The Second Machine Age is Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee’s best-known work. The book explores the profound implications of rapid technological advances, particularly in digital technologies, for society, the economy, and the labour market. Published in 2014, the book delves into the transformative effects of what the authors term the ‘second machine age,’ a period marked by exponential growth in computing power, the ubiquity of digital networks, and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics (page 9). Through a well-structured narrative, Brynjolfsson and McAfee argue that while these technological advancements hold immense potential for economic growth and societal progress, they also present significant challenges, particularly in terms of inequality and the displacement of labour (pages 11-12). In this review we examine some of the book’s arguments, structure, and contributions to the wider ongoing discourse on technology and society.
Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s central thesis is that we are entering a new phase of technological advancement that is fundamentally different from the first machine age, which was characterized by the mechanization of manual labour through the invention of the steam engine and other machinery during the Industrial Revolution. The second machine age, in contrast, is driven by digital technologies that augment and, in some cases, replace cognitive tasks traditionally performed by humans (page 9).
Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s book is structured in a logical and accessible manner, making complex ideas about technology and economics understandable to a broad audience. The book is divided into three main sections: the first outlines the characteristics of the second machine age (chapters 1-6), the second discusses its implications for the economy and labour market (chapters 7-11), and the third offers potential solutions to the challenges posed by these technological changes (chapters 12-15).
The authors identify three key characteristics of the second machine age: (1) exponential growth in computing power, (2) digitalization, which allows information to be replicated at virtually no cost, and (3) combinatorial innovation, where new technologies are built upon existing ones, leading to rapid and often unexpected advances (page 37). The authors argue that these characteristics are driving unprecedented changes in productivity, business models, and the global economy (chapters 1-6).
A significant portion of the book is dedicated to discussing the implications of the technological changes for the labour market (chapters 7-11). Brynjolfsson and McAfee argue that while technology has always created winners and losers, the pace and scale of change in the second machine age are likely to exacerbate inequality. They point to the phenomenon of ‘skill-biased technological change’, where technology disproportionately benefits those with higher levels of education and skills, leading to a widening gap between high-skilled and low-skilled workers (page 134). This dynamic is further amplified by the ‘superstar’ effect, where a small number of highly skilled individuals and companies capture a disproportionate share of the economic gains from new technologies (page 150)
The authors also explore the potential for technological unemployment, where advances in AI and robotics could lead to the displacement of a significant number of jobs, particularly in sectors such as manufacturing, transportation, and even certain white-collar professions (page 173). However, they are careful to distinguish between short-term disruptions and long-term trends, noting that while some jobs will undoubtedly be lost, new opportunities will also emerge, particularly in areas that require creativity, complex problem-solving, and interpersonal skills (page 191).
One of the strengths of the book is its use of empirical evidence and real-world examples, the authors drawing on a wide range of data, from economic statistics to case studies of companies and industries that have been transformed by digital technologies. This evidence-based approach lends credibility to their analysis and helps to ground their sometimes abstract ideas in concrete realities.
However, a critic might argue that the book’s optimistic tone about the potential of technology to drive progress and prosperity is not sufficiently tempered by a consideration of the potential risks and downsides. While the authors do acknowledge the challenges posed by technological change, particularly in terms of inequality and job displacement, they tend to focus more on the potential benefits of innovation and less on the potential for negative outcomes, such as social unrest, the erosion of privacy and the proliferation of misinformation (e.g. fake news) in an increasingly digital world.
Moreover, while Brynjolfsson and McAfee offer several policy recommendations to address the challenges of the second machine age, such as investing in education, reforming the tax system, and fostering innovation (Chapter 13), some of the discussion around proposals such as higher tax rates, universal basic income and negative income tax may seem overly idealistic and difficult to implement in practice (Chapter 14). Some readers may find the patches of real-world naiveté throughout the concluding chapters off-putting.
Despite all this, The Second Machine Age makes a worthwhile contribution to the wider discussion on technology, economics, and society. Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s nuanced discussion of the potential for both job displacement and job creation provides a comparatively thoughtful perspective that is often missing from more alarmist accounts of technological unemployment. Their focus on the importance of education and lifelong learning in preparing workers for the jobs of the future is commendable and a valuable contribution to the wider policy debate.
In concluding, The Second Machine Age is recommended to all readers who are interested in the profound technological changes reshaping our economy and society. While the book is not without its flaws, particularly in chapters where the tone may seem overly optimistic, it remains an important contribution to the discourse on technology and society. As we continue to grapple with the impacts of AI, robotics, and other advanced technologies, Brynjolfsson and McAfee provide a useful framework for understanding the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
‘The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies’ by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee was published in 2014 by W.W. Norton & Co. (ISBN: 978-0-39-335064-7). 306pp.
Andrei E. Rogobete is Associate Director at the Centre for Enterprise, Markets & Ethics. For more information about Andrei please click here.
Colin Mayer is a distinguished professor at the University of Oxford, former dean of the Said Business School and a Fellow of the British Academy . Throughout his career one of his fields of interests has been the business corporation and at present he is director of the Academy’s research programme into the Future of the Corporation.
However neither the title nor sub-title of the book do justice to its contents. The book is nothing if not ambitious. In examining the business corporation the claim is that “it will take you across history, around the world, through philosophy and biology to business, law and economics, and finance to arrive at an understanding of where we have gone wrong, why, how we can put it right and what specifically we need to do about it”.
The remarkable fact is that I believe he has achieved his aim. The book is wide in scope, has considerable depth and is not superficial. It is well written, interesting to read and draws on a lifetime of research into different aspects of the business organisation.
The book is first a sustained and vigorous attack on Milton Friedman’s claim that the sole social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, subject however to doing so in open and free competitive markets, without deception or fraud, while conforming to the basic rules of the society embodied in law and custom. For Mayer the public have lost trust in business precisely because business has followed Friedman’s advice and put the interests of shareholders above other stakeholders.
In its place he proposes a total reinvention of the corporation. Corporate law should be changed so that each company is required to state its ultimate purpose over and above profit, redefine the responsibilities of directors to deliver these new objectives, develop new measures by which they can be judged and introduce incentives to deliver them.
In exploring the purpose of business Mayer distinguishes between ‘making good’ (such as manufacturing cars, or electrical products) and ‘doing good’ (treating employees well, cleaning up the environment, enhancing the well-bring of communities). The latter has a social public-service element which goes beyond the private interests of the firm’s customers and investors, and even beyond section 172 of the 2006 UK companies Act, which already imposes duties on directors to take into account the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders. As examples of successful and enlightened corporations he mentions with approval “industrial foundations” companies such as Bertelsmann, Bosch, Carlsberg, Tata and John Lewis which are set up as foundations or trusts.
