Last week, after I published my piece on Britain’s competitiveness map, a senior figure at the Department for Business and Trade asked me a question I haven’t been able to stop thinking about.
I look forward to reading the China post. I agree in principle that Industrial Strategy needs to be coordinated and connected. That may be achievable in China but not sure it is possible in Britain - in practice most of what you describe can either only be delivered in England or will just clash with the agendas of the devolved governments when it is tried in other parts of the UK.
tbh I am not convinced that industrial strategy in the first place - my preferred option would be to keep government out of most of these areas. Make government a good customer for businesses and drop all of the direct assistance.
If we are to have industrial strategy, I would draw out three problems that I see - your excellent analysis points to all of these issues:
1. There is no guarantee that the next government, or even this one, will not churn the strategy again.
2. "There is no shortage of institutions that could contribute." In fact there is a massive oversupply of such institutions. Some clearing out of this bureaucratic legacy shoudl be a priority - we are talking about hundreds, maybe thousands of bodies here.
3. A key element for every sector should be integration into the global industry of which it is part. I fear a policy of national champions is more likely.
"The question is whether British politics has the patience and institutional seriousness to build it" leads naturally to a discussion about conflicts of interest. In the US, the version of this question which also applies is if the politics has any interest beyond existing stakeholders? This is because questions of economic progress quickly mean progress for many others not yet in the fray. Creating a future together means catering to voters who do not yet have a voice, after all. Therein the conflict of interest between the present and progress toward a different, hopefully better, future.
And yes, that's a long winded version of Upton Sinclairs observation, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" I've found this too true, unfortunately, in my experience.
Could I share a document on the HVM Catapult network with you? A version was submitted to a select committee and published. I believe it needs much closer scrutiny to understand how it works and why in many
cases it doesnt work.. in line with hub and no spokes
Hey John! Sure, thank you. Indeed, this is a complex issue and please do share with me your thoughts. Please email me j.du@aston.ac.uk. Many thanks! Jun
I look forward to reading the China post. I agree in principle that Industrial Strategy needs to be coordinated and connected. That may be achievable in China but not sure it is possible in Britain - in practice most of what you describe can either only be delivered in England or will just clash with the agendas of the devolved governments when it is tried in other parts of the UK.
tbh I am not convinced that industrial strategy in the first place - my preferred option would be to keep government out of most of these areas. Make government a good customer for businesses and drop all of the direct assistance.
If we are to have industrial strategy, I would draw out three problems that I see - your excellent analysis points to all of these issues:
1. There is no guarantee that the next government, or even this one, will not churn the strategy again.
2. "There is no shortage of institutions that could contribute." In fact there is a massive oversupply of such institutions. Some clearing out of this bureaucratic legacy shoudl be a priority - we are talking about hundreds, maybe thousands of bodies here.
3. A key element for every sector should be integration into the global industry of which it is part. I fear a policy of national champions is more likely.
"The question is whether British politics has the patience and institutional seriousness to build it" leads naturally to a discussion about conflicts of interest. In the US, the version of this question which also applies is if the politics has any interest beyond existing stakeholders? This is because questions of economic progress quickly mean progress for many others not yet in the fray. Creating a future together means catering to voters who do not yet have a voice, after all. Therein the conflict of interest between the present and progress toward a different, hopefully better, future.
And yes, that's a long winded version of Upton Sinclairs observation, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" I've found this too true, unfortunately, in my experience.
Could I share a document on the HVM Catapult network with you? A version was submitted to a select committee and published. I believe it needs much closer scrutiny to understand how it works and why in many
cases it doesnt work.. in line with hub and no spokes
Hey John! Sure, thank you. Indeed, this is a complex issue and please do share with me your thoughts. Please email me j.du@aston.ac.uk. Many thanks! Jun