Capitalism and its many flavours - RSA

Capitalism and its many flavours

Blog 1 Comments

  • Economy
  • Environment

In the final round-up blog following Anthropy, RSA Chief Executive Andy Haldane argues that capitalism -suitably reconfigured - has an important part to play in the flourishing of people, place and planet.

Alongside other RSA colleagues, I attended – if for only three hours - and spoke at a couple of events at the recent Anthropy conference at the Eden Project in Cornwall. Jo Choukeir has already penned an excellent blog putting our work - past, present and future - into a regenerative context, and Roberta Iley has spoken about the inspriation she took away from the event in terms of shifting from a human- to life-centric mindset. This blog explores one or two of the themes from one of my sessions at Anthropy: A 21st century Economy.

Is capitalism dead?

One of the questions I was asked during this session was: "Is capitalism dead?" This is not the first time I have been asked this question. Underlying it is a sense that the system, as currently configured, is not working as we would wish, that it is not ensuring the mass flourishing of people, place and planet.

It is easy to see people’s sense of disappointment with the 21st century. Its predecessor, the 20th century, was genuinely a century of transformation. Living standards rose more than fivefold – a rise never seen before in human history. Lifespans doubled from 40 to 80 years – again, there is no close historical precedent. Poverty fell from three-quarters to single-digit fractions of the global population. Educational standards skyrocketed everywhere.

These were the economic and societal fruits of development that most would call capitalist. Innovation and private enterprise flourished as never previously. Yet even this model needs careful definition and diagnosis. Capitalism is often misunderstood to mean unfettered free markets and private enterprise. Whule these forces were indeed important in firing innovation and enterprise and growing living standards. But they were never unfettered.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the growing strength of the invisible hand of private enterprise was matched in equal measure by a growing state and civil society sector. For example, in the UK public spending relative to income roughly doubled in each of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as the provision of public goods deepened and widened. In time, that included universal state provision of education, healthcare and social insurance, among other things.

Innovation through partnership

With hindsight, it is clear that the transformation of the 20th century came courtesy of the rapid ascent of each of the private, public and civil society sectors, not only individually but from them acting in partnership. They provided innovation and insurance, in equal measures, to ensure flourishing was broadly based and inclusive. The RSA's own model of social change mimics that, combining the public, private and voluntary sectors in partnership.

If we turn to the 21st century, the contrast in fortunes could scarcely be more striking. So far, it has been a century not of transformation but stagnation. Productivity has stagnated for many businesses and pay has stagnated for many households. Levels of life expectancy and health have stagnated, or retreated, for some cohorts of society. Levels of poverty, especially among children, have risen. Educational standards have faltered for many.

This stagnation is often hitting hardest the poorest and the youngest. Those in their 20s and 30s are seeing their real pay track below earlier generations for the first time in a century. They are seeing levels of home ownership track well below not only the baby boomers but those born before the second world war. Levels of economic and financial insecurity, and accompanying mental health problems, have risen rapidly among younger people.

Age of insecurity

47 percent of young people are financially precarious, with certain groups facing even greater levels. This research investigates the stories behind these numbers.

Challenging the mental health crisis

Read the findings and recommendations of our report on the mental health benefits of a universal basic income for young people.

Let’s pluralise capitalism

This gloomy prognosis means it is unsurprising that some, as they were at Eden, are asking themselves the question: “Is capitalism dead?” My answer is that capitalism never did come in a single flavour, that is always has been an evolutionary animal. What is needed now is a different flavour of capitalism than its predecessors to secure the mass flourishing of people, place and planet. What is needed is system-shifting rather than system-scrapping,

There are many aspects of this system shift. One of them goes to the very heart of what we even mean by the 'capital' in capitalism. Capital can sometimes be seen in very narrow terms, or even singularly, as financial capital. Financial capital is important for fuelling and financing rises in innovation and living standards. But it is clear it is only one ingredient in the cake mix of mass flourishing of people, place and planet.

The other capitals essential for this task include:

  • human capital (the education and skills of people)
  • physical capital (from transport to broadband to computers)
  • intellectual capital (ideas and technologies)
  • social capital (trust and relationships)
  • natural capital (our climate and biosphere).

We know from history that it is only by combining these ingredients, and ensuring none of them are missing or insufficient, that the cake will rise and with it the fortunes of people, place and planet.

At present, while there is a growing awareness of the importance of the plural set of capitals for societal success, not all of them are given the prominence they deserve - for example, social and natural capital, the new kids on the block. Rarely are they sought at a collective, or systems, level rather than individually. For example, social capital, social connectivity and social infrastructures – from high streets to green spaces to youth clubs to football clubs – are often under-emphasised relative to say, digital and physical infrastructures, such as railways and broadband.

Social capital over human capital

Raj Chetty (whose work was presented at the RSA in November) has recently demonstrated the  importance of social connections and social capital in driving levels of social mobility in the United States. It is who you know (social capital) rather than what you know (human capital) that truly shapes your life course. Yet social capital and connectivity are far less focussed on, measured and nurtured when it comes to policy interventions and actions. This is something we at the RSA are seeking to remedy.

This oversight in how we value and nurture capital is even greater when it comes to natural capital. On that front, the 20th century was transformational for all the wrong reasons. During the course of it, levels of natural capital may have fallen by as much as 50% on some estimates. Having broadly sustained natural capital prior to the Industrial Revolution, the world turned sharply extractive after it.

Looking ahead, this now calls for a very different flavour of capitalism than the past if the mass flourishing of (people, place and) planet is to be secured. It means going much further than simply sustaining levels of natural capital. Rather we need to seek actively to replenish it. This is what is meant by regenerative practice – flipping capitalism from extractive to regenerative practice. It is why regenerative practice needs to be the next practice, not the best practice.

