What Rachel Reeves can learn from Donald Trump
The British Academy has just published a series of papers exploring what might pull the UK out of its long period of low productivity. The UK has powerful legal, financial, cultural and scientific institutions, but we're not good at organising the economy around our greatest strengths. We have a large population of skilled workers, for example, but they are unevenly spread and mismatched across regions. We do not make the most of our institutional, human and physical capital.
Reeves has an opportunity to invest in these strengths and to make the UK more prosperous over the long term. In the US, the government is currently experimenting with the opposite approach. Trump has taken an axe to America's historic strength in research by attacking universities including Harvard, and cutting or freezing research funding. R&D is one of the drivers of long-term prosperity, and the US will be poorer as a result in the medium term.
By many measures the UK already punches above its weight when it comes to R&D, particularly in universities. Reeves needs to continue investing in this long-term source of growth, and also find a model for the universities where much of this research is conducted to be financially stable. The Government has recently focused on heavy investment in advanced or 'frontier' technology but a significant share of innovation in the UK's services-dominated economy is not especially high-tech. We innovate well through the humanities, social sciences and the arts, in processes and services, as well as we do in cutting-edge technology.
Trump has also reminded us of the dangers of unpredictability. A country whose word cannot be relied upon will suffer economically – even if it is currently the dominant power. The UK faces rather different challenges to the US on the global stage, in that we are not large enough to act unilaterally or bilaterally, nor are we still a member of a major economic bloc. But our deep roots in multilateralism mean we have an opportunity to become the world's most dependable broker. We have an historic role in shaping the major international organisations and we have substantial knowledge of global institutions and international legal norms and practices. In turbulent times this institutional infrastructure is something in which we should invest, with a strategic narrative that the UK economy remains open to the world.
Our relatively stable political landscape, strong institutions and low levels of corruption are not just part of the furniture – they are a source of comparative advantage in an increasingly turbulent world. The openness of our economy is an opportunity to attract and develop human capital. We have a valuable infrastructure of knowledge and finance that is well equipped to support and commercialise innovation.
The UK government has struggled in its first year to find a positive narrative, to move beyond dealing with a difficult economic inheritance. The public knows we have an economy that has suffered long-term stagnation and that we face mounting geopolitical uncertainty. The Spending Review should be couched in a narrative of investing in the UK's comparative strengths and its deep assets, in the infrastructure that is needed to help secure longer-term growth and resilience. If she can do this, the Chancellor might be even able to say that despite the tight economic circumstances, it is the Biggest, the Best, and the most Beautiful spending review ever.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
[See also: Rachel Reeves should fear the bond market vigilantes]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
10 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
'Trump will never get his Nobel Prize'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended allowing the transfer of millions of dollars to Hamas-run Gaza despite criticism from within his own government, including the education minister Naftali Bennet. For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. Donald Trump has said his administration is now exploring the possibility of normalising relations with Syria - his comments coming shortly after he met Syria's interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The extraordinary encounter, unthinkable just months ago, was short but significant. "I think he has got the potential," Trump remarked after his meeting in Riyadh, 37 minutes long, with the former Syrian fighter, formerly linked to al-Qaeda, the same group that attacked the twin towers. The $10m US bounty on his head was only lifted in December. Or is it just another outlet to moan about Starmer? If Palestine becomes a safe place to live and work, many millions will return. Trump will never get his Nobel Prize, and both he and Israel will be on the wrong end of history. Andrew Nutt Bargoed
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
China's exports top forecasts as shippers rush to meet tariff deadline
BEIJING, Aug 7 (Reuters) - China's exports beat forecasts in July, as manufacturers made the most of a fragile tariff truce between Beijing and Washington to ship goods, especially to Southeast Asia, before tougher U.S. duties targeting transshipment take effect. Global traders and investors are waiting to see whether the world's two largest economies can agree on a durable trade deal by August 12 or if global supply chains will again be upended by the return of import levies exceeding 100%. U.S. President Donald Trump has raised the prospect of further tariffs, including a 40% duty on goods rerouted to the U.S. via transit hubs, that took effect on Thursday, as well as a 100% levy on chips and pharmaceutical products, and an additional 25% tax on goods from countries that buy Russian oil. China's outbound shipments rose 7.2% year-on-year in July, customs data showed on Thursday, beating a forecast 5.4% increase in a Reuters poll of economists and accelerating from June's 5.8% growth. China's trade war truce with the U.S. - the world's top consumer market - ends next week, although Trump hinted further tariffs may come Beijing's way due to its continuing purchases of Russian hydrocarbons. Imports grew 4.1%, defying economists' expectations for a 1.0% fall and climbing from a 1.1% rise in June, pointing to improving domestic demand as policymakers step up efforts to encourage households to boost spending. "The trade data suggests that the Southeast Asian markets play an ever more important role in U.S.-China trade," said Xu Tianchen, senior economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit. "But it's not all about the transshipments that Trump seeks to stop, ASEAN countries are also importing raw materials and components from China before exporting finished products to the U.S.," he added. China's exports to the U.S. fell 21.67% last month from a year earlier, the data showed, while shipments to ASEAN rose 16.59% over the same period. Trump said on Tuesday the U.S. was close to a trade deal with China and that he would meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping before the end of the year if the world's two largest economies could come to an agreement. China's July trade surplus narrowed to $98.24 billion from $114.77 billion in June. Separate data from the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis on Tuesday showed the U.S. trade gap with China shrank to its lowest in more than 21 years in June. Chinese government advisers are stepping up calls to make the household sector's contribution to broader economic growth a top priority at Beijing's upcoming five-year policy plan, as trade tensions and deflation threaten the outlook. And top leaders have vowed to step up regulation of aggressive price-cutting by Chinese companies that is pushing prices ever lower. But economists warn that reversing the current deflationary slump will be far more difficult than during the last round of supply-side reforms a decade ago, as the downturn now poses a broader threat to employment, which Chinese leaders have emphasised is a core component of social stability. Reaching an agreement with the United States — and with the European Union, which has accused China of producing and selling goods too cheaply — would give Chinese officials more room to advance their reform agenda. However, analysts expect little relief from Western trade pressures. Export growth is projected to slow sharply in the second half of the year, hurt by persistently high tariffs, President Trump's renewed crackdown on the rerouting of Chinese shipments and deteriorating relations with the EU.
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