While I admire his ability to explore different dimensions of the business in one book, I have serious problems with his argument.
First, the pursuit of long term profitability is essential if a company wishes to prosper in the long term. Long term profit is a great discipline. This applies not just to publicly quoted companies; it applies equally to private companies, B-corps, partnerships, foundations and trusts. If companies of any kind make losses, capital will drain away and either they get taken over or go bust. This applies to all companies even those which are foundations and trusts. Not only that but long term profitability is a pre-condition of companies doing good: being able to reward employees well, help communities, develop new products and services for customers and invest to protect the natural environment. In this context it is important to distinguish between long term profitability and short term profitability.
The pursuit of short term profitability is bad business. Just recall the financial derivative products created by banks in the feverish boom years leading up to the 2008 crisis which ultimately led to some banks going bust and others being bailed out by governments. This was bad business. British Home Stores was a classic example of short term profit maximization with inadequate investment in the business itself or the pension fund. Again short termism leading to bad business.
Pursuing long term profitability is not just a matter of management getting numbers right. Before they can do that it requires them to set out a vision which makes the firm “a great place to work”, ensures customers recognize value for money in what they buy, becomes known as an ethical organization by the way they conduct business and admired by shareholders for earning a superior long term return to capital.
A second problem with Mayer’s proposals is the sheer complexity of managing the diverse and frequently opposing interests of stakeholders. It is logically impossible to maximize in more than one dimension. If managers have to manage the interests of all stakeholders they need to be able to make meaningful tradeoffs between competing interests. Profit or change in long-term market value is a way of keeping score in the game of business. Michael Jensen and others have shown that in the long term prospective profit maximization and shareholder maximization amount to the same thing. The use by management of a balance scorecard is no better as it ultimately gives no objective way in which to weigh all of the elements in the scorecard to arrive at a single figure.
A third problem with Mayer’s argument is accountability. “Accountability to everyone means accountability to no one”. The author’s proposal is a revolutionary re-definition of property rights within a modern corporation to make it “trustworthy” but to whom is the board of this new “trustworthy” corporation responsible? And what are the rights of ownership over the funds invested in the business? Already in the US the number of publicly traded companies quoted on exchanges has roughly halved over the past 25 years. One reason is the increasing cost of regulation: another is the availability of private equity finance. If Mayer’s proposals were ever to be implemented they would constitute a major disincentive for companies to raise capital through the public markets and only accelerate the decline in stock market listings.
In Mayer’s proposal shareholders would become providers of capital to business rather than owners of the business. The general public have never had a great trust in business which is why ever since the Industrial Revolution governments have stepped in to control business through laws passed by parliament, regulation, mutualisation, nationalization and state ownership. Mayer’s proposals will downgrade the existing well defined ownership rights which exist in publicly traded companies and replace them with a form of ‘social’ decision making in which the leadership of the company is answerable to trustees but shielded from competition in the market place through take over bids. A sure way to create inefficiency.
In this respect these proposals are a far cry from an exercise in academic research, more a political statement. Far from having no objection to the existence of ‘trustworthy’ corporations as one of many different forms of corporate ownership, I welcome them. In terms of corporate structures let a hundred flowers bloom. If the author was making a case for the idea of ‘Industrial corporation’, fine. However he is doing more than that. He is making the case for eroding private property rights and restricting what companies can do, which is as much a political statement as one based on objective analysis.
“Prosperity: better business makes the greater good” by Colin Mayer was published in 2018 by Oxford University Press (ISBN: 978-0-1988240-08). 288pp.
Lord Griffiths is the Chairman of CEME. For more information please click here.
Colin Mayer is a distinguished professor at the University of Oxford, former dean of the Said Business School and a Fellow of the British Academy . Throughout his career one of his fields of interests has been the business corporation and at present he is director of the Academy’s research programme into the Future of the Corporation.
However neither the title nor sub-title of the book do justice to its contents. The book is nothing if not ambitious. In examining the business corporation the claim is that “it will take you across history, around the world, through philosophy and biology to business, law and economics, and finance to arrive at an understanding of where we have gone wrong, why, how we can put it right and what specifically we need to do about it”.
The remarkable fact is that I believe he has achieved his aim. The book is wide in scope, has considerable depth and is not superficial. It is well written, interesting to read and draws on a lifetime of research into different aspects of the business organisation.
The book is first a sustained and vigorous attack on Milton Friedman’s claim that the sole social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, subject however to doing so in open and free competitive markets, without deception or fraud, while conforming to the basic rules of the society embodied in law and custom. For Mayer the public have lost trust in business precisely because business has followed Friedman’s advice and put the interests of shareholders above other stakeholders.
In its place he proposes a total reinvention of the corporation. Corporate law should be changed so that each company is required to state its ultimate purpose over and above profit, redefine the responsibilities of directors to deliver these new objectives, develop new measures by which they can be judged and introduce incentives to deliver them.
In exploring the purpose of business Mayer distinguishes between ‘making good’ (such as manufacturing cars, or electrical products) and ‘doing good’ (treating employees well, cleaning up the environment, enhancing the well-bring of communities). The latter has a social public-service element which goes beyond the private interests of the firm’s customers and investors, and even beyond section 172 of the 2006 UK companies Act, which already imposes duties on directors to take into account the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders. As examples of successful and enlightened corporations he mentions with approval “industrial foundations” companies such as Bertelsmann, Bosch, Carlsberg, Tata and John Lewis which are set up as foundations or trusts.
While I admire his ability to explore different dimensions of the business in one book, I have serious problems with his argument.
First, the pursuit of long term profitability is essential if a company wishes to prosper in the long term. Long term profit is a great discipline. This applies not just to publicly quoted companies; it applies equally to private companies, B-corps, partnerships, foundations and trusts. If companies of any kind make losses, capital will drain away and either they get taken over or go bust. This applies to all companies even those which are foundations and trusts. Not only that but long term profitability is a pre-condition of companies doing good: being able to reward employees well, help communities, develop new products and services for customers and invest to protect the natural environment. In this context it is important to distinguish between long term profitability and short term profitability.
The pursuit of short term profitability is bad business. Just recall the financial derivative products created by banks in the feverish boom years leading up to the 2008 crisis which ultimately led to some banks going bust and others being bailed out by governments. This was bad business. British Home Stores was a classic example of short term profit maximization with inadequate investment in the business itself or the pension fund. Again short termism leading to bad business.
Pursuing long term profitability is not just a matter of management getting numbers right. Before they can do that it requires them to set out a vision which makes the firm “a great place to work”, ensures customers recognize value for money in what they buy, becomes known as an ethical organization by the way they conduct business and admired by shareholders for earning a superior long term return to capital.
