The Guardian reports this morning that:
Radical economists sought
Get out your free zones, your four-day working weeks, your digitally enabled garden cities of the future. A prize fund of £150,000 is being put up for radical ideas to revitalise the British economy. Growth figures revealed at the budget show economic growth in the UK has dropped to among the lowest levels in the G7, while inequality has risen. The IPPR economics prize — supported by the prominent Labour donor and Brexit campaigner John Mills — comprises a main award of £100,000, a dedicated under-25s prize worth £25,000 and a runners-up prize pot of £25,000.
And they add:
The Briefing has an idea to beat them all. Don't do Brexit. (Judges: happy for you to divvy up the prize money between the others.)
I have, as yet, to find the link on the IPPR page for the competition: no doubt it will turn up in due course. I do, however, hope that the wits at The Guardian have got the sense of this competition right. It would be very unfortunate if the competition was to focus upon some obscure piece of technical economic game playing, or theoretical twist with limited practical application. These come two a penny in academic journals, but as we know rarely deliver anything of consequence in the real world.
What is required from this competition is a big idea that is simple, easily explained, and capable of transforming lives.
Given the make up of the panel of judges, which is chaired by Stephanie Flanders, who is noted for her left-wing views, and John Mills, who is profoundly pro Brexit, I cannot imagine anything too left wing will make it to the final. Forget anything even vaguely related to MMT in that case, I suggest.
But tax reform might make the grade. I will be keeping an eye open for ideas. So might others, I suggest.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“What would be your radical plan to force a step change in the quality and quantity of the UK’s economic growth?”
Answer 1. Wrong question.
Question 1: Why does it need to be a “Radical plan” – define “radical” in the context of economics & the UK.
Question 2: why is “force” needed for a step change? Is this force in the sense of men with guns or the force of ideas – which as somebody once observed “are bullet proof”
Question 3: at whom would this “force” be applied/targeted? Governments (or those in waiting) have pre-conceived ideas and are not normally open to “radical plans”.
An ordinary Idea that would stimulate the Uk economy in a good direction.
UK buildings can be characterised as energy incontinent – obviously not all, but certainly around 99.999%. At a minimum around 15 million households live in buildings in urgent need of in-depth energy renovation.
To date government action has been more or less zero, if I was feeling charitable one would use the word “tokenism”. At the heart of the problem lies money, £400 billion, £500 billion, these are the sort of amounts which would deliver warm comfortable homes to most of the UK population and hopefully a much better built environment.
Energy renovation costs mostly rotate around people – lots of them. A fit for purpose programme lasting 20 years in the UK would employ directly around 100,000 people. This programme would also, directly reduce the UK’s consumption of (increasingly imported) gas.
What is left is the modalities of: where the money comes from. Government pump priming followed by securitisation of the end result with sales of the securitised asset to pension funds could be a useful way forward with local authorities sitting in the driving seat to ensure quality and of course, no onward sale of the asset by the pension fund (unless in extremis back to the government). Capacity in terms of delivering the programme in terms of training people to deliver it would be a government responsibility (the building trade talks about training – but that is all – talk). There would also be the need for improved automation and material handling which could be delivered by UK universities and what is left of the UK industrial base.
Is the above “radical” I dunno – looks like common sense to me. The Tories would not be interested and I’d question Labour’s capacity to deliver on the above. However, it would help the UK economy and the people that form part of it.
No good simply suggesting ‘Vote Labour’ then 🙂 Really though this is the wrong question to be asking at all because suggesting there’s a quick fix at all is misleading, possibly deliberately so given the source. I wonder if we’re allowed to enter a list?
Yes, the question is absurd as is the idea that the winning entry will have any chance of being implemented. My entry would be: Ban Tories from ever forming another government.
https://www.ippr.org/economics-prize/
They have already produced a report on “A plan for the new economy”:
https://www.ippr.org/files/2018-10/cej-final-summary.pdf
I think Mike’s idea has traction, (like the Green New Deal) and could be supplemented by government sponsored R&D to go “Beyond Passivhaus” and become a world leader in the design & build of zero energy, zero carbon buildings, including the renovation of the existing stock, (as per Mike) as close to Passivhaus as possible (which is being done by a few progressive individuals). Combine this with massive investment in renewables, instead of the cuts the Tories have instituted, again with R&D in the many promising technologies, such as tidal, (or under-utilised existing technologies such as pump storage) which are struggling because of lack of funds, and create an all-out push to integrate renewable power generation with a hydrogen economy, which again needs investment to break through and become mainstream. And, can I say this (?) create UK based, UK owned businesses in renewables/hydrogen (publicly owned? worker owned?) in the regions of the UK (esp. in Scotland of course, being a Scot myself). This would produce high quality, well paid jobs and would require investment in training and would benefit areas other than London.
The “step change in the quality and quantity” of growth needs to address climate change, extinctions and planetary pollution – all of which threaten future civilised existence worldwide – or there will be no law to which business can appeal for the fulfilment of contracts. So while Mike Parr’s house renovation programme is sound, the UK’s wealthy already own vastly more housing space than they need while others do not have a decent home. Poor people have inadequate access to transport while the owners of vehicles (stationary 95% of the time) do not adequately pay for either road or parking space; nor do our laws take account of the pollution cars produce — brake dust and tyre particles (which are toxifying our fields and to which electric cars are no solution) – as well as exhaust which is poisoning our children. Honduras and Sierra Leone need growth; the UK needs a more sophisticated measure of ‘progress’.
The radical idea could thus be to fund research and a communication campaign to identify the best measures of profess and to “force” all economic actors (from local authorities to multinationals) and news outlets to report on these on a daily basis. + do away for ever with any reporting on growth or GDP.
Not voting Tory is a sound economic idea. A new green deal is urgently needed. The silly ageism of the Guardian could be ended on an economic basis. Declaring economics and bent accounting a cult and offering rescue to the people with an open, understandable tally system in which all people and the planet matter could be shown to have a sensible economic benefit.
The “radical” in such suggestions runs into quick problems of potential patronization. Anyone not wanting a fair and green planet is a problem for existing loonies like Boko Haram and elitists of many kinds. We might imagine a UK driven by Scottish wind and sea power and actual self-sustaining life. How would we protect ourselves from potential threats from leaving the oil in the hands of countries burning the planet and with weapons tech developed because they get economic benefit from us leaving this resource for them to misuse? Funding the Drake-Norris armada to rip off Spain in 1589 by issue of joint venture stock was “radical”.
In this complex world we might start with;
1. Job guarantee – to make our private sector compete with decent pay and conditions
2. Modern, positive money and sensible taxation as a control on over-heating
3. New green ideas on investment and what counts in repaying a project
4. New practices concerning wealth recognising how dangerous amassed money is
5. New practices concerning how even these changes affect what it is to be human.
Far more changes from ensue from Richard’s ideas as I’ve read them than is usually discussed. The “radical” can start “small”. With more real choice who would do the scut jobs and for what reward? Most of our existing leisure is hardly green. With fear of poverty removed how could ‘they’ manage us with a guaranteed job down the road? It’s tough. We should get on with some projects anyway.
Stephanie Flanders noted for her left wing views…? Not?
Another thing wrong with this question is the assumption that only new ideas can get the economy moving. Leaving aside the issue of what is truly “new” perhaps we should look at history, specifically the post-war decades up until the mid-70’s which is often now seen as a “golden” era, or perhaps atypical in the history of capitalism, and ask, what went right? There’s a long list from Bretton-Woods to strong unions, a tightly regulated financial sector and something of a political consensus that an emphasis on the “social” in social democracy was worth striving for.
But perhaps the fundamental flaw in this question is that new economic thinking is all that is required, whereas, without a new politics (which was broached elsewhere on here) nothing will change. Perhaps a £100k prize for ideas on how to get rid of our current dysfunctional and anti-social democratic politics and create an ethical politics that put all of the people first.
That would be another long list: get rid of the monarchy, HoL, fee-paying schools, professional politicians, ban anyone who want to “make a difference”…just some of my (frivolous) favourites.
Too true
No idea will progress without the politics to support it