OnPoint Subscriber Exclusive

Longer Reads provide in-depth analysis of the ideas and forces shaping politics, economics, international affairs, and more.

op_mazzucato1_Hagen HopkinsGetty Images_wellbeingbudgetnewzealand

Longer Reads

Verso una Nuova Costituzione Fiscale

Jul 10, 2020 Mariana Mazzucato and Robert Skidelsky

LONDRA – La pandemia COVID-19 ha avuto un impatto immenso, imprevedibile e duraturo sulle economie di tutto il mondo. Pertanto, i governi hanno avuto l’opportunità – e l’obbligo – di ripensare il ruolo e lo scopo della politica fiscale.

Un nuovo approccio è atteso da tempo. Dall’epoca del primo ministro britannico Margaret Thatcher e del presidente degli Stati Uniti Ronald Reagan, l’ortodossia economica prevalente ha di fatto negato la potenziale funzione di investimento dello stato ed ha trasformato l’equilibrio di bilancio in un fine di per sé. Questa indifferenza verso la direzione e il livello dell’attività economica ha reso quasi inevitabile la crisi del 2008-2009, e la conseguente corsa all’austerità ha indebolito la ripresa. Oggi, il collasso simultaneo di domanda ed offerta in seguito all’arrivo di COVID-19 ha reso doppiamente insostenibile l’ortodossia neoliberista.

Esistono, tuttavia, poche indicazioni circa il fatto che sia in corso un nuovo “pensiero fiscale”. Certo, è in atto un dispiegamento di finanziamenti d’emergenza. Ma, a meno che questa spesa non venga strutturata, si ripeteranno gli esiti del post 2008, con la liquidità che porta al rialzo dei prezzi delle attività sui mercati finanziari ma che fa poco per aiutare l’economia reale.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Mariana Mazzucato

Writing for PS since 2015
60 Commentaries

Mariana Mazzucato, Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London, is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Chair of the World Health Organization’s Council on the Economics of Health For All, and a co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water. She is the author of The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (Penguin Books, 2019), Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (Penguin Books, 2022), and, most recently, The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens Our Businesses, Infantilizes Our Governments and Warps Our Economies (Penguin Press, 2023). A tenth anniversary edition of her book The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths was published by Penguin in September.

Robert Skidelsky

Writing for PS since 2003
210 Commentaries

Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, was a non-executive director of the private Russian oil company PJSC Russneft from 2016 to 2021. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999. He is the author of The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning (Allen Lane, 2023).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Kurt Kristensen Sep 17, 2020

In the US official unemployment numbers currently hover around 10%, however, it appears that the combined unemployment, underemployed and resigned workers more closely should be between 20-30%. This is, of course, not sustainable.

In the near future the US and the EU will have to deal with increasing total unemployment due to increases in high-technology manufacturing systems primarily using robotics. Both areas will also be facing increasing unemployment due to in-migration of displaced people driven my climate and war factors.

It would seem logical that both the US and the EU look at effective public works projects as the authors suggest.

It would also seem logical, as the authors suggest, that voters consider more effective forward driven policies that have the public Good as a sustainable principle, rather than rely exclusively on short-term profit driven policies as we have seen in the aftermath of both Reagan, Thatcher and Trump.

However, the electorate will, of course, look for short-term solutions and excitement until courageous leaders emerge to guide us.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Norman Kennedy Jul 10, 2020

The article assumes voters understand what is good goverance when in fact 75% of them have the attention span of a sparrow and cannot plan beyond the end of the week.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lisandro Bril Jul 10, 2020

How would you apply the New State Role in countries , such as Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil among many others where the Government lacks transparency and a no corruption value needs to be enforced so that public budget is transparently, efficiently and effectively deployed ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Ryan Jul 10, 2020

Along with good specific proposals, the authors also make a general philosophical proposal, that "It is time to embrace the state’s unique and profound capacity for steering economic life in the interest of the common good." It's this philosophy that underlies and empowers all their specific recommendations.

Since they wouldn't want to burden their argument with the stigma, they don't use the taboo term "capitalism" or even the deprecated term "socialism." But what they are actually advocating at the level of state ideology is replacing capitalism with socialism.

As an ideology, capitalism, or "laissez faire," asserts that any involvement in direction of firms by others besides the capitalist owners — such as by employees, governments, or "society" — is illegitimate and socially harmful. That's because profits of the capitalist firm are a rational measure of capitalism's social benefits, rather than being merely a pleasurable result for capitalists. The illegitimacy of outside intervention in capitalist firms is also based on a concept of individualism that ignores the facts of social relations, viewing a contract between a firm and a person as an inviolable deal between equal individuals and denying that there's such a thing as "the public interest," since there are only individual persons (including firms as persons) and no corporate entity such as "society."

The opposite idea, that society as a whole exists, has a right to take economic initiatives including to direct some aspects of the activities of firms with many stakeholders, and may benefit from exercising that right, is "socialism," which is what the authors espouse in other words.
- Marc Laventurier Jul 28, 2020
  
  It's notable that some of the more thoughtful american 'libertarians' explicitly deny any authority to 'democracy', since it can impinge on the exercise of individual 'rights', except (absurdly) for their reliance on 'society' for the inevitable enforcement of such 'rights'. It seems to me that any government that has ever in its' history conscripted and consigned even one citizen to certain death in war can monotonically then tax at least an equal number of the wealthy to death.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Heng Jul 10, 2020

Excellent points made by the two esteemed authors. History shows very clearly that economic growth depends on scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations, supported by the appropriate social-legal institutions. The last century has revealed the crucial imperative of protecting the environment.
Fundamental scientific discovery and technological breakthrough are not the forte of business organizations whose interests are pretty short-sighted. These tasks are best done by the state. China and Japan have understood this point far better than most other countries.
For the past several decades, a perverted understanding of the market among western elites in power has allowed neoliberalism to rule supreme. Market is seen to be the principal mechanism to run schools, hospitals, prisons, and to some extent even the armed forces. If we continue along this path, we may soon have the military run by mercenaries.
Centuries ago, Aristotle in his meditations on society, argued that economy must serve society. Thinking along this line, finance must serve the economy, and economy must serve society. What we see now is the opposite, and we have a financialized economy, and financialized society, and even, financialized politics. Wall Street has morphed into a cancer in the body politik.
The Western world needs to come to its senses. Market is important. But for it to perform its roles well, market must be both FAIR and FREE. The two attributes are like the two wings of a bird.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.