Article by James Plunkett: “…Unlike many political soundbites, however, missions have a strong academic heritage, drawing on years of work from Mariana Mazzucato and others. They gained support as a way for governments to be less agnostic about the direction of economic growth and its social implications, most obviously on issues like climate change, while still avoiding old-school statism. The idea is to pursue big goals not with top-down planning but with what Mazzucato calls ‘orchestration’, using the power of the state to drive innovation and shape markets to an outcome.
For these reasons, missions have proven increasingly popular with governments. They have been used by administrations from the EU to South Korea and Finland, and even in Britain under Theresa May, although she didn’t have time to make them stick.
Despite these good intentions and heritage, however, missions are proving difficult. Some say the UK government is “mission-washing” – using the word, but not really adopting the ways of working. And although missions were mentioned in the spending review, their role was notably muted when compared with the central position they had in Labour’s manifesto.
Still, it would seem a shame to let missions falter without interrogating the reasons. So why are missions so difficult? And what, if anything, could be done to strengthen them as Labour moves into year two? I’ll touch on four characteristics of missions that jar with Whitehall’s natural instincts, and in each case I’ll ask how it’s going, and how Labour could be bolder…(More)”.
