Corporatism, subsidies, regulation, ‘pro-growth’ policies, and ‘ownership without control’

When politicians and political commentators engage in debate over economic policy, they often mistake what the actual lines of battle are. They assume that the fight is Big Government versus Big Business — that as one great power grows, the other diminishes.

This is ahistorical, and often wrong in today’s policy debates, where often at least one faction of the business lobby supports Big Government policies, and where the growth of government often entrenches the big businesses.

Many economic thinkers have understood this, and many policymakers have openly advocated an economic policy best called corporatism, in which the state increases its control over the economy, and uses large corporations as a tool for accomplishing its ends.

During World War I, plenty of government and industry leaders in America fantasized about state-controlled industry, where we set aside such “destructive” and “irrational” practices like competition. In the decades that followed, this idea took hold most firmly in fascist Italy.

Today, I came across this important passage from Nobel economist Edmund Phelps in his book Mass Flourishing:

Classic corporatism, such as Mussolini’s, sought to restructure the capitalist economy so as to speed economic growth — growth of productivity and of various national capabilities — far beyond the puny capacity of Continental capitalism. This meant more initiative in the public sector and more direction of the private sector — thus “ownership without control” for the owners. The quest for greater national growth and national power was to be subject to considerations of solidarity and, in particular, “social protection.” That meant “concertation” of the state with the “social partners,” and, more broadly, subsidies for regions or industries. In an equivalent view of classic corporatism, the state is free to take whatever measures it chooses in the name of solidarity and protection, constrained only by the need to take steps aimed at restoring growth when growth has slowed too much and too long.

This system, in which, in principle, the state may intervene at its own discretion without any restraints, poses serious moral hazards; and insofar as politicians fall into these hazards, their misconduct becomes part of the workings of the system. A constitutional democracy might be able and willing to curb such intervention but may fail to do so. Even in a democracy, self-interested legislators are apt at times to use their votes, and agency heads their powers to award projects, to win support of interest groups that can keep them in office. In this political process, “growth” may take a back seat or be altogether neglected — even if it continues to be paid lip service.

So when some politician, Left or Right, points to industry support of some government intervention (a regulation, a mandate, or a subsidy), remember this — Big Business and Big Government are often natural allies, and their enemy is free enterprise and smaller competitors.

Related Content