09/07/10 Lessons from Deepwater Horizon 23/06/10 A New Hope: full YouTube coverage now available 02/06/10 Latest Thinkpiece published 26/05/10 A New Hope for Labour: attend the Leaders' Debate 19/05/10 A New Hope: Caroline Lucas MP confirms to speak‏

Compass poll

Latest comments
  • Dianne deserves support not so much because of what she is, but because of what she isn't....
    Dugsie (Yorks)
  • Jonathan: I dont actually disagree with your verdict about Abbott....
    Lee (Highlands)
  • Paul: I hope you dont get angry, but I really think you are treating what Rutherford says far too se...
    Lee (Highlands)
  • Lee - she's got the support of just 2 Trade Unions and 20 CLP's - she has very little support in the...
    Jonathon Hawkes
  • Lewis, I am pleased that your idealism about Labour has dimmed somewhat....
    Paul McLean (Leeds)

Education and the Good Society Statement

Join Compass

Mailing list

Events

High Pay Commission

How to live in the 21st Century

News filter

Spend on public works say economic & social policy experts in Sunday Telegraph

Sunday, November 02 2008

In a letter published in today's Sunday Telegraph, in direct response to last week's letter by a group of economists rejecting the notion that the government should spend on public works in the current economic downturn, some of the UK's leading economic and social policy experts have said the government is absolutely right to use fiscal policy in order to boost the country's ailing economy, including spending on public works.

The letter co-ordinated by leading centre-left pressure group Compass reads:

"The economists who claim the government is "misguided" in using public works to help deal with recession are burying their heads in the sand. We would instead argue the Government is right to take a pragmatic approach, including spending on public works.

Britain faces a potentially deep recession. Given the likely depth of the problem, it would be irresponsible for the Government not to use all the tools at its disposal to limit the damage from any downturn.

The consequences of failing to reflate the economy through state intervention would mean the most vulnerable in society would pay the heaviest price for market failure.

We agree that tax cuts can play a role in fiscal stimulus - particularly when targeted at those on lower and middle incomes. However increased public spending can play a crucial role too in stimulating economic activity, not least when it is also private businesses, such as those in the construction industry, who benefit from public procurement contracts, not simply the public sector.

The assumption that the economy can contract and then expand in a rational fashion of its own accord was the massive mistake made after the 1980s recession and again after the 1990s recession - we must never make the same mistakes again, we can no longer afford to simply leave it to the market.

So with the wider economy, just as we've witnessed with the Government's intervention in the banking sector, this time demands a different approach."

The letter is signed by:

Dr Jon Cruddas MP;
Neal Lawson, Compass;
Richard Murphy FCA, Tax Justice Network;
Ann Pettifor, Advocacy International; Adam Lent, Head of Economic & Social Affairs, TUC;
Roger Berry MP;
Howard Reed, former Economist, IPPR;
Prof George Irvin, SOAS;
Prof Colin Crouch FBA, Warwick Business School;
Kate Green, CPAG; Dave Prentis, UNISON;
Dr Peter Kenway, New Policy Institute;
Dr Sally Ruane, De Montford University;
Dr Chris Edwards, University of East Anglia;
Prof David Byrne, Durham University;
Richard Burden MP;
Doug Naysmith MP;
Chuka Umunna, Labour PPC Streatham;
Martin McIvor, RENEWAL;
Dr Stuart White, Jesus College Oxford;
Billy Hayes, CWU;
Robert Taylor, Independent Economist;
David Purdy, Independent Economist;
Roger Jeary, Unite;
Roger Levett, Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultant;
Gavin Hayes, Compass.

Neal Lawson, Chair of Compass said: "A financial crisis that was in part caused by the excesses and risky behaviour of those at the top should not be allowed to unnecessarily hurt the rest of us. That is why it is absolutely right for government to limit the impact of the recession by using pragmatic and sensible measures such as spending on public works."

Ann Pettifor of Advocacy International said: "When billions of taxpayer-backed funds were used to bail out the private banking sector, the silence of neo-liberal economists was deafening. The UK's stock of debt is low compared to other big OECD economies, and so it is right and proper that the government should stimulate economic activity by expenditure that through the multiplier effect will pay for itself anyway."

For more information/comment call Gavin Hayes on 07900 195591 or Neal Lawson on 07976 292522.

 

Share using AddThis AddThis

Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.

To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.

Comments

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 12 of 12
Posted by David Chester (Petach-Tikva)
on 07 November 2008, 2:05:56 PM
After the Kensyian statement about "priming the pump", by the use of public works to get some money injected into the macroeconomy, it would appear that the government policy this time should be obvious. When A.M.K. forgot to explain is from where the government is supposed to find the money to do this.

The most obvious place is to increase the public deficit by releasing treasury bills in exchange for cash to be paid to the government, but this has the effect of raising the amount of interest needing to be paid back to these investors - a thing which the government can't yet afford. So the next stage is to reduce the prime-rate on interest of these bills, which has just taken place. This will partly discourage these same investors. Then all that has happened is that the country must face the problem of finding this interest (from the poor old tax-payer) at this time where less is being earned and spent.

This kind of a solution is not the proper way to solve our depression, to say nothing of the similar need to re-design the macroeconomy, so that it CANNOT happen again. Most of our politians and even more of our economics professors and government advisors seem to have no idea about what makes our macroeconomy work. Some of them don't even understand about what it contains in the form of definitions of its parts. They are not even aware that the logical models of the system must be both comprehendable and clear as well as able to cover the whole system. So the hope for the future is not only to get a better understanding of our system, but also to show how it can be used to bring about a state of stability and prosperity. (Incidentally as a research worker in this subject I have a 150 page explanation which is satisfactory, write to me but be prepared for a lot of words and some high-school maths.)

This subject could well start to be taught and explained within the ranks of our Compass media. But as Henry Hazlitt wrote in his book on "Economics in one Lesson" what we need to to view thw whole systen and not (as did Keynes and several others since) to view only a part of the model, and not to reach conclusions based on a myoptic view. Up to now no proper model of the macroeconomic system that includes the effect of sudden changes has been developed or is available for research. Every present model suffers too much from the interests of the modelers to be honest enough as to provide a full and comprehensive picture. Why cannot we take up this lead?
Posted by Simon Norton (Cambridge)
on 06 November 2008, 12:18:06 AM
I think that a high priority should go to maintaining local services which may have moved from marginal to uneconomic.
Posted by Simon Norton (Cambridge)
on 06 November 2008, 12:17:02 AM
I think that a high priority should go to maintaining local services which may have moved from marginal to uneconomic.
Posted by Prof Paul Spicker (Aberdeen)
on 05 November 2008, 8:45:53 PM
Keynes argued that "Pyramid building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth", but that it made more sense to spend money on things that are useful. We need investment in our infrastructure - transport, communications and energy production. We need more employment: unemployment is wasteful, and it is usually a good idea, as Keynes realised, to pay people to do something rather than paying them to do nothing. We can expand the service economy - for example, street wardens, janitors and child care - and stop trying to replace people with technology. But what can we expect from tax cuts? Any effect they have will be limited: in a globalized economy, much of the spending will go abroad. If we have to borrow to finance spending, let's choose expenditure that will do us all some good.
Posted by frances (london)
on 03 November 2008, 7:13:37 PM
Obama is an orator. That is all anyone knows about him at the moment. He's being elected on a wave of sentiment that free markets don't work in a country where everyone believes in free markets.

I'm just saying the tide is swinging against the traditionally free market capitalist parties so there is a wind to catch.

Given no one has a clue what to actually do about global meltdown let's not fus too much about that. All we need is a charismatic orator promising change and a team of people with fair/left beliefs who can push a fair agenda. Let's at least ride this out with a leader on the side of the poor and dispossessed.

Brown is not the man to win the election or push a fair agenda. He's had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that. Moments in history like this only come once in a life time and where's the right man when you need him? I suppose it takes a democratic process to throw up that kind of orator. Perhaps we should start there.
Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 03 November 2008, 5:21:18 PM
SG you seem to have confirmed lucidly that historical economics,like historical
meteorology,defies simple modelling,
such as single track cause and effect.
Our supposed reach to any basic principles
usually exceeds our grasp.
So why do politicians of all hues,manifestly wrong footed by current economic events,expect us to trust their panaceas now?

frances' new left leader will have their work cut out to explain to the people
a good plan.Maybe capital works
is the right solution to the wrong recession,and we will have to be a little smarter.
Posted by Paul McLean (Leeds)
on 03 November 2008, 2:10:25 PM
In current circumstances, the state regulation on offer, (and as Frances commends,) is not really Left at all. Mention has been made of FDR. The New Deal had SOME quite specifically socialist characteristics. Policy pursued currently in the UK/USA et al does not, save the in extremis part nationalisation; and the global elite’s equally in extremis clambering aboard the Keynesian lifeboat, have any. The specifically socialist parts of the New Deal were easily dismantled; and as SG says, armaments and war saved the American economy.

