The COVID-19 crisis and recession provide a unique opportunity to rethink the role of the state, particularly its relationship with business. The long-held assumption that government is a burden on the market economy has been debunked.
Rediscovering the state’s traditional role as an “investor of first resort” — rather than just as a lender of last resort — has become a precondition for effective policymaking in the post-COVID-19 era.
Fortunately, public investment has picked up. While the US has adopted a US$3 trillion stimulus and rescue package, the EU has introduced a 750 billion euro (US$841 billion) recovery plan, and Japan has marshaled an additional ￥117 trillion (US$1.09 trillion) in assistance for households and businesses.
However, for investment to lead to a healthier, more resilient and productive economy, money is not enough. Governments must also restore the capacity to design, implement and enforce conditionality on recipients, so that the private sector operates in a manner that is more conducive to inclusive, sustainable growth.
Government support for corporations takes many forms, including direct cash grants, tax breaks and loans issued on favorable terms or government guarantees — not to mention the expansive role played by central banks, which have purchased corporate bonds on a massive scale.
This assistance should come with strings attached, such as requiring firms to adopt emissions-reduction targets, and to treat their employees with dignity in terms of both pay and workplace conditions.
Thankfully, with even the business community rediscovering the merits of conditional assistance — through the pages of the Financial Times, for example — this form of state intervention is no longer taboo.
There are some good examples. Denmark and France are denying state aid to any company domiciled in an EU-designated tax haven and barring large recipients from paying dividends or buying back their own shares until next year.
Similarly, US Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for strict bailout conditions, including higher minimum wages, worker representation on corporate boards, and enduring restrictions on dividends, stock buybacks and executive bonuses.
In the UK, the Bank of England (BOE) has pressed for a temporary moratorium on dividends and buybacks.
Far from being dirigiste, imposing such conditions helps to steer financial resources strategically, by ensuring that they are reinvested productively instead of being captured by narrow or speculative interests.
This approach is all the more important considering that many of the sectors most in need of bailouts are also among the most economically strategic, such as airlines and automobiles.
The US airline industry, for example, has been granted up to US$46 billion in loans and guarantees, provided that recipient firms retain 90 percent of their workforce, cut executive pay and eschew outsourcing or offshoring.
Austria has made its airline-industry bailouts conditional on the adoption of climate targets. France has also introduced five-year targets to lower domestic carbon dioxide emissions.
Similarly, many countries cannot afford to lose their national automobile industry, and are seeing the bailouts as an opportunity to drive progress toward the sector’s decarbonization.
As French President Emmanuel Macron said: “We need not only to save the industry, but to transform it.”
While extending 8 billion euros in loans to the sector, his government is requiring that it turn out more than 1 million clean-energy vehicles by 2025.
Moreover, having received 5 billion euros, Renault must keep open two key French plants and contribute to a Franco-German project to produce electric batteries.
As Renault’s major shareholder, the French government can enforce these conditions from outside and inside the company.
In some cases, governments have gone beyond conditionality to alter ownership models. Germany and France are acquiring or increasing (respectively) the state’s equity stake in airline companies, citing the need to safeguard national strategic infrastructure.
However, there are also negative examples. The auto-industry bailout has played out very differently in Italy than it has in France.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) has convinced the Italian government — which has historically provided large subsidies to Fiat — to grant its subsidiary FCA Italy a 6.3 billion euros guaranteed loan with basically no enforceable conditions.
FCA Italy is expected to merge with the French PSA Group by the end of this year, FCA Group itself no longer even being an Italian company.
Born in 2014 from the merger of Fiat and Chrysler, it is domiciled in the Netherlands, and its financial headquarters are in London.
Worse yet, the company has a poor track record of keeping its investment commitments in Italy, which has fallen off the global map as an auto producer in terms of volume and electric vehicles.
In other negative cases, major companies and sectors have leveraged their monopoly or market-dominant bargaining power to lobby against conditionality, or have exploited central banks’ support, which tends to come with fewer or no conditions.
For example, in the UK, EasyJet was able to access ￡600 million (US$745 million) in liquidity from the BOE, despite having paid ￡174 million in dividends a month earlier.
In the US, the Federal Reserve’s decision to start purchasing riskier high-yield bonds has fueled moral-hazard fears.
Among those standing to gain are US shale-oil producers, which were already highly leveraged and mostly unprofitable before the pandemic arrived.
Far from a step toward state control of the economy, conditional bailouts have proven to be an effective tool for steering productive forces in the interest of strategic, broadly shared goals.
When designed or implemented incorrectly, or avoided altogether, they can limit productive capacity, and allow speculators and insiders to extract wealth for themselves.
However, when done right, they can align corporate behavior with the needs of society, ensuring sustainable growth and a better relationship between workers and firms.
If the crisis is not to go to waste, this must be part of the post-COVID-19 legacy.
Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics of innovation and public value, is director of the University College London Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. Antonio Andreoni, an associate professor of industrial economics and head of research at the institute, is also a visiting associate professor at the University of Johannesburg’s South African Research Chairs Initiative.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS