The Sovereign Economic Model. A manifesto for rising nations
• Economic activities with high social costs will be regulated strictly. Examples:
• Taxation of sodas and junk food, coupled with a de-taxation of healthy or less unhealthy foods
• Taxation of ecologically polluting materials
Economic policy creation and changes must consider potential winners and losers. A government can, with prior notice and support, steer the businesses in new directions.
How to Apply the Sovereign Economic Model by Level of Development
The Sovereign Economic Model contains concepts that have usually been applied in developed nations when they were developing and emerging countries themselves. Most countries have had to protect their markets, such as the US at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries; most European countries after World War II; Japan and South Korea slightly later; and many countries in Africa and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s when, after being colonies, they became independent.
Countries in the developing phase should focus on these priorities:
• Agriculture, natural resources, and infrastructure
• Low-to-medium-technology industry
• One high-tech industry as a national priority
Emerging countries should ponder the following policies:
• Maintain the focus on agriculture, natural resources, and infrastructure.
• Increase focus on the high-value medium-high technology industry.
• Focus on at least one high-value high-tech industry as a national priority.
• Start focusing on the knowledge economy.
Even developed nations, as they stand, have not completed their evolution curve. Many argue that they have started a regression in the past decade, like a playground swing in a park hitting its peak below potential, then stopping and moving backwards. Over-financialization has crept in, and the focus on their core industries and wealth-creating economic sectors has been lost. Speculative investments and other unproductive allocations of money have created more industries of hype than ever. The valuation of assets is wrongly given a higher priority than production, employment, and profits. Government policies and national economic KPIs have changed to achieve quick Pyrrhic victories in perception, but not substance or progress. The toxic addiction to debt, especially long-term debt, is sapping wealth as government interest payments. Unfortunately, debt produces a near-zero percentage of GDP increase and no wealth. In many companies with legendary heritage, products have been watered down and their intrinsic quality and value characteristics flushed out to increase sales and maximize production. The management of developed countries and their business itself is being distracted by ever-increasing marginal issues and useless new fads. Actions of management are big announcements, costs, and time wasted, but without concrete changes or results moving the economic wagon forward. Inefficiencies have crept into the system through outdated infrastructure, outdated processes, and outdated systemic operators, both government and connected business. Bureaucracy and red tape in many countries still require people to transport paperwork in person. People need to visit five different agencies in five different offices during office hours instead of communicating through an online system, which can process such data in a few seconds or minutes at any time of day or night. Education systems have softened to adapt to these new realities instead of insisting on meritocracy and improving the academic curricula, and levels have been lowered by the Bologna Process and Common Core curricula. Rigorous academic tradition was thus demoted to let anyone take part instead of maintaining rigor through an academic selection process.
To roll back, most countries need to take stock and refocus on the core systemic issues of their economies. Cures for rotting economies are needed. It is hard to take stock of bad habits and reassess priorities, but it needs to be done. A list of action steps will need to be prepared and started to change the status quo and introduce new best practices. The following might be some of these steps:
• Increase speed and efficiency of government services for business and people.
• Remove inefficient and unproductive capital allocations from the market.
• Return to conservative economic policies with frugal use of debt.
• Change economic KPIs and steer government support toward them.
• Rebuild infrastructure to include the latest technologies.
• Keep the focus on wealth-generating economic sectors: agriculture, natural resources, infrastructure, industry, and the knowledge economy.
• Return the focus to high-value, high-wealth industry sectors.
• Focus on at least one high-tech industry as a national priority.
• Revert the education system to old-style meritocracy, but implement new-style curricula to support the wealth-creating industry sectors first.
Depending on the stage of development and structure of their economy, countries need to implement economic policies that benefit their real economic growth.
Clarity of Vision and Policies Is the Key
As changes occur, communication of such policies needs to occur in advance to spell out the vision, and the rules need to be clear and detailed. It should function similar to a car’s turn signals, which indicate the direction the car will take in the road and future ahead. A country doing just that is China. Its five-year plan programmatic document perfectly delineates the country’s vision, directions, and action plan in the years ahead. By taking this step, businesses can avoid being unprepared and may even ask for help to align themselves with the new rules. Clarity of vision and clear communication are essential to decrease criticisms and uncertainty.
State capitalism
That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bees.
– Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and philosopher, AD 161—180State Capitalism as Guided Capitalism
State capitalism is usually wrongly associated with communism. In that system, the state owns any type of business activity with central planning of labor and input/output. Communism has been shown as effective only in certain situations with heavy crises or a war economy. In that context, the state needed to direct all resources and lots of production in a predetermined direction, such as rearmament or postwar recovery and reconstruction. Mostly forgotten is the use of state capitalism in the post-war recovery of Europe and East Asia after World War II. Then, state-led development corporations and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) rebuilt economies ravaged by war.
Despite its supposed similarity to communism, all countries practice some form of state capitalism, or economic interventionism. Some openly admit and carry it as part of a national economic model. Such countries might be from the former Soviet or communist bloc, or countries formerly associated with the USSR. Some less advanced countries also favor employment over other economic factors. Self-declared liberal countries apply ad hoc economic interventions for corporations «too big to fail» or «too important to fail,» or they apply corporate welfare to please extremely powerful lobbies, which results in various forms of economic distortion. Here the state uses subsidies, regulations, and price controls to help national companies, erect non-tariff hurdles to ward off foreign competition, and fix prices to protect an industry or wages (minimum wage) that secure some social stability. Tax credits, tax incentives, and tax exemptions are used to support business sectors or regional areas or to help establish new industries. For example, in the green energy business, less environmentally friendly fuels and fossil fuels are penalized. Regulations can elevate local standards in ways that leave foreign companies struggling to keep up or require huge expenses to realign. Others, especially those with wealth created by natural resources like oil, gas, and mining, have created sovereign wealth funds to hoard profits from the extraction industries.
Another good reason for state capitalism is that the government can act similar to the spring in a car’s shock absorber and like a rudder on the economy to absorb economic shocks and volatility and to steer some business practices. For example, a government can require the use of certain national technologies to improve the economy instead of letting companies choose. This might not be efficient in the short term, and it may cost some private companies’ profits, but it can be a winning strategy in the long term because such policies ultimately build up domestic industries. It is a trick to effectively make some industries subsidize others.
Is state capitalism too top-down? One mistake of communism is its desire to control all business activity, down to individual small businesses. State capitalism instead wants to control the major strategic sectors of the economy and regulate some others. Instead, in non-strategic sectors, such as light industry and services, the sovereign state should make rules that foster innovation and competition. This can be accomplished through low taxes and regulations, strong competition, and antitrust law. Other measures, too, are implemented to allow business to flourish without interference.
Capital, the Real Economy, and Wealth Creation in State Capitalism
Capital is a required element for wealth creation. State capitalism, by ownership and control of strategic industries, makes sure that capital, as profits, gets reinvested in industries that create wealth. State capitalism effectively monopolizes rent-seeking industries and market sectors, which produce most capital in the form of profits and dividends. A state can use that profit to reinvest in the real economy’s industries and reduce non-working capital in the economy.
Through such investment, state capitalism can be an effective strategy for economic development. One shortfall of liberal capitalism is that it is not aligned with the needs and strategic direction of a country: private businesses just chase profit or money accumulation. Usually in liberal capitalism, this is obviated by legislation and taxation to encourage private businesses to invest and enter a specific market segment. This investment is rarely encouraged to effectively meet a need, but more for declaring success by showing off highly questionable GDP numbers. In capitalism, money, like water, flows where there is less resistance and gives higher returns. So investors prefer to invest in fast food or coffee chains instead of in big industrial enterprises, which come with higher risk, longer production times, and fewer returns. Money, like water, can flow where it is unnecessary, where it does not bring benefits to the country, its people, and the wider local community. More refined forms of state capitalism as practiced in the Sovereign Economic Model are comparable to the management of water resources, such as riverbeds, basins, and coasts. Water, like money, must be directed in ways that create not disasters, but benefits to the local community.
State Capitalism 3.0 is the latest upgrade and current version. At the present moment, it is viewed as the third version after two iterations in the 19th and the 20th centuries. Currently, it is practiced to meet the following goals:
• Protect the financial markets from globalization and foreign ownership.
• Create a central bank to protect the national banking institutions.
• Progress development to the level of the most advanced countries.
• Establish a hybrid state capital.
• Promote state-led capital accumulation.
Several types of state capitalism exist. It has many forms, depending on the country and mindset:
• Some are derived from geopolitical issues, with sanctions and trade wars pushing a country to adopt passive or active forms to fight off foreign countries and their companies.
• Ideological state capitalism is more inclined to stabilization and socially relevant topics like protection of society from financialization and globalization.
• Protectionist state capitalism is more preoccupied with defending the market from foreign invasion.
• Competitive state capitalism uses this form to compete, often unfairly, with other countries.
No prescribed model of state capitalism exists and there is no formula to define which is best or even what works. The best model to use is tailor-made for the country and brings the greatest benefits to its economy.
State-Owned Enterprises as Representatives of State Capitalism
Many liberal countries, despite their self-acclaimed free markets and capitalism, own several state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Examples are Amtrak rail network in the US, banks in the UK, the alcohol monopoly in Sweden, and utilities in many countries. Germany even has a state-owned beer brewery. Further, many SOEs are owned by regional or local governments and municipalities.
SOEs can have many modus operandi, depending on their political context. The tactics used, even on the internal market, may be passive and defensive or offensive and aggressive. In the first case, SOEs compete for the market share fairly, collaborating even with private businesses. In the second case, they compete aggressively and use government political power to introduce laws that benefit them, gain monopolistic positions, and push private business out of the market.
Management and governance of SOEs is a sore point. In some oil and gas exporting countries, large SOEs are mainly concerned with managing the enormous wealth of this market sector. Most are run decently or well as they are critical to state budgets. In many other fields, SOEs were, and are, badly managed. Mainly they are subjected to political tussles, run by politically appointed leaders, and used as overweight cash cows until the business environment, through heightened competition or technological changes, reduces them to a burdensome money-losing enterprise that gets privatized quickly. Relevant examples are the post offices of various countries, which have been privatized or floated on stock markets, or have suffered gargantuan losses. For instance, consider the US Postal Service (USPS), which is technically not an SOE but a special government agency, and Amtrak, the US railway operator. In monocratic government systems in Asia, SOEs fare relatively well as the governments set strict rules that administrators must follow. Deviations or political fiefdom (corruption) are harshly punished, up to death sentence. Putin’s Russia has perhaps struck the perfect «golden middle.» Many of Russia’s large SOEs, such as Gazprom (gas), RosNeft (oil), and Sberbank (banking) are traded on the stock market; the state owns slightly over 50 percent, and the rest belongs to private and minority shareholders. Therefore, the state has achieved several goals: absolute control and money along with liquidity and partial privatization. The boards and management of these companies are stuffed with foreign executives. In this way, local politicians cannot defy the shareholders’ governance and run their fiefdoms, as would be expected to happen with only local governance.
Competition or merges between SOEs is a point that needs to be analyzed. Some countries have multiple state-owned enterprises in one sector: multiple banks, multiple industries, or multiple utilities competing in a market. Sometimes it makes sense to completely merge them or to bring them under the roof of one holding group to manage them under one policy. In other instances, it is advisable to keep them separate because their core functions are different. Competition among multiple SOEs for the same customer does not make much sense because a large amount of time, financial resources, and political intrigue are spent on competition instead of on improving the offering. In these cases it is better to rationalize and merge these strikingly similar businesses. In addition, consolidation of SOEs can bring big cost savings, especially if they are large. Either a total merge or a common management as subsidiaries of a large conglomerate can make many processes and decisions much faster and highly efficient. A larger aggregated size likewise helps to fend off competition from private and foreign businesses. It also adds to the enterprise’s credibility for exporting goods and services abroad. Both China and Russia have merged and rationalized different SOEs into large conglomerates in the fields of energy and manufacturing. This makes them gain critical mass and reduces costs. Russia has merged hundreds of related firms into conglomerates in aviation, shipbuilding, engine and turbine manufacturing, and other sectors. This consolidation has allowed distributed single businesses to become increasingly productive as part of a conglomerate and work together under one umbrella to bring new products to life.
In the final analysis, well-managed state-owned enterprises can provide a stable economy and can also create growth and prosperity no less efficiently and effectively than private businesses.
State Capitalism Investment Models
A sovereign country should primarily use its economic policies to create the right foundations for business. But it can also use various tools to fund its development. These tools can be funds, SOEs, or agencies.
Sovereign wealth funds are special funds accumulated by a country, usually by oil-rich nations in the Middle East, Norway, and Russia. In most cases these funds are simply intended to optimize returns, that is, to make the most efficient investments anywhere around the globe, and thus operate just like an investor. Sometimes they are mixed. In addition, they invest internally, meaning they finance business in their home country. For example, in Russia, the sovereign wealth fund RDIF invests and co-invests mainly internally. The most prominent example of its investment is the Sputnik V vaccine for COVID-19.
SOEs have historically been tied to energy, i.e., oil and utilities, probably because these industries are critical to state budgets. While in the West these have been mostly or partly privatized, in many countries state-owned utilities are the norm. In developed countries, few state-owned companies exist, while in emerging countries they are common. As a paradox, historically, the biggest growth seems to have happened while the state had a larger ownership of entire industries, both in Europe and in Asia.
The state itself, through its government, can influence business with economic policies, taxation, regulation, and permits. In fully deregulated capitalist countries, the government does not pose many obstacles to business. It even supports the largest companies. Usually the government has to step in if a critical business suffers significant losses or faces bankruptcy. However, in state capitalism, the state heavily regulates some sectors of the economy, owns or controls extensive business, and effectively has a de facto monopoly on strategic industries.
State capitalism allows a country to move a huge amount of resources to implement a plan. The state can move state-owned companies, sovereign funds, and internal funds to support an industry. This combination of finance, labor, and technological skills makes it easier to complete large-scale projects. Imagine a railroad infrastructure upgrade: the state provides financing, a sovereign fund attracts foreign co-investment, state and private companies provide the technology (fast trains, management systems), and state-owned or private construction firms manage the project.
State capitalism has its own mechanism for investment. Investment strategies prioritize long-term improvement of the general economy. Infrastructure, employment, and internal development of industrial and technological market sectors and solutions are investment solutions that spend the money within the country. Comparatively, unbridled capitalism is not about raising the tide to lift all boats, as it is more self-centered and the benefits are restricted to each individual company.
State capitalism is not a silver bullet for all sectors of the economy. These are the areas where state capitalism can best be applied to market sectors:
• Power engineering (electric, nuclear)
• Military-industrial complex
• Banking
• Chemicals (including fertilizers)
• Pharmaceuticals (partial)
• Public utilities
• Mining and metallurgy
• Ports and logistics
• Railways
The telecommunications sector should also be controlled by the state because a telecom network is a fundamental part of the infrastructure for the internet and data transmission. Here, state control of the physical grid network is of paramount importance. Besides promoting state security, it may help domestic companies that produce telecom equipment if such constraints are introduced. Private companies can, together, be minority shareholders of the physical infrastructure. On the business side, they operate as virtual operators and take charge of the service aspect for consumers.
The sovereign economy described in the Sovereign Economic Model also controls the food-distribution system and, consequently, the largest supermarket chains. Such food distribution networks are controlled by the state, but with the participation of all food producers as shareholders and suppliers. In Sweden, alcohol is sold at the retail level only in government-owned retail chains. In other countries, like the UK, Italy, and Switzerland, many cooperatives are running supermarket chains.
On the whole, investment models in state capitalism can provide sound economic progress and in some cases are more dynamic than very large companies. In the best-case scenarios, they are the start of an avalanche, as besides the initial state-backed investment vehicle, academia, SOEs, and even private companies can also get involved.
Control of Assets: State vs. Private Property
One process a sovereign country must engage in is control of the most strategic sectors of the economy and systemic companies. Many companies are in private hands, so how can a state achieve control? A government has many levers, especially the legislature and law enforcement. A government may create laws to nationalize companies or to put so many sticks in the wheel that the business becomes less attractive to investors or even becomes unviable in private hands.
Re-nationalization or reverse privatization can be options for regaining lost assets. Where assets were privatized using illegal methods, such as bribes, a state can nationalize a business without compensation. In addition, gross negligence and tax avoidance or evasion are good reasons for a state to seize the business. Here, a state might pursue de-privatization by purchasing a controlling or golden share of a company on the open market or through a direct acquisition. The owners are compensated or given incentives to cede control. If a company is struggling with financial debt, the company itself is sequestered by the government and nationalized or bought during bankruptcy proceedings.
Alienation by extreme measures or stealth are yet other methods. The previous two methods involved solid legal or business methods for the state to take control of assets. However, sometimes the state may use all the tools available, even disputable ones, to take the asset. The pressure exerted by a government can lead to alienation of the assets, in which the owner decides it is more convenient to cede control.
Tax investigations may be launched against the main shareholders, the business may be embargoed by government procurement, or other tools could be used to seize control, such as the following:
• Non-renewal of licenses, e.g., telecom companies
• Vexing taxation on extraction of natural resources
• Boycott of government procurement
• Government buy-in of controlling or golden shares
• Restriction of business sectors to government agencies
• Changes in regulations or taxes for foreign-owned enterprises
• Government law with declaration of public use
A government must be relatively careful with nationalization as national and international rules and regulations protect investors’ money. Spurned investors, through local courts, can ask for arbitration in international bodies and claim compensation. Large TNCs often win these cases because of backing from their home country in international courts and other countries with large TNCs. These cases then develop into international political conflicts.