A rotten corporate culture

Reports by select committees of MPs after some scandal should be treated with care. There is nothing MPs like more than to take the moral high ground and heap blame on others in front of TV cameras, whether their victims deserve it or not. But in the case of the collapse of Carillion, their condemnation of the senior management, the board and the auditor seem fully justified. When the Institute of Directors say that “effective governance was lacking at Carillion” you know things were very wrong.

Think of the company as a ship. The captain has steered the ship too close to the rocks, and seeing the impending disaster has flown off in the ship’s helicopter and with all the cash he could find. After the boat hit the rocks no lives were lost, but many of the passengers had a terrifying ordeal in the water and many lost possessions, and the crew lost their jobs. Now if this had happened to a real ship you would expect the captain to be in jail stripped of any ill gotten gains. But because this ship is a corporation its captains are free and keep all their salary and bonuses. The Board and auditors which should have done something to correct the ship’s disastrous course also suffer no loss.

To say this reflects everything that is wrong with neoliberalism is I think too imprecise. [1] I also think focusing on the fact that Carillion was a company built around public sector contracts misses the point. (I discussed this aspect in an earlier post.) To say, as the MPs do, that the collapse of Carillion is the result of recklessness, hubris and greed tells us nothing, because many people are bound to be those things if the system provides no incentives for better behaviour. The problem is that the senior managers, the auditors and the Board are not in prison and have not even suffered any financial loss.

In theory the incentive for better behaviour is that everyone except the auditors have lost their job and are unlikely to get another. But executive salaries are now so high that this penalty, if it is applied, is just not strong enough. The former chief executive, who resigned in 2017, earned £1.5m in 2016. (A third of that was in the form of a bonus that could have been clawed back until the remuneration committee made that more difficult in 2016.) Few people would think that never being able to captain a ship again was a sufficient disincentive for the imaginary captain who steered his boat too close to the rocks.

The idea from Econ 101 that CEOs are paid their marginal product is now laughable. Their pay is so high in part because it is set by cosy remuneration committees, but mainly because CEOs have considerable bargaining power over the firm that employs them. This power is intrinsic, so greater oversight by shareholders will do little to change this situation. I wrote some time back that perhaps economists should think about the benefits of a maximum wage, or a return to punitive taxation on CEO type salaries and bonuses. [2] That idea normally provokes shock and horror, but have economists come up with a better idea to offset this market failure at the centre of modern corporations?

As far as auditors are concerned, there is much talk of breaking up the big four. The idea is that in a more competitive auditor environment there would be more opportunity for firms to establish a reputation, and for those that failed to do so to go out of business. I suspect the issues go deeper than that. It would be interesting to know if existing auditors after a high profile failure like Carillion lost market share. It may be that shareholders have insufficient power to ensure the selection of auditors useful for them. If that is the case, there may be a case for giving regulators greater power to act on shareholders behalf.

Ultimately corporate failures are a reflection of how companies are governed. I tend to agree with Will Hutton that the model where the shareholder and more particularly the share price are king is deeply flawed. The term financialisation is a bit like neoliberalism in that it is used by different people to mean different things, but I think it does describe how corporate culture has changed in the UK and US (at least) over the last few decades. We must never forget that the largest disaster in recent times reflecting a rotten corporate culture was the Global Financial Crisis.

Will writes

“My contention is that limited-liability companies, having certain formal privileges and status, should not be the private playthings of transient owners interested only in their own immediate self-enrichment, without any concern for how their profits are made. They should be organisational structures that allow humanity to innovate and then produce to meet the great challenges of any era: in this context profits are made by delivering a noble, moral business purpose, integral to the wider legitimacy of the enterprise.”

The big challenge is to work out the most efficient way of achieving that goal.

[1] What I think is fair to say is that a neoliberal culture is why attempts to address these problems have been ignored for so long. Ed Miliband talked about predatory corporate practices, and the overwhelming reaction was that this made him ‘anti-business’ and ‘too left wing’.

[2] The idea currently being embraced by politicians is to publish firm pay ratios: the ratio of the CEO’s pay to the average employee in that firm. You could cap that as a policy, although it is not obvious to me why CEO’s in firms (in sectors like finance) that have highly paid employees should be allowed to expropriate more from the firm than those with lowly paid employees. However as this is not my area, I am happy to see analysis on the optimal way of removing this distortion within corporations.

The fatal inconsistency within neoliberalism

The collapse of Carillion had some important implications for public sector outsourcing, as I discussed here, but I tend to agree with Will Hutton that the real lessons lie elsewhere. He writes

“While some public sector delivery is outstanding, notably in parts of the NHS, the general pattern is more patchy. It is for this reason that governments for decades have been contracting the private sector to deliver goods and services. Trying to extend that principle is not unreasonable if high-quality private sector partners step up to the mark: the problem is they are in such short supply.”

In other words the problem is not so much with outsourcing, if sensibly done by a government that does not automatically think private is best and a civil services able to write good contracts and effectively monitor quality. The problem is with the poor quality of so much British capitalism. Carillion is not just one bad apple, of course: this is a lesson that should have been learned from the financial crisis, and RBS in particular,

But how can that be, when the market ensures that only the most efficient firms survive? That idea, that the market ensures that only the most efficient prosper, is a central message of neoliberal ideology, and it has held UK and US governments under its sway since the time of Thatcher and Reagan. But that ideology contains a large and deep internal contradiction, which applies particularly to large firms like Carillion. To see what that contraction is, we need to talk about ordoliberalism and Ronald Coase.

Ordoliberalism is widely known as the German version of neoliberalism. It too celebrates the benefits of the market. It, like neoliberalism, ignores many of the failures of markets that Colin Crouch eloquently outlines and which economists spend a lot of time studying. But ordoliberalism does recognise one potential problem with their market ideal which neoliberalism ignores, and that is monopoly. Crouch makes a similar distinction in talking about market-neoliberals and corporate-neoliberals.

This distinction is important for reasons that go way beyond the textbook problem with monopoly: that prices are too high and output is too low. To see why it goes beyond that we need to turn to Ronald Coase. He was a British economist who subsequently worked at Chicago. His first major article was "The Nature of the Firm" written in 1937 which introduced the concept of transaction costs to explain the nature and limits of firms. The key point that Coase made relevant for our discussion is that, in theory, much of what firms do could instead be done by markets. For a non-economist this probably sounds strange, so I will briefly try and explain the idea.

In principle the activities of any firm could be duplicated by all its employees, including managers, becoming self employed. The worker who worked for a firm would become a self employed person who signed a contract with the self-employed manager. Furthermore, the self employed manager would not have to work with a fixed set of self employed workers, but for each task they could create a market for the task which any self employed person could bid to fulfil.

Coase asked why we have firms rather than this more market based setup. His answer is transactions costs. A typical worker employed in a firm has to do whatever (within reason) a manager asks them to do. This can vary, often at very short notice, depending on the needs of the firm. Replacing this with a large number of specific short term contracts would be very inefficient, because it takes time to write and read contracts (transactions costs). You could add search costs and many other costs that make the self employed contracting model normally inefficient.

You can see exactly these tensions, between the advantage of the market versus internalising activities within a firm, played out when a firm decides to outsource any of its activities. But these tensions have a darker side. To what extent have firms internalised the market so that they can exploit customers (traditional monopoly), exploit workers (if one large firm is the only potential employer for many workers i.e. monopsony), or as a vehicle for managers to exploit shareholders.

There are two paths you can travel once you recognise all this. The first, and more ordoliberal, is to distrust monopoly of any kind, and be highly skeptical of large firms and their creation through mergers. The second is to assume that firms are always right, and that large firms exist simply because they are more efficient at doing what they do than the same firm broken up. Given the darker side mentioned above, there is no logical reason to take the second path. Skepticism about large firms is the right path to take. The second path, where you presume that there are always good reasons why large firms exist, makes no logical sense, unless your goal is for whatever reason to defend these large firms. It is the path that neoliberalism took.

Will Davies has a fascinating paper of how ideas about the virtues of competition, and the need to break up monopolies, changed within the University of Chicago from the 1930s until the 1980s under the influence, among others, of the work of Ronald Coase. It shows how many of the leading actors during that period chose the second path. Economics is rich enough that, if they so wish, an economist can always invent reasons why monopolies might be efficient, and so earn lucrative fees for so doing.

Thus neoliberalism that might have started as extolling the virtues of the market ends up as “a consultancy racket, in which corporations purchase complex models to justify their chosen strategy”, to quote Will Davies more recently. This is what I meant when I wrote back in 2016.

“It is important that those who use the term neoliberalism today recognise this contradiction. It does not mean that using the term neoliberalism to describe the dominant ideology is wrong, but it is a mistake to assume the ideology has not be moulded/adapted/distorted by those in whose interest it works. These changes have made it intellectually weak at the same time as making it politically strong.”

There are important mistakes that those opposing neoliberalism can make if they do not see this point. They involve opposing anything your opponent appears to favour. Thus, for example, because neoliberals preach the virtues of the market but in practice are normally simply pro-business, this does not mean that you should always oppose markets: you can be pro-market and anti-neoliberal. More generally, just because neoliberals can use ideas from economics to argue their case does not mean there is something wrong with economics (as opposed to some economists). Louis Zingales, from Chicago, exemplifies both points, and is not afraid to make the distinction between pro-market and pro-business in public.

This is all related to the distinction between ideas and interests. While it is right to recognise that interests are to some extent based on ideas, it is also important to see that ideas can change in time to reflect interests. How an ideology based on seeing markets through rose colored spectacles turned into an ideology justifying crony capitalism is at least part of the story of neoliberalism. These compromises with power allowed the ideology to become dominant, but at the same time it also made it rather easy for it to be subverted by different kinds of plutocracies, such as those represented by Brexit and Trump.

What Carillion tells us about public sector outsourcing

Jeremy Warner, an editor at the Telegraph, once said there are either big state people or small state people. I felt the same way following the reaction to the collapse of Carillion: there are either private good, public bad people or public good, private bad people. Of course, reality is somewhere in between.

Corillion went bust because of cost overruns or delays in three large construction projects. The nature of such projects involve that kind of risk, but clearly the company - despite its size - was not resilient enough to withstand those failures. It did not go bust because of privatisation of public services, unless you think the government should build its own hospitals or roads. If anything, it shows that those contracting out public contracts were getting a good deal.

There will always be public projects contracted out to the private sector. Much of the increase in public investment planned by Labour if it wins the next election will be undertaken by private firms. Getting the contracting relationship right is difficult and fraught with dangers.

The government clearly has questions to answer about why it continued to award contracts after the profit warning, and we need some informed analysis to determine whether the government, as they claim, had fully protected all but one (!) of these projects and will not lose any money as a result of the collapse. As David Allen Green suggests, this smacks of ministerial failure. (The link also shows public procurement can have its funny side.) Also why was the position of the “crown representative” who was meant to be overseeing scrutiny of, among others, Carillion left vacant? The government should also ask whether companies should be allowed to pay large dividends when their own pension fund is underfunded. And why Carillion's auditors, KPMG, gave it a clean bill of health when its balance sheet was already showing signs of stress

.

To see what lessons the collapse of Corillion does have for the debate over whether the public sector should privatise certain of its activities or do them in house, we need to go through some of the pros and cons

There is one main benefit of contracting out public services, which is that it can save money. To mention ‘the market’ here is not very helpful, because with one buyer and only a few sellers for something (the contract) agreed once every few years, this is hardly a normal market. [1] It is instead about the incentives faced by managers and workers, both in achieving efficiency and fostering innovation. Managers have a clearer incentive system in a private sector firm to maximise profits, and that incentive is provided by the need to bid low to win the contract and nevertheless make a profit. As Carillion shows, margins on most public sector outsourcing are not large. In that sense Carillion confirms that part of this mechanism is working. A single public sector entity cannot replicate this advantage, unless it too is in competition with private sector firms. In short, competition improves incentives.

