Featured in the above photo: STAP UK participants at the Houses of Parliament. 

By Sydney Smith (MAccy '23)

Washington is a city full of recovering idealists- we strive to find common ground and a sense of pride while seeking change in our country and local communities. The reality of political showmanship and involvement of lobbying by private enterprise can be frustrating. As business and policy students, we are not immune to this spreading pessimism. In our classrooms and papers, we grapple with a gnawing sense of dread, questioning whether our nation is capable of marching towards progress. The challenges our generation faces- growing wealth inequality; rampant misinformation; unequal access to education, housing, and healthcare; and the impending threat of climate catastrophe- seem insurmountable. It's hard to fathom how our “large tent” democracy, with its wide-ranging political viewpoints and philosophies, can confront these existential issues in a unified front. The challenges that we face are formidable and frankly petrifying, even if our nation was less divided.

This is why I was initially drawn to the Business and the State study-abroad program offered by GWSB: I was hoping to better understand regulatory mechanisms that harness the power of private industry’s innovation. Instead, my takeaways are more interpersonal than technical- I was particularly transformed by our speakers’ optimism, community pride, iterative legislative philosophy, and collaborative spirit.

One of the most profound surprises during the program was the unwavering optimism radiating from the speakers we encountered. It challenged my own pessimistic perspective and instilled a renewed sense of hope. Throughout the course, the National Health Service (NHS) became a symbol of wide public support and collaboration. As our first speaker in D.C., Tom Haigh cautiously discussed the challenge of increasing NHS wait times for specialists. I found the contrast between his sanitized presentation and Sonia Klein's candor quite interesting. As a civil servant and embassy representative, Mr. Haigh stayed on message: the NHS struggled during the pandemic, but the government was acting quickly to accelerate access. Meanwhile, Sonia Klein was more willing to chime in and challenge our presumptions about British healthcare- and regularly pushed back against in-class criticisms on doctor pay and innovation of the NHS. Both Mr. Haigh and Ms. Klein were effusive in their support and pride in centralized healthcare. 

The unwavering national pride in the NHS stood in sharp contrast to contentious debates over healthcare in the US. The guest speakers celebrated the system's merits despite its flaws. Their philosophy of healthcare as a basic right for all citizens was striking. It became apparent that the NHS symbolizes core national values of equality and community. While private interests certainly play a small role in its functioning, the spirit of public good prevails. The NHS represents a shared ideal that all deserve quality care regardless of economic status. This clear national consensus does not exist in America's fractured healthcare system.

Beyond healthcare, I encountered unexpected and encouraging perspectives on climate change that further impressed me. While Dr. Liam Fox MP has a reputation for “right-wing” Tory ideals, he discussed climate change not just as a legitimate driver of global social strife, but also highlighted the urgent issue of water rights. Although I understand UK political parties differ from the US, I was relieved that the science of climate change seems to be widely accepted rather than maligned in Parliament. Fox's forward-looking views defied my expectations; they showcased the potential for, and urgent need of, bipartisan cooperation in addressing environmental concerns in the US. Similarly, Richard Threlfall of KPMG passionately endorsed global innovative efforts to combat climate change. Most inspiring to me was his commentary on the need for wealthy countries to contribute to a global fund supporting struggling island nations during the climate crisis - this willingness to subvert traditional capitalist ideals renewed my faith in business leaders prioritizing global well-being over profiteering.

The program not only revealed surprising viewpoints but also highlighted the power of incremental progress throughout the years—a notion that resonated deeply with me. Labour MP, Carolyn Harris described her efforts to spread awareness of and regulate the pernicious gambling industry as a piece-meal process. MP Harris sought to decrease the harm of gambling first, by decreasing the cost of each bet; in response, the gambling industry shifted toward online gambling- which conveniently fell outside of the current law. Legislators must be willing to try one model of regulation and then shift with the changing tides of private industry. Our speaker at Cambridge, Professor David Newbery discussed the challenges of getting regulatory structure correct for privatized electricity in the U.K.- this took three separate frameworks before striking a moderate balance between the power of the regulators and the electric companies. Professor Newberry did not seem to dwell on the fact that the regulation was not perfect, instead he focused on the incremental improvements overtime. This was an excellent real-world example of “not letting perfect get in the way of good enough.”

The nuanced perspectives on evolving regulations resonated with me as a pragmatist at heart. More than lofty ideologies, it takes reasonable compromises and dedication over time to truly improve society. MP Harris' journey regulating gambling and Professor Newbery's analysis of iterative electricity frameworks demonstrated that progress emerges slowly through trial and error. 

Rather than work backwards from theoretical or academic perfection, policymakers must craft practical solutions first and refine them as needs and scenarios shift. I gained appreciation for this flexible, incremental approach from UK leaders across sectors. Their lived experiences revealed how even flawed policies can move towards better alignment through dedication to the bigger picture.

I look forward to applying the nuanced understanding of public-private partnerships I developed to my future career in public service. I am grateful for the inspiring examples of collaboration, persistence, and pragmatic optimism this course provided. It was a rare intellectual treat for me to speak to so many fascinating and intelligent people- and still leave the conversations full of hope.

Featured in the above photo: STAP UK Participants with Long Harbour speaker, Christophe de Taurines, BBA 1986. 

By Cassie Nestor (MA International Economic Policy '23)

Visiting London, I was able to see the benefits and shortcomings of private and public ownership. Studying economics, I am accustomed to focusing on the most efficient outcomes. However, this program forced me to challenge what efficiency looks like, reexamine where different comparative advantages exist, and appreciate the need to be flexible in creating solutions with well-defined and explicit goals. There is an opportunity cost to every decision. In focusing on private sector ownership, England forgoes public sector ownership and its affinity towards social progress. In choosing public sector ownership, England forgoes private sector ownership and its profit seeking behavior that leads to the efficient use of resources and lower prices for consumers. Business and the State in London: Privatization, Nationalization, and Public-Private Partnerships exposed the tensions between the private and public sectors and the need to strike a balance between the two in such a way that neither progress nor profit are compromised. 

During this program, I was unsure that the competing goals of the public and private sectors would ever exist in cohesion and that maybe progress and profit should not mix. This notion was solidified by our first visit to Long Harbour and our discussion with Senior Advisor Christophe de Taurines. His most striking comment was when he indicated that social change is not part of their model, and that the real estate firm is unable to profit on certain people. Businesses must meet their bottom line. While disheartening, that is a reality faced by all firms; if an activity is generating a loss, the rational choice is to discontinue operations. But what was unsaid is that discontinuing operations meant that some groups were left without access to housing and other goods. These decisions often hurt the most vulnerable in a society. If left only to the private sector, poor and disadvantaged individuals would continue to have less because they are not seen as a lucrative business opportunity.  

The dichotomy of the motives between the public and private sectors was illustrated by Richard Threlfall, Global Head of Infrastructure, Government, and Healthcare at KPMG. It was during this visit that we took a macro approach to major questions and events happening in the world. Unlike Taurines, who emphasized the need to make profit, Threlfall emphasized the need for larger states and larger players to cover the costs incurred by developing countries as they make important decisions to meet their development goals. 

While discussed at the international level, the same is true at the national level. Governments are able to reach households and communities that are overlooked by the private sector and absorb the costs of providing goods and services to unprofitable communities in the name of social progress. However, when governments choose to engage in these activities, their balance sheets grow at an accelerated and dangerous rate. 

Public private partnerships are still very experimental, with each union leading to a unique outcome and a set of lessons learned. After listening to the speakers, I have come to accept that a happy medium between private and public ownership has yet to be discovered. This course helped me realize that while the “perfect balance” between private and public ownership will vary across industry and consumer needs, we should not be discouraged from trying. It is only then  that society will achieve both progress and profit. 

The most beneficial aspect of this program was the knowledge received from my peers. It is easy to become siloed in one school of thought. Every tool we have to understand the world is flawed because every academic discipline emphasizes and ignores different variables that would otherwise have a significant impact on the way that we answer different questions. In staying in our traditional paradigms, we lose the possibility of asking and answering new and complex questions.  However, with classmates across different schools and professional backgrounds, ideas that I would not normally come across in my classes became major topics of discussions. These questions pushed me out of my comfort zone and helped me grow intellectually. Together, my classmates and I were able to pool our knowledge and catch many of our speakers by surprise with the complexity of our questions. 

Now having a slightly stronger working knowledge of different topics such as healthcare and climate change, two very salient topics in both the US and the UK, I am better equipped to answer complex questions that require unconventional solutions. 

Studying international economic policy, I have been fortunate enough to be part of a program that allows me to have a foot in both the world of policy through the Elliott School of International Affairs and the world of business through GWSB. By taking classes that span across both fields, I have been able to generate a dynamic understanding of the nexus between business and politics which would have been absent if I was not encouraged to take classes and learn the importance of balancing the priorities of business executives and elected officials. 

When both entities are in concert, the consumer feels empowered to participate in the economy and take responsible economic risks which will contribute to widespread prosperity. Business and the State in London is a well-designed combination of business and politics and will leave a lasting impression on my professional career.