Mario Monti: The market cannot supply public goods efficiently - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15162720
eKathimerini wrote:
The market cannot supply public goods efficiently

Image

If there was something like an executive board of the European elite, Mario Monti would surely be a member. A senator for life and a former prime minister of Italy in the period 2011-13 (he took over after the high drama of the Cannes G20 Summit), earlier a commissioner for the internal market and competition and now president of the famed Bocconi University in Milan, he is a far cry from a radical.

Yet, speaking exclusively to Kathimerini on the occasion of the publication of a report by the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development on the future of health governance, which he chairs, Monti is clear: Growing inequality is an issue that requires urgent attention. It threatens the prospects of European integration and makes societies more fragile in the face of crises like the Covid-19 pandemic.

The report, whose scientific coordinator is Elias Mossialos (whom Monti goes out of his way to praise), sketches out a comprehensive approach to ensure that the world is better prepared for the next pandemic. The former Italian leader tells us about its main proposals, how the European Union has mishandled Covid-19 and much besides.

‘Little done’ on inequality

The response to the 2020 crisis was very different to that of 2008-10. From bank bailouts and austerity, sparking populist anger, it can be argued that governments shifted to bailing out the people –pending massively to ensure that households and small businesses were able to survive the long spells of frozen economic activity. Could the pandemic lead to a rejuvenation of the welfare state? Will multinationals and high net worth individuals be made to pay their fair share in order to fund it and to service the new debts created by the crisis?

“It is an interesting comparison. There are so many differences between the two crises, including the fact that this time there is no question of it being linked to fiscally or financially irresponsible behavior. The absence of a guilty party explains why the EU in particular was much faster and more forthcoming in its economic and financial response, with Germany if anything at the forefront –xactly the opposite of what happened during the sovereign debt crisis.”

The evolution of the welfare state, and the question of inequality more widely, will be critical to the post-pandemic era, Monti says. “Until recently, little had been done, on the global level but also within the EU, to tackle the inequality of income and wealth. We have to take this issue much more seriously.”

The pandemic, he notes, exposed the extent of fragmentation in society, as its impact was felt very differently by various social and ethnic groups. Looking ahead to future health crises, he says “it is crucial to reduce the huge disparities in the fragility of different parts of society.”

But the issue is broader, he explains. “We are entering an era in which the connection between taxation and inequality becomes ever more evident.” Growing inequality “has become a source of potential and actual backlash against globalization and European integration. We cannot move forward with building structures of global governance without taking this into account.”

Monti argues that it is a priority to close down tax avoidance loopholes for multinationals, claiming that the political will to do this, in the EU and now in the US with the new Biden administration, has increased: “It is now more likely than ever before to have an agreement on a digital tax or something equivalent.” He is also keen to see the EU treat health and other investment spending differently than consumption spending by the public sector in the new fiscal rulebook that may emerge from the review in the second half of this year.

Vaccine dilemmas

The discussion turns to how the EU has handled the health crisis. European countries are heading for a second spring in confinement as the pace of vaccination has failed to contain the galloping mutant strains of the virus. The EU is threatening to block vaccine exports, as the US and Britain, which have received millions of doses from European factories, do not export to the EU. At the same time, vaccination in the poorest nations is proceeding at a glacial pace, as Western countries have cornered the market. I ask my interlocutor how concerned he is about the phenomenon of vaccine nationalism and how he views the response of the developed countries to the vaccination needs of the developing world.

“We are facing a dilemma, especially here in Europe, as we have not made enough progress with vaccinations in our countries, but at the same time we have a moral imperative and also an interest in making sure that the developing world can be vaccinated effectively,” Monti says. Noting that he has spent a good part of his professional life trying to make markets work efficiently and to prevent market failure, he argues, “It is clear that with regard to vaccines, given their special weight, we probably need to reconsider the relationship of power and control between public authorities and industry.”

On the vicissitudes of the EU vaccine rollout, he observes that “this dispute between the Commission, the European Medicines Agency and national governments [on the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine] is a symptom of the transition we are in the midst of. The Commission and EMA have their role to play, but the final decisions are made by national governments, sometimes in a manner resembling a domino effect. We are indeed at war, as is often said, but we have not adapted the policy tools to a war situation. For example, the application of the precautionary principle in the AstraZeneca case, as it relates to the paramount interest of public health, needs to be looked at in a different way. It was curious how it was applied.”

Global monitoring

The report of the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development makes the link between human, animal and planetary health explicit. Among other things, it proposes the creation of an Intergovernmental Panel on Health Threats, to improve monitoring and coordination on a global level and between different policy sectors.

“It would be something similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which would monitor and try to prevent threats such as infectious diseases or microbial resistance through coordinated action by organizations related to health, agriculture and trade,” Monti says. Organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, the World Organization for Animal Health and the World Health Organization “need to be more aligned,” he argues. “Their alignment can take various forms –ormal consultations at first, then in the long run perhaps participation in a common coordinating structure.”

“I also strongly believe that something similar to the Financial Stability Board, set up in the wake of the financial crisis, needs to be created at the G20 level for health,” he adds. “We are talking with the Italian presidency of the G20 about this. We think it would make sense to set up a Global Health Board, with experts and authorities from the health but also the economics and financial sector, which would be an engine for improving health policies and better coordinating them with policy in other areas. The best forum to do this effectively is probably the G20. So you see: We started with financial stability, we are now continuing with health – list of public goods is being created, to which we can add the environment and others which are increasingly important for the quality of human life. As public goods, however, the market does not supply them efficiently and they risk falling into a policy vacuum. So this Global Health Board, important in itself, could also be the forerunner of a broader Global Public Goods Board.”
#15165059
Suchard wrote:This is a very long opening post, noemon, but you do not tell us what you think of Mario Monti's statement, whether you agree with it or not and why.


Very general stuff for me to comment on, I echo Heisenberg here.

What about your opinion?
#15165062
One of the heaviest hitters there are in the EU project. Monti is deeply embedded inside the EU infrastructure and part of what the Brits call the 'EU bureaucracy', he is more important than Merkel for example.

He is the closest thing there is to the EU President.

Presidents of the Commission, Council or Parliament are temp and very weak spots for national politicians to go out to pasture.

This guy is like the sage of the EU.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15165290
noemon wrote:The market cannot supply public goods efficiently

I disagree. I think it can, but you just have to put purchasing power into the hands of those who you want the public goods to go to.

There are only certain rare less common instances where government is more efficient than the market.
#15165292
noemon wrote:Monti is clear: Growing inequality is an issue that requires urgent attention. It threatens the prospects of European integration and makes societies more fragile in the face of crises like the Covid-19 pandemic.

The evolution of the welfare state, and the question of inequality more widely, will be critical to the post-pandemic era, Monti says. “Until recently, little had been done, on the global level but also within the EU, to tackle the inequality of income and wealth.

Well of course he'd say that. Italy is a poorer country than Britain, France, and Germany. Probably wants his "share" for his country.

Mass migration into Europe from other parts of the world probably hasn't helped matters here.
(first of all, more poor people, which is obvious, but also putting a downward pressure on wages and working conditions by increasing the labor supply in the economy)
By Pants-of-dog
#15165299
Puffer Fish wrote:I disagree. I think it can, but you just have to put purchasing power into the hands of those who you want the public goods to go to.

There are only certain rare less common instances where government is more efficient than the market.


The vaccine distribution for the Covid virus is being done by the market.

It seems mired by things like vaccine nationalism, waiting for patents, waiting for sales, a lack of sharing of scientific knowledge, and a response that pretty much makes the third world a reservoir for this disease becoming endemic.

I would argue that a state run system that did not care about profit would do better.
#15165302
States are playing a key role in the provision of vaccines. Even worse, the whole process is actually being slowed down by a global scarcity of the inputs used to produce vaccines in general (which is a temporary issue that affects everyone), which is unsurprising since global demand of vaccines has shot up as a result of the pandemic.
#15165541
Suchard wrote:This is a very long opening post, noemon, but you do not tell us what you think of Mario Monti's statement, whether you agree with it or not and why.


Well there are a few topics here. You could have made three threads out of this one article. I took some time to read it. Pretty much spot on if you ask me. To summarise he is saying there is an issue with wealth inequality that the pandemic highlighted into prominence and that it needs to be addressed. He compared todays actions to the 2008 crisis and how austerity caused populism due to where the assistance went into - which were the banks - and this time the assistances went to those who need the money - low income earners who have lost their pay packet. He is asking whether this pandemic is the start of the welfare state, or I prefer the term social state, where those who can pay more should pay more by closing loopholes and tax avoidance so to address the current inequality.

He also talks of vaccine nationalism, that Europe hasn't made sufficient progress in their vaccination program and the need for the world to work together on this and the politics that seems to be involved with the safety of AZ.

And his final point was on a way to prevent another pandemic in the future and any other bio threats there are to our agricultural needs. He wants to set up another global task force very much like a climate change task force but which would specifically monitor the health of humans animals and plants to see if there are anything of concern to us in order that we can act early.
#15165544
B0ycey wrote:Well there are a few topics here. You could have made three threads out of this one article. I took some time to read it. Pretty much spot on if you ask me. To summarise he is saying there is an issue with wealth inequality that the pandemic highlighted into prominence and that it needs to be addressed. He compared todays actions to the 2008 crisis and how austerity caused populism due to where the assistance went into - which were the banks - and this time the assistances went to those who need the money - low income earners who have lost their pay packet. He is asking whether this pandemic is the start of the welfare state, or I prefer the term social state, where those who can pay more should pay more by closing loopholes and tax avoidance so to address the current inequality.

He also talks of vaccine nationalism, that Europe hasn't made sufficient progress in their vaccination program and the need for the world to work together on this and the politics that seems to be involved with the safety of AZ.

And his final point was on a way to prevent another pandemic in the future and any other bio threats there are to our agricultural needs. He wants to set up another global task force very much like a climate change task force but which would specifically monitor the health of humans animals and plants to see if there are anything of concern to us in order that we can act early.

Mario Monti seems to be the voice of sanity. Which is why he will probably be ignored. Change comes only when it must come, and not before.
#15165717
B0ycey wrote:Well there are a few topics here. You could have made three threads out of this one article. I took some time to read it. Pretty much spot on if you ask me. To summarise he is saying there is an issue with wealth inequality that the pandemic highlighted into prominence and that it needs to be addressed. He compared todays actions to the 2008 crisis and how austerity caused populism due to where the assistance went into - which were the banks - and this time the assistances went to those who need the money - low income earners who have lost their pay packet. He is asking whether this pandemic is the start of the welfare state, or I prefer the term social state, where those who can pay more should pay more by closing loopholes and tax avoidance so to address the current inequality.

He also talks of vaccine nationalism, that Europe hasn't made sufficient progress in their vaccination program and the need for the world to work together on this and the politics that seems to be involved with the safety of AZ.

And his final point was on a way to prevent another pandemic in the future and any other bio threats there are to our agricultural needs. He wants to set up another global task force very much like a climate change task force but which would specifically monitor the health of humans animals and plants to see if there are anything of concern to us in order that we can act early.

Thank-you for the lucid summary. I do believe income inequality in the USA is a serious problem. The very rich are getting richer, some earning (if that is the word) billions in one year while others are relying on charity to feed their children. Are Americans OK with this? Yes they are and furthermore they have been instructed to say, anyone who bellyaches about the fabulously wealthy are guilty of envy. As long as this shuts up a call for change, change won't come.
#15167033
A couple of points:

It is an interesting comparison. There are so many differences between the two crises, including the fact that this time there is no question of it being linked to fiscally or financially irresponsible behavior


Not entirely true IMO. Medical experts have actually been warning for years that a global pandemic was likely the 'next big thing' that would shake the global economy after the GFC. There are plenty of things we could have been doing to be better prepared, but we chose not to. The effects we are seeing of this short-sightedness now very much include the economical.

Secondly, the move away from austerity was kind of already happening even before the pandemic. The traditional mainstream parties were starting to take the hint and getting their acts together after being jolted by a few populist scares around Europe, and also Trump.

Finally, as for inequality, yes it is increasing, but people generally don't get pissed off about it if its merely a case of the other guy getting richer but they either stay the same or also get richer at a slower rate. Just as long as they don't get poorer. This has been the case in most of the west.
#15167037
I disagree. The market is usually very efficient supplying most goods (and services), it just sometimes can be crappy at distributing them equally or fairly, usually because profit to owners only mean the few accumulate much wealth. Public organizations (governments) are rarely efficient at providing goods, but they're good at evenly distributing them (unless there's corruption).

Competition drives efficiency because people will do anything to win, but sometimes they'll even cheat to win, so you need rules to make things fair & just, just like any sport.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Godstud did you ever have to go through any of t[…]

Gaza is not under Israeli occupation. Telling […]

https://twitter.com/ShadowofEzra/status/178113719[…]

Lies. Did you have difficulty understanding t[…]