A second problem with Mayer’s proposals is the sheer complexity of managing the diverse and frequently opposing interests of stakeholders. It is logically impossible to maximize in more than one dimension. If managers have to manage the interests of all stakeholders they need to be able to make meaningful tradeoffs between competing interests. Profit or change in long-term market value is a way of keeping score in the game of business. Michael Jensen and others have shown that in the long term prospective profit maximization and shareholder maximization amount to the same thing. The use by management of a balance scorecard is no better as it ultimately gives no objective way in which to weigh all of the elements in the scorecard to arrive at a single figure.
A third problem with Mayer’s argument is accountability. “Accountability to everyone means accountability to no one”. The author’s proposal is a revolutionary re-definition of property rights within a modern corporation to make it “trustworthy” but to whom is the board of this new “trustworthy” corporation responsible? And what are the rights of ownership over the funds invested in the business? Already in the US the number of publicly traded companies quoted on exchanges has roughly halved over the past 25 years. One reason is the increasing cost of regulation: another is the availability of private equity finance. If Mayer’s proposals were ever to be implemented they would constitute a major disincentive for companies to raise capital through the public markets and only accelerate the decline in stock market listings.
In Mayer’s proposal shareholders would become providers of capital to business rather than owners of the business. The general public have never had a great trust in business which is why ever since the Industrial Revolution governments have stepped in to control business through laws passed by parliament, regulation, mutualisation, nationalization and state ownership. Mayer’s proposals will downgrade the existing well defined ownership rights which exist in publicly traded companies and replace them with a form of ‘social’ decision making in which the leadership of the company is answerable to trustees but shielded from competition in the market place through take over bids. A sure way to create inefficiency.
In this respect these proposals are a far cry from an exercise in academic research, more a political statement. Far from having no objection to the existence of ‘trustworthy’ corporations as one of many different forms of corporate ownership, I welcome them. In terms of corporate structures let a hundred flowers bloom. If the author was making a case for the idea of ‘Industrial corporation’, fine. However he is doing more than that. He is making the case for eroding private property rights and restricting what companies can do, which is as much a political statement as one based on objective analysis.
“Prosperity: better business makes the greater good” by Colin Mayer was published in 2018 by Oxford University Press (ISBN: 978-0-1988240-08). 288pp.
Lord Griffiths is the Chairman of CEME. For more information please click here.
In Mere Economics: Lessons For and From the Ordinary Business of Life, authors Carden and Fuller introduce caring Christians to economic thinking. Through breezy prose and pithy examples, the authors connect essential facts of faith to central ideas of economics. In fact, the book’s title is an homage to C.S. Lewis’s (1952) highly influential Mere Christianity – a work that conveys, with crystal clarity, the foundational elements of faith that are embraced by most denominations.
The same is true here: Carden and Fuller lay out the most central economic principles to illuminate issues like poverty, environmental stewardship, and other concerns that Christians take seriously. If your faith tells you that when you serve the poor you are serving your Master, and if economics helps you understand how to care for the poor even more effectively, why wouldn’t you want to know more about economics? The same line of thinking extends to creation care and other issues that lie at the heart of Christian concern. For example, if ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof,’ and economics helps us be more effective caretakers, who wouldn’t want to know more economics?
The book’s outline is sensible, both for readers attracted to the topic as well as professors at Christian colleges and universities who might want to assign it as a companion reader to a traditional textbook. Its 14 chapters make it easily adaptable to a traditional US semester calendar of about 15 weeks.
In chapter one, ‘They Feast on the Abundance of Your House: Hobbesian Horrors and Walmart Wonders,’ the authors address what they refer to as the ‘Progress Puzzle’: How it is that, despite a growing population and a limited endowment of natural resources, humanity has nevertheless enjoyed breathtaking progress and prosperity? This section is reminiscent of the presentation found in Jason Brennan’s (2024) Why Not Capitalism?, in which Brennan lines up some of the most popular claims of market critics and then knocks each down via data.
Having introduced the Progress Puzzle – that humanity is fabulously better off than it was centuries ago, despite having little central planning in place – Carden and Fuller use chapter two, ‘Thinking about the Ordinary Business of Life,’ to lay out the core economic principles around which each of the remaining chapters will be formed. The chapter’s nine core principles include (1) economics is about making choices, (2) people are purposeful in their decisions, and (3) trade must be mutually beneficial because – if it weren’t – people wouldn’t do it. Along with each core principle, Carden and Fuller disarm the most common misconceptions of each; this back-and-forth rhetorical approach is very effective.
With these principles in hand, the authors use chapter three, ‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want: Our Great Economic Problem,’ to explain how human interaction – when voluntary and informed by the price system – leads to the remarkable outcomes outlined in chapter one. In fact, the authors indirectly make the audacious claim that it’s precisely because of scarcity that, over time, we realize the stunning outcomes in chapter one. If people didn’t face scarcity, they wouldn’t make decisions as carefully as they do when the stakes are high. And institutions like property rights lead to good decisions because they lay the penalty of a poor choice at the feet of the person who has the most to lose. The best line: ‘Don’t panic about scarcity anymore than you would panic about gravity.’ They both keep us grounded.
Chapters four and five extend chapter three by considering how far-flung resources, like the individual efforts of billions of individuals – with aspirations known only to them and using tiny bits of knowledge that may also be known only to them – are nevertheless powerfully channeled into a symphony of human activity. And most stunning of all, it’s a symphony with no conductor in charge. The analysis here relies heavily on thinkers like Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek. And chapter six reminds us that profits – if honestly earned – are the reward for serving others well; losses are the brutal consequences of not offering others something they need and want at a price they are willing to pay.
Having outlined this framework, the authors use the remainder of the book to apply it to a variety of policy questions and concerns. Chapter seven describes the inner workings of the labor market and argues that most outcomes are more humane and less outrageous than critics would have us believe, including the ‘gender-pay gap.’ Chapter eight considers whether, in some instances, a large firm that feels like a ‘monopoly’ might serve humanity quite effectively. To use the authors’ examples, Amazon, Google, and Walmart became successful because they served people well. And they can just as easily mess it up if they’re not vigilant (think MySpace and Yahoo!). The authors also note that the monopolies we hate most were often either created by the government or sanctioned by them.
Chapters nine through eleven deal with efforts of policymakers to legislate prices, legislate morality, or legislate production. Here the authors compellingly argue that, even if market mechanisms do not deliver ideal outcomes, they deliver outcomes preferable to those we would observe if government intervened to ‘improve upon’ those outcomes. And, of course, such interventions require compulsion: impeding or frustrating the decisions individuals otherwise would make.
Adding to this cautionary tale of government intervention, chapter twelve introduces the field of economics known as ‘public choice’: the strand of economics that treats voters, politicians, and bureaucrats just like it treats any other human subject, assuming that they act in their own self-interest just like anyone else does. For example, if politicians are motivated more by getting votes than by doing good, they might vote for policies people like rather than what might serve them best. And chapter thirteen returns to the ‘Progress Puzzle’ outlined at the beginning, having made the case – throughout the book – that it’s not really a puzzle at all: free individuals, created in God’s image, pursue creative acts of their own that lead to stunning long-term outcomes for humanity. The chapter also offers policy prescriptions for issues like pollution and resource depletion.
A wonderful feature of each of the preceding chapters is a concluding section that provides an application step for the ideas presented: ‘How Should We Then Live?’ This section of each chapter gives the reader a useful life lesson – something much needed from most economics books. And the final chapter of the book provides a similar point of reflection upon the entire work.
The book is thoughtful, reasonable, and winsome. Yet it’s not perfect.
First, the book seems unlikely to win over readers with grave moral concerns about capitalism. The authors may be right in their hopefulness, yet the style is too breezy to connect with readers uneasy with markets.
Second, every page is full of American cultural references and memes. While most of them connected with me, I see two liabilities: first, you really must be an American born within a specific time frame to be in on the jokes. I fear many references won’t connect with readers the authors are targeting (college students) and won’t connect with international readers, either. Also, you need to enjoy quirky humor to enjoy the book, but that seems like a gamble the authors are willing to take.
Lastly, because the book flows well, it might be challenging for a professor to assign individual chapters as stand-alone reading assignments because of references to earlier material.
Despite these limitations, I nevertheless recommend the book to anyone who thinks that economics isn’t interesting, is only about money, or that it’s not useful to people of faith. Carden and Fuller will likely change your mind.
‘Mere Economics: Lessons For and From the Ordinary Business of Life’ by Art Carden and Caleb S. Fuller was published in 2025 by B&H Academic (979-8-384-50496-2). 320pp.
Victor V. Claar is Associate Professor of Economics and coordinates the economics program in the Lutgert College of Business at Florida Gulf Coast University. He also serves as an affiliate scholar of the Acton Institute, and is a visiting research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
The Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics is pleased to announce the appointment of Revd Dr Philip Krinks as its new Director with effect from 6 October 2025.
Richard Turnbull, who served as Director until April 2025, will remain with the Centre as Director Emeritus.
Philip will bring a wealth of experience, knowledge and expertise in both business and theology. He is the ideal person to build on the solid platform laid by our Founding Director, Richard Turnbull in leading the work of the Centre.
I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve as Director. I am committed to building on the foundation laid by Lord Griffiths, Richard Turnbull and the whole CEME team, contributing a Christian perspective to economic debates.
Our vision has never been more relevant: a competitive market economy based on high ethical standards, where everyone can contribute with integrity to prosperity and the common good.
Over the coming months I look forward to engaging with CEME’s stakeholders and supporters – from economists, policymakers, and theologians to church leaders, entrepreneurs, and the business community – as together we advance this work.
Philip Krinks has a background in the academic study of enterprise, ethics and theology, in church ministry and in business consulting.
He read Classics and Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford, and completed the management training programme at Citibank in London, before working in the Citi Foreign Exchange Sales & Trading business.
In 1998 he began a connection with Boston Consulting Group (BCG), which has lasted over 25 years. This included 5 years as Partner and Managing Director in their London Office, serving as Global Head of BCG’s Metals & Mining practice and undertaking pro bono projects with HM Treasury and the World Economic Forum.
In 2012 Philip left the BCG partnership to train for ministry in the Church of England. Subsequently, he served for 5 years as a Church of England Vicar, as Chaplain to the Bishop of Winchester and as Executive Director of the international social enterprise Pepal Foundation.
In addition to his Oxford MA, Philip holds an MBA from INSEAD, a PhD in Ethics from the University of London and an MA in Theology from King’s College London. He has published scholarly work on enterprise, ethics and theology.
I am delighted that Philip Krinks will succeed me as the Director of CEME. He will bring unique gifts and have unique opportunities. CEME was a remarkable vision that was in Lord Griffiths’ heart for many years. What a joy it was to bring that to fruition. We have built a great team and I know that they too will welcome Philip with open arms.”
Richard Turnbull is not an easy act to follow. But with a background of classics, philosophy, ethics, theology and the Church as well as practical experience in the world of consulting and financial trading, Philip Krinks is ideally placed to lead the Centre and I very much look forward to working with him.
Exploring a Christian perspective on contemporary issues of political economy
There are growing concerns that capitalism and democracy are in crisis. Despite the success of free markets in creating global prosperity over two centuries, the recent slowdown in growth in Western economies, the persistence of inflation, increasing economic inequality, financial instability and the explosion in debt have called into question the value of market capitalism. Moreover, trust has been eroded in liberal democracies because of dysfunctional governments, a perceived lack of commitment to truth and political leaders playing the game to the edge of legality. Added to these concerns are the growth of a post-modernist culture with steadily increasing social fragmentation, divisiveness and the lack of a unifying and accepted source of appeal.
We are living in the 21st century in Western societies in which religion has not just been replaced by secularism, but the one God of the Christian religion, with its deep roots in Judaism, has been replaced by the pluralism of the many gods of modernity. As a society we require those in leadership and authority in business and politics to have a moral compass and as Adam Smith set out regarding the virtue of prudence and Burke regarding the role of religion, our fellow citizens need values of honesty and sympathy if we are to seek the common good.
Against this background and under the auspices of the Centre we have decided to launch a series of colloquia in which to explore a Christian perspective on contemporary issues of political economy. On each occasion a small panel of experts will present their thoughts on the chosen topic, and other participants will then have the opportunity to make their own contributions to a free-flowing discussion. Participants will be invited from across the political spectrum and the number kept to around twenty. Following the links below you will find the contributions made to each meeting. We hope you find the papers stimulating.
Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics
Our fourth Fforestfach Colloquium focused on the subject of ‘Covenant’. It was held in Committee Room G in the House of Lords on the morning of Thursday, 26 June.
Our two principal speakers came from opposite sides of the political spectrum, both of whom have studied and written about the concept of covenant: Danny Kruger, MP, the Conservative member for East Wiltshire, and Lord (Maurice) Glasman, who founded the Blue Labour movement.
Danny Kruger published in 2023, Covenant: The New Politics of Home, Neighbourhood and Nation. In the book, he describes the key difference between the ‘social contract’ of Hobbes and Locke, and the ‘social covenant’ that he conceives: covenant, he writes, is a set of relationships built on love rather than on reason, an ‘artificial brotherhood’, expressing unconditional love between unrelated individuals, the foundational example of which is the covenant of marriage, ‘the union of two unrelated people that forms the nucleus of a new blood relationship, a family.’ Covenants also underly communities and nations.
Maurice Glasman, in his 2022 book, Blue Labour, points out that ‘…covenant requires that human beings are not treated as commodities, and that there is an inter-generational commitment to the common good between classes and regions based on the renewal of place… Neither the state nor the market is sufficient to generate a good society: it requires the renewal of society…’
Before the meeting, we had circulated a set of four questions on the topic for attendees to consider for themselves. We were delighted to be presented with some deeply thoughtful responses to those questions by our third contributor, Rabbi Benjy Morgan, who is the Chief Executive of the Jewish Learning Exchange in Golders Green. His reflections on our questions provided us with a number of very helpful Old Testament insights regarding the biblical concept of covenant.
As in our previous Fforestfach Colloquia, the invited audience of about 20 guests engaged enthusiastically with the presentations and the ensuing discussion, responding to points made by the speakers and also developing new lines of thought over the course of the morning.
Our third Fforestfach Colloquium took place in the House of Lords on the morning of Thursday, 30th January 2025, on the topic of Postliberal Political Economy, and brought together three speakers from academic, political, economic and media backgrounds.
Liberalism enjoyed a renaissance in the second half of the twentieth century. At the beginning of the 1960s, we saw the development of a socio-cultural liberalism on the left of UK politics, while in the 1980s, we experienced a growing economic liberalism from the right. Both those trends have given rise in the present century to the growth of post-liberalism, as explored in publications such as The Politics of Virtue (2016) by Adrian Pabst and John Milbank and Postliberal Politics (2021) by Adrian Pabst.
These publications, among others, provide a blueprint for a national, communitarian renewal, emerging from both the centre-left and centre-right. Importantly, postliberalism recognises the importance of the Christian heritage and Judeo-Christian ethics in providing a foundation for the renewal of a civic covenant, in the form of a partnership between generations and regions, and with nature.
At our Colloquium, we were addressed first by Professor Adrian Pabst of the University of Kent, who is also the Deputy Director of the National Institute for Social Research. His contribution pointed to the recurring crises experienced in advanced capitalist economies such as the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, which have struggled with low growth, high inflation and stagnant real wages ever since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Professor Pabst argued for a shift towards a social market economy, anchored in a greater sense of purpose and virtue.
He was followed by two distinguished speakers, his co-author, Dr John Milbank, Professor Emeritus at the University of Nottingham, and Miriam Cates, the former Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge in Yorkshire. They discussed alternative approaches to the postliberal economic challenges of our time, with Dr Milbank exploring the historical relationship between Christianity and Political Economy, suggesting that a truly Christian approach would seek to marry up what is practical and useful in modern economics with a more ancient humanism that does not surrender its ethical values. Miriam Cates, on the other hand, argued that many of the socio-economic crises we have experienced arise from the breakdown of Christian family values in the postliberal era, and called for a political economy based on a foundation of pro-family policies and a welfare state that encourages and supports families as a building block for a modern human society.
The second Fforestfach Colloquium took place in the House of Lords on Monday 29th April. We were privileged to welcome as our lead speaker an eminent professor from Harvard University, Professor Benjamin M. Friedman, who is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy and the former Chairman of the Department of Economics. Professor Friedman’s newest book, published in January 2021, is Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and we invited Mr Friedman to speak to our invited audience about the theme of his book, to be followed by two highly-respected commentators, Professor Emeritus Forrest Capie of the Bayes Business School, and Lord (Mervyn) King of Lothbury, former Governor of the Bank of England.
Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics
In a world where academic publications often descend into the microscopic world of nuance, there is a detectable trend towards volumes with the laudable objective of providing the aspiring amateur with an introductory overview of a subject. The author of Profit has undoubtedly taken this path and pitched for the macro-view: we find ultimately that that the intention of the book is to trace ‘the environmental aspects of capitalism’s germination and growth through human history’ (page 253).
We’re inducted into the argument via the ubiquitous ‘palm-sized technological marvel’ which is simultaneously the ‘environmental crime that is the Smartphone’ (page 2). At the outset, Stoll proposes to resolve this paradox by allowing the reader to judge where responsibility lies between humanity or that subset of guilty humans comprising the ‘capitalists and corporations’ who define the ‘Capitalocene’ (page 3). The verdict turns upon what the author calls ‘profit’. However, while from the outset it is clear that ‘profit’ is not to be equated with a synonym for capitalism, no more precise explanation is forthcoming and in that void, greater experience with the text encourages the reader towards a tentative definition of ‘cui bono?’.
Arranged in chronological order from the dawn of humanity, each chapter seeks to illustrate (if not fully illuminate) typical characteristics of the relationship between human activity driven by ‘profit’ and the natural resources involved. The deliberate choice to define ‘profit’ ambiguously ensures that any – indeed all – human activity becomes material for this study. While this may in itself appear ambitious, the decision to cover the entirety of human existence, from the first dawn of the Hominim, cannot help but have an echo of Shakespeare’s ‘vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself’. To navigate this scope would seem to necessitate a rigorous approach with a solid ‘backbone’ argument across the work upon which can hang the various elements of the narrative. Instead, the author has chosen to use a join-the-dots approach supported by potted biographies of a handful of individuals or publications which are used across the ages in a manner similar to posts carrying a string of lamps.
The opening chapter covers the first few hundred thousand years of Hominim activity and is naturally lacking in data points. Stoll runs this period of study up to the fifteenth century AD/CE; when the second chapter switches the focus to ‘Trade and Empire’. This division is a missed opportunity to explore the substantial trading empires of Greece and Rome; instead, with Columbus as the locus for the second period of study this enables the introduction of ‘America’, but brings in its wake an atypical focus on the development of the Genoese Republic, which is subsequently proposed as an exemplar. Chapter Three concerns ‘Coal and Machines’ – although first through the experience of the fifteenth century Dutch, introducing the first of many (ultimately disconcerting) chronological hops back and forth, and odd since the author suggests a reliance of the Dutch empire on wind-power, before moving onto the English, ‘Plantation Capitalism’, sugar and (unusually, perhaps) the contributions of the Scottish Presbyterians who, we are informed, ‘disproportionally administered the British Empire … and dominated shipping and trade’ (page 71). Chapter Four is formed around ‘Steam and Steel’, which acts as the bridge to introduce Andrew Carnegie, whose early life coincided with the Bessemer Process, but more fortuitously was of Scottish decent, which facilitated his career in an age of imperialism and industrial capitalism, soon to become a global phenomenon.
