptomania fountain pen is a refined tribute to the enduring mystique of ancient Egypt—its geometry, its symbols, and its sense of permanence. Inspired by the design codes of the 1920s, yet with a distinctly modern execution, the pen pays homage to a time when egyptology captivated the world. This fascination, often referred to as egyptomania, surged after the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922, and Montblanc’s pen reflects this spirit not through overstatement, but with a quiet, intelligent elegance.

The pen’s cap and barrel are crafted from deep black resin, offering a pleasing weight and polish. The hardware is rendered in a warm bronze-coloured metal, subtly aged, which evokes the patina of ancient artefacts. The hieroglyphs engraved along the cap translate to “Montblanc” or more literally, “white mountain”, but unlike Montblanc’s usual bright white star emblem, the logo here is simply engraved into the bronze cap top—unobtrusive, respectful to the overall aesthetic, and perfectly in tune with the design’s restraint.

There is a symbolic richness in every detail. The clip is shaped like a stylised scarab beetle, one of the most iconic and spiritually resonant symbols in Egyptian iconography, representing renewal, rebirth, and the protection of the sun god Ra. On the Au750 solid gold nib—mine in a Fine size—Montblanc has engraved the crook and flail, the traditional regalia of the pharaohs, once held across the chest of Tutankhamun in his golden death mask. These motifs are not arbitrary; they reflect an intentional alignment with the core Egyptian values of wisdom, leadership, and eternity—elevating the pen from a writing tool into a portable emblem of timeless power.

While its aesthetics are rich with meaning, the pen is also remarkably functional. Its slender profile makes it suitable for daily writing, and the Fine nib offers a precise, smooth stroke—ideal for taking notes in meetings, outlining concepts, or writing down structured thoughts, including technical ideas and programming logic. The piston filling mechanism, hidden within the resin body, is reliable and offers a generous ink capacity for those who write extensively. What I appreciate most is the feeling of balance in the hand—the pen sits firmly but lightly, never slipping, never fatiguing.

I chose this pen not because of its ornamentation, but rather for its clarity of design. It represents the kind of simplicity I value deeply—where nothing is unnecessary, and every line has purpose. The black and bronze colourway is both elegant and subtle, conveying seriousness without ostentation. The small hieroglyphic engraving feels like a secret shared with the past, and the absence of bright logos keeps the focus on the pen itself. I picked it up at Harrods in London, June last year. An indulgence, yes, but a meaningful one — a modest gift to myself. Since then, the Egyptomania has remained a constant companion in my work and travels. It feels less like an object and more like a fragment of a larger story—where the wisdom of the past meets the craft of the present, and where every stroke of ink connects thought, hand, and history.

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.

Claude Shannon

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.

Opus of the Squirrel

Happy Squirrel Appreciation Day! Here’s a member of Opus 88’s celebrated “Mini Forest Creatures” series, featuring a vivid squirrel motif delicately painted on a translucent green barrel—an ode to woodland whimsy. Opus 88, a Taiwanese marque founded by Michael Hsu in 1988, quickly earned a reputation for combining functional engineering with artistic flair, producing pens that are as reliable as they are beautiful.

Its appeal today rests on a dual legacy: craftsmanship and creativity. Opus 88 pens are renowned for their generous Japanese-style eyedropper filling system—boasting up to 3.5 ml of ink capacity—complete with a shutdown valve to prevent leakage when travelling. This practical design elevates them from charming collectibles to everyday workhorses, much admired in the global fountain pen community.

This squirrel edition is unique in its joyful aesthetic. The cap and barrel are adorned with playful squirrels among acorns and foliage—a motif that suggests both mischief and intellect. These whimsical illustrations are crisp, colourful, and clearly printed, reflecting an attention to decorative detail that sets Opus 88 apart from more austere designs.

Beyond its visual charm, the pen’s build is solid and thoughtful. The cap screws to secure tightly, the clip is slim but sturdy, and the flat-top silhouette offers a vintage-inspired comfort. Once posted, it balances superbly in the hand, encouraging long and pleasurable writing sessions without fatigue.

Mechanically, the pen uses a JoWo No. 6 nib unit—standard in many models—which allows for nib-swaps to suit your writing preference. The steel nib provided is smooth, reliable, and wet, demonstrating why Opus 88 is called a maker of “workhorse” instruments. The eyedropper mechanism and valve system reflect Michael Hsu’s engineering pedigree, honed over decades and through OEM work for luxury brands.

Tema Awal 2025

Annual letter dari Future Today Institute memaparkan situasi yang terjadi di akhir 2024 serta dampak yang perlu dipertimbangkan di 2025. Ringkasannya dipaparkan di bawah ini.

1. Technology Supercycle: Tahun 2025 menandai dimulainya “Supercycle Teknologi” yang dipicu oleh konvergensi teknologi-teknologi baru seperti AI, sensor canggih, dan bioteknologi. Periode percepatan inovasi ini dapat menyaingi revolusi besar sebelumnya seperti listrik dan internet, memicu pergeseran ekonomi, munculnya industri baru, dan transformasi sosial.

2. Living Intelligence: Lebih dari sekadar AI, sistem “kecerdasan hidup” akan menggabungkan AI, sensor canggih, dan bioteknologi untuk menciptakan sistem yang dapat beradaptasi dan belajar sendiri. Sistem ini akan mengubah industri dan pasar, mendorong para pemimpin untuk melampaui pemikiran berbasis AI semata agar dapat menangkap peluang dari konvergensi ini.

3. PLAMs, CLAMs, & GLAMs: Evolusi dari LLM (Large Language Models) ke LAM (Large Action Models) akan memungkinkan eksekusi tugas secara real-time, bukan hanya pembuatan konten. Model tindakan pribadi (PLAM), perusahaan (CLAM), dan pemerintahan (GLAM) akan mengotomatiskan pengambilan keputusan, merampingkan pengalaman pengguna, dan beroperasi secara mandiri dengan memanfaatkan data perilaku.

4. Weird Tech Alliances: Kemitraan yang tak terduga, seperti Apple yang menggunakan chip pelatihan AI milik Amazon, menandakan pergeseran menuju kolaborasi lintas industri. Para pemain besar cloud seperti AWS, Microsoft, dan Google semakin banyak bermitra dengan raksasa teknologi lainnya untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur AI generasi berikutnya.

5. Crypto Winter Thaws: Kenaikan Bitcoin hingga mencapai $100K terkait dengan terpilihnya Donald Trump, yang berjanji menjadikan AS sebagai “pusat kripto dunia” dengan mendorong deregulasi pasar. Usulan Trump untuk menciptakan cadangan strategis kripto dan pengangkatan tokoh pro-kripto sebagai ketua SEC mengisyaratkan kondisi yang lebih menguntungkan bagi pertumbuhan mata uang kripto pada tahun 2025.

6. Quantum Computing’s Breakthrough: Kemajuan dalam koreksi kesalahan dan sistem hybrid kuantum-klasik mendorong komputasi kuantum ke arah komersialisasi. Investasi dari Google, IBM, dan pemerintah AS bertujuan membuat sistem kuantum lebih mudah diakses, dengan sistem hybrid menjadi peluang bisnis dalam waktu dekat.

7. Climate Tech Innovation: Perubahan iklim akan meningkatkan permintaan terhadap inovasi teknologi seperti desalinasi, beton pengurang karbon, dan alternatif GPS. Seiring meningkatnya cuaca ekstrem, kebutuhan akan infrastruktur yang tangguh akan mendorong percepatan komersialisasi dan adopsi teknologi iklim.

8. Nuclear Energy Comeback: Reaktor Modular Kecil (SMR) semakin diminati sebagai alternatif bersih dan skalabel untuk pembangkit listrik tenaga nuklir tradisional. Microsoft, Google, dan Amazon berinvestasi dalam SMR untuk memasok energi pusat data mereka. Pemerintah AS juga mendukung pengembangan SMR, dan energi fusi mungkin akan mengalami terobosan besar pada tahun 2025.

9. Chaos in Europe: Ketidakstabilan politik di Prancis dan Jerman akan melemahkan kemampuan Eropa dalam mendorong inovasi, terutama dengan diberlakukannya UU AI Uni Eropa pada tahun 2025. Tanpa kepemimpinan yang kuat, sektor “Mittelstand” Jerman dan ekosistem teknologi Prancis mungkin kesulitan, yang pada akhirnya dapat mengurangi daya saing Eropa secara keseluruhan.

10. Washington’s Game of Thrones: Para miliarder teknologi, yang diperkaya oleh pemerintahan Trump, akan semakin menguasai proses pembuatan kebijakan di AS. Pengaruh Lembah Silikon di Washington akan meningkat, menggantikan otoritas tradisional pemerintah, karena para pemimpin teknologi memanfaatkan kekayaan dan pengaruh mereka untuk membentuk kebijakan yang menguntungkan mereka.

Sumber:
Webb, Amy. Annual Letter — 2025 Macro Themes + 2024 Signals Review. Future Today Institute. [URL]

Evening with Chevening

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the “Evening with Chevening” event at the British Embassy in Jakarta. This gathering was extra special as it marked the 40th anniversary of the Chevening Scholarship program, a UK government initiative that has been empowering future leaders worldwide since 1983. Over the past four decades, Chevening has built a global network of more than 57,000 alumni, including 20 current or former heads of state.

In Indonesia, the impact of Chevening is significant, with numerous scholars benefiting from the opportunity to pursue fully funded master’s degrees in the UK. The program covers university tuition fees, a monthly stipend, travel costs, and more, allowing scholars to focus entirely on their studies and personal development. Attending the event was a wonderful opportunity to connect with fellow alumni and celebrate the program’s ongoing commitment to nurturing leadership and fostering positive change in Indonesia and beyond.

Sociopreneurship Workshop

This week, I had the chance to attend a workshop in Bandung, part of the Entrepreneur Hub (EHUB) program organized by the Ministry MSME (KemenUMKM). The event, focusing on sociopreneurship, was opened by Siti Azizah, Deputy for Entrepreneurship, and Irwansyah Putra Panjaitan, Assistant Deputy for Business Ecosystem Development. The audience included social entrepreneurs, SMEs, and representatives from the West Java provincial government. It was an engaging session that shed light on how sociopreneurship is shaping the MSME economy.

Sociopreneurship is all about blending business strategies with a commitment to solving social problems. What makes it unique is that its performance is measured by the impact it creates on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Whether it’s tackling poverty, promoting education, or addressing environmental issues, sociopreneurship drives real-world solutions while building sustainable businesses.

On the regulatory side, the Indonesian government plays a vital role in creating policies that support the growth of these ventures, ensuring they thrive within a robust MSME ecosystem. Ultimately, sociopreneurship is a catalyst for economic and social empowerment, creating a ripple effect of positive change in communities.

Teori Institusi

Hadiah Nobel Ekonomi dianugerahkan tahun 2024 ini pada Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, dan James A. Robinson, sebagai pengakuan atas Teori Institusi yang mereka kembangkan. Anugerah ini diumumkan 9 Oktober 2024, dengan tambahan bahwa teori mereka memberikan wawasan tentang penyebab kemiskinan atau kekayaan berbagai negara, lengkap dengan panduan bagi kebijakan pembangunan dan reformasi institusi.

Teori Institusi mengungkapkan bahwa kemakmuran suatu negara bukan sekadar ditentukan oleh faktor geografis, budaya, atau sumber daya alam; namun lebih oleh institusi, yang dalam hal ini berarti aturan, kebijakan, dan struktur sosial. Institusi ini memainkan peran kunci dalam mendorong atau menghambat kemajuan ekonomi. Paran pengembang teori ini membagi institusi atas institusi inklusif dan institusi ekstraktif.

Institusi inklusif adalah institusi yang memungkinkan partisipasi luas dari masyarakat dalam kegiatan ekonomi. Dengan adanya perlindungan terhadap hak kepemilikan, jaminan kesetaraan peluang, dan dorongan terhadap inovasi, institusi inklusif memungkinkan banyak orang untuk ikut serta dalam pembangunan ekonomi. Sebaliknya, institusi ekstraktif berfungsi dengan cara yang bertolak belakang. Kekuasaan dan kekayaan terkonsentrasi di tangan sekelompok kecil elit. Akibatnya, sebagian besar masyarakat terpinggirkan dari akses ekonomi, dan inovasi menjadi terhambat. Negara-negara dengan institusi ekstraktif cenderung terperangkap dalam lingkaran kemiskinan dan ketidaksetaraan.

Salah satu elemen menarik dari teori ini adalah konsep critical junctures atau persimpangan kritis. Ini adalah momen-momen penting dalam sejarah suatu bangsa—seperti revolusi, perang, atau penjajahan—yang bisa mengubah arah jalur institusional mereka. Pada saat-saat inilah masyarakat bisa memilih untuk membangun institusi yang lebih inklusif atau malah memperkuat institusi yang ekstraktif. Contoh klasik yang sering diangkat adalah perbedaan nasib antara Amerika Utara dan Amerika Latin setelah kedatangan penjajah Eropa. Amerika Utara, dengan iklim dan kondisi lingkungan yang cocok untuk pemukiman, cenderung mengembangkan institusi yang melibatkan masyarakat secara luas. Sebaliknya, Amerika Latin, dengan sumber daya alam yang berlimpah, justru menarik para penjajah untuk membangun sistem berbasis eksploitasi sumber daya. Dampaknya, Amerika Utara berkembang menjadi wilayah yang lebih makmur dan stabil secara politik, sementara Amerika Latin terus bergulat dengan ketimpangan sosial dan ekonomi.

