The Washington Consensus is on its way out. In a report released this week, the G7 Economic Resilience Panel (where I represent Italy) demands a radically different relationship between the public and private sectors to create a sustainable, equitable, and resilient economy. When G20 leaders gather on October 30-31 to discuss how to “overcome the great challenges of today” – including the pandemic, climate change, rising inequality, and economic fragility – they must avoid falling back on the outdated assumptions that landed us in our current mess.
The Washington Consensus defined the rules of the game for the global economy for almost a half-century. The term came into vogue in 1989 – the year that Western-style capitalism consolidated its global reach – to describe the battery of fiscal, tax, and trade policies being promoted by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It became a catchphrase for neoliberal globalisation, and thus came under fire – even from its core institutions’ leading lights – for exacerbating inequalities and perpetuating the Global South’s subordination to the North.
Having narrowly avoided a global economic collapse twice – first in 2008 and then in 2020, when the coronavirus crisis nearly brought down the financial system – the world now confronts a future of unprecedented risk, uncertainty, turmoil, and climate breakdown. World leaders have a simple choice: continue supporting a failed economic system, or jettison the Washington Consensus for a new international social contract.
The alternative is the recently proposed “Cornwall Consensus.” Whereas the Washington Consensus minimised the state’s role in the economy and pushed an aggressive free-market agenda of deregulation, privatisation, and trade liberalisation, the Cornwall Consensus (reflecting commitments voiced at the G7 summit in Cornwall last June) would invert these imperatives. By revitalising the state’s economic role, it would allow us to pursue societal goals, build international solidarity, and reform global governance in the interest of the common good.
This means that grants and investments from state and multilateral organisations would require recipients to pursue rapid decarbonisation (rather than rapid market liberalisation, as required by IMF lending for structural adjustment programs). It means that governments would pivot from repairing – intervening only after the damage is done – to preparing: taking steps in advance to protect us from future risks and shocks.
The Cornwall Consensus also would have us move from reactively fixing market failures to proactively shaping and making the kinds of markets we need to nurture in a green economy. It would have us replace redistribution with pre-distribution. The state would coordinate mission-oriented public-private partnerships aimed at creating a resilient, sustainable, and equitable economy.
Why is a new consensus needed? The most obvious answer is that the old model is no longer producing widely distributed benefits – if it ever did. It has proven to be disastrously incapable of responding effectively to massive economic, ecological, and epidemiological shocks.
Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015, was always going to be difficult under the prevailing global governance arrangements. But now, in the wake of a pandemic that pushed state and market capacities beyond the breaking point, the task has become impossible. Today’s crisis conditions make a new global consensus essential for humanity’s survival on this planet.
We are on the cusp of a long-overdue paradigm shift. But this progress could easily be reversed. Most economic institutions are still governed by outdated rules that render them unable to marshal the responses needed to end the pandemic, let alone achieve the Paris climate agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Our report highlights the urgent need to strengthen the global economy’s resilience against future risks and shocks, whether acute (such as pandemics) or chronic (like extreme wealth and income polarisation). We argue for a radical reorientation in how we think about economic development – moving from measuring growth in terms of GDP, GVA (gross value added), or financial returns to assessing success on the basis of whether we achieve ambitious common goals.
Three of the report’s most salient recommendations concern COVID-19, the post-pandemic economic recovery, and climate breakdown. First, we call on the G7 to ensure vaccine equity globally, and to invest substantially in pandemic preparedness and mission-oriented health financing. We must make equitable access, particularly to innovations that benefit from large public investments and advance purchase commitments, a top priority.
We recognise that this will require a new approach to governing intellectual-property rights. Similarly, the World Health Organisation’s Council on the Economics of Health for All (which I chair) stresses that IP governance should be reformed to recognise that knowledge is the result of a collective value-creation process.
Second, we argue for increased state investment in the post-pandemic economic recovery, and we endorse the recommendation by the economist Nicholas Stern that this spending be increased to 2% of GDP per year, thereby raising $1 trillion annually from now until 2030. But marshaling more money is not enough; how that money is spent is equally important. Public investment must be channeled through new contractual and institutional mechanisms that measure and incentivise the creation of long-term public value rather than short-term private profit.
