Dave Watson looks at some of the better ideas as to how we can really “Build Back Better” to create a post-pandemic economy that delivers equality alongside social and economic justice.

This article was originally published on Dave’s blog and is reproduced here with his kind permission.

Economic forecasts on the economic impact of the pandemic vary. However, they are all pretty bleak, and this emphasises the need for an effective recovery package.

There is growing support for an investment-led recovery from the pandemic based around building a more equal and green economy. I think John McDonnell is overly semantic with his criticism of the ‘Build Back Better’ campaign slogan, but he is right that this doesn’t mean going back to the old normal, and we should seek to ‘Claim the Future’. In this post, I look at some of the better ideas.

The Scottish Government’s advisory group report on economic recovery calls for a review of the fiscal framework and investment-led recovery, including ownership stakes in companies. As the STUC says, the implementation plan does not match up to the scale of the crisis, either in the scale of the investment needed and the need for a bolder Job Guarantee Scheme. This has also been the focus of Scottish Labour’s economic campaign. From a different constitutional perspective, George Kerevan wasn’t impressed either.

The Scottish Government package reflects the even weaker UK Government recovery plan. A recent Fraser of Allander study shows that than half of Scottish firms plan to make staff redundant once the UK Government’s furlough scheme comes to an end. As Unite’s Steve Turner writes“Failing to protect jobs now will never be forgiven nor forgotten.”

A report for the STUC by Transition Economics shows potential for a £13 billion green stimulus package to create 150,000 jobs in Scotland. However, we must improve on past failures, as the STUC report, ‘Scotland’s Renewable Jobs Crisis and Covid-19’, found that despite previous promises of 130,000 jobs by 2020, direct employment in 2018 was 23,100, down from 23,400 in 2014. 

The Climate Emergency Response Group (CERG) has suggested eight policy packages for a green recovery in Scotland. These include a mix of short-term job creation with long-term investment while improving skills and supporting household incomes.

There is a similar UK plan from the New Economics Foundation in their report ‘Building a Green Stimulus for COVID-19’. Importantly, the projects they select are not just environmentally sustainable; they will also create large numbers of jobs rapidly. Being ‘green’ is not enough to get out of this crisis. 

The Resolution Foundation has proposed a £200bn package for the UK, which is around 10% of GDP. This would be much greater than the very modest UK Government plans, and more in line with other countries. They propose investing in some very targeted ways, including:

  • A £17bn a year job support package – including extending the Job Retention Scheme for hard-hit sectors; a new Job Protection Scheme to subsidise the wages of workers returning to work in those sectors; and, job guarantees for young people.
  • A £30bn ‘High Street Voucher’ scheme – worth £500 per adult and £250 per child – to be spent in hard-hit sectors of the economy, such as face-to-face retail, hospitality and leisure.
  • An Income-Contingent Loan System – capping repayments on crisis loans at five per cent of turnover so that firms can invest and grow coming out of this crisis.
  • Trebling down on the ‘levelling up’ agenda by increasing capital investment by £14bn (rather than £5bn) in the current fiscal year.
  • Supporting low-income families with a £10 billion boost to Universal Credit.

This, like the CERG proposals, looks like a very balanced package of measures, which targets resources on areas most affected by the pandemic.

The Carnegie Trust’s six propositions for Building Back Better is a good mix of economic and social change. They support measuring national wellbeing (not just GDP), investing in digital exclusion, fair work and financial resilience. As you would expect, they emphasise the importance of local solutions, including Community Wealth Building and establishing the principle of subsidiarity in law. I have never been enthusiastic about their Enabling State concept, not least because I can remember the infamous Nicolas Ridley plan. I agree that social infrastructure is key, and I will expand on this in a paper later this month for the Reid Foundation.

Community asset ownership has not always been the success they claim, and initiatives tend to thrive in areas with high levels of social capital. Democratically accountable councils can be enablers, not gatekeepers, with the necessary powers and resources. One of the problems with driving a local economic recovery is poor data. The What Works Centre has published a useful guide to data sources. 

There will be predictable responses to these ideas of who is going to pay for it. It is tempting just say what is the alternative? We know what austerity economics did last time, and now we have the ability to borrow at record low rates for investment, even if you don’t buy into Modern Monetary Economics

If you believe we have to supplement this with other financial solutions, then look at the case for a wealth tax, or more controversially, a suggestion in a Social Market Foundation paper for a capital gains tax on primary residences. IFS researchers have shown that inherited wealth is on course to be a much more important determinant of lifetime resources for today’s young than it was for previous generations. 

The UK government is consulting over an online sales tax (Amazon Tax), which could raise £2bn. While this looks like a good idea in principle, there are concerns as Prem Sikka highlights. A key issue is that this money should go to councils, not Treasury or Scottish Government coffers. 

The economic recovery from the pandemic requires a new way of economic thinking. Only 6% of the public want a return to the pre-pandemic economy. We need to create an economy that puts the wellbeing of society over individual success and challenges what is valued and rewarded by the economy.

Related Posts

6 thoughts on “Build back a better economy

  1. That’s the answer Dave, Borrow some more. We only owe 2000 billion as it is. Whats another 60 or 70 going to matter. And anyway its not going to be us that has to pay it back. That will be down to our children and their children. I know its a bit of a bummer, on the future generations, having to pay back our debt before they fund their hospitals and schools but as they say ‘desperate times…….’ and all that.

      1. I don’t know. Has there ever been a time when a British government tried to reduce the national debt? Probably not. But I know this, the interest on the debt we run up does need to be paid back. Even at a 1% interest rate, 1% of 2000 = 20.
        I believe that is wrong. Our generation should not be spending more than we can raise in tax.
        When Gordon Brown was PM the rate of borrowing was running at 150 billion/year. Bailing out the banks cost 600 billion. I used to get angry but now I cant help but smile when I think of Gordon and his moral compass.

        1. Gordon Brown actually paid back some National debt while he was Chancellor under Tony Blair. This was done by have a ‘negative’ Public Sector Borrowing Requirement.

        2. It was back in 2014 when even the Bank of England publicly acknowledged that the govt does NOT need to raise taxes in order to spend. In fact, it is the other way round. By spending, the govt actually put the money into the economy – where do you think the money you use to pay your taxes comes from?

  2. The list of items in the article come to some 71 Billion – what is the other 129 Billion going to be spent on?

Comments are closed.