 Welcome to book club. I'm Jeffrey Sachs, university professor at Columbia University and I am absolutely thrilled to be with Professor Mariana Mazucato of University College London. Thank you so much for joining and especially thank you so much for writing this wonderful book. We're going to be discussing mission economy. You keep writing fabulous, fabulous books, and you have fans all over the world. I know we're being joined by listeners and attendees from dozens and dozens of countries in every continent of the world, possibly Antarctica also. And they know of your leadership, including entrepreneurial state which put behind us lots of myths about the role of government. That's what we're going to be talking about today. Thank you Jeffrey, the value of everything about how to orient towards the common good. And today, a mission economy, which you subtitle a moonshot guide to change in capitalism. So it's, it's really great to be with you thanks so much for joining. Thank you Jeffrey and your whole team. It's been fabulous also working with you over the years. So this is great to be able to chat more informally. No, it's, it's fun. And I think the, the timing is right for thinking about a moonshot. We are in the midst of travails worldwide of course with COVID but we're also having a more far reaching discussion about the kind of world we want getting out of this mess. And maybe you can describe, but just to open it up. What is a moonshot? Why do you call it a moonshot guide? Great. Well, thank you. So, in reality, I tend to actually call it a mission oriented guide but I couldn't say the word mission and both kind of title and the subtitle. And I sort of regret it by the way, it's interesting because the problem with the word moonshot is unfortunately it makes people think about a big project, you know, like a siloed project out in the desert or somewhere. Whereas, you know, what the moonshot was the Apollo moon landing and the, you know, the whole program was something much bigger than that and I'm trying to get people to think bigger in terms of also all the different you know goals that we have out there today the 17 sustainable models. And these are challenges right so in terms of the moon landing the challenge was the space race, you know, beat the Russian Sputnik. That wasn't the moonshot. The moonshot translated the broad challenge. Remember the challenges and you're the one who reminds us all the time are the SDGs, transforming it into a concrete goal, you know, getting to the moon and back, but also getting as many different sectors involved and this is where the word moonshot sometimes gets confusing, you know, getting to the moon required innovation and aeronautics electronics nutrition materials, the entire software industry in some ways was an outcome of that. And what I really think we should be doing today for example around the climate challenges is turning those into moonshots like you know 100 carbon neutral cities and a particular area, but making it framing it so it gets as many different sectors involved. So it's not just say about renewable energy. And also really that kind of public private side right you know the Apollo program was not just NASA. There was lots of different companies honey well Motorola General Electric and so on, but the partnership was very well designed. I mean I'm sure it could have been better, but NASA cared to design the partnership to be what I would call today symbiotic and not parasitic. In the health sector we have a lot of parasitic partnerships, and that meant they actually, you know, looked at things like how should we change our current procurement strategy to be more about catalyzing bought up innovation, but towards a goal. Right so they changed it from cost plus contracts which also made the cost go up really like too much to fixed price contracts in terms of their relationship with the companies they were, you know, procuring in, but with constant incentives for innovation and investment right that's why all these spillovers occurred. So talk about all of these design features which you feature in the middle part of the book. And the book is fantastic because it really is a guide that is useful for all places in the world and for the listeners I just want to emphasize this idea of development which you know sometimes, and often has been given a bad name in in rhetoric. The idea that that Mariana is propounding and that I fully concur with is that government can provide a tremendous amount of leadership if it's dynamic and active. I want us to talk about the NASA and the moon shot specifically and just to tell you I was there. I was 10 years old when the moon shot was announced so I was there as a kid who loved the moon shot. And so I listened to or watched that every one of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. And to get us in the mood Mariana if you'll permit me I wanted to share my screen of if the technology will work and listen to John F Kennedy, John F Kennedy in 1961, saying to the Congress, let's do something big, really galvanizing moment and you and I love that kind of approach. And it's a fun, I think for people to, to hear it so if I can now find because it's hard not because it's easy. In space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth, I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national decisions that these core sources required for such leadership. We have never specified long range goals on an urgent time schedule or managed our resources and our time so as to ensure their fulfillment. I therefore ask the Congress above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities to provide the funds which are needed for the following national goals. First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of space and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. In conclusion, let me emphasize one point. It is not a pleasure for any president of the United States, as I'm sure it was not a pleasure for my predecessors to come before the Congress and ask for new appropriations which placed burdens on our people. I came to this conclusion with some reluctance. But in my judgment, this is a most serious time in the life of our country and in the life of freedom around the globe and it is the obligation I believe of the president of the United States to at least make his recommendations to the members of the Congress so that they can reach their own conclusions with that judgment before them. You must decide yourselves as I have decided and I am confident that whether you finally decide in the way that I have decided or not, that your judgment as my judgment is reached and what is in the best interest of our country. This was President Kennedy speaking on May 25 1961 to the US Congress when he said that I believe that this country should adopt the goal before this decade is out of sending a man to the moon and returning him safely to the earth. And then Mariana what I love about the speech and hope that people can tune in and listen to is that he said nothing will be so hard or more expensive. So almost the opposite of the typical politician. He didn't say to the American people this is a breeze it's it's we've got it nailed. He said this is hard, and not that it's going to be cheap but it's going to be expensive and then he told them, he said to the Congress, Don't do this lightly, you know, do this, because we're going to succeed. And if you don't want to carry it through. Don't, don't, don't adopt this idea, at which point the whole Congress stands up and cheers, and America is on its way to the moon. So why don't you take it from there because you describe beautifully the next phase. Sure. Well thanks for that and I think it is important, you know, don't worry that it didn't come on this will force everyone to go listen to it after this will make it even more resonating. So the speech I actually kind of, you know, go through in the book is also the other speech at rice stadium where he's, you know, does exactly what you just said and says we're going to do it because it's hard not because it's easy, and even just stopping there for a moment and think of all the language like literally the storytelling in the narrative we've convinced ourselves of the role of policy. You know, it's all about fixing problems, you know, you fix market failures at best it's about enabling or de risking the cool risk takers which are somewhere else today they're in places like Silicon Valley, and the word facilitating, that's become a word I'm sort of allergic to the word I'm Italian fact Chile, you know from last and easy, you're not trying to make things easier for other people you're confronting the difficulty right climate change is hard. Any quality today is hard to tackle. We do it because it's hard but it's important we need you know missions precisely to confront the challenges that we have. And I think what's also so interesting and I don't think people realize but in both 1961 and still in 1962. These guys had no clue how to get to the moon. Right so the level of innovation experimentation trial and error and error and error and the errors often you know led to death was enormous. And the fact that they were willing to experiment and make mistakes is just again so different today where as soon as a civil servant makes a mistake there in the front page of the Daily Mail or the equivalent to newspaper and everyone's country there. And you know experimentation is key if you're a value creator, it's not key if you're just pushing papers around or at best kind of redistributing the value that's created somewhere else. So the idea that actually wealth creation itself is collective enterprise and all the different actors and both the public and the private sector need to be investing within their own organizations in the ability to create value. Interestingly, it was actually sorry, interestingly, was actually something that NASA was very aware of so the head of procurement this guy Ernest Bracket, he had this really interesting concept he said, if we stop investing in our own kind of brain, our own research and development, then when we're interacting with private sector organizations which they have to do this really was a public private partnership, we won't even know how to write the terms of reference. So he said, in order to prevent what he called brochuremanship, which is a word I love you know at the time they didn't have PowerPoint presentations from PWC and Deloitte they had brochures from companies that would come in and sell themselves he said, in order to prevent us getting captured by brochuremanship, we ourselves need to remain capable, dynamic and invest within our brain. And secondly, you know after the Apollo one fire, which was you know tragic incident three astronauts died. They went through a whole kind of inward, you know digression where they said maybe we don't have the right organization, because Gus Grissom one of the three astronauts who died on January 27 1967. Before the fire he said Jesus Christ you know how are we ever going to get to the moon, if we can't even talk between two or three buildings. That's because he couldn't hear what was being said for mission control room and that was part of the problem. There's many problems on that day but anyway that kind of lack of horizontal communication each department kind of working in silos we know is a common feature of governments right probably also a common feature of large private sector organizations but the fact that if you are a purpose oriented, mission oriented, big you know goal oriented public organization you also, you know, it's not just about spending money you also have kind of an inward change in your culture more horizontal communication you need to be more agile flexible. This is a huge lesson today for public institutions, otherwise I was just on a call today with an interview for an Italian paper and the usual kind of pushback you get is oh my God come on but do you see what kind of state we have. So instead of just kind of stopping with the snapshot of the current types of bureaucracies we have, and their problematic bureaucracies, some bureaucracies can be dynamic and creative right so it's not the bureaucracy itself that's the problem is the kind. Instead of just bashing government for being slow and our show lots of red tape. What does it actually need to transform that and I think the first step has to be and I'll shut up in a minute to start with the idea of what is the state even for, you know to go beyond this idea that is just there to fix markets and to really develop with the framing but an intra kind of organizational toolkit for what it means to co create and shape markets not just fix them towards directions that we need you know inclusive sustainable growth and so on. One of the amazing things which as you mentioned it is that when President Kennedy gave the speech in May 1961, the US had had one flight in space a suborbital flight for 15 minutes. They had no clear way to achieve what the President was about to announce. He didn't have at the time or he didn't listen to a gaggle of advisors, oh you can't say that how do you know and by the end of the decade and isn't that a little bit ration what are they going to ask us. But he went ahead and declared the absolutely bold, bold vision and bold goal and a time bound goal. Also, and it's stunning to think about when the first flights were taken. There weren't, of course, even electronic boards to monitor the flight there was literally a model rocket on plastic on a wire that they were pushing with the stick physically in the first shot to know where Alan Shepard was in this 15 minute flight they were using teletype and as has been often said we have more computing power in our smartphones than NASA had available on site at Cape Canaveral for years. So the drama of this is phenomenal. The fact that I think it's estimated that 20,000 companies got together 500,000 people truly private sector, but led by NASA. By a goal. You know, it's it's stunning. So, how could it be and I think it is one of the, the puzzles that you've written a lot about this and thought a lot about this. The US government had, you know, for all its consequences developed the atomic bomb in Manhattan Project, one of the most phenomenal enterprises of applied science and history. Absolutely incredible. It had gone to the moon. And yet, despite that, a few years later, Ronald Reagan was saying, you can't trust the government to do anything. It's incompetent the idea that government can't manage can't lead. How could we fall into that mode of thinking with this amazing history of accomplishment before our eyes. This is, to me, a massive social and intellectual puzzle. You took that on already in the entrepreneurial state and now you're talking about how to make missions. But where did that mythology come from. It's an opening part of this book also when you talk about bad theory bad practice. How could you get the idea that government is incompetent. When it had just gone to the moon within the timeline. No less, the President Kennedy had set out because let's remember Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Yeah, in July 1969 before the decade was through in eight years. So where did the bad idea come from. Interesting. So I mean, first of all, like we should just say and I'm sure we'll come back to it later but let's just bookmark it now that the kind of modern problems that you and I care about from climate change to you know, getting the plastic out of the ocean to you you know really in a moonshot approach also fight different types of inequalities that's actually harder than getting to the moon right because these are so called wicked problems that also require political regulatory behavioral change and so on. But getting to the moon was of course very hard again they had no clue that these different ways that they initially thought they might get there there's the direct approach the earth orbit rendezvous and they finally settled on the lunar orbit rendezvous. And what I was talking about before was the need to actually experiment right trial and error and error, and then learning from those errors requires actually investing within your capacity to learn. And here's where your point becomes really central, because if at the same time there is sort of an ideological warfare about reducing not so much even just the size of the state that as well but the remit of what the state is for and especially by the way around the welfare state areas, a bit less on innovation state areas, and I say that specifically because Ronald Reagan, never reduced the budget really of some of the key organizations I look at in the entrepreneurial state including the National Institutes of Health the Innovation and Research program DARPA, what he and also thatcher reduced was really the kind of welfare state arms so you know public education as well. Yeah, Reagan Reagan also, and it was a deliberate attack very relevant for today he attacked alternative energy. Exactly I was just about to say that actually he took the solar panels off of the Jimmy Carter had put on. That's a good point and by the way, Trump, who I think is less, you know, mad than some people think he is he's he was very strategic the first thing he did. When he became president was actually attacked some of the most ambitious public organizations in terms of their remit, literally like public broadcasting and ARPA E ARPA E was his first target I mean people explain what ARPA is the advanced research projects agency within the Department of Defense which came up with the Internet right everything in our smart phones that make them smarter not stupid Internet GPS touchscreen series were actually outcomes of public investments in organizations like DARPA. And ARPA E was an organization that under Obama after the financial crisis. He set up because you'll remember there was an 800 billion stimulus program and very early on he tried this is before the whole Tea Party thing happened to actually direct the stimulus in a green direction. He brought in a Nobel Prize winning physicist to direct the Department of Energy, and they set up ARPA E so the equivalent of DARPA but around energy and kind of green transition sustainable growth kind of strategies. And ARPA by the way has a tiny budget it's about 300 million compared to 3 billion of DARPA. But again, forget the money for a minute. You know this is an ambitious organization which is trying to again experiment around a portfolio of different types of investments that will be really important for innovation around sustainable growth they've been important for battery storage for example and going after ARPA E is critical for you know an ideological war kind of against an ambitious state because budgets come and go. We shouldn't forget that budgets you can cut it one trimester or one year and it can come back the other year. If you actually go after the organizational kind of DNA of the state. Say the BBC, which is under attack in the UK, it can take half a century for these organizations to come back right. Anyway, so your question was about kind of the ideology and I think you know I always again begin with what is even the market like what do we even mean by capitalism and we shouldn't confuse markets with business markets are outcomes of how we organize all the different organizations that create value of public organizations, private organizations. Others increasingly important in the say nonprofit area, you know the Gates Foundation or the Welcome Trust, but how we govern these organizations and how they relate one to another determine the kind of outcomes we get. So if you have an overly financialized business sector, you know $4 trillion have been used just to buy back shares in the last 10 years by S&P 500 companies. If you have government institutions that at best, you know at worst or scared to do anything at best are there to fix market failure so they actually have to wait for things to screw up before they come in. That's going to give you a particular type of economy. And if those relationships are, say parasitic right you know you actually have say like we have in the health sector we have $40 billion spent by the US government on health innovation. The private sector comes in, which it should, and you know can use that innovation, especially the high risk early stage government funding. So the Pfizer's of the world come in kind to come in a bit later. And if we don't govern the patents in such a way that actually make sure that you know the innovations are accessible and that after the patents are up. There's more diffusion if the prices of the drugs don't actually reflect that public contribution and so on, then that public investment isn't actually getting like it's proper return, and I'm not thinking just monetarily. The more you take away the confidence of the state and talk about its remit at best as fixing a problem and then get the hell out of the way, or facilitating enabling being a lender of last resort instead of an investor first resort. That affects both the kind of capabilities you think you need within government, but also the confidence. And this is important the confidence and the kind of security that you're going to actually also strike a good deal for who for citizens. Right because I'm talking especially about democratically elected governments. I think you touched on something very immediately relevant to day by day right now that I think is worth mentioning for everybody listening. We're, of course, in the race to immunize people all over the world against the virus that causes coven 19 and the lead vaccines, two of them, but at least the one made by bio and tech and Pfizer and the one made by Moderna are these new vaccine types called mRNA vaccines, and these companies are, of course, producing them and making billions of dollars of market capitalization and massive profits on the basis of them and they are saying you see the power of the private sector. But I think the point that you mentioned quickly and I want to underscore is where did those mRNA vaccine platforms come from. They did not come from bio and tech, even less Pfizer because bio and tech was the science part of that joint venture. They did not come from Moderna the two companies that are producing these mRNA vaccines they came actually from academic scientists at University of Pennsylvania, funded by the US government, funded by the National Institutes of Health, funded by the agency of the National Institute of allergies and infectious disease and I a ID led by Tony Fauci, our lead infectious disease scientist of the United States, and it was many, many years of government funding that made this possible. And it's only in the end stage that the two companies came in. And with the financing of the NIH carried through the phase one, two and three clinical trials to get this into operation. So just to underscore your point in the most immediate context, these vaccines are produced by government scientific leadership and support of a scientific community, not a business community. We need the business community. It does important things. But the idea that people have that, oh, it's business against the heavy bureaucracy of government is really a messed up idea. But you could break down that point, you know, because the amount of public funding is again a point that I keep kind of, you know, trying to reveal and specifically with the vaccines is six vaccines is over $12 billion that governments have put in. But then, you know, the other point is once we've admitted that there's both, you know, lots of public money that high risk early stage capital intensive phase so the, you know, that's why I called it the entrepreneurial state because it's a high risk stuff. And so, you know, when it comes to what government does, what does it mean to actually then govern it in the public interest. And what's really interesting and I didn't realize this until I started to look into it when the Defense Department funds health because they do because soldiers die on the battlefield obviously not just by gunshot wounds but also through sickness of different types. When they fund health innovation, they're not naive. They make sure that you know the medicines the therapies and so on whatever it may be an antibiotic and you know the different types of health innovations actually get to the battlefield that the soldiers that you know the Defense Department paid the health innovation for actually get it and have that with NIH actually you know NIH has what's called marching rights. In other words when you have publicly funded medicines, the prices should reflect that so they should be able for example to cap the price of a medicine and not just let it go to whatever the market will bear, which is basically what value based pricing allows. And yet they don't see that as their role. I mean I gave a keynote lecture at the NIH a couple years ago and I asked them and they said yeah well you know that's not our thing yet we might agree with you, but that's not our kind of remit and I kind of hope that this idea of building back better and the fact that so much money is now going into the system you know as it often does kind of last minute. We need to have a more continual way to think about things like outcomes based budgeting, but when we're just kind of pouring money in, as we are now two trillion with the build back better, you know, a policy, the American Recovery Plan but also another four, sorry, two trillion another four trillion for the infrastructure plan what does it mean to govern it to make sure that it actually reaches people that we have stronger institutions that we have better partnerships. That means much more than just flooding the system with liquidity or public investment and of course we need public investment we have you know decaying infrastructure, but the kind of investment and the details of the partnership matter. And that's really what the books about it kind of unpicks. What does it mean to construct a mutualistic partnership what does it mean to pay attention to the nitty gritty stuff you know grants, loans, bailouts procurement strategies to design them as ambitiously as NASA did to really foster that bottom up innovation but again targeted and to also share the rewards and on that it's really interesting NASA had this no excess profits clause in the procurement contracts which if you think of what's happening in the space today, which is the kind of the new gambling casino. You know, that would be quite useful because it's not about saying no profits, you know, they don't want the business sector to come in through charity, you know corporate social responsibility now produce stuff work together fine, but how we share in the rewards needs to be determined in terms of how we even talk about who's doing what. So if you're confident that it obviously had a very directional role and was making its own investments, then it took care to have that no excess profits clause, whereas today, coming back to my earlier point that even in countries where you have the public investment, when the confidence isn't there you get a bad deal, and the green deal we should, you know, not forget the deal part, the green bit, you know, as Greta says, listen to the scientists, but the deal that that's really a new social compact and I think there's innovation on, you know, a better deal a better social compact, you know, proper stakeholder value driven capitalism, as opposed to shareholder maximization. That stuff, you know, hopefully is what people will remember. And they read the book. I think the notion that setting the terms of the deal right is so crucial. The question with the vaccine issue is not only how things are priced but as you said, what is made available to whom because now we need worldwide immunization, the companies are saying well we don't want to share the intellectual property that's ours that's how the market economy works, but it's a little naive, not naive. I said a choice, they should be you know like this whole idea of conditionalities all that government funding that you and I just talked about should come with strings attached. You shouldn't be allowed to kind of abuse patents patents are often too wide or too strong hard to license or to upstream. So with the World Health Organization has been calling for as a patent pool to foster kind of that collective intelligence that currently is not just for the vaccine rollout which is also incredibly important in terms of solidarity and not having vaccine apartheid which Dr Tedros talks about in terms of the hoarding of the doses just in rich countries, but the knowledge creation mechanisms themselves how do you govern knowledge creation in in order to really foster as much collective intelligence and the patents are often used to extract value, which is not really what they were there for they were meant to incentivize innovation in such a way that you know, does get the objectives we want. Maybe you could say one word about what what it means as you said to have marching rights and what the government could do even in the immediate context. Yeah I mean marching rights specifically I mean this is really interesting because you'll remember that. So what was it 1982. There is the Bay Dole Act, which allowed something to happen which until then didn't happen, which is that publicly funded science. Before then the idea was, it was just saying they kind of open domain right that you couldn't like patent it if it was coming out of a, you know, especially publicly funded science. So they wanted them to the idea was that that was kind of impeding commercialization of science and that was bad and so the Bay Dole Act actually allowed publicly funded science to result in patents and many different companies actually were set up because of that so the whole biotech revolution that we call the biotech revolution from basically that period zone. It wasn't actually that you know more knowledge was was being created it was that more companies could actually start up literally from the patents that all of a sudden could be were being allowed. Now as part of that process. There was a recognition that we would have to then be careful right this isn't actually about privatizing completely publicly funded science. So what I meant to at least initially the idea was let's just make sure it leads to more commercialization, but the deal was in their head so if you read the Bay Dole Act it actually has within it's a long act that obviously publicly funded you know, medicines, the price should reflect that so the NIH, for example but it's not just the NIH you also have the Veterans Administration you have Barda bits of DARPA that do health innovation should be able to control the prices or the prices should reflect, at least the price that was that public contribution so it's basically like a market cap on the prices of medicines that have a strong public funding base you and I have never been that's never been used so you and I have both complained about a case, another case of against hepatitis C of Gilead which which I've written a lot about also where the company ended up charging 1000 times the unit cost of the pill for something that it didn't develop it actually bought the technology. And if you trace it back and back and back this was NIH supported work by NIH. That's true for room does it here now another. Yes, that's a COVID-19 therapeutic. Yeah, so, but the March and right was the point that you're making that the deal has to be thought through skillfully, and maybe Mariana that is a good segue the section of the book of mission economy on good theory good practice because you list a number of highlights of what does it mean to have good practice you have listeners today from, as I say, 60 or more countries, I believe it is. Each one of them is going to be advising their governments or maybe in government or listening to their government what are the good theory good practices that you want them to know of course they need to read the book. This wonderful guidebook, but what are the main good practices that are crucial for getting a good deal of an entrepreneurial state. Thank you for allowing me to answer that question because it's so important now as it was also before and especially in the future if we finally get serious about the SDGs. Just really quickly march and writes the point is, they're never used. It's there in the law and we haven't use it so let alone the things we do need and this comes to your question, which we don't have and what we should be kind of fighting for in terms of better policy but even when we have good laws, we don't use them when they're going to have an ideology and so really kind of uncovering the faulty assumptions behind the ideology is what I look at both in terms of bad theory bad practice and then good theory, good practice so I broke down the good theory bit into seven areas one is about value you know actually having an economic kind of approach and framing that explicitly recognizes that value is collectively created. You know, even those people that talk about stakeholder value in the same breath about stakeholder value, instead of shareholder value will still say business creates value and then should be sharing that value amongst different stakeholders and I was kind of stop them and say no stakeholder value needs to first of all admit that value is not just created in business. It's also created by public institution. It's created by workers who need to be invested in instead of you know extracting so much value out of companies sometimes that then you know human capital formation and training isn't brought forward. The second bit is markets you know so new approach to values collectively created the second is markets really understanding that markets are outcomes of how we, you know, govern the different collective actors but especially how they relate to one another. It's also that the kind of policy we need is not about fixing markets, but really actively shaping and co creating markets to get us the objectives we want. Right, so if we want inclusive growth, sustainable growth, and within that actually tackle really important missions. It can't be done just by kind of leveling the pain of playing field and fixing markets we need to tilt markets in a particular direction and actively shape and create them. And that's not about picking winners you know one technology one sector one firm, it is about choosing a direction and then having a portfolio approach to get there right so not putting all our eggs in one basket and that comes back to that point about solar when different types of renewable energy but you need to at least first make the choice to move somewhere. The third bit is about organizational capacity it's too easy to keep bashing the state for being inertial barring you know just you know a bunch of rules. So if that's what we think the status for just for picking up the mess that's the kind of state we're going to get one that hasn't actually thought about its intra organizational governance culture risk taking portfolio approach. You know again dynamic procurement instead of just handouts and so on so that kind of, you know, inward look at the kind of organizational capacity we need within the public sector means we need actually even just a theory of dynamic capabilities within public institutions as ambitious as those that we have the private sector where you have MBA classes you know talking about strategic management organizational science, decision sciences organizational behavior and so on. We don't have that in MPAs, master's in public administration that's why by the way I've set up a whole Institute at UCL which is really driven by this idea of kind of rethinking the state from within the civil service and actually you know getting dynamic bureaucracies and not done inertial ones. The fourth bit was on finance you know we too often hear oh we need more finance for this finance for that finance for renewable energy. Actually there's plenty of finance out there we just have the wrong finance it's often inpatient exit driven finance even venture capital, which is you know the kind of you know finance that's supposed to help us with startups and innovation. The fact it is exit driven and wants to exit through an IPO or buy out in three or four years has in some cases like biotech rushed the process and we've ended up with lots of what Bill is on it can I have called PLEPOS product list IPOs. So patient long term strategic finance is what we need, but also outcomes based budgeting and outcomes based finance instead of saying here's a pot of money see what you can do with it. We need to start with what's the problem and kind of work backwards on what it means for finance for deficits for procurement for public private partnerships. Thank you. Can I just underscore that point I've been also trying to make for 30 years, which is when you when you have goals, you budget for the goals. You don't say, I have a goal to have every child in school. Now I'll raise the education budget 5%. You say, if every child is going to be in school, what do we need for that. If we're going to get everybody immunized against COVID-19. What do we need for that. If we're going to ensure universal access to digital and poor people can't pay what do we need for that so mission based budgeting starts with the mission and then sets the budget. It doesn't start with the budget. And then as you said, see what you can do. And I think it's just hope for the best and hope for the best and don't be surprised. Don't be surprised when you fall short. If you want to go to the moon, you better budget to go to the moon. That's why President Kennedy said nothing will be more expensive. But he said, don't do this if you're going to stop halfway. That's not our goal. So this I think is a very important point that I want to underscore, but please continue three more. Sorry, this is very pedantic of me to go through all seven. I could have just done one. So the fifth one is about distribution, you know, absolutely all I mean hopefully most of the people in your audience believe in you know progressive not regressive distribution in terms of how we design our tax systems but that's not enough we need to actually create wealth differently, as opposed to focusing too much just on redistribution to achieve inclusive growth. So this idea of kind of predistribution to actually get the conditions right in the first place to make sure as we were saying before that we're not just sharing risks but also rewards requires, you know, a distribution and predistribution lens to how we create value and that's one of the concepts I bring forward. The idea of partnership you know purpose driven partnership that's the sixth principle in that last chapter. And I think that's important because there's lots of talk and it's good talk within the corporate community of putting purpose at the center of the corporation of again, going for stakeholder not shareholder value, but that's always going to be limited unless the notion of purposes at the center of the system of how say public private and third sector including trade unions you know how they relate one to another. And that's why I kind of go into, I bother going into one of the chapters into how actually these contracts were designed to put purpose at the center of the collaborations. I do think that requires walking the talk of stakeholder value. Now with the vaccine, you know with these ideas about patents and how you know because patents are contracts, their contracts between public and private so get that right. You get a lot of other good things flowing. And the last one is on participation, and this is really important I think because whereas the moon landing the Apollo program was, you know, kind of rightly because those basically technology feet, top down you know directed by NASA, you know it's Kennedy and a bunch of other white guys in the room determining things today for the SDGs, especially ones that have to do with sustainability with inequality with gender parity with all the, you know, all 17 goals. The more we can get participatory structures kind of co creation code design to even decide what the missions are in the And for this, you know one of the areas that I'm working on, working in the world is a very local part of London that I'm from, or sorry that I live in Camden Council. And what's interesting is we have a Camden renewal commission where the missions that we've set up are very place based For example, carbon neutral housing. What does it mean to bring citizens who live in the social housing to the table in terms of actually talking about sustainable living and the kind of, you know, things that they'd like to see in the places they're living. And that requires a social innovation in areas like citizen assemblies, right, or if you look at in Spain there's a particular region where we've done some work in Mondragon where they have a whole history of the cooperative movement right so there's a huge cooperative of 87,000 workers in the Basque region there and they have a experience with co ops and you know mutual types of organizations, what can we learn from that experience in terms of this kind of, you know, co design process. And lastly, we should remember in terms of participation Right, you know, I mentioned before trade unions trade unions got us some of the best social innovations we've ever seen in capitalism, the weekend, not bad, the eight hour work day, the fact children don't work in factories. And so there's something about bringing labor's voice, as well as you know the students you know Fridays for the future and so on to the table in the co creation phase and not just after the fact to defend workers against things like you know what's going to happen with employment as some sectors kind of dwindle away so that's the just transition movement which is very important, but the concept of the just transition as important as it is making sure workers kind of, you know, transition along and don't just get left behind. That's kind of reactive. We need a proactive approach where different voices and labor's voices when I'm highlighting here is genuinely at the table to even talk about, you know, the future of a particular parts of our economy. And so that participation that I think needs a lot of thinking and I think it's actually the hardest bit. Could we spend the remaining precious minutes applying these principles you've started to name many great examples to the European Green Deal, which you are playing a major role in helping to get underway. I think the European Green Deal is extremely important because it is a holistic approach to the range of environmental challenges from climate to land use biodiversity, and so forth circular economy pollution. So it's very ambitious. It's an important role model I think for other parts of the world. I was delighted when President Biden brought 40 world leaders together, including European Union Commission, President Ursula van der Lijn to discuss essentially a worldwide Green Deal approach. What have you seen so far of the European Green Deal, what do you recommend to the listeners to take from it for applying in the national or regional circumstances where they may be living. So first of all, I think one thing that people might not know is that it's a really historic moment in Europe because the European Recovery Fund called next gen EU is extremely different from the recovery fund we saw after the financial crisis where the conditions were attached to the European Commission, these are public-public conditions, not public-private. The conditions attached for the member states to get access to European Commission money was they had to cut their deficits. Right, I mean that was all the obsession was on that. You know, 3% was, you know, over that everything was, you know, all hell would break loose and slowly that 3% went to 0% deficits is what, you know, countries were being told to go for. This time luckily on the back of realizing that that so-called austerity didn't work in many countries that led to much worse growth and in fact increase debt to GDP ratios because then the state had to come in and pick up the pieces that fall from low growth in terms of unemployment crime and so on. And this time the conditions are you have to have a strategy, a strategy on what climate and digitalization. So all the 27 member states have had to literally as we speak they're submitting these plans to the European Commission, and this itself is amazing, you know, forget the fact that some of these countries might have the wrong plans or they might not be implemented just the fact that the conditionality is on investment instead of cutting your public budget. That's a big change. And important I think just to underscore green and digital. So I just want to say that. Absolutely climate change targets and they can be of different types that can be about changing how steel is produced, how the cement is produced, but especially city level, regional level policies, you know, carbon neutral cities. That's incredibly important. And the other one was the digital divide issues. There's a separate pot for health. And, you know, I had worked for about three years with the Commission trying to argue that they had to, you know, stop thinking just about random sectors, you know, and think about these missions and the example actually gave I don't know if you can see it here, but to start with, you know, the climate change SDG 13 turn it into a really ambitious objective 100 carbon neutral cities by 2030, get as many different sectors across Europe involved so real estate mobility areas food, social sectors construction, you know, and so on and so forth. And then the bottom up projects that would be galvanized by actually changing how European policy was structured in particular innovation policy procurement and so on, would bring in all sorts of you know interesting carbon neutral urban food industries citizen carbon ID cards, and so on and so forth. But but then the next step was how do you make sure that this kind of green mission oriented approach isn't just about your innovation policy but is at the center of European growth and kind of that directed growth, then coven happened. So we have a recovery scheme, but just the fact that very soon actually the commission brought this idea of kind of the green deal outside of a silo of just like the Department of the environment within the commission, or within Member States departments to the center of European growth, this idea that growth has not just a rate but a direction and European directed growth was going to be around the European Green Deal that as well was really important because it's not that governments don't have the top green. It's just that often remains a peripheral bit of what they're doing. And I think with coven with coven the good dynamic in the midst of the crisis was the idea, we are going to have to build forward in a better way. So, it didn't push aside the European Green Deal to say well that no longer applies, it actually reinforce the idea that as we end the pandemic. Where are we going to be. Are we going to be a drift, or are we going to be heading someplace and so I think the fact that the European Green Deal was double, they double down on the importance of it was really important in the coven pandemic context. Absolutely. But what's interesting you know on the one hand there's a European plan and there's European recovery and there's European Green Deal. But then what what I'm observing is very, how do you say differences heterogeneity between how different governments are actually tackling it. And in France you know France is not perfect but one thing they did that I thought was very good is you know President Macron during the European recovery said very quickly we're not here just to bail out business, but to help it transform in a green direction so there was very strict criteria attached to the bailouts that both Renault got to the car manufacturer and Air France they had to commit to lowering their carbon emissions in the next five years to get part of the French national recovery. In the UK, we didn't do that there was a massive bailout to easy jet no conditions attached in Austria and Denmark one of the conditions was you have to stop using tax havens and if you want to keep using them. Fine, but guess what you ain't getting a penny a euro right so this idea again of kind of a new social compact at the center of both public public right so European money given to member states only if they have a climate strategy but also public private, you don't have a subsidy guaranteed loan bailout recovery if you transform that can be actually win win strategy if we all care about achieving, you know, sustainable growth but that's why that conversation, and more participant participatory conversation about what are we even trying to do, you know what does build back better actually mean, what are our goals that's why it's so essential it's not just about politically correct talk it's actually central to how you then organize the economy. One thing that I've seen, and I think it's been extremely powerful, Europe's adoption of the Green Deal really has opened eyes around the world. One very specific reason was that Europe said we're going to put on border taxes, so that you can't import into goods that are made with carbon intensive technologies in other words, other countries are going to have to clean up your act. But I think the model of the European Green Deal has had a worldwide galvanizing effect because here was a group complicated group 27 countries, all aligning around these goals, aligning around these missions, aligning around a budget to put it into place. And it wasn't soon after the President Xi Jinping announced at the UN General Assembly. Okay, China is going to decarbonize by 2060 latest. And in the Chinese system, when the President said that it got incorporated into the 14th plan, suddenly, as I'm sure you noticed all of our Chinese colleagues are working on strengthening this decarbonization pathway so it's been very exciting. Then Japan, then Korea, now the United States under President Biden. So we are seeing, I think, a truly a wave of the entrepreneurial state taking shape right now, a new era after what in our country's US UK had been the Reagan Thatcher anti state philosophy that lasted basically for a 40 year period. But I think I really feel we're in a new era. I definitely think so and I hope it lasts and we don't get what I'm already starting to hear. Like, yeah, we're doing it now but then we got to pay it back right and then you get another way of austerity which is just blanket and actually undermining the social fabric which made this particular health pandemic even worse than it had to be. One of the Council, sorry, one of you and I are in different councils but one that I'm extremely proud of that's just beginning is one that Dr. Tedros has asked me to set up for the World Health Organization. It's called the UN Council on the Economics of Health for All. And there the logic is, you know, people have talked about health and the economy but often it was like invest in health because it's good for the economy. What happens when you say health for all, right, that's the mission. It's not just health, you know, this blanket thing. Well, that is precisely SDG three. Exactly. And then you backtrack and say what does it mean for the economy. Right. So, right. So what does it mean again for budgeting outcomes based budgeting which as you say you've worked on what does it mean for the design of procurement what does it mean for the design of public private partnerships and so on. So again, the economy is there to, you know, a fuel solutions for goals. That's just a very different logic. And you know, one of the interesting things about China is that there's a little country right China's huge. There's a little country called Denmark. Well, guess what Denmark is the number one provider of high tech green digital services to China and China spending. I almost just said China like from China spending over 2 trillion on greening every single sector and its economy and Denmark is servicing it. And, and if you look at how that occurred how this like hub of you know really dynamic startups that have produced these innovative green digital services often that came from city level policies you know actually having a goal for you know green Copenhagen. And that it wasn't just let's get a bunch of startups to just create gadgets but to fuel solutions for something the country was demanding right so that market creation that itself is something I think we really need to learn about for industrial strategies so industrial strategies shouldn't be about just kind of random categories of firms like startups are good or random sectors name your top sectors, but focus on problems get all your different sectors to innovate towards that and of course if you are an SME you're going to get extra help, but not because you're an SME, but you're kind of picking the willing along the way, and you get help because you're part of the solution. And it's a great example of Denmark for many many reasons a good one for us to close on because it shows that moving in the green direction wasn't some heavy burden and heavy cost and each your spinach homework to do that it was an assignment it ended up creating a very dynamic export sector, a another even higher level of prosperity, but in an utterly sustainable way. And I'm always delighted that Denmark with all of its green success and social inclusion success also comes out number one or number two or number three each year in the world happiness report as the among the happiest countries in the world as well so there's something very good in this mix that we have been talking about the hour sped by very fast mariana I'm so grateful but the reason is your energy, your clarity, your leadership is so crucial and timely. And I'd like to remind everybody mission economy, a moonshot guide to change in capitalism is really an important book for everybody in all parts of the world we are in a new era of dynamic entrepreneurial government of the mission of sustainable development of the 17 sustainable development goals, overcoming coven 19 finding a path to a prosperous socially just and environmentally sustainable world. This book will really help you and governments around the world to find that trajectory so mariana let me thank you very much congratulate you for a wonderful book and wonderful leadership. Thanks to everybody that's been joining from all over the world. And we will see you next time on book club. Thank you so much. And can we save the questions. I'm so curious because I see there's lots there's not there will be lots and lots of questions and they will be they will be coming they will be coming your way. And also, we have in our book club we have occasions to join with the participants for live interactions and we could look forward to doing that on many of these questions in the future so don't don't give up the questions will be read. And I think we'll have an opportunity to discuss them going forward so let me thank everybody and especially again thank Professor Mariana Mazukatu mission economy wonderful book and thank you so much for joining us. Thank you everybody. Bye bye.