The state doesn't need the private sector to be entrepreneurial

It is widely accepted that business is more dynamic -- but in fact, the state is crucial to innovati

The government's economic strategy isn't working. The post-crisis hangover remains, with growth subdued and recovery elusive and there's little on the horizon to stimulate the optimism and confidence needed to kick start the vibrant economy needed to secure sustainable growth and future prosperity. As Keynes claimed, investment is not driven by simple tax cuts but by the much less predictable "animal spirits" of investors, and such spirits are not currently running high.

Why? Current economic policy is based on the false premise that innovation-led growth will only happen if we pull back the role of the state and unleash the power of entrepreneurship in the private sector. This feeds a perceived contrast that is repeatedly drawn by the media, business and libertarian politicians of a dynamic, innovative, competitive private sector versus a sluggish, bureaucratic, inertial, "meddling" public sector. So much so that it is virtually accepted by the public as a "common sense" truth. In the March 2011 Cardiff Spring Forum, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, brought this view to an extreme when he called "bureaucrats in government departments" the "enemies of enterprise".

It is not a view that is unique to the UK government. The Economist, which often refers to the government as a Hobbesian Leviathan, recently argued that government should take the back seat and focus on creating freer markets and the right conditions for new ideas to prosper, rather than taking a more activist approach. In painting this contrast, it is assumed that the private sector is inherently more innovative, able to think "out of the box" and lead a country towards long-run, innovation-led growth.

However, countless examples in the history of innovation reveal a different picture: one of a risk-taking innovative state -- especially in the most uncertain phases of technological development and/or in the most risky sectors -- versus a more inertial private sector which only enters and invests once the state has absorbed most of the uncertainty, before walking off with all the gains. In pharmaceuticals it is the state, through the NIH in the USA or the MRC in the UK, that has funded most of the priority rated new molecular entities (innovative drugs) with private pharma concentrating on slight variations of existing ones ("me too" drugs). From the development of aviation, nuclear energy, computers, the internet, the biotechnology revolution, nanotechnology and green technology today, it has been the state, not the private sector, that has often engaged with the most high-risk entrepreneurial activities, kick-starting and developing the engine of growth.

It has not done so not just by funding basic research, or "fixing" market failures. It has created new markets; formulating a vision of a new area, investing in the earliest-stage research and development, identifying new pathways to market and adjusting rules to promote them, creating networks that bring together business, academia and finance, and being constantly ahead of the game in areas that will drive the next decades of growth. Ironically, although the US economy is often discussed as a market-based system compared to Europe, in fact, the US federal government has been one of the most active agents in creating new sectors and related technologies: it was civil sector workers in the US Department of Defence that dared to think up the internet. The same is true of nanotechnology, where publicly funded scientists convinced both Congress and the business community that nanotechnology was a key sector. The National Nanotechnology Initiative invented the very idea of nanotechnology.

Of course there are plenty of examples of private sector entrepreneurial activity, from the role of new, young companies in providing the dynamism behind new sectors to the important source of funding from private sources like venture capital. But, generally, it is only this story which is told. Silicon Valley or the biotech revolution are usually attributed to the geniuses behind small, high tech firms like Facebook or the plethora of small biotech companies in Boston or Cambridge. How many people know that the algorithm that led to Google's success was funded by a public sector National Science Foundation grant? Or that many of the most innovative, young companies in the US were funded not by private venture capital but by public venture capital (Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR)?

The most successful economy in Europe, Germany, understands the need for an entrepreneurial state. While fiscal expenditure, like elsewhere, has been cut (from €319.5bn last year to €307.4bn this year), the Ministry of Education and Research's budget is rising by 7.2 per cent; which includes €327m for university research excellence alone. Support for research and development at the Federal Economics Ministry is also increasing. The German government is one of the lead spenders on green technology, stimulating business to do the same. Thus, while Angela Merkel wants Greece to reduce state expenditure, in her own country she claims " the prosperity of a country, such as Germany, with its scarce mineral resources, must be sought through investment in research, education and science, and this to a disproportionate degree." China is following in Germany's footsteps, with the Chinese National Sciences Foundation (equivalent to the UK research councils), increasing its budget this year by 17 per cent, which will mean its budget will have doubled from 2009 to 2011. It is this long run growth strategy that should be feared, rather than the usual talk of the flood of low cost Chinese goods.

This is not the time for our public sector to step back. Now, more than ever, we need an assertive, entrepreneurial state, identifying areas for new growth and investing strategically in early stage innovation. Major growth opportunities are there. Green technology is poised to be the next great technological revolution, and being first will really matter, as the global race for pole position is well underway. This is within our grasp, but only if the government makes it a priority and provides that daring, forgiving investment. The Green Investment Bank is a start but it is not enough. Despite the Prime Minister's pledge to lead the UK's "greenest government ever", there is currently no break from the long trend of below-average business R&D in this sector. Under 1 per cent of UK Gross Domestic Product is being invested in green technologies; half of what South Korea currently invests and less than what the UK spends annually on furniture.

Making the right investments means a new philosophy about what the state's role is in the economy. It is not about just creating the right conditions for innovation, but also having the courage to make direct investments that are subject to high failure rates, which the private sector notoriously shies away from. It is the risk associated with new innovations which challenge the status quo that the UK should specialise in, not just risk-management in the financial sector: risk-taking for creative destruction, not for destructive destruction.

