衝破經濟停滯：以無形資產重塑成長與繁榮

by Jonathan Haskel, 喬納森‧哈斯克爾, Stian Westlake

「經濟為何不振」的全新解釋與解決之道


過去四十多年，經濟發展的趨勢是從物質經濟轉向無形經濟（基於創見、知識與關係的經濟型態），然而，過去二十年，我們目睹了經濟成長緩慢、不平等加劇、競爭功能失調（競爭不彰）以及許多其他弊病，讓人直呼經濟不該是這樣子的。

在這本具開創性及挑釁意味的書中，喬納森‧哈斯克爾（Jonathan Haskel）和史蒂安‧韋斯萊克（Stian Westlake）認為，本世紀對經濟的巨大失望是「以物質資本為基礎的經濟」轉型不完全的結果，亦即，經濟趨勢由物質資產轉向無形資產，但是經濟制度與經濟政策卻沒有跟上轉型，導致無形經濟沒有發揮該有的成長力道，造成經濟停滯等諸多弊病，讓大眾對經濟成長感到失望，並承受後遺症。

同時，近年來，無形投資的成長顯著減緩，使世界變得更貧窮、更不公平，更容易受到生存威脅。哈斯克爾和韋斯萊克提出了令人振奮的新想法，幫助我們趕上無形革命，他們針對四大面向提出改善建議：（1）公共資金與智慧財產權；（2）金融與貨幣政策；（3）城市發展；（4）競爭政策。

借鑒哈斯克爾和韋斯萊克在制定金融和經濟政策的第一手經驗，本書提出了一系列激進但實用的解決方案，引領我們走向未來。

Genres: Economics, Finance, Nonfiction

368 pages, Paperback

Published March 4, 2023

Reviews

[Nawasandi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Haskel assumed bahwa Intangible Property (IP seperti brand/trademarks) sering di undervalued/reported di Balance Sheet perusahaan. Sebab memang valuasinya agak sulit, lebih mudah aset tangible (fisik).

Untuk membangun capital yg intangibles itu (misal brand Microsoft dan Coca Cola), perusahaan harus “buang uang” untuk R&D dan advertising. Costs itu sering di undervalue oleh Lembaga Keuangan, khususnya bagi bisnis startup. Oleh Bank, bisnis startup yg sedang butuh uang untuk membangun intangibles mereka, sering tidak diberi akses dana (bank tdk percaya manfaat riil dari proposal loan mereka, jadi ditolak).

Maka itu Haskel recommend: Financial Sector dan Government seharusnya intervene di issue di atas. Sebab kalau tidak, akan ada rising income inequality antara company yg mampu bangun brand dan yg ga punya modal utk bangun brand.

Haskel mengamati Secular Stagnation pasca The Great Recession, disebabkan karena banyak perusahaan lamban melakukan ekspansi R&D untuk pengembangan intangibles. Ini menurut Haskel yg membuat TFP (Tot.Factor Productivity) rendah. Padahal R&D dan costs yang mampu mengembangkan intangibles, ke depan akan punya spillover besar untuk ekonomi (even post pandemic). Sayangnya akuntan, ekonom, dan birokrat gagal memahami masalah ini, lebih fokus ke mendorong ekspansi investasi fisik (gross fixed capital formation) saja dan ekspansi lembaga keuangan. Public Policy harus fill this gap.

[Richard Marney · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intriguing thesis in a thought-provoking book!

Why has the global economy underperformed?

The recent slowing in growth, increased inequality, reduced competition, amongst other ills in the contemporary global macroeconomy are attributable to the rise of “Intangibles” (as in intangible versus tangible assets) rich companies (think Google versus GM) and the failure of institutions to evolve and continue as “appropriate” for the exigencies of companies, investors and government regulators to maximize positive commercial and financial outcomes. One example of many is the role of debt capital in funding investment. Investment growth is slowing. Why? Banks lend against hard collateral. Intangible asset-rich businesses may find credit hard to secure. This hits start-ups more than established companies, creating expanding gaps between smaller and younger enterprises, and the larger, more successful concerns. The knock on effects of higher inequality and reduced competition ensue, fueling a vicious circle…….

The remainder of the book focuses more deeply on the types of institutions, and their attributes, and before proceeding to a discussion of suggested remedies / improvements to the institutional foundations of the real, monetary and financial sectors of the economy.

A worthwhile read.

