Excellent interview! So true the government is fixing short term problems and creating more long term problems for the next governments. Middle class is getting poor. Taxing on ordinary people but not taxing big corporations is the problem with the government.
Those problems come to survives just in time for an election, so naturally you campaign to have the solutions. This has been western politics for eternity. Two parties taking turns. 😂
What’s going to happen when generation rent are all 80 and need full time nursing home care. They Won’t be any houses to sell to find it. That future government are well and truly f*****d. But hey at least millions of landlords got a good ride.
@do not reply dumb people maybe the money taxed from corps can go into a pot(s) to fund certain things that help fix the country. For example, if the government are saying they can't afford to give the NHS more money, then the tax from corps can be invested into the NHS, go towards doctors/nurses/training/mental health centres etc. Where would we be without our health, its one of the most important things. Also money should be spread throughout the country (up north) not just London. Just my thoughts...this is a really interesting interview.
00:00 The economy is influenced by how the public and private sectors are governed and their interrelationship. 00:10 A reactive government and profit-maximizing private sector with problematic relationship lead to a problematic economy. 00:40 Marianna Mazzucato, an economics professor, discusses the impact of consultants on businesses, governments, and economies. 01:25 Consultants are advisors who bring expertise to various sectors, including climate change and health 03:09 The government's attempt to run everything in the 70s led to a broken country. The private sector also makes mistakes, but civil servants are blamed more. Learning from mistakes is important, and there has been an ideology that values the business sector over government. 03:32 The private sector often brags about their mistakes, while civil servants are criticized. Learning from mistakes is crucial, and being a learning organization is important. There has been an ideology that values 05:34 NASA worked with businesses in various sectors to overcome challenges and achieve the moon landing. 05:42 Outsourcing brainpower without proper knowledge and contracts can lead to mistakes and inefficiencies. 06:01 The Consulting industry's influence on government contracts has infantilized Whitehall, hindering learning and capacity building. 06:38 Lord Agnew, a conservative 08:07 The problem is not having a new narrative or making the existing one softer. We need government and the private sector to work together for a better economy. 10:43 AstraZeneca is a good example of a well-negotiated deal. 10:52 Governments need to be good at negotiating and investing in deals. 11:03 Austerity is not the main issue, but rather the destruction of public organizations. 11:14 It can take 12:54 The core role of a university is not central to what it does. The core role of a government and health system matters. Government expertise is important for solving problems. 13:13 Government's past failures lead to a lack of confidence in their own competence. Dominic Cummings highlighted the need to change how government bureaucracy is built. 13:46 Creating dynamic and creative bureaucracies is important. NASA changed its bureaucracy to reach the moon. Geeks are willing to join government if its remit is different. 15:25 Making the economy inclusive and sustainable, benefiting as many people as possible. 15:32 The importance of having different representatives of the people making decisions. 15:44 Considering both big and small governments when thinking about who decides what's good for the people. 15:58 Austerity measures created social problems and had a negative impact 18:05 The curriculum fed to bureaucrats globally is framed as fixing market failures, but government failures are worse. Fear of risk prevents experimentation and learning. 18:27 Steve Chu left Stanford to become a civil servant not for money, but for the mission to make the world a better place. 18:43 Being a civil servant means helping steer and collaborate with the private sector to improve society, not just facilitate. 20:42 Consultants cannot solve sustainability and inequality issues. Governments should seek advice, but there may be conflicts of interest and lack of transparency. 20:55 More experts are needed to help and advise, regardless of sector. The key is deep expertise, conflict of interest, and transparency. 21:22 Consulting companies often have conflicts of interest by consulting on both sides. Transparency is crucial in consulting relationships. 23:07 Opportunity and luck played a role in my success as an author. The book I wrote in 2013, 'The Entrepreneurial State,' influenced the UK government's industrial strategy. I also helped change the European Commission's approach to inclusive and sustainable growth. 23:25 The UK government's industrial strategy shifted from sector-focused to challenge-focused, with a focus on clean growth, healthy aging, sustainable mobility, and the day-to-day economy. I collaborated with Greg Clark and David Willetts on a commission for mission-oriented innovation and industrial strategy. 25:28 The 17 sustainable development goals are about designing policy to foster cross-sectoral investment and innovation. Government levers like procurement, budgeting, grants, and loans are used to galvanize bottom-up experimentation. 25:56 The clarity of goals is important to determine if they have been achieved. Some goals, like those related to health and climate inequality, are too broad to answer with a simple yes or no. 27:54 Risks and rewards of privatization and socializing rewards. Better pricing strategy for drugs to save taxpayers. Obama's green direction with guaranteed loans to companies like Tesla and Solyndra. Government picking up the bill for failed companies. Inequity in energy companies' massive rents and executive pay. 28:00 Retaining equity in investments. Criticism of Obama's handling of Tesla. Government steering fiscal stimulus in a green direction. Tesla receiving a guaranteed loan of $465 million. Solyndra's bankruptcy and the government's $500 million loss. The need for a smarter loan 29:57 Our form of capitalism is financialized, but the state has lost faith in itself. Financialization affects the financial sector, real estate, and insurance. The business sector doesn't reinvest in the economy or a greener economy. 30:36 Sweden's mission for school meals is to make them healthy, tasty, and sustainable. This aligns with their goal of a fossil-free welfare state. The supply chain for school meals needs to be green, requiring innovation and transformation. 32:14 Solving problems requires collaboration with other actors, not just bureaucracy. Dismantling the cartoon image of the bureaucratic vs. cool Elon Musk is essential for change. 32:31 Mariana Mascato shares her way to change the world. Collaboration and embracing craziness are key.
Not only has Mariana got a great engaging writing style, but also has a real understanding of whatever she writes about. As seen in her passion and heard in her fluid train of thought when questioned. No BS, Mazzucato ( I bet her children get away with absolutely nothing). Highly recommend; 'The Values of Everything' if you want to get an overview of neoliberal thought both politically and economically, explaining why for example, a simple change in the early 20th Century had the later consequence of money received via rent (owning an asset be it land , patents, copyrights) becoming part of the measure of GDP, when in fact rent does not produce a product, it's as the classical economists, Marx and Keynes saw it, it's a fixed part of a products eventual negotiated price, and not as Marshalls marginal utility would have it as what people are prepared to pay, even rent. I will always think of marginal utility when ever buy a mars bar. Remembering the first one that quashes the hunger has the greatest value, whereas the 10th not so.
She is a hypocrite. Why doesn't she work for the govt for 5 years? She can teach rest of her life. She says students should be inspired by Steve Chu's example but she herself is not.
@@vivekbagaria3324 Maybe because she has come to a typical Mariama rational conclusion that for her as an academic, with a passion for teaching/encouraging and obvious skill for writing, this is the most effective way to communicate to many within the Civil Service (and I think I may have read this as well). Or maybe you didn't like what she had to say as it affected the world you reside in? This is fine, but maybe just say so rather than basic nay-saying.
Balanced??? Hardly Marxist tendencies and anti capitalist. She has some good ideas around procurement that is the biggest issue within the nhs. Not the need for more money it has plenty but uses it so poorly. The way she said Tory over how she spoke about labour showed her bias. That said I did enjoy the video but it wasn’t an interview more sales pitch
@@MrDunkycraig Biases are nuanced, not coarse or firm. Is it anti-capitalist to expect your government to work more closely with companies for more efficient outcomes?
Absolutely agree, I don't even know how I stumbled on this talk, but I was hooked very quickly. This talk is at an intellectual level completely foreign to most voters, or even representatives..
Two of the biggest value generators in the last 50 years, Internet and GPS, didn’t come from the private sector. Ditto all the standards that allow all this tech to interwork. Great interview. Totally agree on the early points on procurement and the need to retain skills as well…. Money comes and goes, organisational competence doesn’t. Killer quote for me.
love how she explains problems when companies or governments are "outsourcing their brains". Such as eventually you can't even create or review contracts with third parties anymore. I also very much like her views of what should be our priorities such as creating a sustainable economy which benefits as many people as possible. Of course you can have lots of arguments what that economy should look like. But you need people on your team who are smart enough to have serious outcome oriented discussions. At least here in the US we miss one chance after another to send people to congress who have the intellectual capabilities to make constructive contributions. My hope is that eventually we overcome that. I wish that people like Miss Mazzucato are heard and included in determining policies as opposed to creating labels for anything you do not like ("woke", "communist", ....) with many people not even knowing what those terms mean.
The only expertise most "consultants" have is in working their way into lucrative contracts, and managing them. When someone says "I am a consultant" without immediately following that with the area of deep expertise they bring to their work should be treated with the deepest suspicion.
Do Trouble Shooters still exist ? They were/are Experts. I agree with you, they're 'experts' at seeking the most lucrative contracts. I've had enough of so called 'consultants', I've ended up having to educate myself to am expert level as some of the ones I've delt with have proven to be incompetent & very costly.
Great coverage. ‘American Amnesia’ (Pierson & Hacker, 2016) covers this well too, from the American perspective but it’s all the same neoliberalism. Thank you!
Great, stimulating interview. So refreshing to hear a spirited defence of government's role. The only detraction was the interviewer's jacket? Why is he wearing a navy blue tyre?
I work in tech and have had some exposure to consultants, consulting as part of transformation. There are some greet people, doing great work. From what I've experienced it's more the people who hire the consultants, with the intention of making things, faster, more productive and deliver results. The talent is there (private sector), within the organisations, its just that time is money and when something doesn't materialise then its almost better to engage consultants for how it looks, without fully knowing if it makes a material difference or not. I agree with the points made here..
"then its almost better to engage consultants for how it looks" can you elaborate this a bit? Im not sure what kind of transformation you have, but it is basicly used for all sorts of things... Im in operational duties(daily maintenance) as consultant. For what I see though is quality goes down over time coz other company stays hostage to one company running their daily operations but the runner cuts cost by reducing their staff or switching them to more junior(cheaper, less valuable ) over time. You're right, key is who are making those decisions, but they may not choose people but companies, thus they cant decide in very high detail.
@@effexon If a company is running operations of another company... then the company is no longer in the consulting business. There is a distinction between BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) and Consulting. What happens is that many of the Consulting companies also have (different) divisions which are involved in BPO because it is a more predictive and steady revenue stream.
You would think this sort of approach to setting up public contracts to private companies would have been self explanatory. And obviously you can see that the ineptitude of those that setup these contracts is apparently limitless. Take one example, the Water Companies of England that were privatised. They have handed out tens of billions in profit to shareholders over the years, in spite of failures like release of raw sewage into the rivers and seas around the UK, and ailing old systems leaking water all over the place, while imposing hosepipe bans on end users. Anyone with half a brain would have set these contracts up with the sort of penalties that would have ensured the CEO and exec level operators in these companies were investing in the development and improvement of the infrastructure. Instead what we get are hopeless "regulators" that impose fines that do nothing to improve anything, and are not punitive enough to stop the companies from still being able to hand out profit to the shareholder instead of investing in the networks. Utterly incompetent, and it results in us going round and round the same merry-go-round ad nauseam.
I admire the way Singapore is set up, at least on paper. Worked with builders for a while. There was a housing project across from one of our sites. Place had been built 20 years prior and was unoccupied, having been declared unfit for human habitation. It was in a neighbourhood where it was surrounded by century homes. My boss at the time commented that it frustrated him because he knew he could easily have turned a profit while getting the right people to maintain it, but everything was controlled by people with political connections. Public housing here is a bit of a meme as housing goes, but it is an excellent jobs program. The builders who know the developers who know and donate to the politicians get the contracts. If they can get some diversity Becky of an architect who leaves a blueprint riddled with errors, so much the better, that then becomes time and materials. The maintenance guys get to be low level patronage picks, as if the entire structure degrades, it means a contract to have it demolished, and a contract to have it replaced. Then the cycle can repeat itself. In Singapore, on the other hand, with their lack of land, they would beat you black and blue for acting like the affordable housing maintenance guys, shoot you for acting like the politicians, and are able to have a system where housing projects are the default place people live, except for the ultra-rich. However, becoming a Singapore is difficult, since nobody all ready involved in a less strict system wants to be caned or shot for carrying on as they have in the past.
E-mail has infantalised government: - Why do I have to see the e-nail? - Why didn't I see the e-mail? - Why was I cc-ed i n the e-mail? - Why was I not cc-ed in the e-mail? - Why was my boss or subordinate cc-ed in the mail .... or why not? Why did you send me this e-mail to CYA? Bla-bla-bla... I am not empowered...I've been infantilised. A large part of my job is e-mail dumpster-diving.
I feel in compact form problem in europe is reactive policies. Nobody thinks ahead policies, plans (or if they do, those are so coarse grained it is impossible to comment when things change a bit by trends or perception of change). Then everyone acts busy doing something and even makes up new "something" for themselves and others to do, thus resulting in overburden. Dunno why it has been that when experts, common people, communities have suggested some plans, those are avoided. This similar things shows in many corporations too, leadership dont have big vision, just lots of data and basicly reactions. Some of course do, but perhaps in limited scope of aspects. As a result US companies and chinese companies more and more have taken even those markets like car manufacturing traditionally strong in some european countries. EU is good for some aspects like unified regulatory framework but for this leadership problem big bureacratic system like that cant give good answer. Europe as a whole (like individual countries also) have huge variety of experts already so skillsets and training are not issue and like Mariana said, we cant expect some magical expert from faraway lands to come and give us answer coz it is inherently local, context tied one.
For some countries like Belgium, you have some people in the government, it can be easily noticed that they do not have enough cognitive capabilities to think strategically, to plan projects scaling over even short term period like 5 years and to execute them with the respect of time and budget. It is easier for them to play the cards of victimization, communautarism for example to attact voters. somewhat "externalizing their brains" is required.
The point she doesn’t cover is the fundamental desire to share, not hoard, resources. How do we motivate the greedy to quit being greedy? All else follows. The ‘core roles’ for governments presently is to line pockets, foster poverty and then depoliticise the poor.
Finance industry does not add value to the economy. It simply increases inflation. Therefor it's "profits" should not be allowed to be counted as and added to the Gross National Income. That would change the perspective to reality.
She should've spoke more on the financial system, ie the sheer amount of derivatives we've got chasing after a $1.00 dollar bill which is causing unsustainable debt levels in the entire financial system. I know we're talking about the UK, but we need to look at the global financial system as dollars is the global reserve currency. In the USA we've got homelessness on the rise with overdoses reaching 100,000 deaths a year. While Wall-street gets high on cocaine and is pushing the FED to halt fighting inflation. Swinging back to the UK: I couldn't believe the incompetence with PPE gear, I resided in China from 2011 - 2016 and know all to well that the UK gov't failed to follow procedure to outsource in Asia. Then we got Liz Truss, {who I'm a fan off} She tried to bring the conservative way back again by cutting taxes. On the same day the FED caused global equites and the bond market to sell off. Did Truss add a log to the fire in the UK, she sure did. Unfortunately she failed to push the idea of "growth" which can get us out of high inflation. Now we're stuck with Hunt who is raising taxes while pushing single mothers, Gen X and even disabled people back into work. The UK gov't is a joke.
Have you ever seen a parliamentary meeting? The consulting industry didn't infantilize them, they were already infantilized and the consulting industry has simply taken advantage of it.
And now there's much of ChatGPT's eloquence, not necessarily scientifically, socially and ecologically useful committed to the long-term public interest, in the products sold by economic advisers. Their profits will skyrocket. But the common people of the poor peripheries in all countries will suffer the most.
I can't believe she's actually saying that somehow U.S. government employees are under compensated. She's also missing the point that political orientation and ideology is now a determining factor in who is hired into government---i.e. identity politics, at the expense of technical competence.
Switched off when the professor states (time stamp 7:30) that one success of the pandemic was rolling out 8 different (implies successful) vaccines - really!!
The scary part is that more and more private companies outsource their brains and decision making to the same group of consultant. That leads to entire companies have all kind of managers and other talkers but no people who actually produce something.
And also a massive lack of creativity and diverse approaches to a problem. Just look at how much of a meme the IMF is. All they can prescribe is one solution. To everything. Of course this is also by design, but it's a good example of the same people just recycling the same solution to every damn problem.
I can relate to what the Prof is saying. For many years early in my career I worked for large consulting firms, advising clients from a wide spectrum of industries. All we could really contribute was independence and contingency capacity, not expertise; our engagement was simply too wide and diverse. Thirteen years ago I joined a state agency doing project finance and infrastructure. Now I have specialized in a strategically important field, and I have a sense that I am adding real value in shaping policy and strategy. My colleagues and I are doing what the state should be doing on a vast scale. It all starts with attracting and developing talented people, and putting them on a mission.
Consultants are there primarily as a blame avoiding tool. Any report or action proposed by a consultant for any politician or leader in the economy can simply be a huge source of browny points if the proposal turns out to be great success, otherwise it can be blamed totally on the consultant thus avoiding any negative impact on the politician. (Many leaders in business are huge politicians so don't think that they only exist in Westminster) They're prime focus is career progression..
And that's the, "prime" problem. But I disagree to the extent that many if not most consultancy projects that fail don't necessarily garner any lasting media attention, as they are the antithesis of titillating. They, and the public money thrown at them, descend into a vast dark memory hole of spin and consultant speak, never to be heard of again.
Consultants also typically do not have an agenda of why their client should do something. Actors within the organization are likely to have an agenda. This makes the Consultants "neutral" at least on paper. In reality, it depends. At the end of the day, consulting companies also want repeat business. But even then, they have to maintain a sense of impartiality and objective in case there are audits.
I think a lot too, at least with service contracts - is short termism and using project budgets to fill staffing gaps - again temporarily at first, but then the contracts get extended and renewed again and again.....
Very well put. As a former consultant I would add that governments and corporations often need somebody to merely “justify” their agenda. They don’t want an objective output. As the professor pointed out in this interview, one cannot imagine giving contracts out to the Big 4 about the “benefits of brexit” without thinking about the political agenda and stance of that question. A decision like Brexit is a purely political and sentimental decision made by the people - whether it’s on migration, deregulation, the economy - that is secondary. After all the “benefits” is simply done to sound like you know what you’re doing. It’s just evolved bullshit in my opinion. In my country, India, politicians don’t bother with consultants for their agenda. They blatantly say whatever the people want to hear and aren’t scared to completely demean and “other” a community. The UK politicians arguably rely on consultants and dog whistling to talk to their voters.
@@ytpanda398 It is very dear of you to say so. We all have our handicaps, mine being old age and slowly going blind, while yours are rather more obvious. It is my experiences that the lower classes struggle with the complex compound sentences employed by their betters, because generally speaking they have the attention span of goldfish. and being mostly imbeciles have little or no learning and fewer wits, by virtue of their breeding, so of course they struggle with Milton Shakespeare and Walter Scott.(and with that latter who does not struggle?) It is a matter of culture and the people of some nations and in particular their lower classes, simply have none.
@@ytpanda398 Oh I would not trouble your woolly little head with bullshit about the structure of sentences, if I were you; it is my experience that the lower classes cannot cope with the complex compound sentences of their betters which require not just wits and learning, but rather better breeding than you enjoy titch. Your servant here present is very old and was brought up by Victorians and is familiar with a world of literature and culture with which you could never hope to cope given your very obvious handicap.
In my experience the use of 'fads' by consultants from sectors such MBA's infantilises what are often complex social contexts in which we work. In particular an emphasis on marketing 'jargon' based on the latest fads to decision makers. Examples I have encountered include the latest positive psychology trends or poorly delivered design thinking or social enterprise iniatives. Another example is enormous amounts of money spent on high level visioning exercises which produce a beautiful graphically designed visioning document with little thought put into the processes (reality) needed to deliver programmes and how these connect to outcomes. This emphasis on high level jargon and visioning leads to magical thinking - that outcomes will somehow magically appear because we did visioning. Some business consultants seem to lack an understanding that process is needed to connect purpose (vision) to outcomes. Alot more time and effort needs to be spent on designing and managing process. Particularly processes that include reality testing over time so we can adapt programmes to best meet the needs of communities.
yeah, but working the hard work on a well made process takes time, more time than the politician's tenure of 4-5 years. That's the real issue. No one wants to take the time to do stuff as it should be done anymore, it's just deadline deadline deadline, and every new deadline MUST BE sooner than the previous deadline. been shouting this for years.
