What do we mean when we talk of ‘sustainability leadership’? This is addressed by Jem Bendell et al in a new paper, who use critical theory to unpack both ‘leadership’ and ’sustainability’. After reading it, I find myself framing sustainability as about shared dilemmas (not problems), regretting managerialist capture, and pursing a restoration approach (rather than reform or revolution). I also suspect we need to find a pragmatic, fundamental approach to change, though I’m not sure what that will be.
Earlier today IPPR launched the interim report of the Commission for Economic Justice. Here’s my quick take on the report and the discussion around the launch.
The basic description of the ‘British economic muddle’ is familiar
While there are no surprises, IPPR and Michael Jacobs have all done us a favour by articulating things so clearly. In a nutshell:
– The economy is no longer raising living standards for a majority of people.
– That poor performance arises from deep, long-term weaknesses, especially:
- World-lagging productivity in many businesses.
- Low investment rate compared to peers, even adjusting for our service bias and even with as a world-leading financial sector.
- Largest percentage current account trade deficit in G7, despite a surplus in trading services.
- Current activity fuelled by growing consumer debt, in part driven by government refusing to borrow even though interest rates are at all-time lows.
- We want public services but we’re not willing to pay for them.
– We face profound challenges and opportunities:
- Brexit – a momentous change in our governance and trading.
- Globalisation – challenge those trade imbalances.
- Older population – proportionately fewer workers to finance pensions and healthcare.
- Technological change – will the gains from automation go to owners, to consumers, to workers?
- Environmental degradation – including the impacts of climate change.
All of this is supported by many graphs and much discussion. Fantastic.
My further sense from the discussion was just how strong the system archetype of ‘success to the successful’ is in the UK. If you own your home (as I do) then your wealth has gone up, and the ladder to join in has been pulled away from the rest. If you’re a productive business then you get the profits to reinvest further – something the weaker companies don’t do. London enjoys the positive feedback loops of being a world-leader, as does Cambridge and Oxford. Rest of the country? Not so much. Well paid or got a cushion of wealth? Then you can take risks with your career by moving or starting your own business. Don’t have that, then you, relatively, fall further back.
Recommendations: too technocratic to be a policy sea change akin to 1940s and 1980s
The report is right that fundamental reforms of this scale have happened twice in the last century: the Attlee government bringing in the Welfare State in 1945; and the Thatcher government overcoming stagflation by pushing free markets and so on.
Both of those were political earthquakes which profoundly realigned what was considered orthodox for the following generation. The recommendations, as they stand, are all good technocratic things to do. But, do they ignite and demonstrate an utter shift in the political economy?
- Put economy on stronger institutional foundations, driving more investment through greater certainty.
- More competitive through industrial strategy, supporting entrepreneurs and shifting financial and corporate governance.
- Wiring the economy for justice, promoting ‘good jobs’, a reformed tax system and spreading wealth more fairly.
Imagine the chant:
“What do we want?”
“What do we want?”
“A strategic approach to industry!”
“What do we want?”
“Justice for All (the weaker of the early Metallic albums)!”
Perhaps I’m being unfair on an interim report for a think tank, rather than the conference speech of the opposition leader. But if your lead-off recommendation is stronger institutions, you know you have an economist writing your report.
IPPR’s Director was very clear at the start that, if you don’t have a vision then change becomes directionless. One the first page of the summary there is a paragraph with a description of the economy we’re aiming for: dynamic, people flourish; better jobs; geographically balanced; economics rewards distributed fairly; decent house; within environmental limits; partnership between business, trade union and government sectors.
That’s quite a laundry list of Guardian-friendly desires. Who can say no to motherhood and apple pie? But also, who is compelled to act with a broad vision with such a technocratic way forward?
What alignment of social forces is realistically available to make this happen?
Which takes us to the substantive problem. I agree with the analysis. I imagine I will agree with the final recommendations. But, what will happen as a result?
I’ve no idea if Director of the Commission, Michael Jacobs, remembers but about a decade ago he gave a talk at the RSA on what made the reform of the 1940s possible (he was speaking about the need for something similar on climate change). His four preconditions:
- intellectual case (back then, Keynes)
- crisis (the aftermath of the WWII)
- public mandate (the Labour landslide)
- elite buy-in (apparently businesses liked the demand support of the Welfare State compared to the free market Great Depression)
Today, the IPPR report (and the work of the Resolution Foundation, plus Tim Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth and Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics) all make for the intellectual case. in the UK, Brexit will upend everything. That provides us with the crisis to take advantage of.
But the public mandate: Is the UK populace for economic justice, or do they want cultural security? It was striking that the two politicians on the stage couldn’t bring themselves to be pro-immigration. Even though more young workers makes us better off, many fear immigration. They blame it for lower wages and weaker public services (rather than, say, global labour markets for the former and austerity for the latter).
The opinion polls imply people are willing to take a financial hit to take back control of the borders. One thing is: we’ll see if that’s true when people take the hit (there’s often a survey gap in, say, willingness to pay extra for ethical products). Another thing: perhaps this is good news. It means n one can argue that economic cost-benefit is the true measure of a decision.
And on elite buy-in: are leading government and business figures One Nation Tories or do they wanting to complete Thatcher’s revolution? The General Election undermined the One Nation Tories on domestic economic policy. Many of the leading Brexiteers seem to want to use leaving the EU to deregulate and open up for more free trade. (The irony is that this reduces people’s control and will quite likely leave many people even further behind. But hey.)
Also, while there are many business people who are for economic regeneration and so on, how many are willing to voluntarily raise wages? Or give up the negotiating advantage of zero hours contracts? The rhetoric is strong but the business case – and evidence of business action – is weak.
So, great content, worry about the theory of change. That worry is something I have with all sustainability and progressive activity – including my own. So, I’m far from having got all that solved. And I’d love to bring my insights on industrial strategy in, and to see if there are ways to move forward without relying on government buy-in.
Could some citizen activity or people-power initiatives start us off. So that, come the next election or the one after that, the social forces are aligned?
Let’s hope. And let’s hope by making that happen.
Below is the current draft of a chapter for Fast Future’s ’50:50 – Scenarios for the Next 50 Years’. They’ve given me permission to test my thinking so far. I’d love your thoughts – positive or negative – and connections to other, better thinking.
It is an attempt to imagine the world in 2050 as if what we do now matters. The speculative vision below will be wrong, but hopefully it will be useful. It is one path I can imagine to a sustainable footing. I don’t like all of it, and I don’t necessarily think it’s the most likely future. There’s so much more I’d like to add (links to culture or knowledge production, for instance) – but I’m already twice the word count! It applies some of the analysis from my work on industrial strategy, which you can watch here or see a rough cut here.
Please do let me know what reactions, comments below or via email!
Here in 2050 we ask: given how uncertain the world looked in 2020, how is it that most people are thriving? How did we deliberately and rapidly reduce our impacts on the Earth so nature to thrive? (Gaffney and Steffen, 2017) And, how did that lead to us becoming a two-speed world?
The short answer: back in the 2020s one group of countries tried ‘good growth’ as an open and future-facing strategy – and were able to renew as crises happened. These countries are now the Primary World, where people are thriving in ways that work in synergy with nature. Another group wanted security by preserving the past – and, when the crises came, weren’t able to adapt. This Secondary World is not in sync with nature, but at a much reduced pace and scale that nature can cope with.
Now for the long answer.
- Late 2010s: Many eras ending
- Early 2020s: ‘Good Growth’ vs ‘Security For Us’
- Late 2020s: ‘Renew For Climate Safety’ vs ‘Protect What We Have’
- 2050: the thriving Primary World and the struggling Secondary World
Last week I was at Transformations 2017, the biennial academic conference on transformations towards sustainability, hosted by Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience (CECHR), University of Dundee. I had an excellent time, including presenting my paper on industrial strategy (rough cut here). In this post, I reflect on the importance of people power in knowledge production that is in the service of transformation to a just and sustainable world.
The political shocks of 2016 – Brexit, Trump – and a period advising the Cabinet Office on Inclusive Economy, has forced me to reflect the advantages I have because of my professional status. inspired by Peggy MacIntosh, I’ve been compiling a list of daily privileges that I enjoy.
The votes last year for Trump and Brexit have caused much discussion on inequality, whether focussed on the white working class, the ‘left behind’, or the ‘just about managing’. I was struck by how much was about the people over there, and rather neglected the role that all of us have in re-inforcing the status quo through our own behaviour.
Thanks to Zaid Hassan, I came across a rather brilliant piece from the early eighties by Peggy MacInstosh. She was a feminist academic who had been very critical of her male colleagues for their behaviour – and then realised that she had been behaving in a similar way on race. Her insight:
“I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege.
“I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.”
She then gives “a list of special circumstances and conditions I experience that I did not earn but that I have been made to feel are mine by birth, by citizenship, and by virtue of being a conscientious law-abiding “normal” person of goodwill” but which are not true for a person of colour. For instance, “I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.” or “I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.”
That got me wondering. What if we are taught not to recognise professional privilege? What if the many moments of small differences pass unnoticed, but nevertheless accumulate (brilliantly illustrated here)? What would be the equivalent list for me, here in 21st century Britain, of the privileges I experience but did not earn that the ‘just about managing’ do not?
In no particular order, here is a first stab:
- My accent and phrasing is widely trusted; I don’t have to overcome bad first impressions from my accent.
- I get confidence in my situation through the vast majority of the people I know are working and are financially secure.
- I get confidence in big institutions from the fact no one I knows has had a bad experience of the policy or anyone else.
- I know that if something goes wrong I can ask one of my lawyer friends about what legal actions I can take.
- I know that, if something goes wrong, then I know how to complain or make my way through the bureaucracy.
- I can turn to the ‘bank of mum and dad’ to step up the housing ladder.
- I can be confident that much of my job cannot be easily automated or off-shored.
- I can be sure my neighbours are not worried about me.
- I can stay with friends for holidays on pretty much any continent.
- I can browse in a shop or sit down in a restaurant and they won’t be worried if i can pay.
- I can be confident my credit score is good and accurate.
- I can do well in a challenging situation without it being a credit to my gender, race or class.
- I can be reasonably sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person with similar professional outlook.
- I can arrange my activities so that i will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my class.
There are many more, of course. And there are other ‘assets’ that I have earned, for instance my academic achievements came in part from my own hard work. But those achievements also came from other things too, like local education provision (I went to a good grammar school) that wouldn’t have been there for others with the same aptitude and effort. But I’ve found it a useful exercise to return to, and keep noticing my invisible knapsack of professional privilege.
Earlier today I gave a short talk and Q&A on ‘Pro-sustainability industrial strategy and innovation policy’ at Transformations 2017, a leading academic conference on the transition to a sustainable future.
Now, I wish I could share all my thinking to date. But it’s just too rough to share. So, here is the top level thinking: the questions I think any decision-making should ask themselves when they are formulating an industrial strategy or innovation policy for a sustainable world.
The idea is a decision-maker in any organisation (government, city, big business, foundation and so on) in any context can ask themselves these question to provide a bespoke approach to industrial strategy / innovation for a sustainable world that fits with their situation.
Basically, answering these questions will help you come up with your way of driving the economic component of the profound changes we need for a just and sustainable world. Well, that’s the idea.
Looking at Industrial Strategy and Innovation Policy has become a vechile for me to organise all my experiences and insights on economic transformation into one place. This explains why my more detailed version is too rough to share at the moment: there’s lots of are tools and other supports underneath each question! But this gives you a flavour, and the people who saw me speak at the conference now have the questions (as promised).
One thing that came up in the conference is about how linear this looks, while we know that transformation is not. Well, this is a deliberate design choice. This summary gives a clean and clear 4-step process to make it easy for a person to use. The tools for answering the questions bring in more complexity (using, for instance Embracing Complexity and Three Horizons) and other thinking. It is designed to be used in a linear way, at first, in order to open up the deeper transformations.
Here are the questions laid out:
A. Understanding the pre-conditions
1. What is your purpose and what are your beliefs on how an economy changes?
2. What is the political context you are operating in?
3. What approach and principles for formulating and implementing fits with your situation?
B. Understanding the context, global and specific
4. What does ‘a sustainable world’ mean here?
5. What are global trends do you need to consider?
6. What is your starting situation, and existing vision?
7. How can you use the formulation itself to make the policy successful (including obtaining long-term mandate)?
C. Formulating policies/strategies in priority areas
8. MISSIONS: which innovation missions should you set, and how will you run each?
9. HORIZONTALS: how will you craft the cross-cutting conditions that stimulate the appropriate investment and innovation?
10. VERTICALS: what direction(s) are viable for each major sector, and how support appropriately?
11. GEOGRAPHIES: How enhance specific clusters and enable resilience everywhere?
12. How implement each part of the strategy with the required guiding principles (e.g. accountability)?
13. How can you keep adjusting to and replenishing the political mandate?
14. How can you evaluate, using that for improving and accountability?
Over the coming weeks I’ll be pulling this into a toolkit and testing it. Also, I’ll be explaining more about where each part comes from in depth. In the meantime, watch this for more detail.
The full slides I used are here (only 4 slides – more detail soon I promise!).
If you have any thoughts, comments (positive or negative) do put them below or get in touch.
Back in April I did a two hour session for London Futurists, a group for people who are interested in the future and maybe want to help shape it. David Wood, the smartphone entrepreneur who runs the group, asked me to run a session.
For me it was a chance to try out my latest thoughts on industrial strategy for a sustainable world. I speak for about an hour, and then there’s another hour of questions.
In a nutshell, the talk gives a wireframe which I believe you can use to organise all of the economic elements of the transition to a sustainable world. You can look at the slides here.
Doubtless the talk is wrong about lots of stuff – my aim was to be wrong in useful ways!
I’ve had lots of feedback from the people at the talk, and others to whom I’ve given (shorter) versions. I’d love your thoughts too. Please comment below or get in touch in the normal way.
It’s clearly a work-in-progress but so far people have been finding it useful, especially to see how their work is a contribution to the wider change.
Even so, I know it is far from the finished article. I’ve had thoughts since on where to improve and where to pivot. These will have to wait for another post! In the meantime, enjoy the talk and thank you again to David Wood for giving me the chance.