IT IS tempting to think Britain is well past its best. The first nation to industrialise, it once topped the tables of output per person. It is now a mid-table mediocrity on the edge of a triple-dip recession. But a proposal-packed new report compiled by a panel of academics, policymakers and business experts is more optimistic.

Step back for a long view, and Britain does not resemble a sinking ship. After a big head-start on America and other European counties in 1870, Britain fell behind. But the country bounced back after 1980 (see chart). The revival was broad: many sectors, including manufacturing and distribution, contributed more to growth than did finance, even in the go-go years between 1997 and 2007. This is heartening, because it suggests recent successes can be built on. Take investing in people. Britain’s universities are comparatively good. Lifting school standards to German levels could put GDP on a much steeper growth path. Research shows that one factor—the quality of teachers—is crucial. But there is a bottleneck: becoming a teacher is hard. At the same time, it is much too difficult to weed out bad ones. More flexibility and rigorous performance assessment would improve matters. The same principle of promoting both entry and exit could be applied to setting up schools and winding down poor ones. Even a highly skilled workforce flounders without decent roads and ports. This is another reason why Britain, ranked 24th on infrastructure quality in a recent global study, is mediocre, according to the researchers. It takes too long to get projects started in Britain. An energy bill took 12 years; politicians have dithered over Heathrow Airport since the 1960s. Plans are often shredded when a new party comes to power. A less political decision-making process would help. Britain is good at technocratic government. Its competition watchdogs and utilities regulators are highly regarded. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is seen as a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine by doctors. An “Infrastructure Strategy Board” could be set up to mimic these bodies.

Another big policy idea targets investment and research. British investment rates are low and skewed towards property rather than equipment. The ideas pipeline, fuelled by R&D spending, weakens year on year; patenting intensity is low. Much of this is down to finance. Capital investments have long pay-off periods (a nuclear power station lasts for 60 years, for example) and R&D may not bear fruit for decades after costs are incurred. Both of these jar with financiers’ quarterly performance targets. A government-supported business bank might well help. Such a lender would take public equity, mandated to be long-term, and leverage that with private-sector debt.

These proposals are based on rigorous evidence. But although an economy which promotes exit grows faster, it imposes costs on those failing. Technocratic planning decisions may be best overall, but run up against vocal local interest groups. Small government stakes in development banks make sense, but can trigger poisonous headlines. Good ideas, but hard to sell.