Exploring the future of governance reveals a crucial insight: both traditional left and right approaches often overlook the central role of individual empowerment. The traditional socialist imaginary often conjures images of a powerful, centralized state, the engine of redistribution and the architect of a planned economy. Conversely, the “small state” is typically championed by neoliberal thinkers as the guarantor of individual liberty and the facilitator of free markets, its role deliberately circumscribed. A compelling and increasingly relevant vision for achieving societal aims in the 21st century emerges within this apparent tension. This vision proposes a state strategically focused and democratically accountable, leveraging its power not through sprawling bureaucracy but through targeted interventions and the empowerment of local communities.
A central critique of both traditional right-wing models, which rely on companies to provide for individual needs, and traditional left-wing models, where the state acts as the primary provider, is their potential to disempower the individual. Neither approach, when taken to its extreme, fully fosters individual agency. This new perspective arises from a disillusionment with both the socially corrosive effects of neoliberal austerity (as documented extensively by scholars like Professor Danny Dorling on inequality) and the historical pitfalls of overly centralized, often authoritarian, socialist models.
The notion that “all democratic countries are socialist, it’s just a matter of degree” often sparks debate. A deeper look reveals a profound truth: modern capitalism, particularly in its most successful and stable forms, doesn’t just tolerate elements of socialism; it actively needs them to thrive. The pure, unfettered capitalism envisioned by some theorists often proves to be a self-destructive force, prone to instability, extreme inequality, and the erosion of the very foundations upon which long-term prosperity is built. The enduring model across most developed democracies is a pragmatic “mixed economy,” where the dynamism of markets is tempered and strengthened by collective provisions and social safeguards.
At the core of this symbiotic relationship is the creation of a stable and productive workforce. Publicly funded education, a quintessential socialist provision, ensures a literate and skilled populace capable of innovation and adaptation—essential ingredients for capitalist growth. As economist Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate known for his work on development as freedom, would argue, expanding human freedoms and capabilities through accessible education and healthcare is not just a moral imperative but a critical investment in a nation’s human capital. Universal or subsidized healthcare systems similarly guarantee a healthy workforce, reducing the economic drain of illness and ensuring that individuals can participate fully in the economy. Without such collective support, the capitalist system would struggle to find the healthy, educated labour it requires.
Beyond individual well-being, social safety nets like unemployment benefits, disability support, and public pensions act as crucial shock absorbers for capitalism’s inherent volatility. As evidenced by historical periods of unregulated capitalism, extreme economic downturns can lead to widespread destitution and social unrest, threatening the very stability necessary for business and investment. These socialist-leaning programs not only provide a humanitarian floor but also help maintain aggregate demand during recessions, preventing deeper economic spirals by ensuring a baseline level of consumer spending. Knowing that a safety net exists can also encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship, as individuals may be more willing to innovate if complete financial ruin is not the sole consequence of failure.
A significant role for government is also indispensable in addressing market failures and providing essential public goods. The concept of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” famously articulated by Garrett Hardin, illustrates how private self-interest can deplete shared resources without collective management or regulation. Capitalism, left unchecked, can lead to environmental degradation, monopolies that stifle competition, and dangerous working conditions. Government intervention—through environmental regulations, antitrust laws, and consumer protections—becomes vital here. These regulations do not hinder capitalism but refine it, creating a fairer playing field and ensuring long-term sustainability.
Critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, and public utilities, often under-provided by the private sector due to the “free-rider problem,” are socialist provisions that form the bedrock of economic activity. Mariana Mazzucato, in “The Entrepreneurial State,” further emphasizes this, arguing that the state is not merely a market corrector but a fundamental market creator. It invests in the high-risk, early-stage research (like the internet or GPS) that ultimately fuels private sector innovation and profit.
The reduction of extreme inequality through mechanisms like progressive taxation and targeted redistribution is not merely an ethical choice but an economic necessity for sustained capitalist success. While some inequality can incentivize innovation, excessive wealth concentration can lead to social fragmentation, reduced social mobility, and a diminished consumer base. As highlighted by Thomas Piketty in “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” unchecked capitalist dynamics can naturally lead to increasing wealth concentration unless actively counteracted by progressive policies. By ensuring a broader segment of the population has disposable income and opportunities, these “socialist” elements expand the consumer base, stimulate demand, and unlock the full productive potential of a nation, as argued by economists like Paul Krugman.
