Operationalizing Key G7/Think7 Projects

Kenneth B. Tingey
Profundities LLC
Miroslaw Manicki
CIMH Global

Referencing T20/G20 Policy Brief #58:

“Capacity development in enhanced multilevel governance based on a tripartite
‘head (cognitive), hand (digital), heart (music performance)’ model”
Submitted to
Policy Area 9 – Impact and Potential of Digital Development Collaboration
Task Force 2
T20 Indonesia 2022/G20 Indonesia 2022

https://tinyurl.com/yeyyztz4

July 6, 2022

1
Contents
G7 and G20 collaborative missions ............................................................................................................... 2
Example and what is not generally discussed regarding research-based governance................................. 3
Subset of G7 Policy Briefs from the perspective of G20 PB #58 ................................................................... 5
1. Climate change and health ............................................................................................................... 5
2. Food and agriculture ......................................................................................................................... 6
3. Data citizenship ................................................................................................................................. 6
4. Digital utilities for scientific research towards an equitable world .................................................. 6
5. Policy and fiscal space for universal social protection ...................................................................... 7
6. Universal protections ........................................................................................................................ 7
7. Identifying “impact hubs” for Agenda 2030 and G7 commitment to Agenda 2030 “policy tags”
(SDG tags).................................................................................................................................................. 7
8. Build digital public goods for health: A private and public sector global initiative .......................... 7
9. Democracy, global health, and the Group of 7 ................................................................................. 8
10. Global transformation toward planetary health .......................................................................... 8
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

1
G7 and G20 collaborative missions
Recent G7 meetings involved many commitments that involved political realities and support for
ongoing priorities. Along with these, the G7 commitment involves listening to advice and guidance from
experts in various fields. There is a similar function within the G20 structure.

This is an important aspect in the understanding and management of national economic and social
relationships, as there are issues and questions of science and society that effect many nations—even all
the world—that get scant attention by individual countries. In some cases, the subjects at hand and
their implications are complex, arcane, and obtuse to the public at large, and contrary in some sense to
powerful commercial and political interests. Climate science is an example of this with respect to the
United States. Much of the leading research outlining climate risks has emerged from scientific
laboratories within that country and much of this has benefitted from federal research sponsorship, but
recognition of the phenomenon and support for remedial and preventive measures are poorly
supported within the American political system.

Nonetheless, the nature of the question is that broad-based support and participation of are required to
resolve such problems. For one thing, even highly funded research can be skewed and politicized. Only
the most naïve observers would not understand this, as ‘getting funded’ entails following of known and
unknown barriers to scientific advancement in the United States and elsewhere. As a result, some of the
most leading-edge research products can come from diverse sources around the world despite very
large differences in funding levels country-by-country.

Conversely, apparent advances from diverse sources may be weakened by a lack of peer evaluation and
input and lax research and humanitarian standards. While they may appear to be valid, they suffer from
a lack of immersion in the global research complex and can gain outsized benefits from new and novel
ways of integration into global implementation communities. Table 1: Characteristics of international
collaboration demonstrates strengths and weaknesses in the international order with respect to large-
scale problems that typically are not readily resolvable by individual nations or countries limited to
specific regions.

Where phenomena have global implications that affect all countries, where all countries contribute to
solutions that can be used generally, international initiatives may not be necessary. Where the problem
in question is global, but there is not significant support from all or a few nations, intervention and
support from the larger and more advanced industrial countries as in G7 and G20 is in order. If a
problem does not directly affect all, but has comprehensive support, there are likely readily available
solutions that might be available, even to the most challenged regimes.

A problem that does not affect all countries, that does not have universal support, might signal a major
problem to the extent that that problem grows regionally or otherwise. This, too, involves an area were
international leadership from the G7 and G20 is in order. This may be the more challenging prospect, as
the effect in question may not seem threatening to make countries whose support and collaboration are
important.

2
Table 1: Characteristics of international collaboration

Relationships Between Global Problems

And Collaborative Implementation Efforts
Directly affects all countries
Supported by all May not need collaboration
countries
Not supported by all Could be an even greater
countries problem; G7/G20 function
Not directly affect all countries
Could be a huge benefit from
international collaboration
Could be very big problem

Part of the governance problem at the national level is that many problems are not resolved in due
course. This results in greater problems that are more expensive, that harm the well-being of the
people, and that incubate discontents that undermine prospects for peaceful coexistence. Despite this,
there are many aspects of nature and to some extent in society that are resolved regularly without
political implications. These do contribute to the common good; they are effective to the degree that
they serve to maintain desired conditions as a matter of course. Out of thousands of examples, let’s look
at some apparently simple norms of roadbuilding.

Example and what is not generally discussed regarding research-based

governance
To build a road that is serviceable in both wet and dry occasions—and a means of preserving the
integrity of roads with high runoff—roads are built with crowns. This is to say that they are designed to
be higher in the middle as they run along the route than they are on the outside edges, causing water to
run off and not form puddles or otherwise get in the way. Another advantage of a road with a good
crown is that they will tend to guide a vehicle away from the crown and, hence, away from oncoming
traffic in the case of a combined-two-way road. This is an important safety feature in the case of a
drowsy driver or other conditions where a firm grip on the steering wheel is not present.

There are rules as to how this is to be done. 1 These are implemented in a variety of ways that roads can
thus be constructed—including regulations and non-legal standards. 2 This is an ongoing phenomenon,
affecting all kinds of roads. Public roads, their integrity, utility, and safety, are highly dependent on this.

The point is this is not a political issue. When have politicians even brought the issue up in debate or
policy prescriptions—other than to ascribe to standards generally and adequate budgets to get the work
done. In the public, most are likely not even aware of the existence of crowns on roads, let alone
prepared to have an opinion on them.

Imaging, then, a condition in which road crowns had not been invented, or there was no standard of
practice for implementing them. Say, roadbuilders found it was less expensive to build roads without

1
Technical Bulletin. 2019, March. Crown and cross-slope. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University,
Center for Gravel and Dirt Road Studies. https://tinyurl.com/yk4m2ycs.
2
Leix, T. 2019, March 27. Road cross slopes and parabolic crowns – clarification. Lap 2009-02. Lansing, MI:
Michigan Department of Transportation. https://tinyurl.com/jyhbmate

3
them. Lacking industry standards or government regulations otherwise, they did not use them in road
construction. What would be the results?

Road construction would be less expensive, surely to some degree. Driving would be more precarious.
All aspects of accident statistics, including damage to persons and property, and mortality, would
worsen. Would the public know that conditions were worse than they needed to be? If the condition
were to be discovered, how would the problem be solved? Would it be necessary for politicians to
become aware of this and every other thing, to establish a legal framework for everything, and to
enforce practices that may be complex and beyond the understanding of lay people like non-engineers
and the like?

Should the politicians become engineers in this case to resolve the problems themselves? If they tried,
would that distract from their efforts to govern? How many such areas of expertise should they be
expected to take upon themselves? If there were differences of opinions on crowns, how in the public
realm would such differences to be judged as to their engineering and construction merit?

There is a language problem here—and it isn’t the nature and translation challenges among spoken
languages. The point is that in all areas of study and practice, means of evaluating the context of a
situation or problem and the efficacy of actions or solutions are themselves embedded in the
communities in question. These include concepts and formulas with deep import in the communities in
question. It may involve the use of complex and arcane equipment, materials, and formulas that have
taken decades if not generations of researchers to develop. As a rule of thumb, a lay person—not
knowledgeable and prepared to understand the work of groups of scientists—will likely not understand
very much under discussion. Without deep immersion in the communities in question, they will certainly
not be in position to evaluate published research results as developed by specialists and reviewed by
peer specialists and generalists in the field in question.

The scientists will attempt to translate their findings into generic tongues. They will typically use
examples, metaphors, and allegories to describe what they have learned. These will be uniformly
incorrect and misleading. It is impossible for findings couched in complex concepts and in many cases
breathtaking mathematical and statistical work to be translated into simple memes or ‘sound bites’ that
people in the general public would think they understand.

A simple example can be seen in the case of the crowns of roads, as previously discussed. Imagine
attempts to describe the phenomenon in any detailed way without the use of mathematics. Even the
simple case would be impossible. Consider other questions then, that would emerge, such as the grade
of the road, the nature of substrates and soils, and some idea of climate and hydrology. Attempts at lay
understanding, as it can be seen, would be a faint shadow of what would need to be done to construct
save and lasting roads.

On top of this, there are those who find themselves on the periphery of the scientific and knowledge
communities in question. They may be independent, or they may be associated with commercial
interests or government authorities. With a modicum of credentials, they find themselves in position to
explain what the science means or what it does. Even under the best of conditions, they will not
succeed. The situation swings open a wide door for misrepresentation, misguidance, and misstatement.
This alone is the source of great turmoil in the socio-political realm and in fields related to political
economics.

4
These are unquestionably important issues. They affect the public good in many ways. These speak to
perceived gaps in governance in regimes around the world. There needs to be direct support for such
activities, domestically as well as globally. The 2020 Program for Global Health has published further
guidance on how this can be done, including questions related to specialization, 3 generalist work, 4 and
journeyman science. 5 This is a critical aspect of capacity development in the reinforcement of
governance that can combine knowledge and authority in systematic ways.

The public interest is served when such issues do not spill over into the public discourse unnecessarily.
To the degree that international efforts can serve to provide workable, process-based solutions, it
makes effective governance that much more feasible. It helps to control budgets. It promises better
solutions for the people. It serves to reduce global risks associated with waste and social disruptions.

Subset of G7 Policy Briefs from the perspective of G20 PB #58

There has been considerable discussion of governance implications of the smaller international
associations of the G7 and the G20, which harbor global implications. This is to say that participation in
the international alignment may help to compensate for domestic shortfalls in these important areas of
science and society.

Furthermore, there is
substantial evidence that
technology—most
particularly, information
technology—may help in
these critical functions.
This is to say that
supporters of viable
solutions to universal risks
may be able to reduce
application costs and
implementation risks by
making viable solutions
available to others—from
peer governments to their
domestic institutions and citizens--

1. Climate change and health

Authors: Maike Voss German Alliance on Climate Change and Health/ Centre for Planetary Health Policy
(CPHP); Sophie Gepp German Alliance on Climate Change and Health/ Centre for Planetary Health Policy
(CPHP); Dr. Sabine Baunach German Alliance on Climate Change and Health

3
Tingey, K. B., Spendlove, R., Farnes, L. D., and Manicki, M. 2015. One: Commitment of specialists. Logan,
UT/Warsaw, Poland: CIMH Global, 2020 Program for Global Health.
4
Spendlove, R., Tingey, K. B., and Manicki, M. 2014. Context in science: Generalists and root causes. Logan,
UT/Warsaw, Poland: CIMH Global, 2020 Program for Global Health.
5
Tingey, K. B., Spendlove, R., Farnes, L. D., and Manicki, M. 2015. Scientific tiki-taka: Utility roles in achieving
fluidity and dual control. Logan, UT/Warsaw, Poland: CIMH Global, 2020 Program for Global Health.

5
Comments: This program proposes the conversion of climate and health related concepts to system
forms, involving surveillance, monitoring, and early warning. This dovetails with the aspect of G20 Policy
Brief #58 that promotes the definition of interpretive systems tied to data collection streams. This
program focuses on capacity development for the current and future health workforce; this needs to be
done with the object of defining as well as maintaining the systems in question. It will not serve for them
to sit on the sidelines while machines supposedly resolve their issues and problems; digital systems need
to mirror the knowledge and policy preferences of the people. Integrating climate change action with
finance by means of a global health infrastructure is also a direct aspect of Policy Brief #58, which
leverages national health and payment traditions of Poland, Indonesia, and other nations.

2. Food and agriculture

Corine Pelluchon, THE NEW INSTITUTE

Comments: The program calls for “a non-atomistic ecological approach” to food and agricultural
systems. Questions are raised as to the “four pillars”: (1) environmental dimension; (2) social justice; (3)
health; and (4) animal welfare. There are also stated concerns for agricultural energy usage. The
Optimum Performance Living (OPL) concept of G20 Policy Brief #58 can provide detailed guidance for
such a system to guide “Citizens’ choices … by reducing their consumption of meat, fish, and dairy
products.” OPL as an integrating concept—leveraging underlying desires as to performance and activity
by individuals—mitigates the perspective of compulsion in this matter. The point of the program is to
introduce improved meal choices and other healthy living alternatives based on detailed guidance and
comprehensive presentation of alternatives.

3. Data citizenship
Authors: Henrietta L. Moore Institute for Global Prosperity; Andrew Percy Institute for Global
Prosperity; Rayhaan Lorgat Institute for Global Prosperity; Katrina Moseley Institute for Global
Prosperity

Comments: This addresses questions of democracy as being challenged by corporate digitization, which
is seen as been a challenge to social cohesion and democratic order. Though it is not informed by the
concepts of fluidity and dual control, it addresses the kinds of outcomes that result from empowerment
in process design. Digital agency, access, and control of one’s digital goods and persona are central to
the proposal, which is very compatible with G20 Policy Brief #58.

4. Digital utilities for scientific research towards an equitable world

Authors: Mei Lin Fung People Centered Internet; Declan Kirrane ISC Intelligence in Science
Kurt Zatloukal Medical University of Graz, Austria; Peter Taylor Institute of Development Studies, UK
Andrew Seely MindPoint Group; Evgueni Louikipudis Digital Technology Supercluster, Canada
Tamara Singh OMFIF, Singapore; Gora Datta FHL7 University of California, Berkeley

Comments: This proposal dovetails with those of G20 Policy Brief #58. This proposal calls for
improvements in “generative evolving governance” which resonates with the ideas of fluidity and dual
control of knowledge and authority in governance. The program makes several suggestions as to how
knowledge may be made available for use as a common good. All the ideas and implementation
proposals resonate with those of PB #58. PB #58 provides introductory information on the nature of

6
generative taxonomies, which are key enabling concepts, representing means by which the objects at
hand can be achieved.

5. Policy and fiscal space for universal social protection

Authors: Michael Cichon International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW); Hajo Lanz Friedrich Ebert
Foundation, Geneva

Comments: A fund in support of the poorest countries is proposed. The G20 Policy Brief #58 proposal is
to target such needs in a data-driven fashion, to make use of economies of scale and fair, reasonable,
and non-discriminatory intellectual property models to provide detailed guidance for each person in
simple, readily understood process form that can be reliably followed. This is to eliminate waste and
corruption through digital paths, tying finance to standardized procedures and distribution of goods
when and where needed. According to this proposal, the pandemic has pointed the way to a social
protection floor that allows for reduced poverty and suffering and improved development prospects.
Fluidity in combining knowledge with authority and finance can extend these efforts.

6. Universal protections
Authors: Henrietta L. Moore Institute for Global Prosperity; Andrew Percy Institute for Global
Prosperity; Rayhaan Lorgat Institute for Global Prosperity; Katrina Moseley Institute for Global
Prosperity

Comments: This calls for social protection systems that are “more adaptable, empowering, inclusive, and
sustainable.” It provides guidelines for development of systems such as proposed in G20 Policy Brief
#58. With OPL as a operational goal, systems can serve to minimize chronic and infectious disease risks
and focus attention on the expanded social protections proposed here: shelter, food, education, health
& care, transport, information, and legal services. Advanced technologies and detailed processes as
designed by experts and authorities themselves can focus attention on the individual needs of the
people while reducing the incremental, per-person cost of such services to minimal levels.

7. Identifying “impact hubs” for Agenda 2030 and G7 commitment to Agenda 2030
“policy tags” (SDG tags)
Authors: Alan Alexandroff Global Summitry Project; Colin I. Bradford Brookings; Philipp Bien University
of Konstanz

Comments: The integration issue-oriented impact hubs is a critical way of leveraging existing knowledge
and extending capacities around the world as long as there is an integrative technology and supporting
method for documenting actions and guiding users to apply them with minimal training. Social network
analysis supports the activities of hubs of this kind and supplies methods by which such hubs can be
identified, as is proposed in this proposal. Care need be taken to identify specialist expert networks, as
well as acknowledged generalists and committed journeymen, investigating new fields. Fluidity in
process design as described in G20 Policy Brief #58 describes how such knowledge can be organized and
extended for use by such knowledge workers.

8. Build digital public goods for health: A private and public sector global initiative
Authors: Sarah Fischer (GIZ), Yolanda Martinez (ITU); Skye Gilbert Yoden (PATH); Kate Wilson (Digital
Impact Alliance); Mei Lin Fung (People Centered Internet); Hani Eskandar (ITU); Sherman Kong (Digital

7
Impact Alliance); Garrett Livingston Mehl (WHO); Derrick Muneene (WHO); Max Schumann (GIZ); Jake
Watson (Digital Impact Alliance)

Comments: This proposal has much in common with G20 Policy Brief #58. Fluidity as achieved via
generative taxonomies can make a difference in all four the main challenges outlined in the proposal.
These include (1) lack of visibility among health care workers, (2) lack of equitable access to digital
technologies, (3) lack of equitable access to digital skill-building opportunities, and (4) lack of trust.
Engaged in broadly supported efforts to extend “explicit” knowledge in documents and other static
forms to “expressive”, process-based forms provides an environment for much higher-level
collaboration among providers and clearer, more credible paths of action for users of such a system.
Furthermore, a layered approach to such systems provides an environment for more effective
specialization and more reliable security. These are detailed in PB #58 and referenced documentation.

9. Democracy, global health, and the Group of 7

David P. Fidler, Council on Foreign Relations (USA)

Comments: This proposal is that G7 governments tackle fraught connections between democratic
systems and global health shortfalls. It calls an alarm, that if governments do not substantially improve
performance in health, in partnership with the Global Fund and other actors across policy domains, the
global balance of power and embrace of democratic principles will wane. The basic proposition of G20
Policy Brief #58 is that effective governance needs to explicitly address the identification and integration
of knowledge-based and authoritative processes. This is a means by which democratic norms can be
supported by key societal institutions and social networks. In fact, democratic nations have sponsored
such institutions, but have empowered them but little. Powerful digital platforms act, in fact, to drown
out legitimate messages such as can only be provided through effective science and detailed,
compatible policymaking. The goal of nations in this matter should not be to silence the social media
platforms that generate untoward social conditions and lawlessness, but to in turn drown them out with
signal, not noise, with effective solutions, not mindless chatter. This is something that the G7 countries,
in partnership with the G20 and other multinational and multilateral institutions, with viable commercial
and social partners.

10. Global transformation toward planetary health

Christoph Strupat, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE); Liz
Grant, University of Edinburgh; Maike Voss, Deutsche Allianz Klimawandel und Gesundheit/Centre for
Planetary Health Policy; Katharina Molitor, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik (DIE); Sophie Gepp, Deutsche Allianz Klimawandel und Gesundheit/Centre for
Planetary Health Policy; Alexia Faus Onbarg, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik (DIE); Saravanan Subramanian, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut
für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE); Anna-Katharina Hornidge, German Development Institute / Deutsches
Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)

Comments: The points here are (1) better coordination between health and environmental agencies, (2)
development of standards and indicators for planetary health, and (3) better alignment of new global
health monitoring initiatives and (4) prioritization of planetary health in [a] new pandemic treaty. The
coordination in question needs to be operational, not merely administrative. The development of
standards needs to be based on comprehensive models for classification and generative process

8
development. All global health processes can be aligned as suggested by means of standardized process
models. The proposals for a new pandemic agreement needs to support “prevention, detection, and
response,” but for all health phenomena. No longer can budgets for individual disease conditions—
including coronavirus diseases—be expected to stretch to global levels. There needs to be a
comprehensive, integrated approach to this, as proposed in G20 Policy Brief #58.

Summary
These various G7 proposals all contain elements that are compatible with G20 Policy Brief #58. Unique
among the various proposals that have emerged from both G7 and G20 efforts is PB #58’s technological
and methodological foundations. Indeed, the idea of system design by experts and authorities
themselves is unique. Upon reflection, it can likely be discerned that such a program element is
necessary. How else but through the efforts of the most informed, most capable agents in this process
can associated results be achieved. Machines can likely be ruled out—certainly in the long term, as
human institutions are not likely to be supplanted reliably with non-human designers.

In fact, the question arises, why have experts and authorities not been enlisted in this effort. Their good
work is documented. It has reliably been cross-checked by means of peer review and in other ways. Why
is there no great effort to bring them into the fold with respect to system design, management, and
oversight? The question becomes subsumed with the importance of taking such actions currently.

As indicated in the ten G7 proposals above, there is much material available for digitizing content as
encouraged in these proposals. Table 2: Table 2 from G20 Policy Brief #58 on page 6, existing material
for conversion to process form outlines many of these. These are compatible with and supportive of the
objectives of the ten G7 proposals as well as G7 and G20 objectives generally.

9
Table 2: Table 2 from G20 Policy Brief #58 on page 6, existing material for conversion to process form