Search results
economic intervention that was ditched, so was any notion of macroeconomic policymaking more generally. Henceforth, investment and business inspiration were to be sought from anywhere but the state. Bankruptcy sets creative destruction in motion By the early 1970s it was clear that the post-war political and economic consensus was breaking down. Both Labour and the Conservatives had operated within a paradigm that had emerged through the 1930s, the Second World War and the Attlee Labour government of 1945–51. This was built on the
The well-being of Europe’s citizens depends less on individual consumption and more on their social consumption of essential goods and services – from water and retail banking to schools and care homes – in what we call the foundational economy. Individual consumption depends on market income, while foundational consumption depends on social infrastructure and delivery systems of networks and branches, which are neither created nor renewed automatically, even as incomes increase. This historically created foundational economy has been wrecked in the last generation by privatisation, outsourcing, franchising and the widespread penetration of opportunistic and predatory business models. The distinctive, primary role of public policy should therefore be to secure the supply of basic services for all citizens (not a quantum of economic growth and jobs). Reconstructing the foundational has to start with a vision of citizenship that identifies foundational entitlements as the conditions for dignified human development, and likewise has to depend on treating the business enterprises central to the foundational economy as juridical persons with claims to entitlements but also with responsibilities and duties. If the aim is citizen well-being and flourishing for the many not the few, then European politics at regional, national and EU level needs to be refocused on foundational consumption and securing universal minimum access and quality. If/when government is unresponsive, the impetus for change has to come from engaging citizens locally and regionally in actions which break with the top down politics of ‘vote for us and we will do this for you’.
6 Between markets, firms and networks: constituting the cultural economy Fran Tonkiss Introduction Cultural and creative sectors have come to represent key areas of growth within a number of regional and national economies, and figure prominently within arguments regarding the increasingly ‘cultural’ character of economic processes and the restructuring of market forms. An emergent cultural economy is also of critical interest for institutional analysis, and for a number of reasons. Firstly, such an analysis addresses very clearly the need to take culture
from a discussion of the degree of competition that prevails in any particular market. This emphasis upon the efficiency properties of the market–competition complex is of course important, but it is by no means the whole story or the story that most adequately captures the operation of capitalism. Markets are devices for adapting to new possibilities and creating new resources; markets, that is, facilitate and stimulate economic and social change as well as allocating given resources. It is this creative aspect of the market system which is lost in the concern to
of Greece, the deficit figures of the other countries emerged only after repeated reappraisals of government expenditure by Eurostat. However, the slanderous charge of ‘creative accounting’ was reserved for Greece alone.4 Only Greece was continually discussed in such terms in global media coverage and political discourse, despite the challenges and irregularities both Spain and Portugal presented. It was in Greece alone that the government of the day systematically blamed its predecessor for deceiving and misleading the European Union (EU) and international public
-sector professionals. George Osborne, among many others, talks of a ‘culture of excellence’ there, concluding that the officials he worked with ‘are some of the most creative policymakers and thinkers that I've come across’. Charles Roxburgh, currently second permanent secretary, who spent most of his career in the private sector, dispels many private-sector myths about a slow, stodgy civil service: The quality of the people at the Treasury was just as good or slightly better than the
include: organising community conversation about needs and priorities in the context of how broader economies are organised; creative and artistic approaches to developing imaginative new ideas, language and narratives for economics that are rooted in everyday life and which open up alternative futures; community-led education and training to build a shared
a self-fulfilling prophecy as democratic attempts to scrutinise and direct central banks would lead to a loss of credibility in important financial markets.27 So while Parliament has formal powers to revoke central bank independence, in practice the principle of independence requires central bank decision making to be taken outside of the political sphere. Public Interest Economists would challenge this status quo and find creative ways to make central banks more accountable, open and accessible to the wider public. Public Interest Economists must not be
-political goals. On the one side was a tougher, more enforcing Treasury, focused on reining in spending departments and ambitious ministers. On the other were political leaders determined to keep taxes down but also growth on track, public spending stable and floating middle-class voters onside. This meant that politicians and Treasury officials had to look for creative financial solutions to fill the growing gap. So came the era of government fixers, intermediaries and magic money trees: the high-level accountants, the business consultants and financiers
108 Conclusion: Thoreau in the city The title of this book is not only descriptive, but wilfully creative of a new history. Thrift has tended to be portrayed in historical and economic discourse as either a ‘new movement’, or as something that has occurred in historical ‘blips’ or ‘moments’ when historical conditions impacted negatively upon capitalism’s ability to provide. There is so much wrong with this interpretation that it is difficult to know where to begin! For a start, capitalism is not known for its ability to provide for all; rather for its ability