N※N

Government too risk-averse on investment, says Forbes

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. t-too-risk-averse-on-investment-says-forbes.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Saturday, October 11th 2025 at 15:05 GMT by The Irish News
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

UK Government Criticised for Risk‑Averse Investment Approach, Forbes Report Highlights

The Irish News has carried a piece that echoes a growing concern among economists and business leaders: the United Kingdom’s policy makers appear to be overly cautious when it comes to public investment, a stance that Forbes’ recent commentary suggests may stifle innovation and economic growth. The article, which references a Forbes interview titled “Government Too Risk‑Averse on Investment, Says Forbes,” dives into the implications of this approach for the UK’s future competitiveness, especially in high‑growth sectors such as technology, green energy, and life sciences.

The Root of the Criticism

The core argument presented in both the Irish News article and the Forbes piece is that the UK government’s appetite for risk is noticeably lower than that of comparable economies. The interview cites a senior Treasury official who explains that while the government’s budgetary constraints and the need for fiscal prudence are real, the current investment framework tends to favor low‑risk, short‑term projects. This creates a gap between the capital available for startups and scale‑ups that need longer gestation periods and higher risk exposure.

The analysis also points to the Industrial Strategy Investment Fund (ISIF), launched in 2018 as a flagship initiative to channel public funds into sectors deemed “strategic.” Critics argue that even ISIF’s mandate has been constrained by the need for a guaranteed return, which limits the fund’s capacity to support more speculative ventures such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, or advanced biotech. The Irish News article notes that ISIF has allocated around £1.3 billion to date, yet only a small fraction of that has gone to projects with high uncertainty or long lead times.

International Comparisons

To put the UK’s stance into perspective, the article draws comparisons with other major economies. Germany’s ‘High-Tech Gründerfonds’ is highlighted as a model that offers early‑stage funding to startups, with an explicit tolerance for higher risk. Similarly, the United States, through initiatives such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, is shown to allocate more flexible capital to high‑risk, high‑reward projects. The Irish News piece underscores that in these jurisdictions, public investment is seen as a catalyst rather than a regulator that dampens entrepreneurial activity.

Data from the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” index and the “Global Innovation Index” are referenced to underline how risk‑averse policies can correlate with lower innovation outputs. While the UK remains a top 20 economy globally, its score in the “Investment” category is lower than that of peers with more aggressive public investment policies. Forbes, in the interview, points out that this may partly explain why UK-based start‑ups are increasingly seeking funding abroad, especially in the United States and Germany.

Specific Examples of Missed Opportunities

The article provides concrete examples where a more risk‑tolerant approach could have yielded tangible benefits. One case cited is the development of the UK’s electric vehicle (EV) industry. Despite substantial public subsidies and tax incentives, the growth of domestic EV manufacturing has lagged behind China and Germany. The Treasury official in the interview argued that a greater willingness to fund high‑risk early‑stage manufacturing projects could accelerate domestic production and reduce import reliance.

Another example is the renewable energy sector, where the UK government has implemented large‑scale renewable projects but has been slower to support cutting‑edge storage technologies and grid decarbonisation innovations. The Irish News piece notes that several European countries, such as Denmark, have invested heavily in research and development for offshore wind technology, a strategy that the UK’s risk‑averse policy may be hindering.

Policy Recommendations

Both the Irish News article and the Forbes interview outline a set of recommendations aimed at shifting the government’s risk profile:

1. Re‑design of the ISIF mandate to allow for a larger proportion of funds to be allocated to projects with higher expected rates of return, even if those returns are realized over a longer horizon.
2. Creation of a dedicated “High‑Risk Investment Fund” that operates under a model similar to Germany’s High-Tech Gründerfonds, providing seed‑stage financing to startups with breakthrough potential.
3. Tax incentives for private sector investment in high‑risk ventures, thereby leveraging private capital to fill the gap left by cautious public funding.
4. Regular public reporting on risk tolerance metrics within government investment decisions, ensuring transparency and accountability.
5. Collaboration with universities and research institutions to co‑invest in early‑stage projects, reducing the overall financial exposure to the government.

Conclusion

The Irish News’ coverage, bolstered by the Forbes interview, paints a picture of a government that, while prudent, may be missing out on the long‑term growth opportunities that come with a higher tolerance for risk. By comparing the UK’s approach with that of other leading economies, the article suggests that the nation could benefit from a shift toward more aggressive public investment in high‑growth sectors. The proposed reforms aim to strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and the need to nurture the next generation of innovative, high‑impact enterprises.