IPR Report Challenges Effectiveness of Austerity in UK & Eurozone

07.19.15

IPR Report Challenges Effectiveness of Austerity in UK & Eurozone

07.19.15
Des ByrneDes Byrne

A new report launched by the University of Bath’s Institute for Policy Research (IPR) calls into question the ‘economic orthodoxy’ that underpins austerity policies.

“Alternatives to Austerity,” launched on 10 July, brings together contributions from leading economists and policy analysts, and questions the ‘economic orthodoxy’ that underpins austerity policies.

As policy makers and economists grapple to digest the ramifications of the recent ‘no’ vote in the Greek referendum, and the first Conservative Budget for over 20 years in the UK, it offers a coherent and distinctive view of the policy challenges we face, seven lean years after the financial crisis of 2008.

The principal arguments of the report are as follows:

  • Austerity has concentrated on reducing the public sector deficit, mainly through cuts in public expenditure. The burden of austerity has fallen disproportionately upon the poor and the young.
  • There is an alternative. This involves investment in the UK’s economic capacity, as a ‘post-industrial’ low-carbon economy. Government must play a leading role, investing in infrastructure, human capital and the science base.
  • Instead of austerity and insecurity, we need to provide security for all of our citizens and to invest in everyone’s capabilities.
  • Internationally, governments must work together, if they are to regain some control over their economic and social destinies, instead of leaving these to the international markets. This includes the taxation of footloose multi-national corporations.
  • In the Eurozone, as in the UK, austerity must be replaced by public and private investment, especially in new green technologies. Without these, Europe is likely to face stagnation for the rest of this decade. This could be politically destabilizing.
  • The austerity debate connects to other policy debates. The choices we make will shape our societies through much of this century: their cohesion, their prosperity, their democratic institutions, their environmental sustainability and their global influence.

Within “Alternatives to Austerity,” it is argued that austerity makes reduction of the public sector deficit the principal economic goal, pursued mainly through cuts in public expenditure. Shrinkage of the public sector is meant not just to reduce the deficit, but also to stimulate the private sector.

(Read the full report by clicking here)

There is however an alternative and very different analysis of the modern economy.

It suggests government must develop a coherent investment strategy, to re-build the UK’s economic capacity, as a ‘post-industrial’ low-carbon economy. It must mobilize the energies and talents of all sections of society: and we are more likely to pull together if the distribution of rewards is less unequal. It must also decide whether budget surpluses should be used to reduce taxes and national debt or to invest in future economic capacity. The last of these must be given priority.

The burden of austerity has fallen disproportionately upon the poor and the young. We need a new social contract which provides security to all; invests in everyone’s capabilities and provides decent jobs; and supports vibrant local communities, as places of learning and creativity for all. This would leave the market where it properly belongs, as the servant of the community not its master. If the social changes of the 21st Century are to be managed successfully and with public consent, it will need this new social contract to underpin them.

High public and private R&D expenditure tend to go together. The fruits of capitalist progress are not therefore the reward for private enterprise alone. Government has a key role to play, investing in infrastructure, human capital and the science base. Today it is imperative to shift to a low-carbon economy. New regulatory regimes will be needed, to secure the public good. The rhetoric of austerity serves however to undermine popular support for active and benign government and to leave capitalist enterprise unquestioned.

The globalization of the world economy reduces what can be done by individual countries. While international banks and corporations bestride national boundaries, governments are left trying to cope from within national jurisdictions. What therefore is needed is a set of reforms to the international order that will enable national governments – working both individually and in concert – to retrieve some control and leverage over their economic and social destinies. This includes the taxation of footloose multi-national corporations.

In the Eurozone, the same economic orthodoxy evokes balanced budgets, low inflation, stable currencies and support for business. This ignores Keynes’ analysis of the relationship between public investment, economic growth and the public deficit. It also ignores the interconnections of the European crisis, with Germany enjoying a ‘virtuous circle’ of exports, investment and productivity growth, alongside the weakening of the economies of the European periphery. This is likely to be politically destabilizing.

In 2008, much of Europe’s financial system lay in ruins, its economy and employment under grave threat. Public funds were used to prop up the financial system: spending on public services was cut. Recent decades have also however seen vigorous calls for public and private investment in Europe’s knowledge economy, in the social cohesion of its diverse peoples and the solidarity of its regions, whatever their different stages of social and economic development. Without these, Europe is likely to face stagnation for the rest of this decade.

The austerity debate connects to a much wider range of policy debates. The choices we make will shape our societies through much of this century: their cohesion, their prosperity, their democratic institutions, their environmental sustainability and their global influence.

Established in 2013, the University of Bath Institute for Policy Research [IPR] brings together many of the University’s research strengths, so as to foster inter-disciplinary research of international excellence and impact. It bridges the worlds of research, policy and practice and it addresses some of the major policy challenges we face on a local, national, and global scale.

Contributors to ‘Alternatives to Austerity’ include Lord John Eatwell (President of Queens’ College, Cambridge and Chair of the Advisory Board of the IPR), Professor Paul Gregg (Labour Market and Welfare Reform expert and member of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission) and Professor Mariana Mazzucato (Professor in the Economics of Innovation at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex).

  • Reuters

    Bloody Entanglements: Saudi Arabia, Britain and Yemen

  • Pablo Iglesias

    An End To Right’s Reign In Spain?

  • Arnaud Bouissou

    COP21: The Ambitions and Flaws of the Paris Agreement

  • U.S. Dept of State

    The Paris Climate Change Agreement is a Huge Disappointment

  • Gage Skidmore

    Trump, Islam and the Rationale of Exclusion

  • RIA Novosti

    Why Did Turkey Shoot Down That Russian Plane?

  • Pete Souza

    ISIS: Strategy and Action

  • Ralph Alswang

    Will the “Pivot to Asia” Survive Obama?