Two schools of thought tend to dominate today’s economic debates. According to free-market economists, governments should cut taxes, reduce regulations, reform labor laws and then get out of the way to let consumers consume and producers create jobs. According to Keynesian economics, governments should boost total demand through quantitative easing and fiscal stimulus. Neither approach is delivering good results. New “sustainable development economics” are needed, with governments promoting new types of investments.
Free-market economics leads to great outcomes for the rich, but pretty miserable outcomes for everyone else. Governments in the US and parts of Europe are cutting back on social spending, job creation, infrastructure investment and job training because the rich bosses who pay for politicians’ election campaigns are doing very well for themselves, even as the societies around them are crumbling.
Keynesian solutions — easy money and large budget deficits — have also fallen far short of their promised results. Many governments tried stimulus spending after the 2008 financial crisis. After all, most politicians love to spend money they do not have. The short-term boost failed in two big ways.
First, governments’ debt soared and their credit ratings plummeted. Even the US lost its “AAA” standing.
Second, the private sector did not respond by increasing business investment and hiring enough new workers. Instead, companies hoarded vast cash reserves, mainly in tax-free offshore accounts.
The problem with both free-market and Keynesian economics is that they misunderstand the nature of modern investment. Both schools believe that investment is led by the private sector, either because taxes and regulations are low (in the free-market model) or because aggregate demand is high (in the Keynesian model).
Yet private-sector investment today depends on investment by the public sector. This age is defined by this complementarity. Unless the public sector invests wisely, the private sector will continue to hoard its funds or return them to shareholders in the forms of dividends or buybacks.
The key is to reflect on six kinds of capital goods: business capital, infrastructure, human capital, intellectual capital, natural capital and social capital. All of these are productive, but each has a distinctive role.
Business capital includes private companies’ factories, machines, transport equipment and information systems.
Infrastructure includes roads, railways, power and water systems, fiber optics, pipelines and airports and seaports.
Human capital is the education, skills and health of the workforce.
Intellectual capital includes society’s core scientific and technological know-how.
Natural capital is the ecosystems and primary resources that support agriculture, health and cities.
Social capital is the communal trust that makes efficient trade, finance and governance possible.
These six forms of capital work in a complementary way. Business investment without infrastructure and human capital cannot be profitable. Nor can financial markets work if social capital (trust) is depleted. Without natural capital (including a safe climate, productive soils, available water and protection against flooding), the other kinds of capital are easily lost. And without universal access to public investments in human capital, societies will succumb to extreme inequalities of income and wealth.
Investment used to be a far simpler matter. The key to development was basic education, a network of roads and power, a functioning port and access to world markets. Today, however, basic public education is no longer enough; workers need highly specialized skills that come through vocational training, advanced degrees and apprenticeship programs that combine public and private funding.
Transport must be smarter than mere government road building; power grids must reflect the urgent need for low-carbon electricity; and governments everywhere must invest in new kinds of intellectual capital to solve unprecedented problems of public health, climate change, environmental degradation, information systems management and more.
Yet in most countries, governments are not leading, guiding or even sharing in the investment process. They are cutting back. Free-market ideologues claim that governments are incapable of productive investment. Nor do Keynesians think through the kinds of public investments that are needed; for them, spending is spending. The result is a public-sector vacuum and a dearth of public investments, which in turn holds back necessary private-sector investment.
Governments, in short, need long-term investment strategies and ways to pay for them. They need to understand much better how to prioritize road, rail, power and port investments; how to make investments environmentally sustainable by moving to a low-carbon energy system; how to train young workers for decent jobs, not only low-wage service-sector employment; and how to build social capital, in an age when there is little trust and considerable corruption.
In short, governments need to learn to think ahead. This, too, runs counter to the economic mainstream. Free-market ideologues do not want governments to think at all and Keynesians want governments to think only about the short run, because they take to an extreme John Maynard Keynes’ famous quip: “In the long run we are all dead.”
Here’s a thought that is anathema in Washington, but worthy of reflection. The world’s fastest growing economy, China, relies on five-year plans for public investment, which is managed by the National Development and Reform Commission. The US has no such institution, or indeed any agency that looks systematically at public-investment strategies. However, all countries now need more than five-year plans; they need 20-year generation-long strategies to build the skills, infrastructure and low-carbon economy of the 21st century.
The G20 recently took a small step in the right direction by placing new emphasis on increased infrastructure investment as a shared responsibility of both the public and private sectors. Much more of this kind of thinking is needed in the year ahead, as governments next year negotiate new global agreements on financing for sustainable development (in Addis Ababa in July); Sustainable Development Goals (in the US in September) and climate change (in Paris in December).
These agreements promise to shape humanity’s future for the better. If they are to succeed, the new “Age of Sustainable Development” should give rise to a new economics of sustainable development as well.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management, as well as director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers