Econ_June_09

14 Leaders

The Economist

June 9th 2018

Handing one of those tasks to a computerised helper leaves ra-

diologists not with a redundancy cheque, but with more time

to focus on other parts of their jobs—often the rewarding ones.

A third reason for optimism is that automation should also

encourage demand. Even in the richworld, radiology is expen-

sive. If machines can make it more efficient, then the price

should come down, allowing its benefits to be spread more

widely and opening up entire new applications for medical

imaging. In the Industrial Revolution the number of weavers

rose as the work became more automated. Improved efficien-

cy led to higher production, lower prices and thus more de-

mand for the tasks that themachines could not perform. Medi-

cine itself provides a more recent example. “Expert systems”

were the exciting new

technology of the 1970s and 1980s.

They eventuallymade theirway into hospitals as, for instance,

automated diagnostic aids. That has been a boon, letting nur-

ses—or even patients—undertake procedures that might previ-

ously have required a doctor.

No one knows howsweeping the long-termeffects of

employment will be. But experience suggests that technologi-

cal change takes longer than people think. Factory-owners

took decades to exploit the full advantages of electricity over

steam. Even now, the computer revolution in the office re-

mains unfinished. Big tech firms such asGoogle, Facebook and

Alibabahave the resources and the in-house expertise tobegin

making use of

rapidly. Most other companies will proceed

more slowly, especially in tightly regulated areas like medi-

cine. If you happen to be training for a career in radiology—or

anything else that cannot be broken down into a few easily

automated steps—it is probably safe to carry on.

“F

OOTBALL is a simple

game,” explained Gary Li-

neker, formerly the captain of

England’s team. “Twenty-two

men chase a ball for 90 minutes

and at the end, the Germans al-

ways win.” Billions of fans will

nonetheless pour their hopes

into theWorldCup, which begins inRussia on June14th. Many

people will join in even if their countries have not made it to

the competition. Bangladeshis followtheWorldCup fervently,

ignoring killjoy officials who have tried to stop them flying

flags. The flags of Argentina and Brazil, that is—Bangladesh’s

national team is ranked 197th out of 207 in the world and has

never qualified for theWorld Cup.

The Economist

is looking forward to the competition, too.

Not because we think the country that hosts our head office

has much of a chance of winning it—we are too rational for

that. But because, first, improbable athleticism, drama and

heroismcan elevate the game to the level of art (see Books and

Arts). And, second, because we see in theWorld Cup the fulfil-

ment of some of ourmost cherished values.

Admittedly, much about the tournament is distasteful. Its

governing body,

FIFA

, has a woeful history of cronyism and

corruption. This year’s competitionwill be a fillip for Vladimir

Putin’s kleptocratic regime. (InMarch, afterRussia tried tomur-

der an exile and his daughter in the city of Salisbury, England

briefly considered withdrawing from theWorld Cup, but then

decided to express its disapproval by—horrors!—instructing

PrincesWilliamandHarry to boycott the tournament.)

Yet the competition itself, as opposed to the murky process

ofdecidingwhere it is played, showcases progress. Teams real-

ly are better than they used to be. It also rewards good govern-

ment. Autocratic regimes such as China and Russia can ruth-

lessly drill track-and-field athletes—indeed, the Olympic

games sometimes resemble an authoritarian pageant. But dic-

tatorships are rubbish at football, which requiresmore creativ-

ity and flair. The contrast between the former East and West

Germany is striking. The East trainedmassivelymuscled shot-

putters; the West, sublime shot-makers. Only four countries

rated “not free” byFreedomHouse, a charity, have qualified for

this year’s World Cup, and none is likely to get far. The last

country with an autocratic government to win the tourna-

ment was Argentina in 1978. The women’s contest has only

ever beenwonbydemocracies (America, Germany, Japan and

Norway), though China oncemade it to the final.

International football punishes inward-looking countries

and rewards those with more cosmopolitan attitudes. When

picking teammanagers, wise countries pass over their nation-

al heroes and appoint managers of any nationality who have

proved themselves inwesternEurope’s tough football leagues.

They also call upon their diasporas. African countries can field

half-decent teams largely because so many of their players

have refined their skills abroad. Rich-country teams also bene-

fit from the talents of immigrants. Fully half of France’s victo-

rious squad in1998were ofmigrant stock.

Whynations fail

Football can also teach countries how to spot and hone hu-

man capital. The best performers not only have systems for

finding gifted children, but also ways of spotting late develop-

ers who failed to make the first cut. Their academies turn out

intelligent, creative players rather than dribbling automatons.

Then, if they are clever, they drop their best footballers into a

competitive market. A simple model of countries’ aptitude for

football, which weighs things like wealth and interest in the

game, suggests thatAmericaought tobedoingbetter (see Inter-

national section). One possible reason for the failure of its

men’s teams is that America’s professional soccer league is a

cartel. Salaries are capped, and the lower-division teams in

which domestic playersmight develop cannot be promoted.

So liberal internationalists should enjoy theWorldCup, de-

spite the Putinophile propaganda that will no doubt disfigure

it from time to time. Football, like life, is gloriously unpredict-

able. Forwhat it isworth, ourmodel suggests that one country

is best-placed to dominate the beautiful game; indeed, it has

performed slightly worse than it should have done over the

years. That country is Germany.

Football

How to win the World Cup

Though taintedbycorruption, the tournament rewards liberalism, internationalismand openmarkets