Mariana Francesca Mazzucato

1. Introduction

Mariana Francesca Mazzucato (b. 1968) is an Italian‑American economist whose work has become central to 21st‑century debates on capitalism, the state, and value creation. Writing at the intersection of economics, innovation studies, and political philosophy, she challenges conventional views of the market–state relationship and the neutrality of economic categories such as efficiency, risk, and profit.

Her best‑known contributions include the concept of the entrepreneurial state, the distinction between value creation and value extraction, and the advocacy of mission‑oriented innovation policy. These ideas question the narrative that wealth is primarily created by private entrepreneurs while governments simply correct “market failures” or provide background infrastructure. Instead, she highlights the historically documented role of public institutions in shaping technological trajectories and bearing fundamental investment risks.

Mazzucato’s work is both analytical and programmatic: she reconstructs the history of innovation and value theory while also proposing alternative frameworks for organizing public–private relations in areas such as green transition and health. Her arguments have been influential in the European Union, various national governments, and international organizations, where they inform policy designs that seek to align capitalism with broader social and environmental goals.

Because she links empirical economic research with questions about justice, legitimacy, and the common good, Mazzucato is frequently discussed not only within economics but also in political theory, philosophy of economics, and critical social theory. Supporters regard her as a leading critic of financialized capitalism; critics variously question her historical interpretations, policy prescriptions, or treatment of the state’s capabilities. This entry surveys her life, intellectual development, major works, and the main controversies surrounding her thought.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Outline

Mariana Mazzucato was born on 16 June 1968 in Rome, Italy, and spent much of her childhood and youth in the United States after her family emigrated. She studied economics at Tufts University and completed her PhD at The New School for Social Research in New York in 1994, an institution known for heterodox and critical approaches to economics. Following academic positions in the United States and the United Kingdom, she joined the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex in 2008 and later moved to University College London, where she founded the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) in 2017.

Her transatlantic upbringing and academic career in both European and Anglo‑American contexts have been described by commentators as important for her comparative perspective on varieties of capitalism and on different traditions of state intervention.

2.2 Historical and Economic Setting

Mazzucato’s work emerged against the backdrop of late 20th‑ and early 21st‑century transformations in global capitalism:

Proponents of situating her within a “post‑crisis” intellectual generation argue that the 2008 financial crisis was decisive in sharpening her critique of financialized capitalism and risk socialization. Others see her as part of a longer heterodox lineage reacting to mid‑century welfare state retrenchment and the rise of shareholder‑value ideology.

Her increasing engagement with policy institutions in the 2010s coincided with broader efforts in the European Union and international organizations to rethink industrial policy, green investment, and inclusive growth, providing fertile ground for the uptake—though not always the full implementation—of her ideas.

3. Intellectual Development

3.1 Heterodox Formation

Mazzucato’s intellectual formation at The New School for Social Research in the late 1980s and early 1990s exposed her to Marxian, post‑Keynesian, and institutionalist traditions. Proponents of this contextual reading emphasize how early encounters with classical value theory, critiques of marginalism, and historically informed political economy shaped her later interest in who creates value and how profits are justified.

At this stage she focused on firm dynamics, technological change, and the history of economic thought. Commentators note that this background helps explain her comfort in moving between empirical studies of industry structure and abstract questions about value and distribution.

3.2 Innovation and Sectoral Systems

During the late 1990s and 2000s, in posts at institutions including the Open University and the University of Sussex, Mazzucato’s research centered on innovation systems, industry life cycles, and sectoral patterns of growth. She studied industries such as information and communications technologies and biotechnology, exploring how firm size, entry and exit, and technological regimes affect productivity and competition.

Supporters see this period as providing the empirical foundation for her later claims about the state’s role in high‑risk innovation, particularly in sectors with long development cycles and significant uncertainty. Some critics, however, suggest that the bridge from this micro‑level firm analysis to macro‑level claims about the state’s entrepreneurial role is not always fully spelled out.

3.3 Normative Turn: Entrepreneurial State and Public Value

Around the time of the global financial crisis, her work took a more explicitly normative turn. The Entrepreneurial State (2013) synthesized earlier innovation research into a broader argument about public sector risk‑taking. Subsequent work at UCL’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose focused on public value, mission‑oriented policy, and value extraction, culminating in The Value of Everything (2018) and Mission Economy (2021).

Interpreters disagree over whether this represents a sharp break from, or a natural extension of, her earlier research. Some portray it as a move from largely descriptive innovation studies to prescriptive political economy; others argue that normative concerns about power, risk, and distribution were implicit from the outset and only later became central organizing themes.

4. Major Works

4.1 Overview Table

4.2 The Entrepreneurial State (2013)

This book argues that governments have historically played a central entrepreneurial role in funding and directing high‑risk innovation, especially in sectors such as information technology, pharmaceuticals, and clean energy. Using case studies like the development of the iPhone’s core technologies, it challenges the narrative of a dynamic private sector versus a bureaucratic public sector. The work is widely cited in debates on industrial and innovation policy and has been translated into multiple languages.

4.3 The Value of Everything (2018)

Here Mazzucato revisits historical value theory—from classical political economy to neoclassical marginalism—to question how contemporary capitalism distinguishes productive from unproductive activities. She contends that financial intermediation, monopoly power, and certain business models extract rather than create value, while public investment and care work are often undervalued. The book became influential in discussions of rentier capitalism and inequality, and it generated significant academic and policy debate.

4.4 Mission Economy (2021)

This work develops the idea of mission‑oriented policy, using the Apollo moonshot as a metaphor for organizing collective efforts around ambitious societal goals such as decarbonization or global health. It proposes new governance structures, procurement strategies, and public–private partnerships designed to align innovation systems with these missions.

4.5 The Big Con (2023)

Co‑authored with Rosie Collington, The Big Con examines the consulting industry’s role in shaping corporate and governmental decision‑making. It argues that excessive reliance on external consultants can erode in‑house capabilities, distort incentives, and influence policy agendas. Analysts interpret this book as extending her broader concern with who exercises expertise and captures value within contemporary capitalism.

5. Core Ideas and Theoretical Framework

5.1 The Entrepreneurial State

Central to Mazzucato’s framework is the claim that the state is not merely a market‑fixer but can be an entrepreneurial and market‑shaping actor. Drawing on innovation histories, she argues that public institutions often:

• invest in early‑stage, high‑risk research and development;
• set strategic directions for technological change;
• create new markets through regulation, procurement, and standards.

Proponents view this as challenging the conventional image of a risk‑averse state and as an argument for designing public institutions capable of experimentation and learning. Critics contend that the concept may underplay political constraints, bureaucratic failures, or examples where state efforts crowd out private initiative.

5.2 Value Creation vs. Value Extraction

Another core idea is the distinction between activities that create value and those that extract it. Mazzucato argues that modern economies have blurred this line by defining value primarily through market prices, leading to what she calls the confusion of “makers” and “takers.”

"

“When value is defined by price, as in much of modern economics, makers are confused with takers.”

— Mariana Mazzucato, The Value of Everything (2018)

In her framework:

5.3 Public Value and Collective Risk‑Taking

Mazzucato uses the concept of public value to capture the collective nature of wealth creation. She argues that since the state and society bear substantial risks, they have a legitimate claim over part of the returns—for example, through equity stakes, conditional loans, or policy frameworks that ensure reinvestment.

Supporters see this as offering a normative basis for new public ownership forms and conditional industrial policy. Skeptics question how “public value” should be measured or governed, and worry about politicization of investment decisions.

5.4 Mission‑Oriented Innovation Policy

Her mission‑oriented approach proposes that governments define bold, outcome‑focused missions (e.g., “100 percent renewable energy,” “carbon‑neutral cities”) and then coordinate public and private actors to pursue them. Unlike generic R&D subsidies, missions are framed as direction‑setting for entire innovation ecosystems.

Advocates regard this as a way to integrate industrial, innovation, and social policy around concrete challenges. Critics worry that mission framing might encourage technocratic central planning or overlook pluralism in social priorities. Debates also concern how missions are chosen, by whom, and with what democratic safeguards.

6. Methodology and Approach to Economics

6.1 Interdisciplinary and Historical Orientation

Mazzucato’s methodology is explicitly interdisciplinary, combining economics, innovation studies, political economy, and elements of science and technology studies. She frequently uses historical case studies—for example, the development of the internet, biotechnology, or green technologies—to reconstruct the sequence of public and private investments and institutional arrangements.

Proponents describe this as a historically grounded and institutionalist approach that contrasts with abstract, model‑driven economics. They see her work as part of a broader heterodox tradition emphasizing path dependence, uncertainty, and the co‑evolution of technology and institutions. Some mainstream economists, however, question the generalizability of her case studies and call for more formal modeling or counterfactual analysis to test her claims systematically.

6.2 Normative–Positive Integration

Her research deliberately blends positive analysis (how innovation systems actually work) with normative argument (how they should be structured). She often makes explicit the value judgments underlying economic categories, such as what counts as “productive” or “unproductive.”

Supporters view this transparency about norms as an advance over the implicit value judgments of conventional welfare economics. Critics argue that the integration can blur the line between scholarly analysis and advocacy, making it harder to disentangle empirical claims from desired policy outcomes.