@@strugglingengineer1465 Yes and then you end up with frontline staff having to work 'with whats happening above them', 'around whats happening above them' and 'despite whats happening above them'. While those above them who dont even seem to know much about the reality thats happening on the ground end up spending their time writing reports to each other. And the problem with reports in the sector I work in is that reports cant feed people, they cant house people, they cant get health care to people or support people. Resources end up being fossilized in reports before they have a chance to even get to the community.
Totally agree with your analysis Sarah. In New Zealand we have a lot of this "magical thinking" in key Government policies. Best examples found in our national transport plan. But our Government was outstandingly successful in its response to Covid in 2020. Why? Because our Prime Minister listened to our Director General of Health, [Dr Ashley Bloomfield] trusted him, and acted on his best professional advice. Illustrating points made in this interview perfectly - in a positive way.
I left a consulting career, took a massive pay cut, and went into the public sector. Mostly it was so I could look myself in the mirror, but also because it was important work. And given the terrible brain drain and reliance on consultants, I could call bullshit on a lot of the consultant’s work as I know how they think :) But governments are their own worst enemy by prioritising the hiring of graduates. Better to let them go out and earn experience and then come to government with skills to offer. There is a massive problem with the government being a training ground for graduates and then they go off elsewhere. It’s a massive waste of resources, and worse the ones that stay go their whole career with no idea how the world works….
I think many people in the public sector became experts in perception management and internal politics. There is no more time to build up real-world knowledge to solve complex problems if their focus is only on power and climbing up the ladder. The politicians in almost any government today are the top-shots of this fatal development. They are now perfect clients for all the PowerPoint consultants.
All things she suggested can only be possible if the government cares about its people. So it would yo-yo between different parties and administrations.
This woman is so right. She is obviously way more intelligent than most of the vile commenters in this thread so far. Wish starmer would read her book- we need to invest, build and grow the public services not rely on the private sector- it doesnt work!
I saw an interview with Darren Jones MP (Labour) who is chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. He was asked what the Industrial Strategy is right now, and he said "this Conservative government doesn't seem to have one". Fortunately he knows that, along with other members he is an expert, and hopefully we'll see good commitments in that area leading up to the election.
@Phil You are obviously not listening to her. Stop looking in the wrong direction. You think like the Tories who can only see through their prejudiced lens.
@Phil Where do you get the idea that the PS have no reason to do their jobs properly? So much of the PS now is cheap labour from 3rd party contractors. What's left is disillusioned as they can see how much money is being syphoned off to these contracting agencies whilst there's apparently not enough money to pay a decent wage.
@Phil But clearly the answer to that isn't contracting in people who are even less accountable to the public. The answer lies in greater resources for community involvement in government as well as greater local devolution so that everyday citizens can hold government accountable on complex issues that can't get into the national conversation
@@safebans1369 Greater resources! Lol! Spending more money we haven't got. How about we start by cutting back on the stuff we really don't need and have the government live within its means. Do you think we can all work for the NHS? 31million people working for the NHS and 1million in farming, food distribution and exporting industry? Or do you think there might be physical limits to how many people can work for the public sector depending on our balance of trade? That's not economics, by the way, that's accountancy.
It's so obvious what she's saying. This is just a conversation about corruption, money for nothing. And is the public / private distinction real, meaningful, or just medieval thinking baked into democracy
Ive had McKinsey come in and had to teach the consultants that had no clue what they were doing, so they could make a PPT that then the CFO also had me remake for the board. So I literally did everything they should have done, but C suite just wants the sticker that they used “the best”. All the while I did everything for barely 6 figures, they charged 8 figures 🤷🏻♂️
Amazing interview. In France, we went through a national scandal in 2022 caused by the overwhelming reliance of government agencies on consulting firms which existed before Covid but was made worse by the pandemic. I thought it was a French phenom caused by Macron's neoliberal economic doctrine, but it is widespread. Quite worrying!
Governments all over the world spend billions on consultants, mostly US/UK Big Businesses Consultants. They always say : Privatize, less tax on Businesses, less protection for employees etc. We vote for a government, but what we get are oligarchs governing the governments.
It is not just governments of course, the businesses are "infected" by the consulting virus. I saw it first hand when the new leadership in my company hired Boston Consulting Group so called experts, who did not know much at all about our industry sector or the real needs of our company and after being extremely well paid, they came up with a "bespoke" solution : "you need to make redundancies". A few months later the market started to grow dramatically and we are still trying to find replacement for all the experienced workers we lost as a consequence of the "experts".
I’ve worked on a engineering level with a quasi public body that spans the UK, the ineptitude was startling. Vast sums of money thrown at projects that hadn’t been engineered correctly, not commissioned fully and ultimately provided both the public and the institution a vastly over priced under performing solution. I have visited most of the early sites built back in the late 60s and early 70s and they are well built, similar in design and tech across the country, perfect solutions. Something has gone wrong in the 50 years since.
Outsider looking in: The Government has since the 80s an unparalleled belief in private companies. They aren't here for the next decennia but for the next quarter. See the water companies. So a lot of money is siphoned off to the shareholders and CEO's. The rest the state has to do, or couldn't outsource, has always be done on the cheap. Look at the roads, look at the NHS (
.yet again another young/fresh/dynamic/ambitious "economist" who believes that Capitalism can be saved from self destruction- if only governments become more imaginative/creative. I have a lot to criticise her with , but THE most important one is this: If Capitalism is global and it's forces act globally, then how can "governments" confront the huge storm of global forces- especially in the third world? And what about the destructive power of the Global Debt ?
Superb talk, great work from Channel Four giving a platform to such an erudite and original thinker. It's long since seemed the case that the modern liberal-conservative penchant for outsourcing serves primarily to absolve governments of responsibility and to transfer public funds to private interests; and only incidentally to tackle whatever issue at hand.
17:30 “I don’t actually believe that young people go to GS, Google, etc. just because they are getting paid more” So I'm early 30s and this is the reason every one of my friends mentioned when they went to industry. Hate to pop the bubble but it is about the pay. Inflation running rife, student debt, housing costs sky high... after student life it is most definitely about the money!
Might be interesting for you to read Karl Polanyi on the embeddedness of markets then (for example in The Great Transformation). Prof Mazzucato refers to his work quite frequently when talking about markets/economies as outcomes. :)
lol. Not true. I don't think we had anything to do with the economical impact of the huge earthquake that hit turkey. The economy is the output of many events out of our control, and some others that are within it
Gross oversimplification. No understanding of how the bidding on the long and shorts of the futures market work which has a huge impact on the world economy while producing no tangible output per se. Just looking into Soros and his intervention in this area nearly destroyed the Greek economy is well worth considering.
Im a reformed strategic consultant running my own business (boo! hiss! ;) and I found this topic really very interesting. My own business is small and most of our consulting comes from subject matter expertise. But, our advice is just that, advice. Our successes have come from where the talent within the organization pick up an idea from us and then run with it themselves. Good businesses/ institutions are ultimately only as strong as the people (and culture) within them making the key decisions. However, I've started seeing a disturbing trend in my area of healthcare which I think the interviewee rightly focuses on - the OUTSOURCING of critical decision making to monolithic 'consultancies' that are anything but consulting in their activities. Their footprint and influence at the board level has enabled them to hoover up huge amounts of work, and they have successfully blurred the line between advisory and outsourcing functions. These consultancies have very little accountability for their actions - ultimately the business has to carry the can for their remote decision making. As for the topic of talent / brain drains - it staggers me that businesses and institutions would rather pay a 24 year old ivy league grad to make decisions with limited real-world experience of a business or environment, yet not trust the talent that sits within their own companies. These consultancies have created a mirage that they contain all the talent and intellect required to grow businesses, when in reality they have nowhere near the capability set required
I learnt this sometime ago, If you outsource something entirely you lose the ability to determine if the person you outsource to is ripping you off or doing a good job or just making reasonable mistakes. I've seen this since the 90s in manufacturing. You should always retain some capacity internally, and use outsourcing to build capacity, that applies to businesses and countries,. Its not black and white simplistic. There is no point in building resistors if your business is TVs, but contracting out building entirely leave you with no expertise. You have to carefully choose what "needs" expertise and can benefit flexibility or competition.
You see this a lot in higher ed in the U.S. too. Lots of outsourcing and agencies vs. actually hiring competent specialists internally. It's a great shame.
One of the issues with government in the UK (especially the current one - ministers have literally publicly stated that they don't want more experts) is that they actually loathe the fact that they need the Civil Service to exist in order to implement their ideological programmes; they hate the fact that it was there before they were in charge, will be there after they are gone, and has an institutional obligation , both legal and moral, to the country and not just to the individuals that make up any particular government. They don't want a Civil Service that has the institutional knowledge to call out nonsense. Because they're the ones in charge, and the peons only exist to do what they say. So they drop in Consultants who are being paid to tell them that their ideas are the best ideas in the history of ideas. This hollowing out of the Civil Service's expertise is a deliberate policy to further their authoritarian ideological goals; for them it's a feature and not a bug.
Just watching the video now and came across this comment. Hard agree. I was a public servant for the first part of my career, then in an arm's-length public institution, and it's not just political leaders (particularly on the right) who dislike the public service who often advises against - or at least tries to modify - certain political platforms. Even leaders within bureaucratic organizations often hate receiving advice if it is not in alignment with their preferred solution. Civil servants - the good ones - have really deep understanding of issues both from a policy and a process/program perspective because they bridge the thinking/implementing divide. It is easier to hire consultants to "order up" specific kinds of advice that suits the direction of leadership/politicians and conveniently sidesteps the kind of expert advice that can challenge a political agenda. I think it would be culturally better for leaders to be more open to taking advice and then going against it if they really think they have a better perspective. I do not think on leaders must follow bureaucratic advice, but I think they need to give it reasonable consideration, and then have the guts to wear their decision.
