This site utilises cookies. By browsing you agree to our use of cookies. OK ! Learn more

lessons in economic resilience

We went to key opinion-formers in financial services regulation, civil society, funding and finance and asked them what they thought would make our economic system more resilient.

The specific question we posed to them was:

“What would you do if you had a million pounds to build a more resilient economy?”

The video wall below showcases their responses …

Ronald Cohen, The Portland Trust
George Gabriel, Citizens UK
Lily Lapenna, MyBnk
Andy Haldane, Bank of England
David Bent, Forum for the Future
Judith Moran, Quaker Social Action
Mick McAteer, Financial Inclusion Centre
Richard Murphy, Tax Research UK
Geoff Mulgan, Nesta
Paul Mills, Jubilee Centre
Michael Schluter, Relational Research
Zeynep Ton, MIT Sloan School of Management
Gerard Lemos, Lemos&Crane


Our aim in commissioning these short films was to open the debate about what action can be taken now to build an economy that is less vulnerable to shocks. So please do watch the clips – by clicking on them – and then join in with the debate by adding leaving a reply below or using the social media links.

What do you think ?

Do we need new structures, new ideas, new evidence or new people ? 

Click on the following video to hear the views of some of the people present at the launch of the video wall in December 2014:

Video Wall Launch


Be sociable, share ...

    6 Responses to “lessons in economic resilience”

    1. I am unable to play the videos, so am unable to comment on statements made. So I am commenting from the perspective of what “Public Banking” can do for society to answer many if not all the problems we as a modern society are facing. Particularly the sustainability perspective.

      To make the statement that “money affects everything, absolutely everything” seems a rather simplistic view. But in considered thought it is a fundamental fact and truism. In our modern society We can do nothing without actuating finance/money of whatever nature. The problems lie in that the control of money in all its forms is manipulated by very few people and not in the “Public interest” but singularly in the “Private Interest”. This is where the basic truth of the system lies. The simple distinction between “Public banking” and “Private Banking, is that the former correctly constructed and structured benefits society as a whole and the latter in its existing state does not.

      The term “Public Banking” is, as understood by those that have spent substantial time studying and observing it in its many forms simply means that Banking is so constructed to facilitate and benefit the “public interest” not private interest. This standpoint argumentalist’s in opposition to public banking will say that without private interest there will be no benefit. In fact the complete opposite is the case. By one simple factor, proceeds profit, interest call it what you will generated by public banking is not syphoned off to the private sector but is reinvested back into society. There are many successful models of public banks around the world. A classic model is the “Bank of North Dakota” in the united States, which has been in existence for nearly one hundred years established to protect and serve the State of north Dakota and its population. See more here at

      Public Banking to date is virtually unknown in the UK.

      • Dear David,
        I’m sorry that you have been unable to view the videos. Is there a technical issue that we can try to help you with ?
        In any event, thank you for your comments.
        We have written a short paper on the role of local/regional banks and it touches upon some of the public interest issues you raise. We hope to publish it here shortly.
        And have you by any chance been to today’s RSA event on “why we should own the banks” ? As you probably know, NEF have also done a lot of work on ‘stakeholder’ banking.
        Kind regards,

    2. To make a more resistant society and economy there has to be an holistic approach involving a myriad of ideas and actions which should be held under one roof.

      This central overarching canopy should be the responsible use of all of Natures Natural Resources , which are given freely and it is only with man’s actions that we release them for our everyday use for the benefit or other wise of mankind and all other life forms that we share the planet with.

      So it is toward how we make use of all these natural resources that is the crucial aspect, for our future economy and social welfare.

      To begin we need to analyse how is the best way to use these resources on a fair and equitable basis, realising that not all the resources are spread geographically equal and we are not starting from an economic equality across the globe.

      It is with all this in mind That I believe we have to restructure the very basis on which all Natural Resources are used and shared out.
      The priciple that the one with the biggest wallet and most influence has to be challenged and natural resources should have an intrinsic value according to actual damage it can do by its use further down the line.

      It is in this area That I believe we need research into how to adapt taxation and other state institutions to fit a new mould for the protection of not just ourselves but all ecosystem upon the planet.

      Initially I have been exploring a Natural Resource Tax NRT , that would replace all existing taxes and based upon the priciple of taxing the amount of damage any resource does to the planet, similar to a carbon tax , but all encompassing on all Natural Resources including land use.Collected as near to source as possible to avoid tax evasion fraud and avoidance would make to best sense and reduce excessive costs , indeed as the tax is not collected from individuals the scope for non payment is thus avoided and would make collection far easier and secure.

      This tax along with a Death Tax as advocated by Bill Gates Snr. and Warren Buffet to help redistribute the wealth across generations. More Over these new taxes would incentivise individuals to take more responsibility for their own affairs and with this in mind would introduce a citizens wage as has been trailed in Canada and now in Utrecht Holland, along with associated gains in health and welfare.

      Not one fix will fix anything, it is resetting the framework that will be the real game-changer, and as money is the game-changer, it is how we use it must be addressed to gain the real sustainable results we so desire.

    3. Roger Cotton says:

      Just listened to all 13 videos. I think some of the suggestions would address the issue of creating more resilient economies, e.g. Richard Murphy’s idea, which very worthy, would add more money to the macro-economy, but would address underlying resilience within the economy.
      The video I listened to a second time, was Mick McAteer’s. I think his phrase, “change the terms of the debate” and his argument was compelling and hit the nail on the head.
      I also liked Geoff Mulgan’s proposals.

    4. Here’s what I will do with £1m

      I will create the ‘social infrastructure’ that’s needed to catalyse the conditions for systems change over the next 10 years. This first £1m will be the seed funding that will be needed to catalyse further investment for this change initiative to be sustainable over the 10 years.

      We will focus on inspiring a new narrative landscape, we will cultivate communities of practice who will demonstrate what was possible and we will influence the existing power bases through collective intervention for systemic action.

      We’ll share the rich learnings from the work of The Finance Innovation Lab – our story, our strategy, our theory of change and our practice.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Application Deadlines: this no longer works