From this book, I have been motivated to read the works of The Nobel Laureate, Douglas North on institutional development and economic growth that proceeded this book by several decades and greatly inspired the authors.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book, with some good and relatively novel analytical takes or framings, but somewhat weak on the side of its recommendations. Its main argument is that the modern economy is somewhere halfway on a transition from a ‘tangible’ to ‘intangible’ economy, in terms of core value creation shifting from machines and physical objects to knowledge, (digital, but not just) services, or marketing (following the argument from Westlake and Haskill’s first book, Capitalism without Capital).

Stian Westlake is a relatively well-known figure on the centre-right of the British policy spectrum, who wrote a cool article about the limits of economic thinking within the Conservative party at the beginning of the May premiership. This book should therefore be seen in this context, as a somewhat politically astute yet still nerdy contribution to the debate within the British political centre, which tries to define the main problems of the current state of the economy and propose some solutions.

The main problem identified in the book is the ‘inadequate institutions’ - institutions that helped the economy to get to a certain level (from tangible to intangible) are no longer sufficient for growth. There is a misalignment of incentives, like patent trolls, scientific publications that do not have any value but only satisfy the funding requirements or over-reliance of the VC model’s returns on things like B2B SaaS. This part is not that novel, but definitely argued better than standard academic institutional political economics does.


They define 5 symptoms of this problem:
- Stagnation - real GDP growth on average fell from more than 2% to below 1% since 2000ish.
- Inequality - of status, esteem (reminds me of Rawlsian and Crosland’s thinking about the psychological dimensions of inequality), rootedness.
- Dysfunctional competition - business dynamism is collapsing, and there are either big winners or big losers
- Fragility- limited policy space for interventions, like inability of central banks to push the economy when the interest rates his the zero bound problem.
- Inauthenticity - a sense that there is ‘fakeness’ in the success in the economy (think arguments from Ross Douhat’s Decadent Society or your average MLM or dropshipping scheme).

To explain this, there are currently 2 primary narratives about the current economy: ‘The Lost Golden Age’ (growth and everything was great in the 1950s and 60s, exemplified by Robert Gordon or Tyler Cowen) or ‘the Great Divide’ (the rich are snatching up all the benefits, returns to capital increase etc, as argued by the likes of Thomas Piketty, David Harvey or Will Hutton). They argue that both of these are to some extent true, but they do not explain the full picture. That is, for them, a slowdown of the growth of investments into intangible assets over the past couple of decades

What are intangible assets? Not just knowledge or patents, but also relationships, ways of working and so on. Intangible does not mean post-industrial, and quite the opposite, it can be the intangible value of physical production. Intangibles have a number of specifics: higher returns to political power, large spillovers, but also investments in them are often sunk costs.

Westlake and Haskill draw on institutional theory to explain that institutions that help with commitment are key to long-term prosperity. But the current structure of institutions is outdated for growth at this stage of economic development - ‘What got you here won’t get you there’ problem. For instance, there are tensions between spillovers and synergies in producing new intangibles (public funding for higher education, science and innovation, for patents). Old stale finance and capital accumulation (like value investing, debt financing, etc) is not keeping up with the requirements of the intangible economy.

Intangible economy suffers from the ‘tyranny of collateral’ in debt financing. Most of the debt financing for digital companies (which are on average leveraged only around 10%, in contrast to ‘tangible’ businesses, which are around 90%) is already income covenants (paying up debt from income automatically). This means that the effects of monetary policy are limited (their fragility point from above).

Although they make some good political observations and points for the accumulation and deployment of political capital, like repeatedly stressing the importance of striking good deals and bargains to make things happen, not just relying on technocracy, their policy recommendations range from ineffectual to obvious to absurd and unworkable.

For instance, they argue for putting R&D spending as a part of something like the ESGs, making fiscal policy more automatic through boosting automatic stabilisers - both of which are sensible, but politically very dangerous territories.

In a chapter on cities, they put some quite standard recommendations about transport and so on, but what is really absurd is that they call for hyperlocal planning approvals on street level - this is strange and we have enough evidence by now that it does not work in the USA, where writers like Jerusalem Demsas call for the push to a state level.

In competition policy, they call for sandboxes which have had, to put it mildly, quite limited effects outside the UK financial sector. They argue for balancing national vs local competition and activity-based rather than sectoral regulation in competition policy, which is definitely a good idea.

They end up with the necessity for the development of greater state capacity. This is absolutely true and spot on, but is mentioned rather briefly and to a limited extent at the end.

Overall, an interesting argument, but better as an analysis than a toolkit for change.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I quite liked the work of these authors on the intangible economy. I felt that they had a good deal to say on the subject. This book, however, doesn't leave me with quite such a positive view. I think that we can all agree that the recent performance of the UK economy has been rather poor. Low productivity has given rise to low income growth, which has provided an advantage for non-productive investment and growing inequality. The diagnosis is there for all to see, but what is to be done about it?

The authors believe the constraints to the intangible economy as responsible for this result. They have a point. Their analysis is that a combination of stagnation, inequality, dysfunctional competition, fragility, and inauthenticity have held us back. They make a good case for each of these, but identifying a problem is not quite the same as solving it. The solutions are the point at which I start to become uncomfortable.

Some of the reforms suggested, such as the reform to the financial economy to assist with the funding gap between angel finance and VC finance, seem to be quite reasonable. Other suggestions, such as giving a boost to cities based in southern England, rather leave me cold. I accept that cities can be the dynamic powerhouses in an economy, but if the economy isn't working for everyone, then it can't really be said to be working at all. The plea for more finance to improve city transportation just beggars belief in a country where London soaks up most of the transport investment budget in the first place.

And that's where the book appears to have deep flaws. On one level, it is nothing more than a special interest plea for more public cash to be spent in London. It's almost as if Brexit didn't happen. I accept that London interests were compromised by the Brexit vote, but the rest of the country effectively said that was a price worth paying.

At the end of the day, this is an economics textbook. It reads like an economic textbook despite the attempts to make it more accessible. It's not an easy read and it's not a book to read for enjoyment. Personally, I preferred the more abstract work about the intangible economy rather than this foray into the world of policy. For me it has grave limitations. Despite that, it is likely to be more influential than it warrants. It's worth a read for that point alone.

[Mihály Mátyás · Rating 3 out of 5]

“A civilizáció azáltal halad előre, hogy bővíti azon fontos műveletek számát, amelyeket gondolkodás nélkül végezhetünk el” (Alfred North Whitehead)

Sokszor az volt az érzésem, hogy a könyv a saját hipotézise ellen beszél.
A temérdek, pillanatnyi, globális gazdasági probléma, a számtalan nyers statisztika és számadat mellett olykor kifejezetten tanulságos és jó olvasmány volt.

Az mellett (és, amint mondtam, sokszor ellen) érvel, hogy miért fontos az immateriális tőke. Szerinte a gazdaság jelenlegi problémái azért vannak, mert a cégek egyre többet fektetnek a (nagyrészt nem mérhető) immateriális javakba; ezeknek a befektetéseknek a növekedése az elmúlt évtizedekben lelassult.

A lényeg, hogy a gazdasággal kell foglalkozni és ápolgatni, mivel a szinergiák nem maradnak fenn önmaguktól, nem kell úgy gondolkodni, hogy “a rendszer okos, így nekünk nem kell annak lennünk!”

A könyv többször állítja, hogy igenis a gazdaság az immateriális javakban kell(ene) bővelkedjen aztán később, hogy ez miért nem jó. A második felében már a problémákra próbál megoldásokat találni/javasolni.

[Florian, Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the knowledge economy, "intangible" production inputs such as research and development, design and branding are increasingly important. This change calls for a reassessment of what constitutes good economic policy. In their excellent book, Haskel and Westlake describe new approaches for a progressive economic policy such as a different view on state investments and intellectual property, new forms of financing for knowledge-intensive companies, a strengthening of cities as centres for innovation and a modern competition policy. Only new economic institutions can create a new phase of economic growth, driven by the "intangible economy".

[Chase Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Authors provide great analysis into the changing economic dynamics of the 21st century and why legacy institutions are ill-equipped to manage this new reality. However, I feel the title implies they’d do more to address how we could actually do the “restarting” and give more insights about solutions to the problems identified. Feels like they have more to give on the subject but it didn’t make it into this book.

[Henry · Rating 4 out of 5]

7/10

[Russell Chee · Rating 4 out of 5]

While probably less insightful, more uncertain and I might guess ultimately less correct (necessarily so) than its predecessor, I thought this was better written just because it's much more clearly structured - perhaps the problem of proposing solutions really focused the authors' minds. The authors apply the four S framework from the previous work and apply it to 4 specific problems, namely, urban policy, monetary policy, IPR, and competition policy. This is not only much more interesting than the former book, its also more specifically and helpfully targeted. Fantastic conclusion as well!

[Laurent Carbonneau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very useful data on the innovation economy. Prescriptive chapters mostly helpful except for the one on cities, which is well-meant but feels like it came from a different book.