Should government reward 'good' businesses?

 
Ed Miliband

A happier, more cohesive society would be filled with businesses that offer rich and fulfilling employment, don't pollute, don't impose big risks on taxpayers, pay taxes that more than cover their net drain on social resources, train the younger generation for life in an uncertain economic world, and so on.

It's a lovely ideal that the market hasn't delivered, because the market doesn't always reward those businesses that do good things, or penalise businesses that do bad things.

To put it in highfalutin' economic terms, there are plenty of externalities generated by companies: these are the various impacts that companies have on society and the economy that aren't captured by the pricing mechanism.

That is one reason why we have government, to deal with those externalities. Right now, for example, the current government is amending the tax system to impose bigger penalties on large emitters of carbon dioxide. And it has already imposed a special levy on banks, because of its view that the financial risks taken by banks impose a potential cost on taxpayers, for which the banks have not been paying.

These judgements about the good and bad that companies do are never simple to make or uncontroversial. Think about the threats that heavy energy users and banks have been making about jobs going abroad if the special tax burdens they face aren't lifted.

In recent times, governments have tended to penalise negative externalities - like pollution - while ignoring positive externalities. And the reason is largely to do with history: providing state rewards for businesses that are deemed to be good is felt to be uncomfortably close to the failed industrial policies of the 1960s and 1970s of picking so-called winners.

So should government play a more active role in rewarding the good that companies do, while also imposing new penalties on a wider number of bad effects?

The Labour leader appears to think so. Here is an extract from the official briefing notes for the speech he is to make later today at his party's annual conference:

"Ed Miliband will call for radical changes in the way businesses are rewarded to create a something for something deal in our economy.

"He will challenge the idea that all businesses are the same and will call for rewards and incentives linked to the long-term value they create and the wealth they build.

"He will say businesses which secure governments contracts will be required to offer young people apprenticeships. And he will open up the prospect of major reforms to the tax and regulation system to create incentives for companies that make a wider contribution to the economy, e.g. through long-term investment or building skills."

In concrete terms, what he means is "Rolls-Royce good, Southern Cross bad".

He wants to support companies that win large export orders, collaborate with universities to develop valuable intellectual property and provide highly skilled manufacturing jobs in Britain (like Rolls). And he wants to penalise those that place big financial bets, where the winnings (if any) are restricted to a few well-heeled owners, and losses fall on innocent bystanders.

Which is all very well, except that it is hard to create general rules that define all the good businesses and all the bad businesses in a fair and accurate way.

For example, even if a Labour government wished to discriminate against businesses owned by private equity, on the basis that it believed they were more likely to invest too little in training and R&D, that would not necessarily have spared the residents of Southern Cross's care homes from heartache and anxiety - because it was listed on the stock market at the time that it collapsed.

What is more, not all private equity businesses take the kind of extreme financial risks that Southern Cross took when it was owned by private equity. And if your bugbear happens to be another species of debt-financed institution, the hedge funds, don't forget that some of them have been more effective than regulators at spotting dangerous bubbles in markets.

Also, judgements about the merits of businesses and business leaders are subject to change. So for example I understand that in an early version of his speech, Ed Miliband was going to say that it was wrong of the last Labour government to reward Sir Fred Goodwin - widely seen as responsible for the calamitous near-failure of Royal Bank of Scotland - with a knighthood (he may yet say this).

But this is to forget that until Royal Bank of Scotland became obsessed with growing bigger and bigger from 2005 or so and onwards, Goodwin was widely seen as one of the more talented British business leaders - who had overseen a highly effective and long overdue modernisation of NatWest's systems and network.

Which is why Mr Miliband will - I am sure - resist the temptation to argue that ministers should reward or punish companies, with special grants or exceptional taxes, on a case by case basis.

That would almost certainly be the road to industrial desertification and corruption.

Does that mean there is nothing government can do to encourage sustainable long term wealth creation?

Well, there is evidence that the tax rewards accruing to debt finance have encouraged banks, property companies, hedge funds and private-equity businesses to take dangerous risks, while discouraging long-term investment as opposed to short-term asset trading, and also shrinking tax revenues paid by the corporate and financial sectors.

This was an argument that George Osborne, the chancellor, took seriously in opposition, but seems to have subsequently discarded - although the Independent Commission on Banking recently flagged up the tax advantages of so-called leverage or borrowing as a contributor to the lethal explosion in the growth of banks' balance sheets relative to their capital resources.

So finding a way to enhance the rewards of equity-financed investment, and reduce the rewards of debt-financed investment, could go some way to reducing the most toxic of externalities afflicting our economy - namely an urge to borrow that has foisted record debts on the British economy and hobbled its ability to grow.

 
Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

UK living too high on the hog (again)

How worried should we be by the UK's record current account deficit, our inability to pay our way in the world?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 198.

    3.ComradeOgilvy
    Define good and bad please

    Good = wealth creators, bad = wealth drainers

    Companies are like children. Unless you have firm rules which punish them when they do wrong and reward them when they do right, they will do whatever they can get away with for profit.

    Who has the vision to set those rules ?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 197.

    @177 if said ceo of corp giant pays a starting salary of 15k pa u r limiting his salary to 300k pa. if 50% tax rate was paid on all of this he would contribute 150k to the exchequer. however if u allowed him to earn 1m pa he would contribute 500k to the exchequer

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 196.

    john fr hendon sounds like u should be john fr tiranna. funnily enough beyond the pale was started by our family sad to say. am no right wing apologist. vince is the man but u must reward on an unlimited basis and tax accordingly- raise revenue and redistribute wealth. no person is lesser than the next but some do contribute more than others for the benefit of us all.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 195.

    Satisfied customers reward businesses, not governments.

    How would Miliband reward 'good businesses' and punish the bad?

    Would Miliband set up a People's Committee or Star Chamber to judge which businesses are toeing the Labour Party Line?

    His party Comrades would love that!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 194.

    "To put it in highfalutin' economic terms,"

    Laissez-faire economics is not being tempered, as Adam Smith himself recommended, by government regulation. Rather, governments compete with each other for the jobs that business might bring, often making their peoples' lives worse in the process.

    We should get used to people not having jobs, and organise a new system around that concept.

 

Comments 5 of 198

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.