Under a Keynesian view, and even Schumpenterian in some aspects (Mazzucato, 2021a), the author defends the role of the State not only as a dynamic of the economy but as an entrepreneur who takes risks and obtains in return benefits but in others, assuming failure within the framework of business uncertainty. Keynes is recognized for recognizing the role of the State in the economy (Keynes, 2018, 2019, 2021 ) and Schumpeter in the framework of creativity (Hazlitt, 2021; Rallo, 2012) once his thought will be evaluated as antagonistic to the liberal and libertarian current of economics (Hayek, 1988, 1991, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2019). The State cannot limit itself to correcting market failures as proposed by the neoclassical economic conception; on the contrary, it must make things happen and not restrict its action towards motivating other actors to perform certain activities; in other words, it must be an entrepreneur defined as "a person or group of people who is willing and able to turn a new idea or an invention into a successful innovation" (citing Schumpeter Mazzucato, 2021a, pp.122-123).

The author recognizes the importance of placing life at the center of occupation. In this regard, she cites authors who have inspired her work, such as Hannah Arendt (public life), Elinor Ostrom (creation of community through common goods), Kate Raworth (circular economy), Sthephanie Keton (power of finance), Edith Penrose (value-creating organizations), Carlota Pérez (intelligent green transition), and Arundhati Roy (imagining new worlds) (Mazzucato, 2021b). Similarly, he states that the knowledge society and its economy are not the result of spontaneous action, given that social success requires the participation of the State, a position very different from the thinking of libertarian authors such as F.V. Hayek, L.V. Mises, J. Huerta de Soto, J. R. Rayo, and M. Rothbard among others, who warn about the risks of the unintended consequences of [well] intended actions.

While Mazzucato defends taxes as a path towards social welfare, other sectors consider that tax burdens are an aggression of the State against the individual, where the government, protected by its monopoly of force, expropriates citizens of the fruits of their labor to allocate these resources to various activities, including many contraries to the interest of the taxpayer and society in general; read war, corruption, luxury goods, in addition to the wastefulness of governments. Nothing guarantees that the State generates a better investment of private resources than citizens (taxpayers) could do with their resources if they were not victims of State plundering.

Mariana Mazzucato notices a great concern to determine whether organizations are creating, extracting, or destroying value; resolving such a situation would require establishing with great precision an integrating conception of value once the concept is polysemic and with diverse forms of interpretation (Mazzucato, 2019). Regarding value, he points out that "it is the production of new goods and services. How these results are produced, how they are shared in the economy, and what is done with the profits generated by production, are key questions in the definition of economic value" (p.33). He also identifies the term value "about the process by which wealth is created" (p.34), defining value extraction as corresponding to "activities focused on moving existing resources and products, and earning disproportionately from their external trade." As for wealth, he proposes it as "an accumulated stock of value already created" (p.34).

In the face of the different theories of value and their approaches, the concept of wealth and its sources has been rigorously studied in the last three hundred years in systematic terms, as it is specified in the work of Richard Cantillon, written around 1730, who pointed out that "Land is the source or matter from which wealth is extracted, and man's work is the way to produce it" (Cantillon, 2021, p.3), passing through Hume (2002), Quesnay (1974) and Turgot (2009), until reaching Smith (2012) with the Objective Theory of Value, that is, the Labor Theory of Value. The classical theory of value achieved great recognition and acceptance until the second half of the nineteenth century, the time of the emergence of two new and controversial conceptions, that of Marx (2015) and the Subjective Theory of Value with the marginalists Jevons (1911), Menger (2012) and Walras (1987). Subsequent history will be marked by the strength of the neoclassical conception (Marshall, 2005), Keynesian thought, institutionalism (Veblen, 2010, 2020), neo-institutionalism (Douglass, 2012; Ostrom, 2015), structuralism and neo-structuralism (Ocampo, 2006; Ocampo and Martín, 2002), monetarism (Friedman, 2008, 2012), among other visions, many of them grouped under the broad label of neoliberalism (Gigli, 1997).

In the case of Mazzucato, her reflection and analysis include previous debates on wealth exposed in the works of Thomas Mun (1571-1641), William Petty (1623-1687), and Gregory King (1648-1712); in fact, the author herself warns about the difficulty of establishing a classification between creating and destroying value, since it obeys ideological and not necessarily technical issues. Talking about measurement and valuation in economics is a major issue; "the way of measuring is not neutral; it affects behavior and vice versa" (Mazzucato, 2019, p.43). For the author, measurements of wealth through gross domestic product (GDP) are not exempt from criticism; in general, "accounting is neither neutral nor written in stone; it can be molded to fit the purpose of an organization and, in doing so, affect the evolution of this" (2019, p.119).