And in response to the biggest challenge of all – the climate crisis – we call for a “CERN for climate technology.” Inspired by the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, a mission-oriented research center focused on decarbonising the economy would pool public and private investment into ambitious projects, including removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and creating zero-carbon solutions for “hard-to-abate” industries like shipping, aviation, steel, and cement. This new multilateral and interdisciplinary institution would act as a catalyst for making and shaping new markets in renewable energy and circular production.
These are just three of seven recommendations we have made for the years ahead. Together, they provide the scaffolding for building a new global consensus – a policy agenda for governing the new economic paradigm that already is beginning to take shape.
Whether the Cornwall Consensus sticks remains to be seen. But something must replace the Washington Consensus if we are to flourish, rather than simply survive, on this planet. COVID-19 provides a glimpse of the momentous collective-action problems confronting us. Only renewed international cooperation and coordination of enhanced state capacities – a new social contract underwritten by a new global consensus – can prepare us for tackling the escalating, interlocking crises ahead.
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. She is the author, most recently, of Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (Allen Lane, 2021). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2021, and published here with permission.
27 Comments
The state would coordinate mission-oriented public-private partnerships aimed at creating a resilient, sustainable, and equitable economy.
Yeah Right!!!!
Totally agree Kate. We need a PARADIGM SHIFT. Here's my preference:
a) Spending, regulations, & policy by all governments (all levels, all countries) is legislated (by UN) to has to through social cost benefit assessment with the aim or increasing net wellbeing (economic+social+environment) per capita. Options have to be assessed longlist down to a recommended option. The net wellbeing per capita assessment has to include consideration of its distribution.
b) The info has to made publicly available and voters/ratepayers have to be consulted on it before government/council votes on it
c) All presidential positions are removed. They are effectively dictators.
d) All countries move to proportional representation of some form with a prime minister being the countries head.
e) Places like the USA & Australia remove senates which are inherently undemocratic.
f) Political parties are required to have their manifestos independently assessed for net wellbeing improvements with this info publicly reported before any election.
g) To remove corruption politicians are paid based on the net wellbeing improvements they make, not salaries.
It's about the framework required to get out of the neoliberal box without ending up in the dictator zone. How to let people have the resources to build their dreams without an elite grabbing all the resources and cutting off the access to those resources for everyone else.
Lebanon is a case in point. It is held hostage by competing elites to the point where the society doesn't function. If one group in the society says nothing moves forward unless we are in control and all the resources are given only to our people then the machinery grinds ever more slowly until it stops.
In Russia and China a kleptocracy is in charge. Putin is more or less successful when the oil price is higher or lower. Xi is tightening his grip as the reality of an aging population cuts off demographic driven growth. In Europe the Germans are in charge and what is seen as good for Germany is what happens for Europe. In America an ever smaller financial and tech elite are tightening their grip on the US society.
To get to a prosperous, less carbon and mineral based future you need to find and finance the methods that will allow the use of fewer resources to support a decent standard of living. The neoliberal route does not allow this because the end result of neoliberalism is a ever smaller elite number of people making decisions for humanity based on their shared belief system.
So you need to find a way to let govt spend money on R & D and productive endeavor without giving the money to non-productive elites so that the methods and tools become available for humanity to save itself.
It's vague article but it's evidence that opinion is changing in and around the corridors of EU power.
"Why is a new consensus needed? The most obvious answer is that the old model is no longer producing widely distributed benefits – if it ever did. It has proven to be disastrously incapable of responding effectively to massive economic, ecological, and epidemiological shocks."
That's about where I gave up: over the last 100+ years market capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty & enriched living standards across the globe. In the meantime socialists have delivered nothing that's not been originally taxed from wealth created by capitalists & communists have delivered misery, failed economies/states & murderous dictatorships.
Numbers of people in poverty have been going up since the 80s when capitalism turned truly nasty and financialised. It is true that poverty has reduced in the last 10 years but all of the reductions have been driven by... China.