Even proponents of capitalism have acknowledged this intricate relationship. Joseph A. Schumpeter, for instance, in “Capitalism, Socialism, and and Democracy,” explored how capitalism’s very success might create the conditions for a transition towards socialism, hinting at the inherent tensions and evolutionary paths of economic systems. John Kenneth Galbraith, in “The Affluent Society,” critiqued the imbalance between private affluence and public squalor, underscoring the necessity of collective investment in societal well-being. Dani Rodrik, in “The Globalization Paradox,” champions national policy space and social protection as crucial for making globalized capitalism palatable and sustainable within democratic frameworks.
The achievements of figures like Jamie Driscoll, within the constrained budgetary and political landscape of the North of Tyne Combined Authority (Jamie Driscoll’s Achievements), offer a tangible illustration of what can be achieved with a clear socialist agenda enacted through the levers of a sub-national state. This approach finds theoretical resonance in the work of scholars like Mariana Mazzucato (Mariana Mazzucato’s “The Entrepreneurial State”), who compellingly argues for the state’s crucial and often underestimated role as an entrepreneurial force driving innovation and shaping markets for the public good.
The common dichotomy that pits a “small state” against an “effective state” is a false one. It is often deliberately perpetuated by those seeking to shrink the public sphere for private gain (a critique powerfully articulated by Owen Jones on the austerity agenda). A state’s efficacy is not solely determined by its size or the sheer volume of its expenditure. It is instead defined by the strategic focus of its interventions, the efficiency of its resource allocation, and its responsiveness to democratic mandates.
Mazzucato’s seminal work meticulously dismantles the myth of the purely innovative private sector. Her research reveals the state’s foundational role in funding basic research and de-risking the early stages of technological development that ultimately lead to transformative innovations. From the internet (initially funded by DARPA, a US government agency) to GPS (a product of the US Department of Defense), the state has consistently acted as a crucial entrepreneurial actor. It undertakes investments that the risk-averse private sector is often unwilling or unable to make. This “entrepreneurial state” actively shapes markets, not merely regulates them, directing innovation towards socially desirable outcomes. This perspective directly challenges the limitations of a purely laissez-faire approach, which often exacerbates inequalities and fails to address critical societal needs that are not profitable for private actors (as argued by Professor Robert Reich on the dangers of unchecked capitalism).
The practical application of a “socialism on a shoestring,” as evidenced by Jamie Driscoll’s tenure in the North of Tyne, provides valuable insights into the art of the possible within constrained budgetary and political realities. His achievements, ranging from the creation of green jobs and the expansion of digital inclusion initiatives to the implementation of community wealth-building strategies (detailed on Jamie Driscoll’s Achievements), demonstrate a strategic leveraging of limited state capacity to achieve tangible socialist goals.
The emphasis here is not on the wholesale nationalization of industries. It focuses on targeted interventions that empower local communities, foster democratic accountability, and strategically utilize public resources to leverage wider societal assets and partnerships. This approach aligns with the principles of localism, recognizing that solutions to social and economic challenges are often most effective when tailored to the specific needs and contexts of individual communities (a concept explored in theories of democratic localism by political scientists like Carole Pateman). Driscoll’s focus on building a “community wealth building” model, aiming to keep wealth generated locally within the region (North of Tyne Combined Authority’s approach to community wealth building), exemplifies this commitment to empowering local economies and reducing reliance on extractive, external capital.
Building upon these practical examples and theoretical underpinnings, we can identify several key pillars of Small State Socialism. Strategic investment becomes paramount. Rather than a scattergun approach to public spending, the small socialist state prioritizes targeted investments in key areas that address fundamental social needs and drive sustainable development. Drawing inspiration from Mazzucato’s concept of “mission-oriented innovation” (Mariana Mazzucato’s work on mission-oriented innovation at UCL), this involves the state actively shaping markets and directing technological development towards goals like decarbonization, affordable housing, and universal healthcare access.
Empowerment and localism form a crucial cornerstone. The devolution of power and resources to local communities, fostering participatory democracy and the development of tailored solutions to local challenges, is central to this model. This not only enhances democratic accountability but also allows for more agile and responsive governance (as argued by advocates of subsidiarity in political theory).
Public services are reimagined as enablers of individual and collective flourishing, rather than bureaucratic burdens. Investing in high-quality education (the importance of public education as argued by Amartya Sen), universal healthcare (studies on the benefits of universal healthcare systems by the WHO), and robust public infrastructure (the role of public infrastructure in economic development as analyzed by the World Bank) becomes a strategic imperative, fostering human capital and social cohesion.