Mariana Mazzucato is Professor in the Economics of Innovation at The Open University. Her book, The Entrepreneurial State, is published today.

Getty
Show Hide image

Why the left shouldn’t abandon freedom of movement

Jeremy Corbyn is right to avoid making promises on immigration. 

Jeremy Corbyn was on the BBC’s Today programme yesterday morning, answering questions about policy ahead of his party conference speech.

The main line of questioning was on immigration, something Corbyn and his team have had to think hard about in recent months.

For over a decade, all parties have been trying to marry policy with popular opinion on Britain’s migrants. Brexit has exacerbated this dilemma, what with the UK’s participation in freedom of movement teetering on the rim of the dustbin of history.

The problem is a familiar one. Immigration is generally a good thing, but in the eyes of the majority of voters – and in reality in certain pockets of the country – it doesn’t look that way. But for a party seen as “soft” on immigration, pandering to the harder line of rhetoric from its opponents merely reinforces the perception that there is a big problem – and validates its opponents’ policies.

The Labour leader has angered some in his party by insisting he won’t be drawn into making “false promises” on immigration numbers. This is the right decision. The Tories’ targets are arbitrary, set them up to fail, and do little to quell public dissatisfaction with the number of migrants.

An inaccurate government headcount, whether it’s successfully brought down or not, doesn’t translate onto your street, or local schools, or queue at the doctor’s surgery – just as a politician’s reassurance about the positive net contribution from migrants doesn’t. The macro doesn’t satisfy the micro.

And Corbyn calling for a cap would not only be unconvincing to voters, but a betrayal of his supporters, who have projected their liberal politics onto him and love it when he champions migrants. Corbyn himself has never really been into free movement; he’s unconvinced by the benefits of the single market. Of course he is. He’s a eurosceptic, and a eurosceptic who is suspicious of capitalism, to boot.

But having a leader of a mainstream party sticking up for migrants is an important thing; someone’s got to make the positive case, and it’s not like Corbyn’s one to compromise for votes anyway. Particularly as he builds his whole reputation on being a “man of principle” and a “real alternative”.

Rather than “false promises”, Corbyn’s given us a number of false problems instead. He speaks about the effect of migration in terms of depressed wages and pressure on public services. If he were in government, he would reintroduce a “migrant impact fund” (amount unspecified) to make up for these.

The first problem with this is that Corbyn knows as well as Boris Johnson and Theresa May and George Osborne and Ed Miliband and Tony Blair and Caroline Lucas and everyone else who’s attempted to make policy on this does that, actually, migrants overwhelmingly come here to work. Indeed, he underlined his stance against scapegoating migrants in a passionate passage of his speech yesterday. They don’t “take” people’s jobs, and it is not the number of them that brings down wages or drives up rents.

Where wages are kept lower than the national average by the presence of migrant workers, you will find numerous agencies that pay them less than the minimum wage, fail to give them proper contracts, and often advertise jobs solely overseas. Where you find these agencies, you find businesses happy to turn a blind eye to their recruitment and employment practices.

Where rents are driven up higher than the local average by the presence of migrant workers, you will find landlords who are happy to make money from people willing to live ten to a house, share bedrooms and have a poor quality of life.

Boston – the town in Britain with the highest proportion of EU migrants after London – is a textbook study of this. A high level of workers is needed for agricultural and factory labour. They aren’t stealing people’s jobs, and unemployment is relatively low. But those who benefit financially from their presence, and take advantage, are the ones who cause the consequent negative social and economic conditions in the town. Conditions that led it to voting higher than anywhere else for Brexit.

So Corbyn’s “migrant impact fund” is a nebulous fix to a false problem that not even he believes in. Even the name of it sends the wrong message, making migration sound like a spate of bad flooding, or noise pollution.

It’s our light-touch enforcement of employment law, and murky regulation of exploitative agencies that slip through its net, which need government money and attention. Perhaps “shark impact fund” would be a better name for Corbyn’s fix-all pot of gold.

Giving councils extra funds for public services is priced into Labour policy already (if the party truly is anti-austerity) – and should not now be linked to a negative idea of migration in a tacked-on attempt to to make something palatable for voters. It’s a bit like Ed Miliband’s “Controls on Immigration” mug. Simply giving something a new name, or stamping on a motto, doesn’t wash with voters.

Those who argue that the country has voted against free movement, and we should accept it, that may be so. But it’ll do the Labour party little good campaigning to get rid of it. Once it’s gone, and we’ve replaced it with some kind of points-based system, places with high levels of migration will still have high levels of migration – because those are the places where jobs need filling. It’ll either be EU migrants who manage to stick around, or other immigrants drafted in out of necessity having been assessed under a points-based system. If investment in these areas isn’t ramped up, residents will still feel left behind, and will still see migrants around them as the cause.

So what about the many pro-Brexit areas where there is a very low number of immigrants? This really is irrelevant. The problem in these areas is the problem the country over: lack of funds. Unless you invest, people will remain unsatisfied. And if people remain unsatisfied, they will continue to look for something to blame. Unfortunately, Corbyn is joining the legions of politicians who are handing them that easy target. And he is least likely to see the electoral benefit of it.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.