Not sure how you can talk about improved living standards in a country where people used to live comfortably and well in their own house on a single wage.
kknz - time you did some homework.
That 'lifting out of poverty' was just a lot of people buying then throwing away processed parts of a very finite planet. And multiplying themselves exponentially on the back of that very resource draw-down. That discussion has been here for near 15 years; where were you?
Try 'genning up on the Limits to Growth. And if you paid for economics teaching at any stage (just guessing) I'd ask for my money back.
Good luck applying these policy rudiments to Emperor Xi, Czar Putin, and Maharajah Modi.
Especially the bit about "renewed international cooperation and coordination of enhanced state capacities", in an era where decoupling, onshoring and sovereignty are front and centre, military confrontation is daily news, state competence is at an all-time low, and distrust of large institutions is rampant.....
Because the state has a monopoly, it is spectacularly inefficient and has no incentive to improve.
A bigger state is a waste of resources.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's good for innovation. Businesses have to keep improving, or someone else will pass them and take all their customers.
Modern capitalism is not good at innovation at all - unless you mean how to squeeze more hours out of people for less money, or how to persuade people to buy things they don't need? The romantic notion that our economy is driven by entrepreneurial businesses competing with each other is long dead - a handful of massive companies now control the global market and they use their influence over regulation, politicians, and consumers to generate profit for their shareholders - sucking ever more wealth into the pockets of people whose only talent is being born wealthy in the first place. Look at the big 'innovative' successes of the last few years...
- SUVs (massive profit margin, wasteful as hell, beautifully marketed at insecure men)
- Uber - bending the rules to more ruthlessly exploit labour for profit
- Facebook - a tech platform that supports people to sell their lives to their mates and connect to others etc - not realising that they are the product (being sold to the real consumer - advertisers)
- Digital currencies - exciting tech quickly turned into a carbon hungry, pyramid scheme - encouraging naive libertarians to bid up the price of each other's investments, and market the scheme to other wannabe rebels, whilst cocaine and arms dealers quietly trade across borders in death
Many of the most genuinely innovative developments of the last 100 years have been state funded, driven by university research etc. Moon landings, microchips, Tesla, wind and wave energy, RNA vaccines, etc. Innovation funded by the state, scale provided by the private sector, profits to the shareholders - that's the typical paradigm. The sooner we recognise that, the quicker we might actually get on with creating a more sustainable economy that actually does what it is supposed to do - efficiently provision the people with the things they need without destroying lives and the planet.
You're just cherry picking things that suit your argument, there's nothing new about Facebooks monetization model, it's been used for centuries with print media, you could argue, just like Tesla, that Facebook required the internet which was a "state built" network, but that only works if you discredit the private markets role in building and innovating the network, or microchips.
Individuals invent things, they just need the incentives and the resources to get there, and markets are a lot better at that than government committees at providing these, and why governments like our own provide money through venture capital and university grants and not directly to party puppets (like the soviets did).
Facebook monetisation model is a completely different species to the traditional print media.
Other than that, I think we are actually in agreement. State funding / direction (and regulation) drives innovation, but the private sector is excellent at scaling production up and turning prototypes into products.
Mazzucato is part of the global machine. Check out her Wikipedia page.
She has written and co-authored books on "Rethinking Capitalism" which should sound a warning.
She also wrote an article that was published here on this site suggesting that "Climate Lockdowns" maybe our next treat!
https://socialeurope.eu/avoiding-a-climate-lockdown
Is she prescribed reading for global syndication?
She's ahead of the Economics pack - Keen and a few like him aside. I rate her with Dasgupta; maybe a notch behind.
But: "Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015, was always going to be difficult under the prevailing global governance arrangements."
Actually, without addressing resource depletion and population overshoot, half those UN SDGs are invalid.
I stopped reading after this "This means that grants and investments from state and multilateral organisations would require recipients to pursue rapid decarbonisation"
If you want to screw up an economy and increase inequality follow the rapid decarbonisation route. Rapid to me me is within 5 years. A prime example would be to stop Huntly PS from using coal or gas if available for that matter, but in less than 5 years.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.