The discussion of more, less, or absence of the State is everlasting. For some theorists, the State is corrupt, immoral, inefficient, useless, and unproductive; others, on the other hand, defend its role considering that the intervention of the private sector in the public sector in many cases leads to State organizations being defunded to yield negative results, and thus justify their privatization (Chomsky cited by Mazzucato, 2019). The optimistic versus pessimistic view has led to different responses among those considering that market failures should be counteracted (state interventionism current) versus those who warn that state failures are more harmful than the former (free market current).

Mazzucato's work constitutes a proposal to achieve long-term economic growth through innovation (Mazzucato, 2021a). Her vision, therefore, does not constitute an environmental, moral, or political revolution; rather, it constitutes a path to perpetual growth with some hints of climate responsibility; in other words, her idea proposes to redirect public-private partnerships in a symbiotic rather than parasitic manner, a conception that seems to forget the selfish spirit of man. The author defends inclusive and sustained growth, an expression very typical of international financial organizations, as expressed by the United Nations (2015) in the Sustainable Development Goal SDG-8 which proposes to "Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all," understanding the SDGs and Sustainable Development in general as the instrumentalizing, manipulative and colonial language of the global North, towards the global South, by defending the position of a molding and market-creating State.

This article first discusses the author's considerations of the State's role and the main criticisms and criticisms of its intervention, including the free market. The following section summarizes the author's proposal regarding the actions required to empower governments to promote development, innovation, value creation, and the optimal distribution of wealth while pointing out some critical views of her proposal insofar as, for many authors, her empirical evidence is insufficient to support the argument that only the government has the tools and capabilities to regulate the relations between economic agents and society.

The State must have a broader vision than simply correcting market failures (Mazzucato, 2021a); "governments should invest in building crucial areas that are powerful, such as productive capacity, contracting competencies, public-private partnerships that genuinely serve the public interest, and digital and data literacy" (Mazzucato, 2021b, p.15).

Financialization is obtaining profits by moving existing money, i.e., without a production process in the real economy (Mazzucato, 2019). In the deconfigured economy of the ought to be, "companies make money by the simple fact that money changes hands" (Mazzucato, 2021b, p.194).

In countries that owe their growth to innovation, the State has historically acted not only as administrator and regulator of the wealth creation process but has been a critical actor within this process, and often a more attractive and more willing one to take risks that companies did not want to take the State has been key to creating and shaping markets, not just fixing them (Mazzucato, 2021a, p.32).

The author points out that "the creation of wealth is a collective process" (Mazzucato, 2019, p.256) where multiple social actors participate; therefore, they must also benefit from the favors of such creation. The maximization of shareholder profit ignores that "stakeholders" (p.255) cannot be excluded from the distribution of profits they participated in its creation.

According to Mazzucato (2021a), the State must create innovative, scientific, technological, and developmental markets (Mazzucato, 2021a). An important part of the state budget promotes programs for the fulfillment of this task; therefore, "the great achievements of the economy have not been the exclusive fruit of the private sector; on the contrary, "almost all the technological revolutions of the past have required a big push from the state" (Mazzucato, 2021a, p. 35).

An example of this was the government's support for the development of companies such as Apple, the Internet, the GPS global positioning system, Siri and touch screens, the pharmaceutical industry, and the promotion of electric cars, solar panels, Google, green technology, and nanotechnology, among others (Mazzucato, 2021a). However, critics of the entrepreneurial State point out that the figures compiled by the author are incorrect (Instituto Juan de Mariana, 2016). As the author indicates, nanotechnology is a pioneering development of the private sector and not the public sector (Instituto Juan de Mariana, 2016).

When the State intervenes in the supply and demand of goods and services in an economy, it can alter the conditions of the different economic actors since, through direct purchases, subsidies, consumption taxes, or the formulation of differential tax rates and sanitary and tariff measures, among others, it can give impetus and affect competitors in a market; in other words, interventionism can favor some national or foreign organizations, but it can also affect (negatively) others that may be national or foreign in the same way.

The great risk of state intervention lies in "the unintended consequences of intentional human actions" (Hayek, 2009, p.18). Government intentions may be positive, but a wrong description of the problem, an erroneous explanation as a result of an inadequate relationship between causes and effects, and an incorrect prediction of future events may generate that the results of state interference not only do not solve the problems it was intended to solve but, on the contrary, aggravate and deepen the undesirable situation.