Chapter Five adds environmentalism to the narrative – in the last half of the nineteenth century and exactly halfway through the work. The topic is introduced through two works which Stoll considers pivotal: George Marsh’s Man and Nature and William Jevons’ The Coal Question. Stoll makes the claim that these are ‘books that shook the confidence of a complacent public’ (page116), which appears bold given their subsequent descent into obscurity – almost immediately, in Jevons’ case. While Marsh did later privately republish his text under a fresh title, neither of these prolific authors considered their topic of sufficient importance to engage with it again, and indeed the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy manages to devote over six thousand words to Jevons without a mention of his pamphlet.
The focus moves through the twentieth century on the back of what Stoll terms ‘consumer capitalism’ – the origins of which are ascribed to (consecutively) the availability of mass finance, petroleum, electricity, plastic, disposable products and finally, advertising. Although this caused an increase in ‘waste’ and had a brief pause in the United States (the Wall Street crash, here described as a product of capitalism rather than speculation), this continues through the twentieth century (global conflicts are not discussed) until the rise of the bright and buoyant era known to historians as the Cold War, in which the motor car and electronics drove postwar prosperity hand in hand with central ‘government activism’, until this was attacked by ‘alarmed … wealthy corporate leaders’ who created ‘a propaganda network to promote weak government and low taxes’ (page 176).
Post-1970, the narrative in the chapter ‘Selling Everything’ leaps to hyper-market operations – exampled by Walmart and the web giant Amazon – both of which enjoyed unique success and so would be candidates for the atypical rather than the representative. Their success is set against the stagnation and decline in the US economy, a claim illuminated by the notion that more people entered the service sector in the eight years from 1973 to 1981 than the auto and steel industries combined. However, the author had already flagged the death of nineteenth century ‘industrial capitalism’ before the Second World War, so the shift towards ‘consumer capitalism’ would seem to be entirely in line with expectations, given the central notion of this volume that all and any economic activity is ‘capitalism’. Once again, a handful examples from across the globe are collated to suggest negative consequences from various categories of causes – coal and petroleum are singled out, which seems odd since coal would have presumably featured in the ‘industrial capitalist’ period (however ill-defined) – rather than that of the consumer or late consumer capitalist periods.
It is only at the end of Chapter Eight that we finally begin to see an attempt to discuss ‘Pollution, Air and Climate’; CFCs, Ozone depletion, permafrost methane, and oceanic acidification are introduced and concluded in rather less than one page (pages 223-224).
The last chapter is devoted to the formation of the Global Environmental movement, again through exploring the impact of two publications. The first, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, is widely acknowledged as perhaps the most important environmental book of the twentieth century. The second, Only One Earth, is Barbara Ward’s influential contribution to sustainable development; both Carson’s lapsed Reformed Protestant heritage and Ward’s hybrid Quaker-Catholicism are given an airing: notwithstanding these volumes remain edifying to all readers. A summary of American developments post-World War II is joined to the rise of the West German Green Party in the 197Os, and the impact of the Seveso, Bhopal and Chernobyl accidents in contributing to a wider spread of environmental concern and the European rise of support for anti-nuclear groups. Half of the very short summary of the ‘Rise of the Greens’ is once again devoted to the influence of a (northern, Reformed) Protestant heritage, while in Catholic countries environmentalism becomes a ‘non-religious, non-moralistic environmental movement’ (page 239): some examples would help forward this claim, not least as it is contradicted by Stoll’s conclusion that in 2015 (and more than forty years after publication) Ward’s work influenced the pronouncements of Pope Francis (page 241).
Stoll’s concluding chapter states that the key question is: ‘does it profit us when someone else makes a profit?’ (page 251). He suggests – perhaps unsurprisingly – that the answer is unclear. However, what is missing here – as in the entire work – is a decomposition of what is meant by the question. Instead, what is presented – as in the entire work – merely adds fog to the lens. Stoll makes the claim that ‘in the pre-Modern Christian West profit entailed a moral calculus’ (page 251). This is both bold and belated: if the purpose of Profit was intended to be an exploration of this theme, it would have gained some coherence – but would have lost any right to be considered ‘An Environmental History’.
Stoll’s summary conclusion is disappointingly (but perhaps not surprisingly) a mirror of the introduction: capitalism (whatever the form in which it is labelled) is rooted in human nature, and the outcomes – including ‘profit’ – have always (historically) been realised ‘at nature’s expense’ (page 252). After 250 pages, the author’s final warning is both stark and something of a surprise: ‘we stop the machinery of consumer capitalism at our peril’ (page 254). Hope is at hand, however, evidenced by an increasing appetite for ‘experiences’ rather than ‘stuff’, with the implication that cruises, travel to foreign countries, climbing mountains, and diving coral reefs will prove less of an environmental issue. There is even a thumbs up for games on Smartphones. It is unfortunate that at the last, the focus falls entirely upon the consumption habits not of the globe, but on one segment of the American population.
Almost inevitably the overall tone of the work feels rushed – indeed superficial. Arguments do not have the space to be outlined, let alone developed, and thus the whistle-stop tour becomes a giddy and frustrating experience. Indeed, the major weakness arises from the absence of any sustained, central argument. Instead, often poorly constructed polemic is substituted. Possibly the strangest statement occurs in the conclusion, where the reader is invited to contemplate how very different ‘Modern consumer capitalism’ might have been ‘had the Genoese prevailed at the War of Chioggia’ (page 252): it is not easy to imagine a reversal of historic events which would have made less of a ripple beyond the late fourteenth century Adriatic. In the haste to apply the broad brush, some odd images appear: the period noted by historians for its tranquillity and known as the Belle Epoque is described as ‘the tumultuous era between the 1880s and the mid-1910s’ (page 137).
The stated focus on Western Europe and the United States of America is inconsistent. Many examples are typical of the USA but not Europe, while China and Lake Nasser are the examples chosen to illustrate the possible negative effects of a building dams – irrespective of the atypical nature of both Chinese construction techniques, the Sahara sun and the relationship between Egypt and the Nile (page191).
Another oddity is the frequent intrusion of a religious (specifically Christian Presbyterian) theme. Many of the individuals featured are sprinkled with a reference to a ‘Puritan heritage which shaped their analysis and solutions’, even if the author immediately acknowledges that (as in the case of Jevons) he ‘neither embraced nor disavowed the religion of his forefathers’ or the ‘quite religious’ Marsh ‘who rarely attended’ (page 121). As Dr Stoll has previous published a book entitled Protestantism, Capitalism and Nature in America this may perhaps be inevitable, but it is ultimately regrettable since a more general discussion of the nature of profit fragmented through the lens of world religions – or even that of Christianity through the ages – is entirely missing.
