Miliband has reaffirmed the original neoliberal ideal

The early neoliberals recognised the need for a strong state to challenge private monopolies.

Last year, Ed Miliband proclaimed the neoliberal era of the last thirty years to be over when he argued that “responsible capitalism” should be instituted to promote producers and prevent economic predators. This year, the Labour leader’s challenge was to communicate how this path could be developed in a language that people can understand. His chosen idea was Disraeli’s “One Nation”, but the vision for the economy set out in Manchester drew upon a surprising source: the German Soziale Marktwirstschaft (the social market economy). In fact, in pronouncing the death of Anglo-American neoliberalism, the Labour leader has rediscovered the original European neoliberal idea.

In interwar Europe, a group of intellectuals from Freiburg, Vienna, Paris, London and Manchester reformulated liberalism. They advocated a strong state to prevent concentrations of economic power, “whether through cartels, trusts or giant enterprise”, in the words of Harvard Political Scientist Carl Friedrich. As Stephanie Flanders showed last week in her programme, Masters of Money, Friedrich Hayek was the leader of these early neoliberals. But instead of the Austrian business-cycle theory with which Hayek famously opposed Keynes, the group’s main aim was a new middle way between laissez-faire and economic planning. It was a vision that its adherents, including Hayek, saw as entirely compatible with a basic social security safety net.

In 1948, this early form of European neoliberalism entered power in Germany. Ludwig Erhard, a member of Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society (founded in 1947) became finance minister under the Chancellorship of Konrad Adenauer. German neoliberalism was characterised by a firm commitment that the economic benefits of competition as guaranteed by the state were balanced with the solution of social problems. This included a robust welfare state, worker involvement in the management of companies (“codetermination”), and a strong trade union movement, which saw its role as protecting jobs.

As the German Social Democratic Party signed up to a neoliberal approach through the Godesburg Programme of 1959, free market ideas travelled across the Atlantic. In the United States, neoliberalism turned into an uncompromising creed of market fundamentalism. This movement, led by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School on the one hand, and by James Buchanan and the Virginia School on the other, inspired, among other things, monetarism, privatisation, and the introduction of market-style incentives into public services and administration under Thatcher and Reagan. This brand of neoliberalism most famously advocated the economic and financial deregulation that led ultimately to 2008. The original European neoliberal preoccupation with competition and the targeting of monopoly (as well as its concurrent pursuit of social justice) was almost entirely absent from the priorities of its transatlantic cousin.

Thus, in expressing his confidence that people are sick of the ‘greed is good’ culture brought about by the unconditional embrace of free markets since the 1980s, the Labour leader has given voice to a visceral popular anger at the excesses of finance capital. Although he has signalled the abandonment by Labour of many of the tropes of Anglo-American neoliberalism, Miliband has championed some important pillars of German neoliberalism as he attempts to flesh out the meaning of “responsible capitalism”.

In his speech in Manchester, Miliband said he would use procurement rules to encourage a more long-term culture among business by rewarding those who offer apprenticeships and vocational training with government contracts. In the past year, he has proposed worker representation and “codetermination” for British companies to tackle excessive executive pay and bonuses. On Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show, the Labour leader supported the German trade union model of protecting jobs. Most importantly, in pushing the gimmicky-sounding “predistribution”, a term coined by Yale Political Scientist Jacob Hacker, Miliband has embraced one of the most important insights of the German neoliberals: the crucial role of the state in designing the rules of the economy to achieve particular goals. As Miliband said on Tuesday, this means, for example, changing the rules and incentives in areas such as corporate takeovers or the promotion of a living wage.

Now, for the early neoliberals the aim of the state was the achievement and maintenance of competition. For Miliband and the Labour Party there is a fundamental difference, which adds an exciting twist to their new agenda. In place of competition, “responsible capitalism” substitutes the reduction of inequality, a fairer distribution of wealth and power and increased opportunity for all as its central aims. Moreover, the lesson of the German experience is that with a political will, there is a real alternative to the Anglo-American neoliberalism of Thatcher and Reagan.

Daniel Stedman Jones is a barrister practising in London. His book on the history of neoliberalism, Masters of the Universe, is published this month by Princeton University Press.

Ed Miliband sings at the conclusion of the annual Labour Party conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

Daniel Stedman Jones is a barrister practising in London, and the author of Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Today's immigration figures show why the net migration target should be scrapped

We should measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact.

Today’s net migration figures show, once again, that the government has raised expectations of tackling migration and failed to deliver. This is a recipe for disaster. Today’s numbers run far in excess of 300,000 – three times over what was pledged. These figures don’t yet reflect the fallout from Brexit. But they do show the government needs to change from business as usual.

It has been the current strategy, after all, that led the British public to reject the European Union regardless of the economic risks. And in the process, it is leading the government to do things which err on the side of madness. Like kicking out international students with degrees in IT, engineering or as soon as they finish their degrees. Or doubling the threshold for investor visas, and in the process bringing down the number of people willing to come to Britain to set up business and create jobs by 82 per cent. Moreover, it has hampered the UK’s ability to step up during last year’s refugee crisis - last year Britain received 60 asylum applications per 1,000 people in contrast to Sweden’s 1,667, Germany’s 587 and an EU average of 260.

The EU referendum should mark the end for business as usual. The aim should be to transition to a system whose success is gauged not on the crude basis of whether overall migration comes down, irrespective of the repercussions, but on the basis of whether those who are coming are helping Britain achieve its strategic objectives. So if there is evidence that certain forms of migration are impacting on the wages of the low paid then it is perfectly legitimate for government to put in place controls. Conversely, where flows help build prosperity, then seeing greater numbers should surely be an option.

Approaching immigration policy in this way would go with the grain of public opinion. The evidence clearly tells us that the public holds diverse views on different types of migration. Very few people are concerned about investors coming from abroad to set up companies, create jobs and growth. Few are worried about students paying to study at British universities. On the other hand, low-skilled migration causes concerns of under-cutting among the low paid and pressure on public services in parts of the country that are already struggling.

The first step in a new approach to managing migration has to be to abolish the net migration target. Rather than looking at migration in the aggregate, the aim should be to measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact. In the first instance, this could be as simple as separating low and high skilled migration but in the long term it could involve looking at all different forms of migration. A more ambitious strategy would be to separate the different types of migration - not just those coming to work but also those arriving as refugees, to study or be reunited with their families.

Dividing different flows would not only create space for an immigration policy which was strategic. It would also enable a better national conversation, one which could take full account of the complex trade-offs involved in immigration policy: How do we attract talent to the UK without also letting conditions for British workers suffer? Should the right to a family life override concerns about poor integration? How do we avoiding choking off employers who struggle to recruit nationally? Ultimately, are we prepared to pay those costs?

Immigration is a tough issue for politicians. It involves huge trade-offs. But the net migration target obscures this fact. Separating out different types of immigration allows the government to sell the benefits of welcoming students, the highly skilled and those who wish to invest without having to tell those concerned about low skilled immigration that they are wrong.

Getting rid of the net migration target is politically possible but only if it is done alongside new and better targets for different areas of inward migration – particularly the low-skilled. If it is, then not only does it allow for better targeted policy that will help appease those most vocally against immigration, it also allows for a better national conversation. Now is the time for a new, honest and better approach to how we reduce immigration.

Phoebe Griffith is Associate Director for Migration, Integration and Communities at IPPR