I read The Entrepreneurial State by
Mariana Mazzucato, an economics professor in the UK. Its thesis is
that the entrepreneurial actions of government have been enormous and
much underappreciated, and those of the private sector exaggerated.
She claims to debunk the pervasive myth that the government is
sluggish and inept, and at odds with a dynamic private sector.
She
claims to debunk the alternative view of the private sector. “The fast-moving,
risk-loving, and private sector, by contrast, is what really drives
the innovation that creates economic growth. According to this view,
the secret behind an engine of innovation like Silicon Valley lies in
its entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. The State can intervene in
the economy – but only to fix ‘market failures’ or level the
playing field. It can regulate the private sector in order to account
for the external costs companies may impose on the public (such as
pollution), and it can invest in public goods such as basic
scientific research or the development of drugs with little market
potential. To some on the political right even fixing market failures
would be a sin, because such attempts would lead to a worse outcome
in the form of ‘government failures’“ (2-3).
“This
conventional view of a boring, lethargic State versus a dynamic
private sector is as wrong as it is widespread. This book
concentrates on telling a very different story: in counties that owe
their growth to innovation … the State has historically [been] a
key actor in it, and often a more daring one, willing to take the
risks that businesses won’t.” Government investments, not merely
spending, have proved transformative, creating entirely new markets
and sectors, including the Internet, nanotechnology, biotechnology
and clean energy (4). “Instead, the truth is that government
investment often has the effect of ‘crowding in’, meaning that it
stimulates private investment that would not otherwise happen” (9).
Of course, the opposite view is that government spending
‘crowds out’ private investment that would otherwise happen.
She
advocates a more mutual public-private ecosystem that requires new
methods, metrics, and indicators to evaluate public investments and
their results (9).
The
book is filled with narratives about how government-led innovations
and investment have been so beneficial. The USA’s DARPA
(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is a prominent agency of
innovation. Fair enough, but some of the key people at DARPA had
their seminal ideas while at MIT, a private university, before they
were hired by DARPA (Brief History of the Internet).
As one can glean from the reviews on Amazon that give the book a low rating, she greatly
exaggerates the role of the State in success stories, such as
Apple’s, and greatly shrinks that of the private sector. I agree
with her critics and will say more why in subsequent posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment