Capitalism, understood as a method for managing the exchange of goods and services, is in continuous evolution: never an exact science, it has been piloted directly or indirectly by policy.
It is currently undergoing a transition toward something that that is not yet fully clear. The current period seems marked precisely by the difficult co-existence of diverse trends and approaches, which makes defining it in theoretical terms difficult; we are, in any case, being forced to compromise, and to make continuous pragmatic adjustments in which no rigorously ideological stance prevails. In fact, all governments seek to combine efficiency (markets and profits) and welfare (especially social) in order to maintain that precarious equilibrium between growth and political stability. Looking at this dynamic through the lens of governments and markets, it must be remembered that the very concept of capital itself can be expressed in the form of “institutional” capital: the rule of law must be a fundamental pillar of a functioning capitalism system precisely in order to ensure balance between political institutions and market mechanisms.
In response to more structural changes, security considerations should be incorporated more cohesively into economic assessments. Something that has direct implications for transatlantic transport, given that the two shoes of the Atlantic have developed different approaches to this delicate balance (security/economy), but need each other in order to pursue their respective strategic objectives vis à vis the rest of the world: in terms of “hard security” capacity, technological innovation in strategic sectors such as digital and, to a certain extent, markets. Managing the difficult triangle with the U.S. and China is therefore an unavoidable urgency for Europeans.
In any case, the problem for the global system becomes even more serious when economic-trade tensions impact directly on security relations; clearly possible in that case is a – deliberate or otherwise – “decoupling” effect that would be damaging for everyone, favoring a partial recovery of national or regional autonomy over pure productive efficiency. In reality, there is a continuum running from diversification to selective “de-risking” (regarding countries considered problematic for political reasons) to trade wars, economic sanctions and economic coercion. Economic policy decisions are made additionally difficult by long value chains, with goods and services being produced for distribution to various countries involving multiple transborder crossings.
Some of the most recent challenges, such as the adoption of artificial intelligence systems, are leading not only to greater government intervention but also to populist responses that galvanize the more nationalistic elements of advanced societies. Some recipes proposed for the work world could, in fact, generate additional problems, given that a refusal to compete or innovate, as a result of excessive regulation for instance, risks further penalizing growth. This could potentially trigger a vicious political-economic circle capable of undermining welfare systems and their role as social safeguard for lack of sufficient public resources. Moreover, some observers believe that social policies are, in any case, inadequate without growth, especially if the supply of jobs is given priority over the provision of temporary subsidies. And neither is it certain that raising the level of education is a generally effective solution to employment, given the difficulties associated with matching supply with demand.
Overall, there is broad consensus on the fact that capitalism is in a transitional phase that has yet to come clearly into focus, and that still retains many of its traditional features. Moreover, it is a method of piloting economic relations that has demonstrated a surprising capacity for adaptation and what are at times unexpected evolutions. Rather than one of radical transformation, the current phase could prove to be one of gradual and partial transition.