DOCSLIB.ORG

The Digital Commonwealth from Private Enclosure to Collective Benefit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Digital Commonwealth from Private Enclosure to Collective Benefit IPPR Commission on Economic Justice The Digital Commonwealth From private enclosure to collective benefit Discussion Paper Mathew Lawrence and Laurie Laybourn-Langton The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice Dominic Barton Catherine McGuinness Global Managing Partner, McKinsey and Company Chairman, Policy and Resources Committee, City Sara Bryson of London Corporation Community Organiser, Tyne & Wear Citizens, Mariana Mazzucato Citizens UK Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Matthew Clifford MBE Public Value, University College London Co-founder and CEO, Entrepreneur First Dame Helena Morrissey DBE Charlie Cornish Head of Personal Investing, Legal & General Group Chief Executive, Manchester Airports Group Investment Management; Founder of the 30% plc Club Claire Dove OBE, DL Frances O'Grady Chief Executive, Blackburne House Group; former General Secretary, Trades Union Congress Chair of Social Enterprise UK Stephen Peel Lord John Eatwell Founder and Chairman, SMP Policy Innovation President, Queens’ College, University of Mary Senior Cambridge; Scotland Official, University and College Union Professor Emeritus, Judge Business School Hetan Shah Grace Gould Executive Director, Royal Statistical Society Entrepreneur in Residence, LocalGlobe Mustafa Suleyman Sandra Kerr OBE Co-founder and Head of Applied Artificial Race Equality Director, Business in the Community Intelligence, DeepMind Lord Bob Kerslake Sally Tallant Chair of Peabody, Former Head of the Civil Service Director, Liverpool Biennial Festival of Tom Kibasi Contemporary Art Director, Institute for Public Policy Research Neera Tanden (IPPR) and Chair of the Commission President, Center for American Progress John Mills The Most Revd and Rt Hon Justin Welby Founder and Chairman, JML Archbishop of Canterbury Get in touch For information or to contact the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice, please email: [email protected] www.ippr.org/cej This report was first published in September 2018 © IPPR 2018 The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is a landmark initiative to rethink economic policy for post-Brexit Britain. Launched in November 2016, the Commission brings together leading figures from across society – from business and trade unions, civil society organisations and academia – to examine the challenges facing the UK economy and make practical recommendations for reform. The Commission is undertaking a wide-ranging programme of research and policy consultation on issues including industrial strategy, macroeconomic policy, taxation, work and labour markets, wealth and ownership, sub-national economic policy and technological change. Through a major programme of communications, events and stakeholder engagement it aims to contribute to both public debate and public policy on the economy. Non-partisan, it has been welcomed by both government and opposition parties. The Commission’s Interim Report, Time for Change: A New Vision for the British Economy, was published in September 2017. Its Final Report will be published in autumn 2018. www.ippr.org/cej ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mathew Lawrence is a senior research fellow at IPPR. Laurie Laybourn-Langton is a senior research fellow at IPPR. NOTE The Commission publishes discussion papers to contribute to debate on issues of major importance. These discussion papers should not be taken to represent the collective views of the Commission or the views of individual commissioners, or the organisations with which they are affiliated. They reflect only the views of their named authors. The Commission welcomes responses and reactions to them. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Eric King, Nick Srnicek, Dave Beer, Michael Jacobs, Catherine Colebrook, Peter Wells, Wendy Liu, Francesca Bria, Diane Coyle and Will Stronge. THANKS IPPR is extremely grateful to the Friends Provident Charitable Foundation, City of London Corporation, GMB and TSSA, and a number of individual donors, for their support of the Commission. Their support should not be taken as agreement with the content of this or other Commission publications. Download This document is available to download as a free PDF and in other formats at: http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/the-digital-commonwealth Citation If you are using this document in your own writing, our preferred citation is: Lawrence M and Laybourn-Langton L (2018) The Digital Commonwealth: From private enclosure to collective benefit, IPPR. http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/the-digital-commonwealth Permission to share This document is published under a creative commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ For commercial use, please contact [email protected] Contents Summary ..........................................................................................................................2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................5 1. Platforms are diverse in form but share common features ...........................7 2. Data extraction and analysis are central to the platform business model ... 10 Data and the development of platform firms ..................................................10 Why data is so valuable: improvement, revenue, AI ......................................10 The new giants ......................................................................................................... 12 The platform business model: expansion and enclosure ............................ 13 3. The universal platforms have boundless ambition ....................................... 17 Platforms provide many positive benefits to consumers and businesses .....17 The negative impacts of platforms are growing ............................................18 The universal ambition of platforms and its potential impact ..................20 4. Data and digital infrastructure should be organised as collective goods ....21 From enclosure to commonwealth ..................................................................... 21 Building a digital commonwealth .......................................................................22 Reform of competition law to foster innovation ............................................24 Regulation of the platform giants as utilities ..................................................25 Creation of a Digital Britain public service to better curate the nation’s data ........................................................................................................ 27 Introduction of Local Digital Commonwealth Strategies ..............................30 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................32 References ....................................................................................................................33 IPPR | The Digital Commonwealth From private enclosure to collective benefit 1 Summary Digital technology is delivering a huge range of benefits to businesses, citizens and wider society. Platforms – online applications that intermediate between the provider of a service and its users – have unlocked many of these benefits by sorting and connecting an enormous range of services and products, both online and off. At the forefront of the platform economy are Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon and Apple – they have accumulated the most data, developed the most advanced analytical capabilities and gained greatest ownership of the foundational infrastructure, from mapping to cloud computing, that underpins all digital technology. As such, we refer to them as the ‘universal platforms’ and their ambitions are the focus of this report. Increasingly, the operations of the universal platforms are driving negative social and economic outcomes. Critically, these outcomes are not aberrations but a result of the universal platform business model: the extraction and analysis of data for profit. Data is the source of their economic and, increasingly, social power. Maximizing the potential of digital technology requires managing data and digital infrastructure as a collective good. This conclusion is based on four propositions. 1. Platforms are diverse in form but share common features. The major platforms dominate the digital economy. • Platforms are multi-sided online arrangements between suppliers and users, with the platform acting as an intermediator. Types of platform include those that use data insights to promote products and those that provide the digital infrastructure, including cloud computing, on which other platforms operate. • Platforms all benefit from a number of factors inherent in digital markets, including low marginal costs, powerful network effects, and an emphasis on growth in users and other measures over profitability. • These effects tend dominant platforms towards monopoly. In the UK: Facebook has 74 per cent of the social network market share; Amazon is responsible for 90 per cent of all e-book sales and an estimated 80 per cent of online physical book sales, and Google has an estimated 88 per cent share of the desktop search engine market and 95 per cent of searches on mobile. • The ‘universal platforms’ have the most data and ownership of digital infrastructure. Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon and Apple have accumulated the most data, developed the most advanced analysis capabilities, and gained greatest ownership of the foundational infrastructure, from mapping
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reclaiming Democracy
    RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY The Left Case for Sovereignty CLAIRE FOX Non-attached Member of the European Parliament for North West England HENRIK OVERGAARD-NIELSEN Non-attached Member of the European Parliament for North West England Reclaiming Democracy The Left Case for Sovereignty Claire Fox; Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen Non-attached members of the European Parliament Production Manager – Samuel Parker, Head of European Affairs to Claire Fox Editor – Mo Lovatt, local assistant to Claire Fox and Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen Authors (in alphabetical order) Sabine Beppler-Spahl, Tom Bewick, Philip Cunliffe, Claire Fox, Maurice Glasman, John Mills, Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen, Peter Ramsay, Steve Roberts, Alka Sehgal Cuthbert Proofreading Rob Lyons, Academy of Ideas Designer Winter Design Printer Craig Johnston With thanks to Allan Vesterlund, Head of Office to Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen Tony Brown, European Parliament policy advisor Non-attached members of the European Parliament are those members of the Parliament not formally associated with the primary legislative groups and coalitions that exercise official authority in the Commission or in the Parliamentary chamber. Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this publication are personal and do not reflect the views of the European Parliament or the Brexit Party. RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY The Left Case for Sovereignty “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does
    [Show full text]
  • Automation and Working Time
    UNDER-25 WINNER AUTOMATION AND WORKING TIME HOW TO REWARD DIGITAL LABOUR Bertie Wnek July 2019 ABOUT THE IPPR ECONOMICS PRIZE The inaugural IPPR Economics Prize invited entries in response to the question: “What would be your radical plan to force a step change in the quality and quantity of the UK’s economic growth?” We wanted to know whether the downward trend in the rate of economic growth can be reversed, and if so, how this can be done. Is it realistic, desirable and achievable for the UK economy to grow at 3 or 4 per cent in the 2020s? We wanted to capture the best new thinking out there. Crucially, we wanted to understand not just what policies could raise the growth rate, but also how growth could translate into higher pay for ordinary households and reduced inequalities across regions and generations. We wanted to know whether such proposals could be environmentally sustainable, accelerate decarbonisation, and ensure that the UK meets its international commitments and its responsibilities to present and future generations. We offered a main prize-pot of £100,000, with a dedicated under-25s prize of £25,000 and a runners-up prize also of £25,000. IPPR and the judging panel, chaired by Stephanie Flanders, with John Eatwell, John Mills and Helena Morrissey, examined over 200 ideas and ultimately awarded prizes to four entries: two winners of the main prize, an under-25 and a runner-up. The IPPR Economics Prize was generously supported by John Mills, The de Laszlo Foundation, the Nigel Vinson Charitable Trust and Christopher Nieper.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Achilles Heel
    Britain’s Achilles Heel Our Uncompetitive Pound John Mills Britain’s Achilles Heel Britain’s Achilles Heel Our Uncompetitive Pound John Mills First published May 2017 © Civitas 2017 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL email: [email protected] All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-906837-86-0 Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All publications are independently refereed. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute, as is responsibility for data and content. Designed and typeset by Typetechnique Printed in Great Britain by Berforts Group Ltd Contents Preface ix Author xiv Acknowledgements xv Glossary xviii Introduction 1 1. Economic Evolution 6 – The ancient world 7 – Machinery, technology and power 12 – The Industrial Revolution 21 – Europe up to 1914 25 – The US economy to World War I 32 – Lessons from the gold standard era 38 2. International Turmoil: 1914 to 1945 42 – Europe’s disastrous years 45 – Boom and slump in the USA 52 – Keynes and demand management 56 3. Post-World War II 63 – European recovery and the Common Market 66 – US experience post-World War II 71 – Mixed fortunes in Japan 77 – The USSR and the command economies 84 – The Third World 88 vii BRITAIN’S ACHILLES HEEL 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Money Matters.Pdf
    MONEY MATTERS A Modern Pilgrim's Economic Progress All rights reserved. No pari of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and record- CONTENTS ing, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application fcr which should be addressed to the Publishers. Such wriffen permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. Foreword by Dr John Paxron vii 1 How it all started 1 First published 1986 2 Plans for reform 10 @ Edward Holloway 1986 3 The Economic Reform Club 21 4 Economic tribulation 33 The Sherwood Press Ltd, 88 Tylney Road, London E7 OLY 5 War-time developments 40 ISBN 0 907671 21 7 6 The post-war scene 47 7 Rural reconstruction 56 Typeset in Times by BookEns, SalTron Walden 8 An economic milestone 62 Printed and bound by Redwood Burn Ltd, Trowbridge. Wiltshire 9 What money is 13 10 A tribute to Professor Soddy 92 11 Rhodesian interlude 101 12 The Economic Research Council 109 13 A Programme for National Recovery 118 14 Dialogue with Downing Street 125 15 Lecture programme 134 16 United Europe 140 17 Letters to the press 148 I8 The swing of the pendulum 166 Conclusion 180 Appendices 183 Index 193 LIST OF PLATES FOREWORD The proofs ofMoney Matters arrived on the day that Edward Holloway died. He had been a good friend ofmine for over forty Between pages 104 and 105 years and I have been associated with many of his projects during those years.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Chapter [PDF]
    BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS AFTER ARTICLE 50 BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS AFTER ARTICLE 50 Series Editors: Alex De Ruyter, Jon Yorke and Haydn Davies, Centre for Brexit Studies, Birmingham City University, UK With the vote on 23 June 2016 for the UK to leave the European Union it has become imperative for individuals, business, government and wider society to understand the implications of the referendum result. This series, published in collaboration with the Centre for Brexit Studies at Birming- ham City University, UK, examines a broad sweep of topics related to Brexit. It aims to bring together academics from across the disciplines to confront and examine the challenges withdrawal from the EU brings. The series promotes rigorous engagement with the multifaceted aspects of both the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ perspectives in order to enhance understanding of the consequences for the UK, and for its relationship with the wider world, of Brexit, and aims to suggest measures to counter the challenges faced. Forthcoming Titles David Hearne and Alex de Ruyter, Regional Success after Brexit: The Need for New Measures. Arantza Gomez Arana, Brexit and Gibraltar: The Negotia- tions of a Historically Contentious Region. Stefania Paladini and Ignazio Castellucci, European Secu- rity in a Post-Brexit World. BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS AFTER ARTICLE 50 Assessing Process, Progress and Impact EDITED BY ALEX DE RUYTER Birmingham City University, UK AND BEVERLEY NIELSEN Birmingham City University, UK United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India Malaysia – China Emerald Publishing
    [Show full text]
  • Invest, Devolve, Liberate a New Economic Policy in the Light of Brexit
    Invest, devolve, liberate A new economic policy in the light of Brexit Tom Startup Charlie Cadywould November 2016 Open Access. Some rights reserved. As the publisher of this work, Demos wants to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright. We therefore have an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content online without charge. Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute this work in any format, including translation, without written permission. This is subject to the terms of the Demos licence found at the back of this publication. Its main conditions are: · Demos and the author(s) are credited · This summary and the address www.demos.co.uk are displayed · The text is not altered and is used in full · The work is not resold · A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to Demos. You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the licence. Demos gratefully acknowledges the work of Creative Commons in inspiring our approach to copyright. To find out more go to www.creativecommons.org PARTNERS CREDITS This paper is one of a series funded by the Politics and Economics Research Trust (registered charity no. 1121849) and John Mills, commissioned from the UK's leading think tanks and policy organisations on the theme of Rebalancing the Economy. The research findings of this programme will be published during late 2016 and early 2017. Further details are available at www.pert.org.uk. Published by Demos September 2016 © Demos.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Hypocrisy of Leave Cam
    1 Hypocrisy of Leave campaigners Today a new deal between the UK and the European Union has been outlined by the Prime Minister, which will be discussed by European leaders at the European Council later this month. These are meaningful reforms which would strengthen our economic co-operation with Europe, bringing jobs and growth to the UK, whilst also taking back greater control over our national interests, notably giving national Parliaments more control over EU legislation. Today, Leave campaigners have roundly attacked these proposals. Nigel Farage has said they are “ludicrous”, Matthew Elliot of Vote Leave said they are “trivial”, and Leave.eu have said they are a “a fudge and a farce”. They have attacked them as being a “smokescreen”, and “nothing more than a PR exercise”. This is, however, deeply hypocritical as leave campaigners have a long history of campaigning for and championing the very reforms the Prime Minister is today proposing. This past support for the Prime Minister’s renegotiating stance highlights the deep hypocrisy at the heart of the Leave campaigners’ criticisms: They have pre-emptively rejected the final renegotiation package and are the only people who have given up on reform and want to walk away from Europe come what may. The leave campaigns’ hypocrisy will put the many benefits we gain from being in Europe – trade, jobs, low prices, investment – at risk. How the Leave campaigns used to support the renegotiation Leave campaigners have a long history of campaigning for and championing the very reforms the Prime Minister is seeking in his renegotiation of the Britain’s relationship with the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • The Elephant in the Room Why UK Living Standards May Be Lower in 2030 Than They Were in 2019 Or Even 2007 and What We Can Do to Stop This Happening
    The Elephant in the Room Why UK living standards may be lower in 2030 than they were in 2019 or even 2007 and what we can do to stop this happening John Mills The Elephant in the Room The Elephant in the Room Why UK living standards may be lower in 2030 than they were in 2019 or even 2007 and what we can do to stop this happening John Mills First published September 2020 © Civitas 2020 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL email: [email protected] All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-912581-18-4 Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. Typeset by Typetechnique Printed in Great Britain by 4edge Limited, Essex Contents Author vi Introduction 1 1. Missed Opportunities 5 2. Economic Growth 33 3. Industrialisation 62 4. 1914-1945 and John Maynard Keynes 89 5. Post-World War II 110 6. The Arrival of Monetarism 141 7. World Imbalances 167 8. Competitiveness 196 9. Sustainability 217 10. The Future 241 Conclusion 246 Notes 251 Index 268 v Author John Mills is an entrepreneur and economist with a life-long political background in the Labour Party, leading him to becoming its largest individual donor.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Membership Referendum: the Campaigns
    EU membership referendum: The Campaigns www.civitas.org.uk Factsheet – EU membership referendum: The Campaigns www.civitas.org.uk ‘In’ Campaign Former Marks and Spencer boss Lord Stuart Rose launched the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign on 12 October. Britain Stronger in Europe has focused on the business case for staying in, arguing the benefits are “a stronger economy, stronger security and stronger leadership on the world stage”. Rose is attempting to defuse the claim that How does a General Election actually work? pro-Europeans are unpatriotic. The UK is a liberal democracy. This means that we democratically elect politicians, who Former Prime Ministers Sir Johnrepresent Major, Gordon our interests. Brown It and also Tony involves Blair thatare supporting individual rights the campaign, are protected. alongside Labour MP Chuka Umunna, Green Parfty MP Caroline Lucas and Conservative MP Damian Green. Former chief of the general staff Sir Peter Wall, West HamThe United type vice of liberal-chairwoman democracy Baroness we have Karren is a constitutionalBrady, BT chairman monarchy, Sir Mike where Rake the and powers of television presenter June Sarpongthe monarch are also prominentare limited figures by the interms the campaign.and conditions put down in the constitution. The Green Party and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of remaining in the EU. The Labour Party appears to have also settled on staying in following newly elected leader Jeremy Corbyn’s decision, although groups such as Labour Leave are campaigning for Brexit. Parliamentary system The UK has a parliamentary system of democratic governance. Unlike presidential and Organisations such as the Conservative Europe Group, Conservative European Mainstream, Business for New Europe, semi-presidential systems, there is an interconnection between the legislative (law- the European Movement, Open Europe, the Centre for European Reform and Labour in for Britain are campaigning to making) and executive (law-enforcing) branches of government in a parliamentary stay in the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcast and on Demand Bulletin Issue Number
    Issue 356 of Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin 18 June 2018 Issue number 356 18 June 2018 Issue 356 of Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin 18 June 2018 Contents Introduction 3 Note to Broadcasters Monitoring of diversity and equal opportunities in broadcasting 6 Cigarette packaging in TV programming 8 Broadcast Standards cases In Breach Programming Encore Radio, various dates and times 9 The Everly Pregnant Brothers: Live at the Lyceum Theatre SheffieldLive! 13 April 2018, 20:00 12 Gold Rush Discovery, 19 January 2018, 20:00 15 Resolved STV News North STV, 23 February 2018, 18:05 18 Broadcast Licence Conditions cases In Breach Compliance with ownership restrictions JML Media Limited, 15 February 2013 to 26 May 2018 20 Broadcast licensees’ late and non-payment of licence fees Various licensees 23 In Breach/Resolved Provision of information: Diversity in Broadcasting Various licensees 25 Broadcast Fairness and Privacy cases Upheld Complaint by Mr and Mrs T Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away!, Channel 5, 25 May 2016 28 Issue 356 of Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin 18 June 2018 Tables of cases Investigations Not in Breach 61 Complaints assessed, not investigated 62 Complaints outside of remit 69 BBC First 70 Investigations List 71 Issue 356 of Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin 18 June 2018 Introduction Under the Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”), Ofcom has a duty to set standards for broadcast content to secure the standards objectives1. Ofcom also has a duty to ensure that On Demand Programme Services (“ODPS”) comply with certain standards requirements set out in the Act2.
    [Show full text]
  • London Government Directory Greater London Enterprise
    London government directory Greater London Enterprise Property investment and development Programme management and consulting Commercial finance Enterprise development London’s economic development company bringing commercial know-how to public policy, and delivering economic regeneration .gle.co.uk For more information, please contact: Greater London Enterprise www 28 Park Street London SE1 9EQ Tel: 020 7403 0300 [email protected] www.gle.co.uk The London Government Directory 2006 A GUIDE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN A A GUIDE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN LONDON ©Association of London Government 591/2 Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL Tel: 020 7934 9999 Fax: 020 7934 9991 ISBN: 1 85494 165 8 Price £35.00* September 2005 *£17.50 to London boroughs & voluntary organisations 1 Minimum Environmental Impact for Maximum Printed Impact! Photograph by Jeff [email protected] Every year Sprinters looks at the way we affect our environment and how we can reduce waste when printing the literature our capital city needs. This year we have introduced a new press which operates on a waterless litho system with fully recyclable plates. The result is less chemistry and a more energy efficient output while still offering a full range of recycled papers and boards. For more information about Sprinters please call or visit our website. Sprinters (London) Limited Churchill House, 114 Windmill Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9NB Tel: 020 8847 2128 Fax: 020 8569 8681 ISDN: 020 8560 9547 [email protected] www.sprinters.co.uk CONTENTS London Government A brief history
    [Show full text]
  • A Rebalancing Programme for Britain Ending Austerity in the Uk
    RUNNER UP A REBALANCING PROGRAMME FOR BRITAIN ENDING AUSTERITY IN THE UK Richard Plackett and Dr George Cooper July 2019 ABOUT THE IPPR ECONOMICS PRIZE The inaugural IPPR Economics Prize invited entries in response to the question: “What would be your radical plan to force a step change in the quality and quantity of the UK’s economic growth?” We wanted to know whether the downward trend in the rate of economic growth can be reversed, and if so, how this can be done. Is it realistic, desirable and achievable for the UK economy to grow at 3 or 4 per cent in the 2020s? We wanted to capture the best new thinking out there. Crucially, we wanted to understand not just what policies could raise the growth rate, but also how growth could translate into higher pay for ordinary households and reduced inequalities across regions and generations. We wanted to know whether such proposals could be environmentally sustainable, accelerate decarbonisation, and ensure that the UK meets its international commitments and its responsibilities to present and future generations. We offered a main prize-pot of £100,000, with a dedicated under-25s prize of £25,000 and a runners-up prize also of £25,000. IPPR and the judging panel, chaired by Stephanie Flanders, with John Eatwell, John Mills and Helena Morrissey, examined over 200 ideas and ultimately awarded prizes to four entries: two winners of the main prize, an under-25 and a runner-up. The IPPR Economics Prize was generously supported by John Mills, The de Laszlo Foundation, the Nigel Vinson Charitable Trust and Christopher Nieper.
    [Show full text]