How “Shareholder Value” is Killing Innovation — Radical Political Economy

By William Lazonick, The prevailing stock market ideology enriches value extractors, not value creators. Conventional wisdom holds that the primary function of the stock market is to raise cash that companies use to invest in productive capabilities. The conventional wisdom is wrong. Academic research on corporate finance shows that, compared with other sources of funds, […]

via How “Shareholder Value” is Killing Innovation — Radical Political Economy

Advertisements

Stock buybacks and building a more equitable economy

This video tells the story of how a relatively equitable capitalist growth model in the 1950s and 60s gave way to rising inequality and weaker investment. For Professor William Lazonick, the economy of the US (and other advanced nations) currently generates “profits without prosperity”.

After World War II, average wages across the economy tended to increase in line with productivity, so that ordinary workers shared in rising economic efficiency over time. However, since the 1970s, the link has been broken as productivity continued to rise, while wages stagnated. This trend has been largely sustained to the present day.

The video discusses these changes in the US economy, and focuses on the phenomenon of stock buybacks, which shift firm resources away from productivity-raising investment in new technology and a more highly-skilled workforce towards short-term financial gains for CEOs and investors. Lazonick discusses possible solutions to these problems.

How austerity may reduce innovation

An interesting post from Simon Wren-Lewis on how sustained austerity can lower innovation and productivity growth. With the latter growing painfully slowly in the UK and other rich countries for a number of years, this is potentially important. As he notes, it may only explain part of the productivity slowdown, but it still highlights one of the negative impacts of austerity.

Put briefly, austerity weakens aggregate demand when it cannot be offset by monetary policy (as has been the case since the recession). This may create an ‘innovations gap’. Firms facing reduced demand for their products will slow down the rate at which they create or utilize new products, processes and technology via new investment, leading to weaker growth in productivity. This sort of investment would have ’embodied’ the new technology, but in its absence, the improvements will not take place.

Neo-liberalism and the productivity problem

Margaret_Thatcher_(1983)

Margaret Thatcher is irrevocably associated with neo-liberal politics

What has neo-liberalism got to do with productivity? Since the financial crisis many countries in both the rich and emerging world have experienced slowing productivity growth. Productivity growth is what makes rising living standards possible. It enables workers to earn more while working the same hours. Alternatively, it can enable them to earn the same wage while working fewer hours and taking more leisure. Government policy, trade unions and corporate governance can have a strong influence on such outcomes.

The UK economy has seen a particularly dramatic productivity slowdown since the crisis, from annual growth in output per hour of 2.2% between 1996 and 2006, to an average of 0.2% between 2006 and 2016. This is an astonishing turnaround. Continue reading

The media and the effects of a weaker currency: missing the point

Contando_Dinheiro_(8228640)What are the likely impacts on the UK economy from the weaker pound? A recent report from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has warned of sluggish growth in the UK during 2017 and beyond. It blames uncertainty over Brexit, along with higher imported inflation and weaker consumer spending due to the sharp fall in the value of the pound since the June referendum on EU membership.

The BCC focuses on a squeeze on consumer spending in the months ahead. This is one effect of a weaker currency: higher prices of imported goods and services will tend to push up overall inflation, meaning consumers will be worse off in real terms if real wages do not rise. Put simply, the pound in our pockets will not go as far. Continue reading

‘For he that hath, to him shall be given’: the problem of regional inequality

DSC00234Success breeds success, and failure breeds failure. This seems to be the trend in the UK’s regional inequalities, as pointed out last week by Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England. The division in growth rates and income levels between London and the South East, and the North, are particularly stark. Only in the former are income levels now above those before the Great Recession, which began more than eight years ago, while the latter has fallen further behind.

This regional divide is not a new phenomenon. It has been the result of decades of uneven economic development in the regions of the UK. The almost relentless decline in the share of manufacturing output and jobs for the UK as a whole, particularly since the 1980s, hit the North of England and parts of Wales hard. Private sector dynamism has tended to be concentrated in London and the South East, particularly in the service sector, which makes up the majority of GDP and employment.

Successive governments have responded in different ways to regional inequality. Continue reading

Tariffs and Trump

During his election campaign, Donald Trump’s rhetoric was consistently anti-free trade. He threatened to impose tariffs on US imports from China and to renegotiate trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). His argument for such policies is that they have led to enormous job losses in American industry. Indeed, this may explain some of his appeal to former ‘Rust Belt’ workers who have not been sharing in the ‘American Dream’.

The absence of the American Dream for enormous numbers of Americans is nothing new. Since the 1970s, median wages have been largely stagnant, while the so-called 1%, at the top of the scale, have done exceptionally well. This is reflected in rising income inequality. Among the 1%, one might include CEOs and many of those working in the financial sector.

So if Trump is as good as his word, will he enact protectionist policies, and will these restore more widespread prosperity among the poor and middle-class? Continue reading