I'm an engineering consultant and former civil servant. The main issues in government are that specialist skills aren't rewarded only generalist skills (my skillset is work at least 3x to the private sector). Most skilled specialists leave the civil service about age 30 so they can afford to buy a house. Secondly, poorly skilled or unmotivated civil servants can't be fired. This makes everything slow and its depressing to work like that when you are skilled.
19:46 not convinced! Sounds a lot like “all consultancy is bad except for MY consultancy”. Isn’t than an argument every other consultant can make as well? Heaps of thought-provoking points nonetheless.
I also like her point on the defunding of public services as the core cause of crime increases. Another point I liked was the mentioning of a meritocracy to attract the best minds into public services.
Complete naivety here regards AI and what is happening. They are living in a bubble. Firstly computer processing uses vast amounts of fossil fuels. The continuous running of computers on a global scale produces vast amounts of CO2 and play a significant part towards climate change. Add AI processing on top of this and you are going to create not a decrease but a significant increase in CO2. Vast amounts of energy will be needed to run the kind of processing power that will be put in place for AI. Another thing AI is doing is allowing power corporations to seek out geologically every last bit of fossil fuels globally and once it is all gone it will literally all be gone. The implications of this are devastating regards the current situation we are in. Technology has increasingly become about power and control. AI will continue a trend of specific countries who have increased power because of their use of technology and within those countries a greater divide in inequality within those countries. We are currently seeing a race regards processing power between the US and China which amounts to a processing war to gain greater power of dominance. This is a Brave New World in which we live where the drug is administered to us not through a physical pill but through the push of buttons and staring at screens. The biggest understatement is Sam Altman saying "we should be a little bit scared of this."
Erudite and very timely. We need more of this, and much less of the infantilising impact of consultants on government policy implementation and administration.
I used to do a lot of contract IT work for the public sector. I pointed out that most of the work I was doing could be done very easily by the staff themselves. They agreed and replied, said with a straight face, that they paid the extra for people like me so that they couldn't be blamed if something went wrong.
Sometimes it can be silly, but sometimes it is necessary as if a private business has a hiccup oh dear the shoe shop has to close for a day or the sandwich bar needs to take cash instead of card and puts a sign up, its different if its healthcare, defence, police, energy etc they have to have all bases covered for obvious reasons. What area of the pubic sector did you work in?
Yeah dude, as a consultant myself, it’s the same in the private sector. Consultants cream it in so senior people feel they’ve covered their asses. Businesses would often be way better off building up capabilities themselves.
My partner works for a large public service provider, when contracts are negotiated, it invariably goes to the cheapest offer. To a large Indian company, were their track record is awful. Everyone knows full well that they won't deliver, both parties know no one will challenge them because it will cost too much in litigation. If the general public knew how this worked they would be horrified.
What about NHS and Hertz. Most of the failed projects coming to news are from western companies. I donot see Indian companies failing to deliver . Actually they donot get big projects. Only low work projects. Add to that , i worked in multiple projects where my Indian company got the project due to failure of western companies
Having worked as a consultant for 40 years in both public and private sectors, I can tell you that, despite all the fine words and laudable ambitions, the only thing that drives consultancy is BILLING … and making sure you can get more consultants through the door when the current contract runs out!
16:00 I'm been thinking about this, in general. What I mean is that I have serious doubts capitalism is effective when you understand that it would be cheaper to invest in education than spend money on resolving problems that the lack of that investment creates...
Krishnan makes a good point that Labour would continue privatising the NHS which the interviewee brushes off. Big mistake. Privatising the NHS is the big agenda whichever party is in office and it is the most hopelessly short-sighted idea ever thought of. This is the pinnacle of ideological think for its own sake when the NHS system proved itself superior to the American health system on two counts: 1. Co-operation between specialities. 2. Goodwill of staff. Apart from a one- payment from Boris Johnson before he was booted out as PM for saving his life the contribution the NHS has made to the health of its citizens has been conveniently forgotten
In my opinion, democracy is not a meritocracy but a method of governance that is based on a Plurality/Majority System whereby the people exercise their constitutional right to elect the government of their choice in general elections. The candidates who run for election are not required to demonstrate any particular ability to govern by virtue of experience, education, wisdom, knowledge, or understanding. The people give their consent to the elected party to govern the nation to produce the best possible outcomes. As it is not a condition precedent for any Minister to have any relevant experience or education whatsoever to hold a ministerial office, the Minister must employ suitably qualified persons to fill the competence void. Hence, modern democracies have a disproportionate reliance on suitably qualified unelected persons, let’s call them consultants, who have the apparent requisite knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to develop and implement government policy’s. These are the unelected enlightened few who inform all policy decisions and have zero accountability when said policies produce catastrophic results. One might argue therefore that the leaders in most democracies are just actors whom the public elected because they liked the future they promised. The subterfuge is cemented by calling the elected party leaders “Public Servants”. In the UK, the house to which these Public Servants perform their duties for others is called the House of Commons. One therefore cannot have democracy without consultants, and one cannot make consultants accountable for catastrophic government policies without admitting that Ministers are just puppets being manipulated in ways that they can never fathom in an environment over which they exercise no real authority because they lack the fundamental abilities to govern. Once in a blue moon the people elect a true Public Servant, a person who has wisdom and understanding. A leader with honesty and integrity, one who is wholly committed to produce the best outcomes for the nation. Our current democracies testify to the rarity of such an event, in that the leadership of our remaining Western Democracies is remarkable only for the appalling lack of wisdom and understanding within its leadership. This deficit of wisdom and understanding is also evident in the leadership of worlds largest kleptocracy, Russia, and in the monstrous personality cult of the Chinese Communist Party. Democracy, for all its shortcomings, is still the best option for governance for any nation that wishes to exercise freedom of speech, and the protection of fundamental human rights. However, as a system of governance it is under relentless attack, not only from malevolent external forces but more incredulously from within. Everyone who enjoys the endless benefits afforded to them under democratic rule should pause and take stock of this most important and precious form of governance and work to reinforce it, to make it stronger so that it will survive to serve all future generations.
I can only wish more people listened to & were influenced by Prof. Mazzucato. An amazingly insightful and digestible deconstruction of Public Service Procurement, accompanied by a well deserved kick in the proverbials to the Consultation industry. Thank goodness that the Prof. continues to teach, as this is where change truly occurs. I am truly envious of her students!
I feel like what she is describing is known to a lot of people but we don't find a way to change the nature of things. (the most dominant and often ignorant person rises to a. powerful position in a group and suffocates smart but timid voices)
Prof Mazzucato's great strength is her clear analysis and she explains herself in ways which any sensible person can understand. Thank God Starmer has been listening to her. Unfortunately, Streeting doesn't seem to get it.
This is one of the most important conversations I've heard in years, Mariana Mazzucato is an absolute hiero for the kind of attitude we need across every sector of public and private relations.
Problem with government is they’re slow to change and lazy to understand new developments. Mainly due to all the people you need to go through to make change. Why are we having a yank who lives in rich London telling us how our society economy works 😂
Same problem here in Australia. A decade of hard right government and the brain drain from the public service has been extreme… And PWC now in the news for sharing confidential advice from the government on tax policy with their clients…
The notion that competition leads to efficiency and quality is mythology. Cooperation is a higher value and everything that Marianna talks about is that cooperation and organization leads to goal attainment. Not competition.
The way she says so matter-of-factly that there will be more viruses when the permafrost melts is just silly. Thats like borderline science fiction. I get it, its a legit theory but why does she say it with such certainty lol its just trying to sound smart.
I agree with this woman, Governments need to be in control, that's why we vote for them. But integrity is important, Boris told lies which caused people to vote in ways they would not have.
She has an agenda, watch her at the WEF, they say the pish to vaccinate the planet didn't work and suggests, rather than keep up with the climate issue they ought to use a world wide water shortage instead to instill fear & get our attention by targeting especially school children. What an abhorrent and evil agenda. This is full blown Bolshevism-Cultural Marxism.
Is the age of consulting firm will end. Actually those are doing the actual job are getting paid less. Big bosses are taking huge salaries. Raising inequalities.Govt should open up door to good people. I agree on it. There should be balance. Otherwise consulting firm keep on taking risk and can create disaster
Excellent interview! So true the government is fixing short term problems and creating more long term problems for the next governments. Middle class is getting poor. Taxing on ordinary people but not taxing big corporations is the problem with the government.
Those problems come to survives just in time for an election, so naturally you campaign to have the solutions. This has been western politics for eternity. Two parties taking turns. 😂
What’s going to happen when generation rent are all 80 and need full time nursing home care. They Won’t be any houses to sell to find it. That future government are well and truly f*****d. But hey at least millions of landlords got a good ride.
There's nothing to be done about it in the long term.
It's called 'starve the beast' in the USA.
@do not reply dumb people maybe the money taxed from corps can go into a pot(s) to fund certain things that help fix the country. For example, if the government are saying they can't afford to give the NHS more money, then the tax from corps can be invested into the NHS, go towards doctors/nurses/training/mental health centres etc. Where would we be without our health, its one of the most important things. Also money should be spread throughout the country (up north) not just London. Just my thoughts...this is a really interesting interview.
00:00 The economy is influenced by how the public and private sectors are governed and their interrelationship.
00:10 A reactive government and profit-maximizing private sector with problematic relationship lead to a problematic economy.
00:40 Marianna Mazzucato, an economics professor, discusses the impact of consultants on businesses, governments, and economies.
01:25 Consultants are advisors who bring expertise to various sectors, including climate change and health
03:09 The government's attempt to run everything in the 70s led to a broken country. The private sector also makes mistakes, but civil servants are blamed more. Learning from mistakes is important, and there has been an ideology that values the business sector over government.
03:32 The private sector often brags about their mistakes, while civil servants are criticized. Learning from mistakes is crucial, and being a learning organization is important. There has been an ideology that values
05:34 NASA worked with businesses in various sectors to overcome challenges and achieve the moon landing.
05:42 Outsourcing brainpower without proper knowledge and contracts can lead to mistakes and inefficiencies.
06:01 The Consulting industry's influence on government contracts has infantilized Whitehall, hindering learning and capacity building.
06:38 Lord Agnew, a conservative
08:07 The problem is not having a new narrative or making the existing one softer. We need government and the private sector to work together for a better economy.
10:43 AstraZeneca is a good example of a well-negotiated deal.
10:52 Governments need to be good at negotiating and investing in deals.
11:03 Austerity is not the main issue, but rather the destruction of public organizations.
11:14 It can take
12:54 The core role of a university is not central to what it does. The core role of a government and health system matters. Government expertise is important for solving problems.
13:13 Government's past failures lead to a lack of confidence in their own competence. Dominic Cummings highlighted the need to change how government bureaucracy is built.
13:46 Creating dynamic and creative bureaucracies is important. NASA changed its bureaucracy to reach the moon. Geeks are willing to join government if its remit is different.
15:25 Making the economy inclusive and sustainable, benefiting as many people as possible.
15:32 The importance of having different representatives of the people making decisions.
15:44 Considering both big and small governments when thinking about who decides what's good for the people.
15:58 Austerity measures created social problems and had a negative impact
18:05 The curriculum fed to bureaucrats globally is framed as fixing market failures, but government failures are worse. Fear of risk prevents experimentation and learning.
18:27 Steve Chu left Stanford to become a civil servant not for money, but for the mission to make the world a better place.
18:43 Being a civil servant means helping steer and collaborate with the private sector to improve society, not just facilitate.
20:42 Consultants cannot solve sustainability and inequality issues. Governments should seek advice, but there may be conflicts of interest and lack of transparency.
20:55 More experts are needed to help and advise, regardless of sector. The key is deep expertise, conflict of interest, and transparency.
21:22 Consulting companies often have conflicts of interest by consulting on both sides. Transparency is crucial in consulting relationships.
23:07 Opportunity and luck played a role in my success as an author. The book I wrote in 2013, 'The Entrepreneurial State,' influenced the UK government's industrial strategy. I also helped change the European Commission's approach to inclusive and sustainable growth.
23:25 The UK government's industrial strategy shifted from sector-focused to challenge-focused, with a focus on clean growth, healthy aging, sustainable mobility, and the day-to-day economy. I collaborated with Greg Clark and David Willetts on a commission for mission-oriented innovation and industrial strategy.
25:28 The 17 sustainable development goals are about designing policy to foster cross-sectoral investment and innovation. Government levers like procurement, budgeting, grants, and loans are used to galvanize bottom-up experimentation.
25:56 The clarity of goals is important to determine if they have been achieved. Some goals, like those related to health and climate inequality, are too broad to answer with a simple yes or no.
27:54 Risks and rewards of privatization and socializing rewards. Better pricing strategy for drugs to save taxpayers. Obama's green direction with guaranteed loans to companies like Tesla and Solyndra. Government picking up the bill for failed companies. Inequity in energy companies' massive rents and executive pay.
28:00 Retaining equity in investments. Criticism of Obama's handling of Tesla. Government steering fiscal stimulus in a green direction. Tesla receiving a guaranteed loan of $465 million. Solyndra's bankruptcy and the government's $500 million loss. The need for a smarter loan
29:57 Our form of capitalism is financialized, but the state has lost faith in itself. Financialization affects the financial sector, real estate, and insurance. The business sector doesn't reinvest in the economy or a greener economy.
30:36 Sweden's mission for school meals is to make them healthy, tasty, and sustainable. This aligns with their goal of a fossil-free welfare state. The supply chain for school meals needs to be green, requiring innovation and transformation.
32:14 Solving problems requires collaboration with other actors, not just bureaucracy. Dismantling the cartoon image of the bureaucratic vs. cool Elon Musk is essential for change.
32:31 Mariana Mascato shares her way to change the world. Collaboration and embracing craziness are key.
Thank you, much appreciated!
Not only has Mariana got a great engaging writing style, but also has a real understanding of whatever she writes about. As seen in her passion and heard in her fluid train of thought when questioned. No BS, Mazzucato ( I bet her children get away with absolutely nothing).
Highly recommend; 'The Values of Everything' if you want to get an overview of neoliberal thought both politically and economically, explaining why for example, a simple change in the early 20th Century had the later consequence of money received via rent (owning an asset be it land , patents, copyrights) becoming part of the measure of GDP, when in fact rent does not produce a product, it's as the classical economists, Marx and Keynes saw it, it's a fixed part of a products eventual negotiated price, and not as Marshalls marginal utility would have it as what people are prepared to pay, even rent. I will always think of marginal utility when ever buy a mars bar. Remembering the first one that quashes the hunger has the greatest value, whereas the 10th not so.
She is a hypocrite. Why doesn't she work for the govt for 5 years? She can teach rest of her life.
She says students should be inspired by Steve Chu's example but she herself is not.
@@vivekbagaria3324hater
@@vivekbagaria3324 Maybe because she has come to a typical Mariama rational conclusion that for her as an academic, with a passion for teaching/encouraging and obvious skill for writing, this is the most effective way to communicate to many within the Civil Service (and I think I may have read this as well).
Or maybe you didn't like what she had to say as it affected the world you reside in?
This is fine, but maybe just say so rather than basic nay-saying.
So many key points made in this single interview. Superb... Joined up thinking personified. Education vs prison a classic truism.
This talk was FANTASTIC! I could listen to Mariana for hours - a fresh, balanced, strategic view of big issues in our economies 👍🏼
Balanced??? Hardly Marxist tendencies and anti capitalist. She has some good ideas around procurement that is the biggest issue within the nhs. Not the need for more money it has plenty but uses it so poorly. The way she said Tory over how she spoke about labour showed her bias. That said I did enjoy the video but it wasn’t an interview more sales pitch
@@MrDunkycraig Biases are nuanced, not coarse or firm. Is it anti-capitalist to expect your government to work more closely with companies for more efficient outcomes?
Absolutely agree, I don't even know how I stumbled on this talk, but I was hooked very quickly. This talk is at an intellectual level completely foreign to most voters, or even representatives..
Your nuts just like her
Two of the biggest value generators in the last 50 years, Internet and GPS, didn’t come from the private sector. Ditto all the standards that allow all this tech to interwork. Great interview. Totally agree on the early points on procurement and the need to retain skills as well…. Money comes and goes, organisational competence doesn’t. Killer quote for me.
Great interview. As my late dad used to say "She knows her onions."
love how she explains problems when companies or governments are "outsourcing their brains". Such as eventually you can't even create or review contracts with third parties anymore. I also very much like her views of what should be our priorities such as creating a sustainable economy which benefits as many people as possible. Of course you can have lots of arguments what that economy should look like. But you need people on your team who are smart enough to have serious outcome oriented discussions. At least here in the US we miss one chance after another to send people to congress who have the intellectual capabilities to make constructive contributions. My hope is that eventually we overcome that. I wish that people like Miss Mazzucato are heard and included in determining policies as opposed to creating labels for anything you do not like ("woke", "communist", ....) with many people not even knowing what those terms mean.
The only expertise most "consultants" have is in working their way into lucrative contracts, and managing them. When someone says "I am a consultant" without immediately following that with the area of deep expertise they bring to their work should be treated with the deepest suspicion.
Do Trouble Shooters still exist ? They were/are Experts.
I agree with you, they're 'experts' at seeking the most lucrative contracts.
I've had enough of so called 'consultants', I've ended up having to educate myself to am expert level as some of the ones I've delt with have proven to be incompetent & very costly.
Great interview, Mariana knows her stuff and is very inspiring!
Their stuff!
Yep, UCL is a world top 10 institution across at least 10 subjects so not too surprising.
Great program and fascinating guest, but it is best to NEVER interrupt the guest, especially a scholar
RS. Canada
Great coverage. ‘American Amnesia’ (Pierson & Hacker, 2016) covers this well too, from the American perspective but it’s all the same neoliberalism. Thank you!
Great, stimulating interview. So refreshing to hear a spirited defence of government's role. The only detraction was the interviewer's jacket? Why is he wearing a navy blue tyre?
I work in tech and have had some exposure to consultants, consulting as part of transformation. There are some greet people, doing great work. From what I've experienced it's more the people who hire the consultants, with the intention of making things, faster, more productive and deliver results. The talent is there (private sector), within the organisations, its just that time is money and when something doesn't materialise then its almost better to engage consultants for how it looks, without fully knowing if it makes a material difference or not. I agree with the points made here..
"then its almost better to engage consultants for how it looks" can you elaborate this a bit?
Im not sure what kind of transformation you have, but it is basicly used for all sorts of things... Im in operational duties(daily maintenance) as consultant.
For what I see though is quality goes down over time coz other company stays hostage to one company running their daily operations but the runner cuts cost by reducing their staff or switching them to more junior(cheaper, less valuable ) over time. You're right, key is who are making those decisions, but they may not choose people but companies, thus they cant decide in very high detail.
@@effexon If a company is running operations of another company... then the company is no longer in the consulting business. There is a distinction between BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) and Consulting. What happens is that many of the Consulting companies also have (different) divisions which are involved in BPO because it is a more predictive and steady revenue stream.
Refreshing and plenty to chew about.
This woman rocks it. Love her interviews.
She nailed it...... Actors. The better the actor, the better the con.
Very interesting perspective!
Fantastic talk
For "consulting industry" read "charm school". 😇(Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉
I albsolutely love this woman and her explanations for our current situation together with her solutions based mindset.
You would think this sort of approach to setting up public contracts to private companies would have been self explanatory. And obviously you can see that the ineptitude of those that setup these contracts is apparently limitless. Take one example, the Water Companies of England that were privatised. They have handed out tens of billions in profit to shareholders over the years, in spite of failures like release of raw sewage into the rivers and seas around the UK, and ailing old systems leaking water all over the place, while imposing hosepipe bans on end users. Anyone with half a brain would have set these contracts up with the sort of penalties that would have ensured the CEO and exec level operators in these companies were investing in the development and improvement of the infrastructure. Instead what we get are hopeless "regulators" that impose fines that do nothing to improve anything, and are not punitive enough to stop the companies from still being able to hand out profit to the shareholder instead of investing in the networks. Utterly incompetent, and it results in us going round and round the same merry-go-round ad nauseam.
great talk. than you!
Marianna, they need you in Argentina. I think they would really appreciate your Economic Philosophy and Social Values.
That steering worked great!
What an inspirational person, I feel nurtured and enlightened. Thank you Channel 4 for making this happen.
If you want to see examples look at Asia. In Asia, government employees are sought after, respected and probably well paid.
I admire the way Singapore is set up, at least on paper. Worked with builders for a while. There was a housing project across from one of our sites. Place had been built 20 years prior and was unoccupied, having been declared unfit for human habitation. It was in a neighbourhood where it was surrounded by century homes. My boss at the time commented that it frustrated him because he knew he could easily have turned a profit while getting the right people to maintain it, but everything was controlled by people with political connections. Public housing here is a bit of a meme as housing goes, but it is an excellent jobs program. The builders who know the developers who know and donate to the politicians get the contracts. If they can get some diversity Becky of an architect who leaves a blueprint riddled with errors, so much the better, that then becomes time and materials. The maintenance guys get to be low level patronage picks, as if the entire structure degrades, it means a contract to have it demolished, and a contract to have it replaced. Then the cycle can repeat itself. In Singapore, on the other hand, with their lack of land, they would beat you black and blue for acting like the affordable housing maintenance guys, shoot you for acting like the politicians, and are able to have a system where housing projects are the default place people live, except for the ultra-rich. However, becoming a Singapore is difficult, since nobody all ready involved in a less strict system wants to be caned or shot for carrying on as they have in the past.
The government department for digital is still using an emulated version of Windows XP to run its modelling software.....
0:00 I took this as “people do things, which in aggregate is the economy “
It is perhaps worth looking up the etymology of the word "economy"
How much does the UK public sector spend on external consultants per year?
E-mail has infantalised government:
- Why do I have to see the e-nail?
- Why didn't I see the e-mail?
- Why was I cc-ed i n the e-mail?
- Why was I not cc-ed in the e-mail?
- Why was my boss or subordinate cc-ed in the mail .... or why not?
Why did you send me this e-mail to CYA?
Bla-bla-bla... I am not empowered...I've been infantilised. A large part of my job is e-mail dumpster-diving.
I feel in compact form problem in europe is reactive policies. Nobody thinks ahead policies, plans (or if they do, those are so coarse grained it is impossible to comment when things change a bit by trends or perception of change). Then everyone acts busy doing something and even makes up new "something" for themselves and others to do, thus resulting in overburden. Dunno why it has been that when experts, common people, communities have suggested some plans, those are avoided. This similar things shows in many corporations too, leadership dont have big vision, just lots of data and basicly reactions. Some of course do, but perhaps in limited scope of aspects. As a result US companies and chinese companies more and more have taken even those markets like car manufacturing traditionally strong in some european countries. EU is good for some aspects like unified regulatory framework but for this leadership problem big bureacratic system like that cant give good answer. Europe as a whole (like individual countries also) have huge variety of experts already so skillsets and training are not issue and like Mariana said, we cant expect some magical expert from faraway lands to come and give us answer coz it is inherently local, context tied one.
For some countries like Belgium, you have some people in the government, it can be easily noticed that they do not have enough cognitive capabilities to think strategically, to plan projects scaling over even short term period like 5 years and to execute them with the respect of time and budget. It is easier for them to play the cards of victimization, communautarism for example to attact voters.
somewhat "externalizing their brains" is required.
The point she doesn’t cover is the fundamental desire to share, not hoard, resources. How do we motivate the greedy to quit being greedy? All else follows. The ‘core roles’ for governments presently is to line pockets, foster poverty and then depoliticise the poor.
The economy is the outcome of how the wealth is distributed.
Finance industry does not add value to the economy. It simply increases inflation. Therefor it's "profits" should not be allowed to be counted as and added to the Gross National Income. That would change the perspective to reality.
She should've spoke more on the financial system, ie the sheer amount of derivatives we've got chasing after a $1.00 dollar bill which is causing unsustainable debt levels in the entire financial system. I know we're talking about the UK, but we need to look at the global financial system as dollars is the global reserve currency. In the USA we've got homelessness on the rise with overdoses reaching 100,000 deaths a year. While Wall-street gets high on cocaine and is pushing the FED to halt fighting inflation.
Swinging back to the UK:
I couldn't believe the incompetence with PPE gear, I resided in China from 2011 - 2016 and know all to well that the UK gov't failed to follow procedure to outsource in Asia.
Then we got Liz Truss, {who I'm a fan off} She tried to bring the conservative way back again by cutting taxes. On the same day the FED caused global equites and the bond market to sell off. Did Truss add a log to the fire in the UK, she sure did. Unfortunately she failed to push the idea of "growth" which can get us out of high inflation.
Now we're stuck with Hunt who is raising taxes while pushing single mothers, Gen X and even disabled people back into work. The UK gov't is a joke.
A classic pattern is people leaving a company and being hired back as consultants.
Have you ever seen a parliamentary meeting? The consulting industry didn't infantilize them, they were already infantilized and the consulting industry has simply taken advantage of it.
And now there's much of ChatGPT's eloquence, not necessarily scientifically, socially and ecologically useful committed to the long-term public interest, in the products sold by economic advisers. Their profits will skyrocket. But the common people of the poor peripheries in all countries will suffer the most.
I can't believe she's actually saying that somehow U.S. government employees are under compensated. She's also missing the point that political orientation and ideology is now a determining factor in who is hired into government---i.e. identity politics, at the expense of technical competence.
Switched off when the professor states (time stamp 7:30) that one success of the pandemic was rolling out 8 different (implies successful) vaccines - really!!
No one is trying to make the world a better place.
Cant wait for the new virus to just appear out of the ice hahahahh
The scary part is that more and more private companies outsource their brains and decision making to the same group of consultant. That leads to entire companies have all kind of managers and other talkers but no people who actually produce something.
And also a massive lack of creativity and diverse approaches to a problem.
Just look at how much of a meme the IMF is. All they can prescribe is one solution. To everything. Of course this is also by design, but it's a good example of the same people just recycling the same solution to every damn problem.
I can relate to what the Prof is saying. For many years early in my career I worked for large consulting firms, advising clients from a wide spectrum of industries. All we could really contribute was independence and contingency capacity, not expertise; our engagement was simply too wide and diverse. Thirteen years ago I joined a state agency doing project finance and infrastructure. Now I have specialized in a strategically important field, and I have a sense that I am adding real value in shaping policy and strategy. My colleagues and I are doing what the state should be doing on a vast scale. It all starts with attracting and developing talented people, and putting them on a mission.
Consultants are there primarily as a blame avoiding tool. Any report or action proposed by a consultant for any politician or leader in the economy can simply be a huge source of browny points if the proposal turns out to be great success, otherwise it can be blamed totally on the consultant thus avoiding any negative impact on the politician. (Many leaders in business are huge politicians so don't think that they only exist in Westminster) They're prime focus is career progression..
And that's the, "prime" problem. But I disagree to the extent that many if not most consultancy projects that fail don't necessarily garner any lasting media attention, as they are the antithesis of titillating. They, and the public money thrown at them, descend into a vast dark memory hole of spin and consultant speak, never to be heard of again.
Consultants also typically do not have an agenda of why their client should do something. Actors within the organization are likely to have an agenda. This makes the Consultants "neutral" at least on paper. In reality, it depends. At the end of the day, consulting companies also want repeat business. But even then, they have to maintain a sense of impartiality and objective in case there are audits.
I think a lot too, at least with service contracts - is short termism and using project budgets to fill staffing gaps - again temporarily at first, but then the contracts get extended and renewed again and again.....
Very well put. As a former consultant I would add that governments and corporations often need somebody to merely “justify” their agenda. They don’t want an objective output. As the professor pointed out in this interview, one cannot imagine giving contracts out to the Big 4 about the “benefits of brexit” without thinking about the political agenda and stance of that question. A decision like Brexit is a purely political and sentimental decision made by the people - whether it’s on migration, deregulation, the economy - that is secondary. After all the “benefits” is simply done to sound like you know what you’re doing. It’s just evolved bullshit in my opinion. In my country, India, politicians don’t bother with consultants for their agenda. They blatantly say whatever the people want to hear and aren’t scared to completely demean and “other” a community. The UK politicians arguably rely on consultants and dog whistling to talk to their voters.
Damned intelligent Woman, excellent interview. Comes across as one who very much lives outside the box.
Sighs a vocabulary composed entirely of other people's/s clichés is so tiresome and apelike(imitative)
It appears that the government are the ones living out of the box.
@@vhawk1951kl the structure of this sentence cracks me up in an unreasonable way
@@ytpanda398 It is very dear of you to say so. We all have our handicaps, mine being old age and slowly going blind, while yours are rather more obvious. It is my experiences that the lower classes struggle with the complex compound sentences employed by their betters, because generally speaking they have the attention span of goldfish. and being mostly imbeciles have little or no learning and fewer wits, by virtue of their breeding, so of course they struggle with Milton Shakespeare and Walter Scott.(and with that latter who does not struggle?)
It is a matter of culture and the people of some nations and in particular their lower classes, simply have none.
@@ytpanda398 Oh I would not trouble your woolly little head with bullshit about the structure of sentences, if I were you; it is my experience that the lower classes cannot cope with the complex compound sentences of their betters which require not just wits and learning, but rather better breeding than you enjoy titch. Your servant here present is very old and was brought up by Victorians and is familiar with a world of literature and culture with which you could never hope to cope given your very obvious handicap.
In my experience the use of 'fads' by consultants from sectors such MBA's infantilises what are often complex social contexts in which we work. In particular an emphasis on marketing 'jargon' based on the latest fads to decision makers. Examples I have encountered include the latest positive psychology trends or poorly delivered design thinking or social enterprise iniatives. Another example is enormous amounts of money spent on high level visioning exercises which produce a beautiful graphically designed visioning document with little thought put into the processes (reality) needed to deliver programmes and how these connect to outcomes. This emphasis on high level jargon and visioning leads to magical thinking - that outcomes will somehow magically appear because we did visioning. Some business consultants seem to lack an understanding that process is needed to connect purpose (vision) to outcomes. Alot more time and effort needs to be spent on designing and managing process. Particularly processes that include reality testing over time so we can adapt programmes to best meet the needs of communities.
But that is boring for consultants lol.
yeah, but working the hard work on a well made process takes time, more time than the politician's tenure of 4-5 years. That's the real issue. No one wants to take the time to do stuff as it should be done anymore, it's just deadline deadline deadline, and every new deadline MUST BE sooner than the previous deadline.
been shouting this for years.
@@strugglingengineer1465 Yes and then you end up with frontline staff having to work 'with whats happening above them', 'around whats happening above them' and 'despite whats happening above them'. While those above them who dont even seem to know much about the reality thats happening on the ground end up spending their time writing reports to each other. And the problem with reports in the sector I work in is that reports cant feed people, they cant house people, they cant get health care to people or support people. Resources end up being fossilized in reports before they have a chance to even get to the community.
Totally agree with your analysis Sarah. In New Zealand we have a lot of this "magical thinking" in key Government policies. Best examples found in our national transport plan.
But our Government was outstandingly successful in its response to Covid in 2020.
Why? Because our Prime Minister listened to our Director General of Health, [Dr Ashley Bloomfield] trusted him, and acted on his best professional advice.
Illustrating points made in this interview perfectly - in a positive way.
I left a consulting career, took a massive pay cut, and went into the public sector.
Mostly it was so I could look myself in the mirror, but also because it was important work. And given the terrible brain drain and reliance on consultants, I could call bullshit on a lot of the consultant’s work as I know how they think :)
But governments are their own worst enemy by prioritising the hiring of graduates. Better to let them go out and earn experience and then come to government with skills to offer. There is a massive problem with the government being a training ground for graduates and then they go off elsewhere. It’s a massive waste of resources, and worse the ones that stay go their whole career with no idea how the world works….
I think many people in the public sector became experts in perception management and internal politics. There is no more time to build up real-world knowledge to solve complex problems if their focus is only on power and climbing up the ladder. The politicians in almost any government today are the top-shots of this fatal development. They are now perfect clients for all the PowerPoint consultants.
Have you ever worked in a corporation? That’s what you are describing…
@@jackjackthompson5771 yes, I did. You are absolutely right. Many corporations have developed the same toxic culture.
Isn't this basically how all private industry also works?
I work in public sector management and you are spot on.
“PPT consultants”hahaha, touché.
All things she suggested can only be possible if the government cares about its people. So it would yo-yo between different parties and administrations.
This woman is so right. She is obviously way more intelligent than most of the vile commenters in this thread so far. Wish starmer would read her book- we need to invest, build and grow the public services not rely on the private sector- it doesnt work!
I saw an interview with Darren Jones MP (Labour) who is chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. He was asked what the Industrial Strategy is right now, and he said "this Conservative government doesn't seem to have one".
Fortunately he knows that, along with other members he is an expert, and hopefully we'll see good commitments in that area leading up to the election.
@Phil You are obviously not listening to her. Stop looking in the wrong direction. You think like the Tories who can only see through their prejudiced lens.
@Phil Where do you get the idea that the PS have no reason to do their jobs properly? So much of the PS now is cheap labour from 3rd party contractors. What's left is disillusioned as they can see how much money is being syphoned off to these contracting agencies whilst there's apparently not enough money to pay a decent wage.
@Phil But clearly the answer to that isn't contracting in people who are even less accountable to the public. The answer lies in greater resources for community involvement in government as well as greater local devolution so that everyday citizens can hold government accountable on complex issues that can't get into the national conversation
@@safebans1369 Greater resources! Lol! Spending more money we haven't got.
How about we start by cutting back on the stuff we really don't need and have the government live within its means. Do you think we can all work for the NHS? 31million people working for the NHS and 1million in farming, food distribution and exporting industry? Or do you think there might be physical limits to how many people can work for the public sector depending on our balance of trade? That's not economics, by the way, that's accountancy.
It's so obvious what she's saying. This is just a conversation about corruption, money for nothing. And is the public / private distinction real, meaningful, or just medieval thinking baked into democracy
Ive had McKinsey come in and had to teach the consultants that had no clue what they were doing, so they could make a PPT that then the CFO also had me remake for the board. So I literally did everything they should have done, but C suite just wants the sticker that they used “the best”. All the while I did everything for barely 6 figures, they charged 8 figures 🤷🏻♂️
Amazing interview. In France, we went through a national scandal in 2022 caused by the overwhelming reliance of government agencies on consulting firms which existed before Covid but was made worse by the pandemic. I thought it was a French phenom caused by Macron's neoliberal economic doctrine, but it is widespread. Quite worrying!
Governments all over the world spend billions on consultants, mostly US/UK Big Businesses Consultants. They always say : Privatize, less tax on Businesses, less protection for employees etc. We vote for a government, but what we get are oligarchs governing the governments.
It is not just governments of course, the businesses are "infected" by the consulting virus. I saw it first hand when the new leadership in my company hired Boston Consulting Group so called experts, who did not know much at all about our industry sector or the real needs of our company and after being extremely well paid, they came up with a "bespoke" solution : "you need to make redundancies". A few months later the market started to grow dramatically and we are still trying to find replacement for all the experienced workers we lost as a consequence of the "experts".
I’ve worked on a engineering level with a quasi public body that spans the UK, the ineptitude was startling. Vast sums of money thrown at projects that hadn’t been engineered correctly, not commissioned fully and ultimately provided both the public and the institution a vastly over priced under performing solution. I have visited most of the early sites built back in the late 60s and early 70s and they are well built, similar in design and tech across the country, perfect solutions. Something has gone wrong in the 50 years since.
Outsider looking in: The Government has since the 80s an unparalleled belief in private companies. They aren't here for the next decennia but for the next quarter. See the water companies. So a lot of money is siphoned off to the shareholders and CEO's.
The rest the state has to do, or couldn't outsource, has always be done on the cheap. Look at the roads, look at the NHS (
.yet again another young/fresh/dynamic/ambitious "economist" who believes that Capitalism can be saved from self destruction- if only governments become more imaginative/creative. I have a lot to criticise her with , but THE most important one is this: If Capitalism is global and it's forces act globally, then how can "governments" confront the huge storm of global forces- especially in the third world? And what about the destructive power of the Global Debt ?
Superb talk, great work from Channel Four giving a platform to such an erudite and original thinker. It's long since seemed the case that the modern liberal-conservative penchant for outsourcing serves primarily to absolve governments of responsibility and to transfer public funds to private interests; and only incidentally to tackle whatever issue at hand.
and in the UK they give the contracts to their donors or friends.
And the reverse side of this, as Prof MM said, is that it allows business interests and money to capture the state and its public servants.
What a fascinating interview! I'm off to buy her latest book.
" If we keep outsourcing our brain to other actors...we will ultimately get captured by brochuremanship." AMEN.
17:30 “I don’t actually believe that young people go to GS, Google, etc. just because they are getting paid more”
So I'm early 30s and this is the reason every one of my friends mentioned when they went to industry. Hate to pop the bubble but it is about the pay. Inflation running rife, student debt, housing costs sky high... after student life it is most definitely about the money!
Yes, this was the part of the video I disagreed with
'the economy is the output of what we do' the best explanation ever given.
It is not any kind of explanation but rather a truism or statement of the obvious
Might be interesting for you to read Karl Polanyi on the embeddedness of markets then (for example in The Great Transformation). Prof Mazzucato refers to his work quite frequently when talking about markets/economies as outcomes. :)
lol. Not true. I don't think we had anything to do with the economical impact of the huge earthquake that hit turkey. The economy is the output of many events out of our control, and some others that are within it
Gross oversimplification. No understanding of how the bidding on the long and shorts of the futures market work which has a huge impact on the world economy while producing no tangible output per se. Just looking into Soros and his intervention in this area nearly destroyed the Greek economy is well worth considering.
Sounds like a consultant.
Im a reformed strategic consultant running my own business (boo! hiss! ;) and I found this topic really very interesting. My own business is small and most of our consulting comes from subject matter expertise. But, our advice is just that, advice. Our successes have come from where the talent within the organization pick up an idea from us and then run with it themselves. Good businesses/ institutions are ultimately only as strong as the people (and culture) within them making the key decisions. However, I've started seeing a disturbing trend in my area of healthcare which I think the interviewee rightly focuses on - the OUTSOURCING of critical decision making to monolithic 'consultancies' that are anything but consulting in their activities. Their footprint and influence at the board level has enabled them to hoover up huge amounts of work, and they have successfully blurred the line between advisory and outsourcing functions. These consultancies have very little accountability for their actions - ultimately the business has to carry the can for their remote decision making. As for the topic of talent / brain drains - it staggers me that businesses and institutions would rather pay a 24 year old ivy league grad to make decisions with limited real-world experience of a business or environment, yet not trust the talent that sits within their own companies. These consultancies have created a mirage that they contain all the talent and intellect required to grow businesses, when in reality they have nowhere near the capability set required
I learnt this sometime ago, If you outsource something entirely you lose the ability to determine if the person you outsource to is ripping you off or doing a good job or just making reasonable mistakes. I've seen this since the 90s in manufacturing. You should always retain some capacity internally, and use outsourcing to build capacity, that applies to businesses and countries,. Its not black and white simplistic. There is no point in building resistors if your business is TVs, but contracting out building entirely leave you with no expertise. You have to carefully choose what "needs" expertise and can benefit flexibility or competition.
Very good interview. Thanks to both.
You see this a lot in higher ed in the U.S. too. Lots of outsourcing and agencies vs. actually hiring competent specialists internally. It's a great shame.
One of the issues with government in the UK (especially the current one - ministers have literally publicly stated that they don't want more experts) is that they actually loathe the fact that they need the Civil Service to exist in order to implement their ideological programmes; they hate the fact that it was there before they were in charge, will be there after they are gone, and has an institutional obligation , both legal and moral, to the country and not just to the individuals that make up any particular government. They don't want a Civil Service that has the institutional knowledge to call out nonsense. Because they're the ones in charge, and the peons only exist to do what they say. So they drop in Consultants who are being paid to tell them that their ideas are the best ideas in the history of ideas. This hollowing out of the Civil Service's expertise is a deliberate policy to further their authoritarian ideological goals; for them it's a feature and not a bug.
Just watching the video now and came across this comment. Hard agree. I was a public servant for the first part of my career, then in an arm's-length public institution, and it's not just political leaders (particularly on the right) who dislike the public service who often advises against - or at least tries to modify - certain political platforms. Even leaders within bureaucratic organizations often hate receiving advice if it is not in alignment with their preferred solution. Civil servants - the good ones - have really deep understanding of issues both from a policy and a process/program perspective because they bridge the thinking/implementing divide. It is easier to hire consultants to "order up" specific kinds of advice that suits the direction of leadership/politicians and conveniently sidesteps the kind of expert advice that can challenge a political agenda. I think it would be culturally better for leaders to be more open to taking advice and then going against it if they really think they have a better perspective. I do not think on leaders must follow bureaucratic advice, but I think they need to give it reasonable consideration, and then have the guts to wear their decision.
How refreshing! We need more of this in the UK - it sometimes feels a though we are in a death spiral of faliours and learn nothing.
I'm an engineering consultant and former civil servant. The main issues in government are that specialist skills aren't rewarded only generalist skills (my skillset is work at least 3x to the private sector). Most skilled specialists leave the civil service about age 30 so they can afford to buy a house.
Secondly, poorly skilled or unmotivated civil servants can't be fired. This makes everything slow and its depressing to work like that when you are skilled.
@@knotyourguru you, sir, are a bore
I’ve watched a few interviews with Mariana, she’s whipsmart and doesn’t mince her words. I wish this tinpot government would listen to her.
Great interview! I'll definitely need to pick up her book.
Clarity of thought. Absolutely brilliant.
19:46 not convinced! Sounds a lot like “all consultancy is bad except for MY consultancy”. Isn’t than an argument every other consultant can make as well?
Heaps of thought-provoking points nonetheless.
"To reduce the digital divide"; that sounds awesome to me.
I also like her point on the defunding of public services as the core cause of crime increases.
Another point I liked was the mentioning of a meritocracy to attract the best minds into public services.
Excellent points and great discussion.
Complete naivety here regards AI and what is happening. They are living in a bubble. Firstly computer processing uses vast amounts of fossil fuels. The continuous running of computers on a global scale produces vast amounts of CO2 and play a significant part towards climate change. Add AI processing on top of this and you are going to create not a decrease but a significant increase in CO2. Vast amounts of energy will be needed to run the kind of processing power that will be put in place for AI. Another thing AI is doing is allowing power corporations to seek out geologically every last bit of fossil fuels globally and once it is all gone it will literally all be gone. The implications of this are devastating regards the current situation we are in. Technology has increasingly become about power and control. AI will continue a trend of specific countries who have increased power because of their use of technology and within those countries a greater divide in inequality within those countries. We are currently seeing a race regards processing power between the US and China which amounts to a processing war to gain greater power of dominance. This is a Brave New World in which we live where the drug is administered to us not through a physical pill but through the push of buttons and staring at screens. The biggest understatement is Sam Altman saying "we should be a little bit scared of this."
Erudite and very timely. We need more of this, and much less of the infantilising impact of consultants on government policy implementation and administration.
I used to do a lot of contract IT work for the public sector. I pointed out that most of the work I was doing could be done very easily by the staff themselves. They agreed and replied, said with a straight face, that they paid the extra for people like me so that they couldn't be blamed if something went wrong.
Sometimes it can be silly, but sometimes it is necessary as if a private business has a hiccup oh dear the shoe shop has to close for a day or the sandwich bar needs to take cash instead of card and puts a sign up, its different if its healthcare, defence, police, energy etc they have to have all bases covered for obvious reasons. What area of the pubic sector did you work in?
Yeah dude, as a consultant myself, it’s the same in the private sector. Consultants cream it in so senior people feel they’ve covered their asses. Businesses would often be way better off building up capabilities themselves.
wow she's awesome! Haven't heard of her before but there's so much sense in what's she's proposing, especially about procurement.
My partner works for a large public service provider, when contracts are negotiated, it invariably goes to the cheapest offer. To a large Indian company, were their track record is awful. Everyone knows full well that they won't deliver, both parties know no one will challenge them because it will cost too much in litigation. If the general public knew how this worked they would be horrified.
What about NHS and Hertz. Most of the failed projects coming to news are from western companies. I donot see Indian companies failing to deliver . Actually they donot get big projects. Only low work projects. Add to that , i worked in multiple projects where my Indian company got the project due to failure of western companies
Having worked as a consultant for 40 years in both public and private sectors, I can tell you that, despite all the fine words and laudable ambitions, the only thing that drives consultancy is BILLING … and making sure you can get more consultants through the door when the current contract runs out!
16:00 I'm been thinking about this, in general. What I mean is that I have serious doubts capitalism is effective when you understand that it would be cheaper to invest in education than spend money on resolving problems that the lack of that investment creates...
capitalism needs fairness (equal opportunity with no favors) and transparency (where the money goes). without it it's cronyism and fascism.
Good and informative talk.
Thank you.
Krishnan makes a good point that Labour would continue privatising the NHS which the interviewee brushes off. Big mistake. Privatising the NHS is the big agenda whichever party is in office and it is the most hopelessly short-sighted idea ever thought of. This is the pinnacle of ideological think for its own sake when the NHS system proved itself superior to the American health system on two counts: 1. Co-operation between specialities. 2. Goodwill of staff.
Apart from a one- payment from Boris Johnson before he was booted out as PM for saving his life the contribution the NHS has made to the health of its citizens has been conveniently forgotten
The consulting industry much like most corporate middle management is incredibly unnecessary
In my opinion, democracy is not a meritocracy but a method of governance that is based on a Plurality/Majority System whereby the people exercise their constitutional right to elect the government of their choice in general elections. The candidates who run for election are not required to demonstrate any particular ability to govern by virtue of experience, education, wisdom, knowledge, or understanding.
The people give their consent to the elected party to govern the nation to produce the best possible outcomes.
As it is not a condition precedent for any Minister to have any relevant experience or education whatsoever to hold a ministerial office, the Minister must employ suitably qualified persons to fill the competence void. Hence, modern democracies have a disproportionate reliance on suitably qualified unelected persons, let’s call them consultants, who have the apparent requisite knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to develop and implement government policy’s. These are the unelected enlightened few who inform all policy decisions and have zero accountability when said policies produce catastrophic results.
One might argue therefore that the leaders in most democracies are just actors whom the public elected because they liked the future they promised.
The subterfuge is cemented by calling the elected party leaders “Public Servants”. In the UK, the house to which these Public Servants perform their duties for others is called the House of Commons.
One therefore cannot have democracy without consultants, and one cannot make consultants accountable for catastrophic government policies without admitting that Ministers are just puppets being manipulated in ways that they can never fathom in an environment over which they exercise no real authority because they lack the fundamental abilities to govern.
Once in a blue moon the people elect a true Public Servant, a person who has wisdom and understanding. A leader with honesty and integrity, one who is wholly committed to produce the best outcomes for the nation.
Our current democracies testify to the rarity of such an event, in that the leadership of our remaining Western Democracies is remarkable only for the appalling lack of wisdom and understanding within its leadership. This deficit of wisdom and understanding is also evident in the leadership of worlds largest kleptocracy, Russia, and in the monstrous personality cult of the Chinese Communist Party.
Democracy, for all its shortcomings, is still the best option for governance for any nation that wishes to exercise freedom of speech, and the protection of fundamental human rights. However, as a system of governance it is under relentless attack, not only from malevolent external forces but more incredulously from within. Everyone who enjoys the endless benefits afforded to them under democratic rule should pause and take stock of this most important and precious form of governance and work to reinforce it, to make it stronger so that it will survive to serve all future generations.
I can only wish more people listened to & were influenced by Prof. Mazzucato. An amazingly insightful and digestible deconstruction of Public Service Procurement, accompanied by a well deserved kick in the proverbials to the Consultation industry.
Thank goodness that the Prof. continues to teach, as this is where change truly occurs. I am truly envious of her students!
I feel like what she is describing is known to a lot of people but we don't find a way to change the nature of things. (the most dominant and often ignorant person rises to a. powerful position in a group and suffocates smart but timid voices)
Prof Mazzucato's great strength is her clear analysis and she explains herself in ways which any sensible person can understand. Thank God Starmer has been listening to her. Unfortunately, Streeting doesn't seem to get it.
This is one of the most important conversations I've heard in years, Mariana Mazzucato is an absolute hiero for the kind of attitude we need across every sector of public and private relations.
Problem with government is they’re slow to change and lazy to understand new developments. Mainly due to all the people you need to go through to make change.
Why are we having a yank who lives in rich London telling us how our society economy works 😂
I think the later part of this interview, she is being attacked personally, it feels disrespectful...
Same problem here in Australia. A decade of hard right government and the brain drain from the public service has been extreme…
And PWC now in the news for sharing confidential advice from the government on tax policy with their clients…
The notion that competition leads to efficiency and quality is mythology. Cooperation is a higher value and everything that Marianna talks about is that cooperation and organization leads to goal attainment. Not competition.
The way she says so matter-of-factly that there will be more viruses when the permafrost melts is just silly. Thats like borderline science fiction. I get it, its a legit theory but why does she say it with such certainty lol its just trying to sound smart.
I agree with this woman, Governments need to be in control, that's why we vote for them. But integrity is important, Boris told lies which caused people to vote in ways they would not have.
Hey, she's the kind of technocrat we do actually do need (!)
She has an agenda, watch her at the WEF, they say the pish to vaccinate the planet didn't work and suggests, rather than keep up with the climate issue they ought to use a world wide water shortage instead to instill fear & get our attention by targeting especially school children.
What an abhorrent and evil agenda. This is full blown Bolshevism-Cultural Marxism.
Is the age of consulting firm will end. Actually those are doing the actual job are getting paid less. Big bosses are taking huge salaries. Raising inequalities.Govt should open up door to good people. I agree on it. There should be balance. Otherwise consulting firm keep on taking risk and can create disaster