Germany’s healthcare model offers a compelling case study in balancing universal provision with individual choice and a degree of market dynamics. It operates as a dual system, with around 90% of the population covered by Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) and the remainder by Private Health Insurance (PHI). SHI is funded by income-dependent contributions from employees and employers, pooled and reallocated to non-profit “sickness funds” based on risk. This embodies a strong solidarity principle, where collective contributions empower equitable access for all, ensuring comprehensive coverage regardless of individual income for essential services like doctor visits, hospital care, and prescriptions. Patients within the SHI system retain the freedom to choose their physicians, including specialists, fostering individual agency in their care pathways.
Private Health Insurance, available to high-earners, the self-employed, and civil servants, offers tailored benefits, often faster appointments, and access to private hospital rooms. This dual approach aims to provide universal coverage while offering choice, seeking a middle ground between purely state-controlled and fully privatized systems. For personal empowerment, the German hybrid model is arguably superior. It combines the security of universal access with significant individual choice in providers and insurance plans. This blend allows individuals to navigate their healthcare with a greater sense of agency, choosing options that best suit their needs and preferences, rather than being solely dependent on a single, centralized system or constrained by prohibitive costs in a purely private market.
While recognized for its efficiency and comprehensive coverage, the German system faces challenges that can impact individual empowerment. These include a lack of central coordination in public health, which can make navigating the system complex for individuals. An overemphasis on treatment rather than prevention may limit proactive health management. Difficulties in digitization can hinder patient access to information and streamlined services. Despite high staff density, nursing staff often face heavy workloads due to fragmented hospital planning, potentially affecting the quality of patient interaction and care. The system also contends with economic interests that can hinder preventive measures and a reimbursement model that sometimes incentivizes certain treatments over others. Recent initiatives, such as the “Action Plan for a Diverse, Inclusive, and Barrier-Free Healthcare System,” aim to address these challenges by improving accessibility, providing multilingual information, and enhancing digital tools, further striving to empower individuals within the system.
Regulation for the common good is essential. This involves implementing smart, effective regulations that protect workers’ rights (the ILO’s conventions on labour standards), ensure consumer safety (EU directives on consumer protection), and safeguard the environment (the IPCC reports on climate change and the need for regulation), without stifling socially beneficial innovation.
Community wealth building becomes a key economic strategy. It focuses on mechanisms that keep wealth generated locally circulating within the community, fostering economic resilience, reducing inequality, and building a more democratic and inclusive economy (as championed by organizations like the Democracy Collaborative).
Implementing a Small State Socialist agenda is not without its inherent challenges. Operating within a broader capitalist framework, particularly at a sub-national level, necessitates navigating legal constraints. There is also potential resistance from vested interests who benefit from the status quo (the influence of corporate lobbying as documented by organizations like OpenSecrets). The constant need for robust democratic engagement to maintain public support and accountability also presents a challenge. The scalability of successful local initiatives to a broader national level requires careful consideration of differing contexts and power dynamics.
This approach also faces potential criticisms from both traditional socialist perspectives, which may advocate for more radical and centralized state control, and from neoliberal viewpoints, which fundamentally oppose any significant state intervention in the economy. Addressing these challenges requires a pragmatic and adaptive approach, focusing on building coalitions, demonstrating tangible successes at the local level, and articulating a clear and compelling vision for a more just and equitable society achievable through a reimagined role for the state.
The lessons from past conflicts and contemporary challenges are clear: even in an age of complex governance and advanced technology, the capacity for physical coercion, and the preparedness to defend against it, remains a stark and undeniable component of power dynamics. It directly impacts whether our societies remain truly free, ensuring that the foundational ability to exert or resist force underpins all other forms of power, acting as a crucial safeguard against the loss of the liberties we often take for granted – a modern echo of Immanuel Kant’s vision of perpetual peace, which still requires active cultivation and defense, not mere assumption.
Where next? Use the links below:
Snippets: Curated collection of short, impactful articles and inspiring ideas.
Forward Futures: Actionable essays delving into contemporary issues.
Grasp the Nettle. Table of Contents: A book in progress charting paths toward a more empowering future, for a global audience.
About: Our mission – From Awareness to Action.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973.
Carothers, Thomas and Press, Benjamin. Various essays and research from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Journal of Democracy.
Fücks, Ralf. Defending Freedom: How We Can Win the Fight for an Open Society. Polity Press, 2017.
Gearty, Conor. Liberty and Security. Polity Press, 2013.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C.B. Macpherson, Penguin Classics, 1968.
Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. Dover Publications, 2003.
Levitsky, Steven and Ziblatt, Daniel. How Democracies Die. Crown, 2018.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Mounk, Yascha. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press, 2018.
Seltzer, Nicholas A. and Wilson, Steven Lloyd (Editors). Handbook on Democracy and Security. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.