Hal lain yang tidak kalah penting adalah konsep sentralisasi kekuasaan politik. Institusi yang baik butuh dukungan dari kekuasaan politik yang kuat dan terpusat. Mengapa? Karena tanpa kekuasaan terpusat, aturan hukum sulit ditegakkan, dan konflik kepentingan menjadi lebih sering terjadi. Namun, sentralisasi ini harus disertai dengan akuntabilitas. Tanpa akuntabilitas, kekuasaan politik yang kuat bisa berubah menjadi sistem yang opresif dan ekstraktif. Bayangkan negara-negara otoriter di mana penguasa mengontrol segalanya tanpa pengawasan—sistem semacam ini cenderung membangun institusi ekstraktif yang hanya menguntungkan segelintir orang.

Selain itu, ada fenomena yang disebut pergeseran institusi; yaitu perubahan kecil yang terjadi secara bertahap dalam jangka panjang. Pergeseran ini bisa memperkuat sistem inklusif atau, sebaliknya, justru membuat institusi yang tadinya inklusif menjadi ekstraktif. Misalnya, reformasi hukum kecil-kecilan atau perubahan kebijakan tertentu mungkin terlihat sepele, tapi jika dilakukan secara terus-menerus, dampaknya bisa besar dalam jangka panjang. Inilah mengapa dinamika kekuasaan politik sangat penting. Elit yang diuntungkan dari sistem ekstraktif cenderung akan menolak perubahan, karena mereka tidak ingin kehilangan akses ke kekuasaan dan kekayaan.

Pendekatan mereka juga didukung oleh banyak bukti empiris. Salah satu penelitian mereka yang paling terkenal adalah tentang warisan kolonial. Dalam penelitian tersebut, mereka menunjukkan bahwa wilayah-wilayah yang di masa lalu membangun institusi ekstraktif selama era kolonial, seperti kebun-kebun besar di Afrika atau Amerika Latin, saat ini masih mengalami masalah kemiskinan dan ketidaksetaraan yang tinggi. Sebaliknya, wilayah-wilayah yang membentuk institusi inklusif, seperti Amerika Utara, saat ini cenderung lebih stabil secara politik dan lebih makmur secara ekonomi. Peristiwa penting lain yang sering mereka soroti adalah Revolusi Agung (Glorious Revolution) di Inggris, di mana sistem monarki absolut diubah menjadi sistem monarki konstitusional yang lebih inklusif, sehingga memungkinkan lahirnya lembaga-lembaga ekonomi modern yang lebih terbuka dan partisipatif.

Lalu, bagaimana teori ini relevan untuk manajemen strategis? Dalam dunia bisnis, perusahaan tidak bisa lepas dari pengaruh institusi di negara tempat mereka beroperasi. Jika suatu negara memiliki institusi inklusif, maka bisnis memiliki peluang lebih besar untuk berkembang. Sebaliknya, di negara-negara dengan institusi ekstraktif, perusahaan sering menghadapi risiko yang lebih besar, seperti korupsi, ketidakpastian hukum, dan pengambilan keputusan yang didominasi oleh elit tertentu. Teori ini juga memberikan wawasan bagi perusahaan multinasional yang ingin melakukan ekspansi global. Sebelum berinvestasi di negara tertentu, penting untuk menganalisis apakah institusi di negara tersebut bersifat inklusif atau ekstraktif. Perusahaan dapat menggunakan pemahaman ini untuk memetakan risiko dan merancang strategi mitigasi yang lebih efektif.

Menariknya, perusahaan bukan hanya aktor pasif dalam ekosistem institusional. Dalam beberapa kasus, perusahaan besar justru dapat memengaruhi bentuk institusi di suatu negara. Perusahaan yang kuat secara finansial dapat melobi perubahan kebijakan atau memperkuat status quo. Kadang-kadang, perusahaan membantu memperkuat sistem ekstraktif dengan mendukung regulasi yang menguntungkan mereka, tetapi di sisi lain, perusahaan juga dapat mendorong reformasi yang lebih inklusif, misalnya dengan mengadvokasi transparansi dan keadilan dalam peraturan pasar.

Sumber:
Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson J, 2004. Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth, NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10481

Ekonomi Kompleksitas

Arthur WB (2021) menulis paper yang membandingkan ekonomi konvensional (neoklasik) dengan ekonomi kompleksitas.

