In today’s newsletter:
Industrial policy is properly back in vogue. On Tuesday, Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, spoke about his economic approach. Claiming to be building “business friendly socialism”, an oxymoron if ever there was one, he defines five strategic industry sectors for the city, lays down specific locations for these activities, and now needs business partners who are not “exploitative” or “extractive” to make his planning a reality. All this he calls “Manchesterism”, and he wants the government to give him more devolved powers so he can make it happen. At the same time, in Davos, the Business Secretary Peter Kyle told us he wanted a more “activist” economic policy. “I am betting big. And I am picking winners” - a phrase redolent of the 1970s, the disaster zones of British Leyland and British Steel, and hence one which has so far been avoided by even the strongest advocates of industrial policy so far. It sounds so good. Governments, local and national, get behind business to support them to grow, provide jobs, and create wealth. But think harder. There are at least three problems with this approach. First, how do Kyle or Burnham know what industries Manchester or Britain actually need? They may think they know - but in truth they are just looking at industries that are already successful elsewhere in the country or the world and saying “we want some of that”. It’s not a basis for economic policy. Suppose Manchester industrialists 200 years had said “British transport depends on horses and canals. What we need is strategic support for a stagecoach and barge industry.” Would anyone have bothered developing the first railway line in the world then? The truth is the industries of the future are not known to politicians: the knowledge is decentralised in the economy, in the entrepreneurs and experimenters. The best thing is to get out of the way and let them find what works. The second problem is the famous “What is seen and what is not seen” problem first described by the French economist Bastiat in the mid-1800s. Yes, politicians can build a shiny new factory with public money. Everyone says “Great. Look at all the activity and all the jobs created.” That’s what’s seen. But no one thinks about what could have been done if the money had not been paid over in taxes but left in the hands of the people who earned it. That’s what’s not seen. Maybe, left to their own devices, they’d have done better. And at least if they hadn’t, it would only have been their own money they lost. We wouldn’t all be paying for it - as we do when the politicians get things wrong. The final problem is more Manchester-specific. Andy Burnham says he wants more devolution. I don’t think he means it. What he wants is more public money channelled from the relatively wealthy south east to the somewhat less well off north west, then to be used as he sees fit. Real fiscal devolution would mean Manchester had to raise its own money and make its own choices. It wouldn’t get as much cash as it does with a central government transfer on top. And maybe voters wouldn’t like the Burnham vision when they had to pay for it. What Burnham really wants is a free hand to be an old-style city boss, channelling your money to pay for his pet projects. And if you don’t agree with him - best get out of the way. All this is a false trail that doesn’t lead to real economic prosperity. Burnham should look back to the earlier meaning of “Manchesterism” instead. The Manchester School believed in free trade, laissez-faire, and economic freedom. They turned a provincial town into the “shock city of the age”, the vision of the future that people came from around the world to see. Burnham needs to read a bit less Mazzucato and a bit more Cobden and Bright if he really wants to succeed. David Frost, Lord Frost of Allenton The best way to never miss out on IEA work, get access to exclusive content, and support our research and educational programmes is to become a paid IEA Insider. IEA Podcast: Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by Director General David Frost and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz to discuss Manchesterism, industrial strategy, and Britain’s ‘Affluenza’ — IEA YouTube New figures show damage done to young people by government policyResponding to the latest labour market statistics from the ONS, Professor Len Shackleton, Editorial and Research Fellow said:
Read more: Rachel Reeves told ‘the future is bleak’ as 1.5m more given ‘no work’ benefits, The Express UK inflation continues to run relatively hotCommenting on the latest inflation figures, Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow, said:
News and ViewsThe mistakes of Manchesterism, Head of Lifestyle Economics Chris Snowdon dissects Andy Burnham’s approach to growth, The Critic
The Stakeholder State, David Frost, Chris Snowdon, and Callum Price discuss what the stakeholder state is and why it is a problem, IEA YouTube The Stakeholder State continued, David Frost spoke to The Sceptic podcast about why Britain must reclaim free-market thinking, The Daily Sceptic Our Cost of Net Zero report was discussed on ‘More or Less’, in a debate about what the real cost of net zero is and why there isn’t any official modelling done on the price difference when compared to an entirely non-net zero pathway, BBC Radio 4 Getting kids off social media isn’t common sense, Andy Mayer writes in CapX
The secret costs of net zero, our work picked up in The Spectator
'Parents have to set boundaries. It's their responsibility, not the government's!', Head of Media Reem Ibrahim debates a social media ban for under-16s, GBNews Net Zero: a multi-trillion-pound catastrophe, Energy Analyst Andy Mayer writes in Spiked
Britain must stop subsidising the Ugandan regime, Harrison Griffiths writes about how British aid supports an anti-democratic regime in Uganda and what that means for its champions of liberty in The Critic Why central planning can’t solve climate change, Reem Ibrahim explains the folly of subsidies, CapX Why Smart People Flee Their Own Countries, Elena Panaritis interviewed by Reem Ibrahim, IEA YouTube The True Cost of Net Zero? Reem Ibrahim breaks it down, IEA YouTube You’re currently a free subscriber to Insider. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. Paid subscribers support the IEA's charitable mission and receive special invites to exclusive events, including the thought-provoking IEA Book Club. We are offering all new subscribers a special offer. For a limited time only, you will receive 15% off and a complimentary copy of Dr Stephen Davies’ latest book, Apocalypse Next: The Economics of Global Catastrophic Risks. |