14 Leaders The EconomistJune 9th 2018
2 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 reasonfor optimism is that automation should also
encourage demand. Even in the rich world, 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 becamemore automated.Improved efficien-
cy led to higher production, lower prices and thus more de-
mand for the tasks that the machines could not perform. Medi-
cine itself provides a more recent example. “Expert systems”
were the exciting newAItechnology of the 1970s and 1980s.
They eventually made their way 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 how sweeping the long-term effects ofAIon
employment will be. But experience suggeststhat technologi-
cal change takes longer than people think. Factory-owners
took decades to exploit the full advantages of electricity over
steam. Even now, the computerrevolution in the office re-
mains unfinished. Big tech firms such as Google, Facebook and
Alibaba have the resources and the in-house expertise to begin
making use ofAIrapidly. 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. 7“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 the World Cup, which beginsin Russia on June 14th. Many
people will join in even if their countries have not made it to
the competition. Bangladeshis followthe World Cup 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 the World Cup.
The Economistis 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
heroism can elevate the game to the level of art (see Books and
Arts). And, second, because we see in the World Cup the fulfil-
ment of some of our most cherished values.
Admittedly, much about the tournament is distasteful. Its
governing body, FIFA, has a woeful history of cronyism and
corruption. This year’s competition will be a fillip for Vladimir
Putin’s kleptocratic regime. (In March, after Russia tried to mur-
der an exile and his daughter in the city of Salisbury, England
briefly considered withdrawing from the World Cup, but then
decided to express its disapproval by—horrors!—instructing
Princes William and Harry to boycott the tournament.)
Yet the competition itself, as opposed to the murky process
of deciding where it is played, showcases progress. Teams real-
ly are better than they used to be. It also rewards good govern-
ment. Autocratic regimes such asChina 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 requires more creativ-
ity and flair. The contrast between the former East and West
Germany is striking. The East trained massively muscled shot-putters; the West, sublime shot-makers. Only four countries
rated “not free” by Freedom House, 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 been won by democracies (America, Germany, Japan and
Norway), though China once made it to the final.
International football punishes inward-looking countries
and rewards those with more cosmopolitan attitudes. When
picking team managers, wise countries pass over their nation-
al heroes and appoint managers of any nationality who have
proved themselves in western Europe’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 in 1998 were of migrant stock.Why nations 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 that America ought to be doing better (see Inter-
national section). One possible reason forthe 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 players might develop cannot be promoted.
So liberal internationalists should enjoy the World Cup, de-
spite the Putinophile propaganda that will no doubt disfigure
it from time to time. Football, like life, is gloriously unpredict-
able. For what it isworth, our model 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. 7FootballHow to win the World Cup
Though tainted by corruption, the tournament rewards liberalism, internationalism and open markets