And what applies to natural capital applies equally to other of the capitals making up the capitalist cake mix. We need also to replenish human capital - our skills and capabilities - through a new 21st century learning model very different from the 20th century one - lifelong, modular, digital, personalised, and contextualised. And we need to replenish social capital by refashioning how and where people connect, debate and decide, including at the local level.


Capitalism is not, I suspect, dead or dying. But it may well be suffering a mid-life crisis. Our Design for Life paper published in early 2022 provided a mid-life MOT for capitalism and found grounds for concern about wealth, health and happiness. Through the accompanying Design for Life programme, the RSA is developing the 21st interventions and infrastructures necessary to replenish people, place and planet. This is a system-shifting agenda, one whose success will rely on the public, private and civil society sectors acting for the long term and in partnership. It is a completely different flavour of capitalism than any in human history.

Design for Life

Enabling people, places and the planet to flourish.

How do you think these flavours of captialism should interplay in order to deliver flourishing and regenerative people, place and planet? What other financial and economic structures can be introduced to support this goal? Let us know your views in the comment section below.

Join the discussion


Please login to post a comment or reply

Don't have an account? Click here to register.

  • Before Adam Smith (a former Fellow at the RSA) created the notion of Capitalism in his seminal work The Wealth Of Nations (1776), he warned of human nature's dangerous relation to the concept of money, through his first major work, The Theory Of Moral Sentiment (1759). It is the pursuit of money for its own sake that has always corrupted the system of Capitalism in Britain. If you look through history the idea fails every single time for the same reason i.e. individuals who want to accumulate money above all else. Examples include The British Credit Crisis (1772), The Long Depression (1876). The Great Depression (prompted by New York’s Wall Street Crash) (1929) The Property Crash (1989), The Dot Com Bubble (1997) & of course The Financial Crash (2008), We've never addressed the problem since capitalism’s creation, and we never will. Individuals are always corruptible. Look at Elon Musk, Donald Trump or in Britain, Bernie Ecclstone, to see how easy the pursuit of money corrupts people and influences power in our present. Therefore to follow anything that resembles capitalism in the 21st Century, is to not understand the world we inhabit. Money is no longer finite, as it was before the rise of the cashless society. Today Private banks create debit debt from thin air in credit/debit/Apple & Google Pay transactions. Which is vastly different to when money was physical cash, where the money is printed by the Royal Mint, monitored by the Bank of England and the circulation is controlled by the state. When the price of something was an offer not a contract, until we began introducing online purchasing slowly into the mainstream in 2010 which now undertakes over a third of all purchases in Britain in 2020, and made it a contract by default - because you can't negotiate with a screen. And demand and supply, unlike it always was for centuries, makes no difference to price whatsoever today. Recently we've witnessed rental prices rocketing, even though the demand is far less than the near million empty residential properties that still exist in the UK (made up of vacant private properties, Air BnB, Holiday Homes, Money Boxes i.e. empty properties that haven’t even been put on sale and therefore are not counted us such & unfilled social housing). Thus the British property market has created the same fake market as De Beers does with diamonds - i.e. if all diamonds they hold were released on the market, most diamonds would be valueless overnight. . But indisputably it was the financial crash of 2008 that actually marked the end of Capitalism. Because it was the world's poorest, not the banking market. who were forced by their Governments to bail out a few corrupt rich bankers in London & New York with their own money. In the entire world it was only Iceland who actually arrested & convicted the perpetrators that created the problem. The UK chose to apply austerity & cut Welfare benefits to those with disabilities and the most impoverished instead. By any measure of Capitalism or Free Market thinking, state money - which is the public's money for public services, NOT the Government's, as it is often mistaken - should never, EVER, be used to bail out a failed business. If a business isn't working, like the banks were then, they must cease to exist under the ideology of Capitalism and Free Markets. But in recent years we've witnessed this theory be demolished as Taxpayers money pay the salaries of low paid Amazon workers through Tax Credits because the company doesn't pay them enough to live on. Even though, as one of the largest profit making companies on the planet - it makes over a £Trillion - it takes our money, yet still refuses to pay corporation tax properly in this country. Entire companies on the bridge of bankruptcy are saved by British taxpayer money in "bail outs” constantly using the money we allocated for public services, like the recent rescue of the Indian billionaires behind the company Tata Steel, who failed as Capitalists but decided to be socialists in the UK to ensure their company’s survival. And we even watch public money be squandered by Governments on the Third Sector. Charities used to be self funded, but Tony Blair decided that they should be run like companies and changed them to be subcontractors to the state. So rather than raising money for themselves as they always did, many now take taxpayers money instead, which rather than being passed to the people who those organisations were set up to protect, is diverted to salaries, rental fees of London HQs and insanely excessive CEO pay. So we now live in a country where capitalism exists for those making profits but socialism for those making losses and it is the British taxpayer that ends up paying for both. The fact that states and bankers united to the devastation of global communities, proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that the drive for money has no benefits to any society whatsoever and that Free Markets & Capitalism are well and truly dead. A Free Market was meant to be about the consumer and not the deregulation of banks. So whatever flavour of capitalism we are being offered, we know it's out of date, will most definitely be unpleasant to taste and may well even be toxic enough to ensure an early death. As such, all sound thinking RSA Fellows, who believe in fellowship, cooperation, fairness and wealth distribution would say a big "No Thanks" to such an idea, and I'd certainly back them to the hilt. I would truly hope you'd read the links contained in this response, come to the same conclusion and agree with me. Let me know?

Related content