Ekonomi neoklasik konvensional didasarkan pada beberapa asumsi inti:

  1. Rasionalitas sempurna: Diasumsikan bahwa agen-agen ekonomi memecahkan masalah yang terdefinisi dengan baik menggunakan logika rasional sempurna untuk mengoptimalkan perilaku mereka.
  2. Agen representatif: Biasanya diasumsikan bahwa agen-agen ini serupa satu sama lain — mereka bersifat “representatif” — dan dapat dikategorikan ke dalam satu, sedikit, atau sejumlah kecil tipe yang mewakili.
  3. Pengetahuan bersama: Diasumsikan bahwa semua agen memiliki pengetahuan yang sama tentang tipe agen lain, bahwa agen lain juga sepenuhnya rasional, dan mereka berbagi pengetahuan umum ini.
  4. Keseimbangan: Diasumsikan bahwa hasil agregat konsisten dengan perilaku agen, sehingga tidak ada insentif bagi agen untuk mengubah tindakan mereka.

Namun, dalam 120 tahun terakhir, ekonom seperti Thorstein Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek, dan Joan Robinson menentang kerangka keseimbangan ini dengan alasan masing-masing. Mereka berpendapat bahwa diperlukan pendekatan ekonomi yang berbeda.

Pada tahun 1987, Santa Fe Institute mengadakan konferensi yang mengundang sepuluh teoretisi ekonomi dan sepuluh teoretisi fisika untuk mengeksplorasi ekonomi sebagai sistem kompleks yang terus berkembang.

Ekonomi kompleksitas melihat ekonomi bukan sebagai sistem yang selalu dalam keadaan seimbang, tetapi sebagai sistem yang terus berubah. Keputusan yang diambil oleh para pelaku ekonomi (atau agen) tidak diasumsikan superrasional, dan masalah yang mereka hadapi tidak selalu terdefinisi dengan baik. Ekonomi tidak lagi dipandang sebagai “mesin yang bekerja sempurna,” melainkan sebagai “ekologi” yang selalu berubah — berisi kepercayaan, prinsip pengorganisasian, dan perilaku yang terus berkembang.

Ekonomi kompleksitas menganggap bahwa setiap pelaku ekonomi berbeda satu sama lain, memiliki informasi yang tidak sempurna tentang agen lain, dan terus mencoba memahami situasi yang mereka hadapi. Agen-agen ini mengeksplorasi, bereaksi, dan terus-menerus mengubah tindakan dan strategi mereka berdasarkan hasil yang mereka ciptakan bersama. Hasil akhirnya mungkin tidak dalam keadaan keseimbangan dan dapat menunjukkan pola serta fenomena baru yang tidak terlihat dalam analisis keseimbangan. Ekonomi menjadi sesuatu yang tidak tetap dan ada begitu saja, tetapi terus berkembang melalui kumpulan tindakan, strategi, dan keyakinan yang sedang berkembang. Ekonomi tidak lagi mekanistik, statis, abadi, dan sempurna, melainkan organik, hidup, selalu menciptakan dirinya sendiri, dan penuh dengan dinamika yang rumit.

Perbandingannya dipaparkan dalam tabel berikut:

Dalam sistem kompleks, tindakan yang diambil oleh seorang agen disalurkan melalui jaringan koneksi. Dalam ekonomi, jaringan ini dapat terbentuk melalui perdagangan, transmisi informasi, pengaruh sosial, atau aktivitas pinjam-meminjam. Ada beberapa aspek menarik dari jaringan ini:

  1. Struktur interaksi atau topologi jaringan memengaruhi stabilitas.
  2. Jaringan memungkinkan pasar untuk mengatur diri mereka sendiri.
  3. Risiko dapat ditransmisikan melalui jaringan, peristiwa dapat menyebar, dan struktur kekuasaan dapat terbentuk.

Topologi jaringan sangat penting untuk menentukan apakah konektivitas meningkatkan stabilitas atau justru sebaliknya. Kerapatan koneksi juga memainkan peran penting. Jika sebuah peristiwa terjadi di jaringan yang jarang terhubung, dampaknya akan segera berhenti karena tidak ada jalur untuk penyebaran lebih lanjut. Namun, di jaringan yang sangat terhubung, peristiwa tersebut akan menyebar luas dan terus meluas dalam waktu yang lama. Jika jaringan perlahan-lahan meningkatkan tingkat konektivitasnya, sistem akan berubah dari memiliki sedikit dampak (atau tanpa dampak) menjadi dampak besar, bahkan menghasilkan konsekuensi yang tidak berakhir. Hal ini dikenal sebagai perubahan fase, salah satu ciri khas dari ekonomi kompleksitas.

Ekonomi kompleksitas, dengan fokusnya pada dinamika jaringan dan evolusi sistem, menawarkan cara baru untuk memahami perilaku ekonomi di dunia yang penuh ketidakpastian dan perubahan yang cepat.

Referensi: