What I Learned from Bill Gates

Jim Kim-President at The World Bank

I have the great privilege in my job as president of the World Bank Group of speaking to some of the most creative political and business leaders around the world. One of the consistent themes across all of these conversations is the recognition that we must accelerate innovation to end extreme poverty and to grow economies in a way that is shared by all. What we lack is clear consensus around the best ways to foster and scale new ideas.

Recently, I had the opportunity to have a long discussion with Bill Gates, and our conversation naturally turned to what inspires innovation. Bill and his wife Melinda launched their foundation in 1994 and since that time they have transformed the world’s development aspirations in health, education and poverty reduction.

I was one of the lucky beneficiaries of the Gates’ generosity. In 2000, their Foundation made a $44.7 million grant to Partners In Health, which I co-founded. At a time when most of the global health world was in denial about multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), the Gates made the largest single tuberculosis-related foundation gift in history in order to find ways to treat this disease in developing countries. This pattern of visionary, innovative philanthropy has been repeated again and again in their efforts to tackle some of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.

Over dinner in Washington, D.C., Bill talked about how he and Melinda built this innovative institutional culture, across business and philanthropy. He made three key points:

1. Innovation comes from collaboration

Great ideas, he said, don’t appear in isolation. Recent research suggests that creativity is less an attribute of individuals than an emergent property that bubbles up within communities of people solving problems together. So the challenge for an organization is building a culture that encourages new ideas while providing a platform to reinforce collaboration.

As Steven Johnson noted in Where Good Ideas Come From, we tend to incorrectly picture innovation as “eureka moments,” when exceptional individuals, plunged in solitary thought, experience a sudden flash of insight.

We talked about how the most powerful innovations arise often within huge institutions, if slowly. It often happens after intensive exchange and collaboration and mostly because of the intersection of individuals with deep experience and expertise that wouldn’t happen elsewhere. This underscores Bill’s personal commitment to understanding an issue in great depth.

When the foundation started looking into global health more than a decade ago, he immediately immersed himself in the field’s technical aspects. I remember vividly a conversation with Bill in 2006 about the development of new drugs for the treatment of HIV. His encyclopedic knowledge of the existing molecules, their mode of action, and stage of development in the industry was dazzling and made me feel enormously grateful that he had taken the time to closely study the issue.

It was clear to me back then, and even more so now, that his ability to grasp even the smallest details had encouraged his teams to do the same, and that, in turn, had created a culture that inspired innovation.

2. The importance of grit

Bill is nothing if not dogged. He exudes grit and is convinced that determination, discipline and persistence are the most important determinants of the most successful people he has known. Steven Johnson made this same point, citing Charles Darwin’s years of meticulously gathering data that led to his insights on evolution in 1838.

Our conversation turned to whether parents, teachers and institutions (educational, military etc.) can nurture these qualities in young people. The South Korean educational system in which students, starting at an increasingly young age, go to school from 7 a.m. until 11p.m., produces students that do very well in international tests, such as OECD’s PISA exams. Some observers have pointed out that this level of rigor may be contributing to the overall willpower and grit of the population. On the flip side, this has generated controversy about the collateral damage that this system is having on the mental health of young Koreans. We agreed that this is an area in which evidence is only now beginning to emerge.

We do know from research done by Roy Baumeister that while it is very difficult to reliably and sustainably increase measured IQ in populations, “willpower” can be built, almost like a muscle. Can countries, companies, educational institutions and even families, foster innovation by helping young people (and old people!) become more disciplined and gritty?

3. Bringing innovations to scale

As Bill has demonstrated in both his business and his philanthropy, generating great ideas is only the first step. Putting great ideas into action and delivering consistent results is both more important and more difficult. For example, translating ideas for improving global health into improved outcomes requires rigorous measurement, adaptation to local contexts, and especially a plan for reaching scale.

I left dinner that evening much more optimistic about the possibility for innovation and impact in our development work, even in the poorest, most difficult settings.

Bill’s message was that we shouldn’t sit and wait for some revolutionary ideas to pop into our heads. Innovative ideas are all around us: in the poorest countries, in the private sector, in international organizations, governments, academic institutions, and civil society groups.

If we collaborate, dig into the details and persist, and focus on scale, we may very well find the great innovations that will lead to healthier, more equitable and more productive societies.

Koliko traju pristupni pregovori sa EU?

Koliko traju pristupni pregovori sa EU?

Iskustvo zemalja koje su u poslednjih 10 godina postale članice Evropske unije pokazuje da su pristupni pregovori u procesu pridruživanja trajali između tri i šest godina.

Pregovore su najbrže završile Slovačka, Malta, Letonija i Litvanija, koje su zvanično počele da pregovaraju sa EU u februaru 2000, a zatvorile sva poglavlja u decembru 2002. godine.

Ove četiri zemlje postale su članice EU 1. maja 2004. godine, u takozvanom velikom talasu proširenja. U isto vreme Uniji su se priključile i Češka, Estonija, Kipar, Mađarska, Poljska i Slovenija, koje su otvorile pristupne pregovore 31. marta 1998. godine, a zatvorile ih u decembru 2002.

Pregovori između EU i 10 tadašnjih kandidata za članstvo bili su podeljeni na 31 poglavlje.

Kipar je predstavljao poseban slučaj pošto je bio jedina zemlja koja je ušla u EU a da nije imala kontrolu nad celokupnom svojom teritorijom, što važi i danas.

U Uniju je ušao deo koji nastanjuju kiparski Grci, ali ne i sever ostrva, pod kontrolom kiparskih Turaka.

Bugarska i Rumunija su počele zvanično da pregovaraju u februaru 2000. godine, takođe po 31 poglavlju, a pregovori su zatvoreni u junu, odnosno u decembru 2004.

EU je, međutim, već u njihovom slučaju pooštrila kriterijume za ulazak, uvodeći takozvanu "zaštitnu klauzulu", prema kojoj bi prijem u članstvo, predviđen za 1. januar 2007. godine, mogao biti odložen na godinu dana ukoliko do 2007. ne ispune u potpunosti postavljene uslove.

I Rumuniji i Bugarskoj je posebno zamereno to što nisu dovoljno uspešno suzbile korupciju i organizovani kriminal, i izražena je sumnja u to da su sasvim spremne da odgovorno i efikasno koriste evropske fondove.

Evropska komisija je, takođe, klauzulom dala sebi pravo da im onemogući izvoz prehrambenih proizvoda na tržište EU ako ne budu ispunile sve kriterijume veterinarske, fitosanitarne i zdravstvene bezbednosti.

Klauzula je omogućavala Briselu i da im uskrati punu slobodu kretanja ljudi, robe, usluga i kapitala i isključi ih iz zajedničke politike u oblasti konkurentnosti, energetike, saobraćaja i telekomunikaciija ukoliko ne primene sva evropska pravila i zakone.

Hrvatska je bila lider među zemljama Zapadnog Balkana u procesu evrointegracija.

Zagreb je u oktobru 2001. godine potpisao Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju, koji je stupio na snagu u februaru 2005. Hrvatska je u junu 2004. godine stekla status kandidata za članstvo, zvanično je otvorila pregovore u oktobru 2005. godine, zatvorila ih u junu 2011, a 1. jula 2013. godine primljena je u EU.

Proces pristupanja EU bio je za Hrvatsku dugotrajniji i teži nego za prethodne zemlje kandidate. Samo otvaranje pregovora kasnilo je zbog nedovoljne saradnje s Haškim tribunalom.

Kada je reč o kopenhaškim političkim kriterijumima, zemlja se suočila s velikim izazovima u oblasti pravosuđa i zaštite ljudskih prava, dok je u sprovođenju akija, prema proceni Evropske komisije, bilo potrebno uložiti znatne napore u 14 od 35 poglavlja.

Hrvatska privreda ocenjena je kao funkcionalna tržišna ekonomija, ali je 2009. godine ušla u recesiju, što je bacilo svetlo na problem javnog duga i spoljnotrgovinski deficit, a rast stope nezaposlenosti i štednja javne potrošnje dodatno su politički destabilizovali zemlju.

Treba imati u vidu i da su kriterijumi za prijem u EU, u poređenju sa onima iz prethodna dva talasa proširenja, bili znatno prošireni i pooštreni.

Za razliku od prethodnih 12 zemalja, koje su primljene grupno 2004. i 2007. godine, Hrvatska je trebalo da uđe u Uniju sama, što je bio prvi takav slučaj posle ulaska Grčke 1981. godine.

U praksi, to je značilo da nema s kim da se poredi i da sama snosi administrativni teret pregovora. S druge strane, nije bila u opasnosti da je drugi, manje spremni kandidati usporavaju.

EU je, takođe, uvela i nova, stroža pravila u pregovorima, koja su obuhvatala set od 138 merila za otvaranje i zatvaranje poglavlja, mada hrvatski eksperti tvrde da je u praksi broj merila bio veći od 400 pošto su mnoga od njih bila podeljena na podkategorije.

Novina je bilo i Poglavlje 23 o pravosuđu i osnovnim pravima, s fokusom na reformu pravosudnog sistema, borbu protiv korupcije i poštovanje osnovnih prava, pošto su se te oblasti pokazale problematičnima u prethodnim rundama proširenja.

Pristupni pregovori Hrvatske bili su dodatno iskomplikovani zbog bilateralnih pitanja, poput graničnog spora sa Slovenijom, i unutrašnjih kriza – neočekivane ostavke premijera Ive Sanadera, niza korupcijskih skandala i rekonstrukcije vlade.

Istovremeno, situacija nije bila mnogo bolja ni u EU, koju su u tom periodu potresle tri velike krize.

Institucionalna kriza izbila je 2005. godine kada su Holandija i Francuska na referendumu odbacile novi evropski ustav; finansijska kriza, tri godine kasnije, dodatno je gurnula pitanje proširenja na margine političkih debata u Briselu, a kao posledica toga usledio je "zamor od proširenja".

EU je, takođe, učila na greškama. U Briselu i prestonicama država EU raširilo se uverenje da je bilo pogrešno dozvoliti Bugarskoj i Rumuniji da se priključe EU, budući da nisu do kraja sprovele nužne reforme, te je izveden jasan zaključak - nema više prečica.

Koliko će trajati pristupni pregovori Srbije, koji su zvanično otvoreni 21. januara, teško je predvideti.

Cilj Srbije je, kako je u ekspozeu poručio premijer Aleksandar Vučić, da se svih 35 pregovaračkih poglavlja zatvori 2018. godine.