Perhaps more importantly for ‘An Environmental History’, there is also very little history of the environment – rather, a small list of negative consequences of human existence are regularly recycled (forests denuded, rivers silted, air polluted) as the consequences of a wide range of activities. While the telegraph, mining, smelting, manufacturing, shipbuilding and consumerism are singled out for particular approbation at various points, the conclusions are largely homogenous: mining makes as mess; processing (from refining sugar to forging metal) burns wood; some people in various places used slave or indentured labour, while others traded or purchased the outputs, and both sea and air quality have got worse as both populations and the reach of advertising have grown.
However unremarkable these conclusions, it may be that there exists an audience for whom it needs re-stating. Given the almost hubristic scope and ambition, to note a lack of supporting data might appear to miss the point. But while the book scatters dates in profusion, there are no data points at all, nor graphs nor tables to illustrate any point. The illustrations are therefore all not only biographical but somewhat anecdotal, while the photograph illustrating Brazilians waving placards including ‘Pray for Amazon’ (page 241) sits somewhat uncomfortably with the earlier profile of Jeff Bezos.
Curiously, the author always falls short of a polemic against capitalism – and in the absence of supporting data it is hard to come to any other conclusion. The central, if missing, element in this work was fully identified in Ward’s work – engagement with the question: what is the mechanism by which we balance the (inner) individual’s right to an adequate standard of living with the (outer) limit of what the Earth can sustain?
An experienced academic editor was wont to point out to aspiring authors that it is ‘always easier to write a book than a paper’. The message was that, while structure – founded on a clear purpose and supported by evidenced argument – remains essential to both, the longer format can withstand a greater burden. Dr Stoll would appear not to have received this advice, and while possibly a good man with good intentions, unfortunately ‘An Environmental History’ was never a very good idea, and it has not resulted in a good book.
‘Profit: An Environmental History’ by Mark Stoll was published in 2024 by Polity (ISBN 978-1-50-953324-4). 280pp.
Dr Andrew Fincham is an early-modern socio-economic historian affiliated to Woodbrooke College, University of Birmingham, UK. His research is concerned with understanding the links between religious values, ethical business, and commercial success; and the implications for responsible corporate governance. His current areas of interest include a revision of Quaker historiography and an exploration of the underlying issues in Max Weber’s ‘Protestant Ethic’. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
Perspectives on contemporary issues
There are growing concerns that capitalism and democracy are in crisis. Despite the success of free markets in creating global prosperity over two centuries, the recent slowdown in growth in Western economies, the persistence of inflation, increasing economic inequality, financial instability and the explosion in debt have called into question the value of market capitalism. Moreover, trust has been eroded in liberal democracies because of dysfunctional governments, a perceived lack of commitment to truth and political leaders playing the game to the edge of legality. Added to these concerns are the growth of a post-modernist culture with steadily increasing social fragmentation, divisiveness and the lack of a unifying and accepted source of appeal.
Chairman, The Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics
Biography of Guest
Summary of Interview. Name of Interviewer with link
Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics
Exploring a Christian perspective on contemporary issues of political economy
There are growing concerns that capitalism and democracy are in crisis. Despite the success of free markets in creating global prosperity over two centuries, the recent slowdown in growth in Western economies, the persistence of inflation, increasing economic inequality, financial instability and the explosion in debt have called into question the value of market capitalism. Moreover, trust has been eroded in liberal democracies because of dysfunctional governments, a perceived lack of commitment to truth and political leaders playing the game to the edge of legality. Added to these concerns are the growth of a post-modernist culture with steadily increasing social fragmentation, divisiveness and the lack of a unifying and accepted source of appeal.
We are living in the 21st century in Western societies in which religion has not just been replaced by secularism, but the one God of the Christian religion, with its deep roots in Judaism, has been replaced by the pluralism of the many gods of modernity. As a society we require those in leadership and authority in business and politics to have a moral compass and as Adam Smith set out regarding the virtue of prudence and Burke regarding the role of religion, our fellow citizens need values of honesty and sympathy if we are to seek the common good.
Against this background and under the auspices of the Centre we have decided to launch a series of colloquia in which to explore a Christian perspective on contemporary issues of political economy. On each occasion a small panel of experts will present their thoughts on the chosen topic, and other participants will then have the opportunity to make their own contributions to a free-flowing discussion. Participants will be invited from across the political spectrum and the number kept to around twenty. Following the links below you will find the contributions made to each meeting. We hope you find the papers stimulating.
Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics
Our third Fforestfach Colloquium took place in the House of Lords on the morning of Thursday, 30th January 2025, on the topic of Postliberal Political Economy, and brought together three speakers from academic, political, economic and media backgrounds.
Liberalism enjoyed a renaissance in the second half of the twentieth century. At the beginning of the 1960s, we saw the development of a socio-cultural liberalism on the left of UK politics, while in the 1980s, we experienced a growing economic liberalism from the right. Both those trends have given rise in the present century to the growth of post-liberalism, as explored in publications such as The Politics of Virtue (2016) by Adrian Pabst and John Milbank and Postliberal Politics (2021) by Adrian Pabst.
These publications, among others, provide a blueprint for a national, communitarian renewal, emerging from both the centre-left and centre-right. Importantly, postliberalism recognises the importance of the Christian heritage and Judeo-Christian ethics in providing a foundation for the renewal of a civic covenant, in the form of a partnership between generations and regions, and with nature.
At our Colloquium, we were addressed first by Professor Adrian Pabst of the University of Kent, who is also the Deputy Director of the National Institute for Social Research. His contribution pointed to the recurring crises experienced in advanced capitalist economies such as the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, which have struggled with low growth, high inflation and stagnant real wages ever since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Professor Pabst argued for a shift towards a social market economy, anchored in a greater sense of purpose and virtue.
He was followed by two distinguished speakers, his co-author, Dr John Milbank, Professor Emeritus at the University of Nottingham, and Miriam Cates, the former Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge in Yorkshire. They discussed alternative approaches to the postliberal economic challenges of our time, with Dr Milbank exploring the historical relationship between Christianity and Political Economy, suggesting that a truly Christian approach would seek to marry up what is practical and useful in modern economics with a more ancient humanism that does not surrender its ethical values. Miriam Cates, on the other hand, argued that many of the socio-economic crises we have experienced arise from the breakdown of Christian family values in the postliberal era, and called for a political economy based on a foundation of pro-family policies and a welfare state that encourages and supports families as a building block for a modern human society.
The second Fforestfach Colloquium took place in the House of Lords on Monday 29th April. We were privileged to welcome as our lead speaker an eminent professor from Harvard University, Professor Benjamin M. Friedman, who is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy and the former Chairman of the Department of Economics. Professor Friedman’s newest book, published in January 2021, is Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and we invited Mr Friedman to speak to our invited audience about the theme of his book, to be followed by two highly-respected commentators, Professor Emeritus Forrest Capie of the Bayes Business School, and Lord (Mervyn) King of Lothbury, former Governor of the Bank of England.
Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics
We have compiled some news, comment pieces and announcements that we hope our readers find interesting. In this instalment, there are stories relating to artificial intelligence, utilities, defence spending, public finances and the cost of borrowing, virtue and commercial success, pensions and the environment:
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence shows great potential for transforming businesses and generative AI models are used by millions of people each week, yet companies who have invested in AI pilot products are struggling to make effective use of them, with some 42% having abandoned projects in the last year. Disillusionment can stem from a lack of suitable IT infrastructure at the company purchasing the technology, a lack of available expertise to make the AI model effective or a fear reputational damage in the event of an AI failure. There are implications for the large scale developers as well as the companies that make use of their products but the question for each is the same: how can generative AI be usefully integrated into businesses in order to produce worthwhile returns on investments?
https://www.economist.com/business/2025/05/21/welcome-to-the-ai-trough-of-disillusionment
Evidence of AI-imposed unemployment is scant, with figures and research remaining inconclusive when it comes to the question of whether technology is driving redundancies. In leading economies, unemployment remains low and wage growth is reasonably strong. Perhaps, therefore, those companies who announce investment in AI are not using the technology for ‘serious’ work, or, when companies do adopt artificial intelligence, they do not let people go; rather, AI is used to assist rather than replace employees:
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/05/26/why-ai-hasnt-taken-your-job
It seems that artificial intelligence is disrupting employment in the technology sector, with numerous announcements of staff redundancies. However, further large scale lay-offs appear unlikely as new projects involving AI will take time to develop and be put to use (if they are not abandoned prior to implementation or subsequently reversed). In addition, new roles are likely to be created in order to use and manage artificial intelligence:
https://www.ft.com/content/cb9ea970-e6de-4daf-aa9e-7a48d5e648c3
‘Vibe coding’ enables people with no expertise in coding to create basic apps or games by giving basic instructions in natural language to large language models, which then produce an approximation of what has been requested, with the user then in a position to request amendments. Will this make it easier for people with ideas but insufficient technical expertise to launch start-ups, or for companies to engage in technical development without having to hire professional coders? Perhaps individuals will be able to create their own, personalised apps without having to buy or subscribe to existing offerings. Others criticise the lowering of barriers – but it remains to be seen whether this is self-interest or simply insight into the limitations of what can be achieved without genuine technical skill:
https://www.ft.com/content/f4f3def2-2858-4239-a5ef-a92645577145
Environment and Sustainability
Technology companies, banks and shipping companies are investing in a new method of reducing carbon emissions that involves spreading crushed silicate rocks onto farmland in order to increase the surface area of the rock, thus mimicking and accelerating a natural reaction between absorbent rocks and rainfall. As polluters look for methods to reach net zero targets, ‘enhanced rock weathering’ is growing in popularity and stands behind certain forms of carbon credit:
https://www.ft.com/content/ffc2d60d-49fd-4d8c-ba2f-ee55b0447dff
An area of debate surrounding renewable energy is that of zonal pricing, whereby different rates of electricity are charged according to local supply and demand dynamics. Those in heavily populated areas would pay more, while those closer to sources of energy, such as the wind farms in Scotland, would pay less. The idea is that a zonal mechanism would address inefficiencies in the existing network while also encouraging the location of solar and wind farms close to places of high demand. Arguments for and against zonal pricing centre on the likelihood of businesses relocating to areas of abundant renewable energy, the possible effect on overall prices resulting from uncertainty among energy providers about the revenue likely to be generated by a zonal system and the level of waste in the current system, whereby wind farms are paid to stop generating in order to avoid overloading the grid, with gas plants being paid to provide for consequent shortfalls elsewhere:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/06/net-zero-rebellion-spark-action-keir-starmer/
Utilities
Thames Water has been fined a total of £122.7 million by the water regulator, Ofwat, for breaches of rules relating to its wastewater operations and the payment of dividends. Given the company’s level of debt, further penalties for failures in performance may deter future investment and ultimately result in the company falling into special administration, which would amount to renationalisation:
Public Finances and Interest Rates
With global economic conditions now being somewhat closer to how they were before the 2008 financial crisis, is it a mistake to expect that interest rates can be kept low? Along with increasing trade barriers and a reduced glut of savings, the world is also witnessing inflationary pressures such as labour shortages caused by ageing populations and shocks such as the war in Ukraine, as well
as increasing government debt. How will governments adhere to their commitments in a range of areas if the age of cheap money is coming to an end?
Pension Reform
The Pension Schemes Bill contains measures designed to encourage pension schemes towards more adventurous, UK-based investing and there have been claims about the extent to which this will increase the value of the average British worker’s pension as a result. However, are these claims – and the Bill itself – based on sound predictions regarding returns on investments? If a great deal of cash is suddenly invested in any asset, returns usually fall over the longer term and it is far from clear that investment in infrastructure – one of the sectors that is favoured for investment, alongside private equity and private debt – is reliable at present. Has the modelling for the predictions been based on unjustified assumptions about continuing returns from these sectors on the part of those whose own pensions will not be subject to their performance?
Defence Spending and Growth
With countries across Europe loosening their fiscal rules in order to increase their defence spending, the UK government has announced an aspiration for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP by the next parliament. Whether this will emerge as a source of jobs and prosperity will depend on how the additional funds are used. One suggestion is that over several decades, prioritising research and development in defence technologies by supporting start-up companies will yield better results in terms of raising the national income than will spending on personnel and equipment. Others have questioned whether increased military spending will have any serious effect on the creation of jobs in a sector which accounts for only 0.9 per cent of jobs in the UK and in which expenditure has increased marginally since the 1980s but employment has fallen by half:
Purpose, Virtue and Commerce
Might companies with a better sense of purpose, structures that lend themselves to success in what that company was set up to do and the exercise of what philosophers such as the late Alasdair MacIntyre would describe as virtues or excellences – shared values, goals and practices – be more enduring and ultimately more successful than those that focus narrowly on profit-maximisation alone?
https://www.ft.com/content/591ee1f2-2518-4ca4-a128-3c810f965782