Ownership matters, a very great deal

Posted on

I noted this headline in the FT's  emails this morning, and without ever actually reading the  related article I have to say I fundamentally disagree with it:

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 09.33.28

First of all, most drug development takes place with substantial government support. In my opinion it does matter very much who gets that support: we need to know that those who are subsidised are accountable for the benefit that they receive. There is a greater chance of that in the case of a UK-based company.

Second,  knowing that the benefits of any such activity will stay in the UK matters. Again, this is much more likely if a company is based in this country.

Thirdly,  UK companies are more likely to employ UK staff. I know that the relationship will not be perfect, and that very clearly there are some UK companies that have been more than willing to embrace outsourcing, but I think that the correlation is real, and will certainly be of significance to employees. That matters. People drive innovation. Employees needs have to be considered on this issue.

Lastly, I have to say tax matters. US  Companies aren't too good at paying tax in Europe right now.  I want to see a return on the UK's investment in pharmaceutical companies, and don't believe that will happen with a US  controlled company undertaking research here.

So, very definitely, ownership matters. Only the naive or  neoliberals who are indifferent to the interests of the state argue otherwise.