Compass is indeed sitting on the fence. But it is much more jumping on a bandwagon. Looking at the list of signatories, they doubtless offered a contribution to the document as a whole. But other than showing that Compass is well connected, it is far from clear what its two signatories had to contribute to the statement that is anyway distinctive. And way on earth two Compass signatories? (Three if you count Chuka Umunna,) The worried well of the regime make valid points it would be churlish to dismiss. But the reality remains that if all of these policies were adopted; the vast majority of those on middle, low and no incomes will STILL be bearing the disproportionate part of the burden of the depression. In this context, tax cuts for the working poor are of marginal, (but welcome relief.) Pertinently, such tax cuts also allow the strata exemplified by the signatories this statement to the Sunday Telegraph, to feel a little bit better as their fellow workers and citizens struggle to keep their homes, jobs and living standards.

The talk of reforming the IMF, (and critically thereby the Washington Consensus,) should not be dismissed too quickly. It has serious implications for the economies and societies of the developing world in particular. It could be an opportunity for Africa, Asia and Latin America to have more control of their own economies and societies than they are allowed at present. This in turn has implications for the future role of the hitherto bullying and inflexible, WTO.
Posted by frances (london)
on 03 November 2008, 12:00:35 PM
Given that for ten years NewLabour were sold as the realists accepting free markets and deregulation how about looking carefully at the US election. The undecided independent floating voters were parecelled up with the right wing voters and sold the boom.

Now it is bust and the time for independent voters to move over to regulation and control by the state which means left.

So the next election should be real Labours as against sham Labour. Obama is change. There was a time when we wer being told Labour needed NewLabour but now NewLabour needs old Labour.

The US are going to replace Bush with a charismatic novice. Whereas here the game plan seems to be for Brown to metamorphose for the new era.

The Tories are boxed in. The have the new leader but the pendulum is swinging left. Can we on the left of NewLabour really not produce the new leader for this new situation. If we can't do it at this point in history when exactly is our moment going to come.
Posted by Salfordgal (London)
on 03 November 2008, 10:36:09 AM
Compass are carefully fence sitting between tax cuts and public spending on capital projects, Lewis. If market failure is the problem, as FDR took on board, then you alter the structure of the most critical markets - such as the market for money, which FDR did with the creation of the Fed. Given that the first and second New Deals failed to bring America out of the depression, although FDR suceeded in mitigating the immediate effects of the deression and increasing social welfare in the long term), the greatest corrective to America's peculiar form of market failure proved to be the second world war which, counter-intuitively, created a counterbalancing kind of market failure as a corrective which led to Truman's National Security State and from there it slid even further downhill to the military-industrial complex's "War" on Terror and a subsequent more generalised failure of the credit markets. However....

Brown (and Compass) won't go down the path of reforming UK institutions to correct market failure (too difficult and it's so hard for the elderly to concentrate, and it's a lot easier to bluster on about reforming the IMF so we can always blame The Other), so neither really has any choice but fall into a position of borrowing excessively to fund white elephants and current operating expenditures, keep the levels of tax high and benefits low for the poor and middlie income earners, whilst keeping tax low for the rich and ensuring the money keeps flowing in their direction.
Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 03 November 2008, 10:05:30 AM
Thanks SG had overlooked the populist opposition to FDR.
How do you see Compass placed in the "capital works" vs "relief for wide sectors of the suffering" dilemma during the recession?
And could Compass provide an eloquent spokesperson
to communicate the economic situation to the public?
Posted by Salfordgal (London)
on 02 November 2008, 9:50:19 PM
Yes, Lewis, but FDR had Huey Long with his "Share the Wealth" programme breathing down his neck and hoping to run against him in 1936 for the Democratic nomination, and honest competent guys like Marriner Eccles to set up and run the Federal Reserve.

In Britain, right now, we've got Brown, the guy who singlehandedlycreatd the regulatory mess, surrounded by Mandelson, Balls, Cooper and sundry other incompetents, Fat Boy George as the loyal opposition's alternative incompetent doing an increasingly unimpressively wayward impersonation of Montague Norman sucking up to to Benjamin Strong, and the only politicians who seem to have anything resembling a clue are Alex Salmond, Vince Cable, Dianne Abbot and George Galloway.

Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 02 November 2008, 7:07:06 PM
FDR economic policy was analysed by David Purdy in a previous thread.
David made the point that FDR had a significant social component to his pump priming - the easing of war veterans problems for example.
David may be implying this was risky economics but in my view it was good politics.
The balance between huge public works investment and providing survival funds for the desperate is the crucial debate here.
Finally David made the excellent point that the policies adopted had to be presented to the wider public cogently and convincingly.
FDR was an ace communicator.Who have we now?

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 12 of 12

 

Leave a comment

About you










Your comment

Please do not use HTML tags in your comment as they will be displayed as normal text.

We take no responsibility for the content of comments posted on this website, which represent the views of their authors alone.

Please enter the two words in the image below. This is an anti-spam measure designed to prove that you are a human, not a computer.