Introduction
Modern capitalism is built upon a fundamental asymmetry: public risk and private reward. This article examines Mariana Mazzucato’s thesis, which posits that the state, rather than the private sector, is the primary engine of innovation. You will learn how the technologies embedded in the iPhone or modern AI-driven pharmaceuticals benefit from public funding, and why the current economic model is inherently contradictory. The text highlights the need to redefine the role of the state—from a passive regulator to an active stakeholder in success.
Mazzucato: The State as the Investor of First Resort
Mariana Mazzucato’s central thesis debunks the myth of the bumbling bureaucrat. The state is an entrepreneurial risk-taker that makes decisions under conditions of Knightian uncertainty. This differs from standard market risk in that success cannot be mathematically estimated. The private sector only steps in once uncertainty has been tamed and reduced to measurable metrics.
The iPhone serves as a perfect example. Its key components—the Internet, GPS, touchscreens, and Siri algorithms—were developed through years of research funded by government agencies (e.g., DARPA). Apple demonstrated a genius for integration, but it "surfed" on a wave of technology created with public money. While Mazzucato’s critics point to the risks of bureaucracy and political motives behind investments, private genius would have no room to operate without a state-provided foundation.
Pharmaceuticals and AI: Profit Asymmetry and the Socialization of Risk
The pharmaceutical sector vividly illustrates the problem of privatizing profits while socializing costs. Currently, artificial intelligence (AI) is redefining R&D standards, promising automation and lower research costs. While global business views AI as a productivity catalyst, these systems learn from open infrastructure: public medical databases and decades of basic research.
Michał Kalecki diagnosed that political elites fear state intervention because it undermines their social power. Meanwhile, Elżbieta Mączyńska emphasizes that digital capitalism requires safeguards (such as cash reserves or a civilizational strategy) to protect citizen agency. Without them, AI in pharmaceuticals will become merely a tool for profit optimization for the largest players, deepening systemic injustice.
Models for the Future: From Missions to Open Infrastructure
Approaches to risk vary by region. The USA generously funds innovation but waives its share of the profits. The European Union is hampered by fiscal rigors, while Arab nations utilize sovereign wealth funds to diversify their economies. However, contemporary discourse on innovation contains a logical contradiction: long-term stability (N) is expected while simultaneously cutting the state off from profits (R), leading to the chronic underfunding of science.
The solution could be a mission-oriented model, where the state defines social goals and reserves a share in commercial success. An alternative is to treat medical data as a common good within an open infrastructure. This, however, requires a redefinition of intellectual property—for instance, through compulsory licensing for drugs developed with public grants. The current patent system often acts as a brake on development rather than a stimulant.
Summary
In the era of AI and climate crises, we need an attitude of prophetic realism. This is a cold analysis of the facts: a system that denies the state a dividend on risk will eventually go bankrupt. In a world where innovation is driven by public effort while benefits flow to the few, are we not becoming hostages of our own success? The time has come to rethink the architecture of capitalism and fairly share the fruits of progress before growing inequalities force a violent compromise.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF