Taking on the critics
Of course, not everyone buys it. To economist Arthur Diamond of the
University of Nebraska, Omaha, Mazzucato’s thesis sounds too much like
centrally planned industrial policy, which he argues won’t work because
government is inherently unable to foster innovation. In his 2019 book, Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism,
he argues that what drives innovation is entrepreneurs who are deeply
immersed in their subject and able to benefit from serendipity, pursuing
hunches, and plain old trial and error.
“Government decision-makers won’t be as immersed in the problems, won’t
have the detailed information, and won’t be in a position to follow hunches
toward breakthrough solutions,” Diamond says.
Mazzucato’s sharpest critic may be Alberto Mingardi, a historian of
political thought who teaches at IULM University in Milan and is
director-general of Italy’s free-market think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni in
Milan. In 2015 he published a 23-page critique of The Entrepreneurial State with a 32-entry reference list.
Mazzucato’s “evidence is shaky,” and she “fails to prove that the specific
government interventions that she hails as beneficial were purposefully
directed to achieve the particular outcome in question,” he writes.
“My contention is that the way she develops The Entrepreneurial State
at its core is that military investment in technology had positive
spillovers into the civilian economy,” he says in an interview. “But she
pretends that these are not positive spillovers but rather the result of
directional policies, and she doesn’t prove her thesis.”
Such critiques, Mazzucato replies, ignore governments’ record of supporting
new technologies at the risky early stages. Apple’s Steve Jobs and
Microsoft’s Bill Gates recognized that they were building on advances by
government-funded organizations, she says. The American government’s
62-year-old Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was set up to take
risks, and its research laid the foundations for much of today’s
information technology and the internet, Mazzucato adds.
“If the state is so unsuited to pursuing hunches and serendipity, how do
you explain that the US was spending billions of dollars to establish the
GPS system, long before it came to support billion-dollar taxi companies?”
Mazzucato says. “If Uber is the poster child for creative disruption, how
can it be that it depends so totally on an innovation entirely supported
and developed by the government?”
Mazzucato also rejects the idea that she advocates central planning.
“Rather, the state should give direction to the economy—making the
necessary investments early on but also governing the process to make sure
that citizens benefit,” she says. “This means making sure that patents are
not abused and that prices of medicines reflect the underlying public
funding so the taxpayer does not pay twice.” She argues that this requires
a market-shaping, not a market-fixing, policy approach.