One area that New Zealand firmly consigned to the discard pile of economic approaches is industrial policy, or what is commonly referred to as \u2018picking winners\u2019.<\/p>\n
Industrial Policy is an approach focused on the transformation of the economy toward particular objectives \u2013 often a more innovative or productive economy, though industrial policy has increasingly been directed toward other goals such as decarbonisation or national resilience.<\/p>\n
For some commentators, the failure of 1980s-style liberalisation is always a matter of not going far enough with this project. When the promised growth fails to eventuate, the answer always seems to be that there is some further area that needs cutting or deregulating.<\/p>\n
We can understand a free-market approach as being about getting Government out of the way, removing barriers and minimising taxation in the hope that the resultant economy delivers what is important to people. In contrast, industrial policy starts with an idea of what we want the economy to deliver. It then prescribes a more active role for the state in pursuing those outcomes, through working in partnership with businesses, unions and others, and consciously supporting some activities ahead of others.<\/p>\n
The post-WWII rules-based international order seems to be fraying by the day. Yet one constant that we have observed throughout the fluctuations in US international policy has been a renewed focus on industrial policy \u2013 while displaying both its promising and its troubling aspects.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration\u2019s approach to industrial policy has been explicitly nationalistic and protectionist, making or extracting deals with specific companies for US-focused investment and treating international trade as a zero-sum game where foreign imports are counted as a loss. If critics were ever short of examples of what can go wrong when the state is actively involved in directing economic development, the Trump administration has ticked practically all of the relevant boxes.<\/p>\n
The end of Trump\u2019s first term saw a Biden administration that instead wanted to use the power of the state to drive a green transformation. Bidenomics was also focused on more inclusive economic growth, motivated by the perceived loss of economic opportunities among the working class. The signature achievement of this agenda was the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a somewhat misnamed package of measures that was largely focused on investment in green technology and decarbonisation through carrot-rather-than-stick incentives for businesses and households.<\/p>\n
But what did not change with Trump\u2019s loss in the 2020 election was that the US remained noticeably sceptical of its previous embrace of globalisation and free trade. Biden administration officials talked openly about viewing trade liberalisation not as an end in itself, but as something to pursue to the extent that it was consistent with a domestic agenda of green transition, job creation and national resilience. The Biden administration was also explicit about the industries that it wanted to maintain control over ahead of China, such as semiconductors.<\/p>\n
We can see some stirrings toward renewed thinking on industrial policy in the Ardern Government\u2019s work on Industry Transformation Plans, in Labour\u2019s more recent announcement of New Zealand Future Fund, and in the Green Party\u2019s focus on a Green Industrial Strategy.<\/p>\n
Shifting away from a mindset that government should leave things to the market does not mean jumping to a position that government has all the answers. A strategic approach to industrial policy should be one in which we are clear about the ends that we are trying to achieve but flexible and adaptive as to the means of doing so. Government should be engaged and aware of relevant barriers that businesses face, without falling into the trap of being subservient to business.<\/p>\n
Thinking around the world has shifted toward much greater interest in industrial policy. At the same time, the world has become a more challenging and hostile place for positive-sum international co-operation and working together to solve major challenges. If New Zealand is to build the sort of economy that truly works for all New Zealanders, this should start with a conversation about whether this aspiration can credibly be left to markets to deliver.<\/p>\n
Toby Moore is a member of the Labour Party\u2019s policy council. He previously was a senior adviser to former Finance Minister Grant Robertson. These views are his own.<\/p>\n