6.3 Use of Value Theory

Mazzucato revisits historical value theories—classical, Marxian, and neoclassical—to foreground the philosophical implications of defining value by production costs, labor, or marginal utility. She does not adopt a single formal value theory; instead, she uses these traditions comparatively to illuminate how different definitions legitimize different distributions of income.

Some philosophers of economics praise this as a productive genealogical method: tracing how concepts evolve and serve particular interests. Others suggest that her treatment of the neoclassical tradition is selective and that more attention to contemporary welfare economics could refine her critique.

6.4 Empirical Strategy and Evidence

Her empirical work typically deploys:

• sectoral and firm‑level data on R&D, patents, and public funding;
• detailed case histories of technologies and programs (e.g., DARPA);
• comparative analysis across countries and policy regimes.

Supporters argue that this mixed‑methods strategy captures complexity and institutional nuance. Detractors sometimes highlight survivorship bias in the choice of successful cases, or suggest that negative or failed public projects receive less attention, potentially skewing assessments of state effectiveness.

7. Philosophical Significance and Key Contributions

7.1 Revival of Value Theory

Mazzucato is widely credited with helping to revive value theory as a central topic in public economic debate. By interrogating how value is defined and measured in contemporary capitalism, she reopens questions that were prominent in classical political economy but had receded in much mainstream economics.

Her distinction between value creation and value extraction has been taken up by philosophers concerned with exploitation, rent, and the legitimacy of profits. Some interpret this as a bridge between Marxian concerns about surplus value and contemporary debates over financialization and platform capitalism; others see it as a more eclectic, pragmatic framework that resists alignment with any single philosophical tradition.

7.2 Reimagining the State and the Common Good

Her portrayal of the entrepreneurial, mission‑oriented state has implications for political philosophy, especially liberal and republican accounts of legitimate state action. By arguing that markets are co‑created outcomes of public–private interaction, she challenges views that treat markets as pre‑political or as a natural baseline.

Political theorists draw divergent lessons from this:

• Some see support for more ambitious, democratically guided economic planning aimed at shared missions (e.g., climate justice).
• Others worry that celebrating the entrepreneurial state risks underplaying concerns about coercion, bureaucracy, or pluralism in conceptions of the common good.

7.3 Public Value, Justice, and Distribution

The notion of public value links economic analysis with questions of distributive justice. If the public sector and broader society bear significant risk and contribute to innovation, Mazzucato suggests they should receive corresponding returns, whether financial, institutional, or in the form of increased voice over innovation’s direction.

Normative theorists engage this as a potential justification for:

• new forms of public and shared ownership;
• conditionalities attached to public support;
• mechanisms to prevent privatization of collectively generated gains.

Critics raise questions about how to operationalize these ideas without entrenching state or technocratic power, and about how to balance efficiency, innovation, and fairness.

7.4 Methodological Influence in Philosophy of Economics

Her explicit critique of economics’ claim to value‑neutrality and her integration of history, institutions, and normative reasoning have influenced discussions in the philosophy of economics about:

• the role of idealization and abstraction;
• the boundary between science and advocacy;
• the ethical dimensions of expertise in policy.

While some philosophers applaud her for exposing the normative underpinnings of economic categories, others call for more precise engagement with existing philosophical literature on welfare, social choice, and institutional design to deepen the dialogue between her program and established theoretical frameworks.

8. Engagement with Policy and Public Discourse

8.1 Policy Roles and Institutional Engagements

Mazzucato has played advisory roles in several high‑profile policy settings, particularly in the European Union and international organizations. Notable positions include:

Supporters argue that these positions demonstrate the practical relevance of her ideas and their resonance with policymakers seeking alternatives to austerity and laissez‑faire approaches. Critics worry about potential tensions between her role as a public intellectual and as a policy adviser, particularly regarding expectations of objectivity versus advocacy.

8.2 Influence on Policy Agendas

Her concepts of mission‑oriented policy, public value, and the entrepreneurial state have influenced the framing of several policy initiatives, especially within EU research and innovation programs (such as the design of “missions” under Horizon Europe). Some analysts credit her with helping to legitimize a renewed form of industrial policy focused on societal challenges like climate change and health.

However, evaluations differ regarding the depth of this influence. Some studies suggest that while her language and concepts are widely adopted, implementation often remains closer to traditional project funding and market‑failure frameworks. Others argue that incremental change in large bureaucracies inevitably lags behind conceptual shifts.

8.3 Public Communication and Media Presence

Mazzucato is an active participant in public discourse through newspaper columns, televised debates, podcasts, and high‑profile lectures. She often presents complex economic issues—such as financialization, intellectual property, or the green transition—in accessible terms aimed at broad audiences.