One important qualification to this argument involves information. The temptation of a bidding system based on the lowest price is to cut quality. So the public sector has to have a clear means of not just specifying quality in the contract, but of ensuring the contract is being fulfilled once it is awarded. Sometimes politics can get in the way of that happening. For activities where quality is difficult to observe, contracting out is not a good idea.

Another qualification involves the attitude of public sector workers before privatisation. If they, for whatever reason, internalise the need for efficiency and innovation, because for example they can see how both improve the outcome for customers, then contracting out to the private sector will achieve little. The NHS could be a case in point.

A further problem with privatisation is finance. When people argue that public money should not be wasted paying the shareholders or creditors of private firms, they are both right and wrong. They are wrong in the sense that without contracting out the same amount of money has to be raised by the public sector, and so it “wastes” money by having to pay interest on government debt. But they are right in that the rate of interest on government debt is much less than the rate of interest a private firm has to pay on any debt, or in the form of dividends to shareholders. The reason for this is that investors do not like risk: people who lend to the UK government know they will always get their money back, while as the shareholders and creditors to Carillion have just found this is not true for private sector firms.

This is why PFI projects undertaken just so that the borrowing is done by the private rather than the public sector are costly from an economic point of view. It is why it makes sense to exclude public investment from any fiscal rule: fiscal rules that restrict public investment are an open invitation to politicians to undertake PFI type financing. In my view the best constraint on public investment is the expected social return, assessed with the help of an independent body. It is often said that PFI type projects ‘avoids risk to the taxpayer’. Again this is the wrong way round. It is far easier and cheaper for the public sector to take risks than the private sector, so PFI projects are paying far too high a price to avoid risk to the public sector. 

Another problem related to risk is the interrelationship between what the private company contracts to do and what actually happens when government forecasts go wrong, as they always will. This may have happened with the East Coast line “bailout” (but if it was, we should be told), and it did happen with privatising the probation service. Public sector contracting out forces each side to commit to guesses about the future, whereas if everything remains in-house there can be much more flexibility. There is also the cost of having to train more civil servants in the art of writing good contracts.

One further problem that Carillion reminds us of is that privatisation runs the risk of a degree of interruption if the company goes bankrupt. Disruption is nothing new. If privatisation is to have any benefits, the contract from the public sector has to come up for renewal every few years, and if the private sector provider is changed that will involve some dislocation of service.

One final point, which is contingent on what I hope will be a temporary state of affairs. Nowadays the management overheads for private sector firms are likely to be far higher than in the public sector, for reasons that have little to do with management quality. Ben Chu sets out how much management was being paid at Carillion compared to equivalent public sector managers. And what on earth were shareholders doing allowing the directors to relax clawback conditions on management’s pay if things went wrong, which even the Institute of Directors described as “highly inappropriate” and “lacking effective governance”. In truth the public sector is much better at stopping managers using their monopoly power to be paid over the odds than the private sector appears to be.

So the economist’s answer on public sector outsourcing is, it depends: on all the factors outlined above and probably more I have momentarily forgotten. (Like economies of scale and expertise: no one would ever suggest the public sector makes its own paperclips.) Where the balance will be is bound to be case dependent. But it would be incredibly surprising if at least some of the outsourcing undertaken by this government was not ideological rather than evidence based. This suggests that Labour, if it wins the next election, should undertake a thorough independent review when it has all the facts at its disposal. That at least might ease fears that we will lurch from one ideological position to its opposite.

[1] This is an interesting example of a longstanding debate with myself. If you want to claim that much of this kind of outsourcing represents neoliberal ideology at work (which it probably does), and also that neoliberalism is all about the market, then your definition of a market has to be pretty wide. But of course a large firm like Carillion, as Ronald Coase said, involves the large scale supersession of the price mechanism. By which he meant that firms are an alternative to markets, and large firms suppress what would be market activity if it was replaced by lots of smaller firms buying and selling to each other. This is a contradiction at the heart of neoliberalism as market worship: firms are alternatives to markets.