Advocates see this as a positive example of expert engagement that democratizes economic debates and challenges entrenched narratives. Some critics, including a few academic economists, express concern that media formats encourage simplification or that her strongest claims can be perceived as overstated when detached from technical qualifications found in her scholarly work.

8.4 Reception Across Political Spectrums

Her ideas have attracted interest from a range of political actors:

• Center‑left and green parties often draw on her work to justify activist industrial and climate policies.
• Some centrist policymakers selectively adopt the language of missions and innovation without fully embracing her critiques of financialization.
• Critics from liberal and conservative perspectives argue that her proposals risk expanding state power and distorting markets.

This cross‑spectrum engagement has led some observers to describe her as a “reference point” in contemporary policy debates, while others see tensions between the radical implications of her critique and the more modest reforms sometimes implemented under her banner.

9. Critiques and Debates

9.1 Debates on the Entrepreneurial State Thesis

Critics of the entrepreneurial state concept raise several objections:

9.2 Value Theory and Measurement Disputes

Her reintroduction of value creation vs. extraction has provoked debate among economists and philosophers:

• Some neoclassical and mainstream economists argue that she mischaracterizes modern theory by equating it with a simplistic “price = value” view, noting that welfare economics already distinguishes between competitive and distorted prices.
• Others contend that her classification of certain financial or consulting activities as purely extractive overlooks their potential coordination, information, or risk‑management roles.
• Sympathetic theorists suggest refining her framework by integrating more precise notions of social welfare, externalities, and institutional context.

9.3 Mission‑Oriented Policy Concerns

Mission‑oriented innovation policy has sparked specific controversies:

• Democratic legitimacy: Who defines missions, and how are competing social priorities balanced? Critics worry about technocratic or elite‑driven agenda setting.
• Implementation capacity: Skeptics question whether many states have the administrative depth to coordinate complex missions without capture or inefficiency.
• Pluralism and experimentation: Some argue that strong directional missions might crowd out decentralized experimentation and emergent innovation.

In response, Mazzucato and collaborators emphasize participatory processes, iterative governance, and the use of broad, problem‑focused missions rather than rigid blueprints.

9.4 Ideological Positioning and Academic Reception

Mazzucato’s work is interpreted variously as:

• a heterodox reform project aiming to “tilt” capitalism toward inclusivity and sustainability;
• a radical critique of financialized capitalism that stops short of advocating socialism;
• or a technocratic modernization effort compatible with capitalist frameworks.

This ambiguity is seen by some as a strategic strength that enables broad coalition‑building, and by others as a source of theoretical vagueness. Within academia, she has received both significant recognition and pointed criticism, with debates often reflecting broader methodological and ideological divides between heterodox and mainstream economics.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

10.1 Position within Contemporary Economic Thought

Mazzucato is widely regarded as a prominent figure in the post‑2008 rethinking of capitalism. Her work is often grouped with broader currents such as:

Some commentators see her as instrumental in mainstreaming discussions of industrial policy and the public role in innovation that had previously been confined to specialized or heterodox circles.

10.2 Policy and Institutional Legacies

Her influence is visible in:

• the incorporation of missions into EU research and innovation frameworks;
• national strategies that emphasize public value, conditionality, and long‑term investment;
• the establishment of institutions like UCL’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, which trains policymakers and scholars.

Assessments of this legacy diverge. Supporters argue that she helped shift the “Overton window” toward more ambitious, public‑purpose‑oriented economic governance. More cautious analysts suggest that while her rhetoric has been widely adopted, concrete institutional change remains uneven and partial.

10.3 Impact on Public Discourse and Education

Mazzucato’s books and public engagement have had lasting effects on how journalists, activists, and students discuss topics such as who creates value, the role of finance, and the state’s place in innovation. Concepts like the entrepreneurial state and value extraction have entered broader vocabularies, shaping narratives about technology, inequality, and climate policy.

In academic curricula, her work is increasingly featured in courses on innovation, development, and political economy. Some see this as a rebalancing of economics education toward history, institutions, and normative reflection; others caution that her views should be presented alongside competing frameworks to preserve pluralism.

10.4 Ongoing Debates and Future Reassessment

Given that Mazzucato is an active scholar and public figure, evaluations of her historical significance remain provisional. Future reassessments are likely to hinge on:

• the long‑term performance of mission‑oriented and entrepreneurial‑state policies inspired by her work;
• the evolution of global capitalism in relation to climate change, digitalization, and geopolitical shifts;
• and the extent to which her reintroduction of value theory leads to durable changes in economic analysis and policy design.

Whether seen as a key architect of a more mission‑oriented capitalism, a prominent critic of financialization, or a significant voice in heterodox economics, she is widely recognized as an important contributor to the re‑examination of capitalism in the early 21st century.