Social institutions can be created voluntarily and deliberately by the actions of men. However, there are also organizations that, although built by men, are not the result of a planned or intentional process. They arise from human interrelation but without a foreseen objective of construction. The State, the market, competition, law, and private property, among others, are unintentional creations of the collective action of men.

The consequences of an action are infinite, like the consequences of a scientific theory, because the possible interactions between the different consequences of the different human actions are infinite; that is because the possible casual encounters of independent causal chains are infinite because in systems open to information flows the possibilities of initiatives and, therefore, of interactions are multiplied when we do something we do not know what we are doing, given the infinite consequences of our action (Hayek, 2009, p.22-23).

Perhaps it is necessary to recreate the consequences of imposing a moral or duty by force for some desirable ethics (Mandeville, 1997).

Economic studies agree that there has been an increasing concentration of wealth and income in an ever more minor group. "Eight men possessed the same wealth as the poorest half of the world's population" (Mazzucato, 2019, p.186), accompanied by an increasingly more significant and colossal power of the financial sector that with its strong influence on governments has managed to be outside state control (Mazzucato, 2019) (Stiglitz, 2012); thus, rather than deregulation, they have a regulation that gives them exaggerated rights in exchange for very few duties, colossal power that has allowed a vicious circle where "markets can concentrate wealth, transfer to society the environmental costs and abuse workers and consumers" (Stiglitz, 2012, p.27).

In contrast, the author's interventionist vision does not openly confront the issue of inequality or the ecological problem. Concerning the latter, she expresses confidence in the green discourse (actually green light, or apparent environmentalism) of the mainstream, as she expresses it when considering the importance of encouraging the green industrial revolution (Mazzucato, 2021a, p. 201) or green infrastructure (Mazzucato, 2021b). It should not be forgotten that economic and productive needs led to the first wave of wind energy with the oil crisis of 1970 (Mazzucato, 2021a). However, nature's ethical, ecological, and conservationist interests were not the engine of such a revolution.

The role of the State as any entity that produces goods and services and also participates with them in the market should be normalized. Given this positive view of state intervention, as any other capital investor in Mazzucato argues that voices have arisen against such a proposal, denouncing its impossibility since it is argued from a more liberal view of the economy that the government should only facilitate the dynamism of the private sector (Mazzucato, 2021a) and not intervene because it represents slow public institutions that hinder the speed of economic growth driven by the private sector (Mazzucato, 2021a). Such inoperability, for many, is reflected in peripheral countries, which have less favorable conditions than central countries as a result of their inefficient public governments (Mazzucato, 2021a); therefore, it is speculated that state failures may be greater than market failures (Mazzucato, 2021a), since the public sector has been used as a mechanism for private favor, against the general interest.

Critics of government interventionism point out that the State can become an obstacle, even a burden, for the progress of nations since not only does it not produce value, but it is dedicated to destroying the value created by citizens. In this sense, free market advocates consider the private sector to be efficient (Mazzucato, 2021a), accusing the intervening State of "picking the winners" (Mazzucato, 2021a, p.18). However, Mazzucato points out that with State investments, the private sector keeps the benefits and the State the costs, risks, and losses are socialized, and the benefits and profits are privatized (Mazzucato, 2021a) (Mazzucato, 2022); that is, the big loser is the State. The advocates of the market as an allocator of resources and mechanism of social order are grouped in the liberal and libertarian currents of politics and economics in the work of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, among others (Hayek, 2019; Mises, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2017, 2019, 2021; Rothbard, 2012, 2013, 2019a, 2019b).

Therefore, advocates of state involvement are hampered by "the general belief that presents the government as a clumsy bureaucratic machine incapable of innovation" (Mazzucato, 2021b, p.22). Consequently, Mazzucato's critics point out that the author's argument lacks sufficient empirical evidence to support her thesis, noting that "it is therefore empirically false that, in the absence of the State, society was incapable of innovating at rates as fast as today, and that the State has accelerated the pace of the innovative process; indeed, today most technical advances in both the U.S. and Japan still come from the private sector"(Instituto Juan de Mariana, 2016, p.39). Consequently, a case study supported by a few positive examples cannot be sufficient to validate an attempt to generalize a social practice.

Mazzucato (2021a) considers the following actions necessary to promote development, innovation, value creation, and optimal distribution of wealth:

"Empower governments to devise a direction for technological change and invest in that direction. Create markets rather than fix them. Create an entrepreneurial, proactive, and purposeful State capable of taking risks and creating an interconnected system of actors that brings together the best of the private and public sectors for the national good" (p.68). The role of the State in this current situation goes beyond correcting market failures (p.6l).

It also considers another series of actions to promote innovation:

Cut resources totally or partially to organizations that do not show results or fulfill their objectives. Such public monies should be reallocated to entities showing positive results (Mazzucato, 2021a). "Communication, collaboration, and information exchange among the various R&D actors must also be improved" (p.181 ).

Accounting research within this perspective can make great contributions in terms of determining the previous and historical costs that made current innovations possible: a transversal cost from the cradle, from the origin of the valued good or service, and not only in its last phase, in this way environmental accounting, bioaccounting, socio-accounting, popular accounting, but ecological accounting have also emerged, all of them framed within the context of emerging accounting (Alvarez- Alvarez, 2019, 2020; Carbal, 2011; Ceballos, Serna, and Mejía, 2020; Gómez, 2009; Mejía and Serna, 2019; Montilla, Montes, and Montes, 2011; Mora, Mejía, and Montes, 2017).

The public and private sectors can create wealth (Mazzucato, 2021a). The author advocates "a mission-based approach, partnerships between the public and private sectors aimed at solving the main problems of society" (Mazzucato, 2021b, p.21). The author, in an obsessive condition with the achievement of the trip to the moon under the leadership of the U.S. government, states that the U.S. government can achieve any goal it sets for itself. The mission must be inspiring, audacious, and socially relevant. However, the big question is how to ensure that private interests do not capture public purposes; here again, we must think about human nature and the dichotomy of solidarity versus the pursuit of self-interest as the best way to achieve the most excellent welfare for the most significant number of people in society.

Consequently, mission-driven organizations should, according to Mazzucato (2021b), follow the following four key areas (Mazzucato, 2021b, pp.199-200):

Routes and directions indicate the need to esta blish the directions of innovation change.

Likewise, the entry of technological and human capital factors can bring "increasing returns to scale" (Mazzucato, 2021a, p.88); therefore, it is proposed to support innovation systems that go beyond investment in research and development R&D. The State must contribute to make positive things happen (Mazzucato, 2021a). Paradoxically, business organizations are fighting for lower taxes every day when they are the ones who benefit from the use of these taxes, in addition to demanding more significant participation of the public sector in actions towards business economic growth.

Mariana Mazzucato develops an extensive critique of the nature and consequences of the financialization of the economy as a process of obtaining profits without generating satisfaction for society, except benefits for the managers of third-party resources, i.e., in the framework of the agency theory, the collision between principals (shares) and agents can lead to the fact that the motto of maximizing shareholder value becomes maximization for the manager. Financialization, in the long term, is a risk for the economy in general. In the short term, it is an extraction of value from productive activities to favor the dynamics of speculation (Mazzucato, 2019). The author considers that one of the many causes of social problems lies in the obsession with maximizing shareholder value and the share price (Mazzucato, 2021b).

The advocates of state interventionism and the apologists of extensive order or self-regulation criticize each other, stating that the central premises of the opposing current are nothing more than myths, proposals without theoretical foundation, or hypotheses without sufficient empirical evidence. Mazzucato believes that some economies have failed to succeed because they start from erroneous premises in the economic field. The following are six myths that, according to the author, have led to ineffective measures in the field of innovation:

Myth "Innovation consists solely of R&D (research and development)" (Mazzucato, 2021a, pp.102-104, 274).The author points out that studies show no direct relationship between R&D expenditure research results and economic growth. Each company and sector has its particularities, requiring specific studies and actions in addition to R&D.

Overcoming the speculative dynamics of financial markets is one purpose.

In the work "Mission Economy" (2021b), Mazzucato again uses the qualifier of myth to confront the ideas proposed by critics of the State and presents the following five myths:

First myth: "Companies create value and take risks; governments only provide security and facilitate work" (Mazzucato, 2021b, p.42). The author considers that value is not created only by private companies; public activity can create value directly, but first and foremost in conjunction with companies, i.e., it is not limited to facilitating value creation.

Mazzucato (2021b) reflects in his work Mission Economics that allocating public budgets to innovation activities is highly profitable in the long term. Research in a field will bring benefits and advances in various areas, even in unsuspected and unforeseen fields, at the beginning of the research activity. The author goes so far as to affirm that projects that initially seemed financially very costly, after their success, their benefits far exceeded the investment made. The author's obsession with the Apolo program (obsession with growth and innovation) also leads her to consider that it was worth every penny invested (Mazzucato, 2021b); furthermore, she justifies why such investment had to be prioritized in the face of problems of hunger, malnutrition, insecurity, inequality, security, among other programs competing for the limited public budget (Mazzucato, 2021b).

She argues that the relationship between the public and private sectors has turned the former into a contributor of high-risk resources and the latter into a parasitic agent that only makes a profit. Suppose the benefit is proportional to the risk. In that case, the author states, "If the State is so important for financing high-risk investments in innovation, the conclusion should be that the State should receive a direct benefit on its risky investment" (Mazzucato, 2021a, p.314).

A very questionable thesis of the author is to defend predistribution, in addition to distribution, pointing out that "while redistribution advocates addressing inequality through the redistribution of income once it is created through taxes or benefits, predistribution attempts to avoid ex-ante inequality" (Mazzucato, 2021b, p.187). The question is how to finance this ex-ante delivery of resources. Would it mean increasing taxes, which in other words would mean punishing the sectors that create value or indebting future generations to try to satisfy the real or fictitious needs of the present generation?

Mazzucato presents the following main conclusions. More is needed to talk about the entrepreneurial State, but it must be built, thus affirming that if the State participates with venture capital to encourage new businesses or promote old companies, it must also benefit economically from the financial returns when these organizations are thriving. He also points out that the role of each of the actors in the economic ecosystem must be redefined to avoid undervaluing or overvaluing the performance of some agents, highlighting the importance of universalizing and democratizing access to technology (Mazzucato, 2021b). Similarly, he affirms that the State that drives the economy and for which it must invest and assume expenses will not necessarily drive an inflationary condition (Mazzucato, 2021b). Empirical studies should confirm or reject such a bold hypothesis.

In his work Mission Economy (Mazzucato, 2021b), he again proposes seven critical pillars for a political economy that can guide its mission-driven approach based on the following points:

New approach to value and the collective process by which it is created.

In the same vein, the work "Let's not waste this crisis" presents the following four-point proposal, based basically on the experience of COVID-19 (Mazzucato, 2022):

Governments must invest in institutions that help prevent the crisis (p.15)

Thus, it is evident that Mazzucato (2022) has complete confidence in an intervening State, proposing a public employment program that he considers will work by economic cycles, being more favorable than unemployment benefits as employees will have a fixed remuneration when performing a value-creating economic activity. Such a structure would contribute to consolidating the Green New Deal (GNP) because it includes issues related to natural and human resources.

Mariana Mazzucato defends the role of the State in all stages of economic life, pointing out that the success of large companies today is the result of the participation of the public planner, from which she proposes to increase the role of the State in the economic life of society. The author's main criticism points out that her studies are biased, choosing examples of success stories that, in reality, constitute counterexamples of the results of state participation.

Free market apologists point out that advocates of a more active state "Do not provide evidence that the state is necessary to sustain such cooperation between agents" (Instituto Juan de Mariana, 2016, p.25) on the understanding that innovation and progress are the result of interactions between economic agents, rather than efforts isolated individuals. The Juan de Mariana Institute presents a detailed analysis of Mazzucato's examples of the State's successful participation, explaining the author's erroneous, biased, and inconsistent visions. The empirical evidence is not only insufficient to support such an argument but also, in many cases, constitutes a counterexample of such a situation.

In order to identify the causes of the economic success of countries, more is needed to evaluate the technological development and innovations generated; it is very important to analyze the research conditions that made such scientific and technological advances possible. Although there is no linear route of research, development, and innovation, the last stage requires optimal conditions in the field of basic sciences that allow subsequent applications of the results of this research. The defenders of the strong State believe that the private sector needs more disposition to carry out basic science studies, with little or no possibility of return on investment, given that it is a long-term activity and does not generate direct economic benefits.

Successful private companies rarely recognize that part of their triumphs are the result of a State that directly or indirectly backed and supported their initiative, generated the conditions for their initiatives to develop, and created the legal and social scenarios that allowed such development.

It is necessary to distinguish between the theory of value and price; they cannot be confused, and the relationship between the two is almost never clear or proportional; the absence of such a distinction has led to the flourishing of financialization and casino economics.

The defense of state interventionism is based on full confidence in reason and the optimism of social determinism, which considers it possible to predict the consequences of human actions. Confidence that the planned results will be achieved by human action leads the man of government to abuse reason and overestimate its capacity to shape the life of a nation or the world. When reality does not submit to the designs of the planning body, the intervenor may resort to violence and force to compel its designs to be carried out. Faced with the miscalculation of planning, imposition is a path that can be used by those who believe that their vision should prevail, even over the social will.

State intervention is very high for taxpayers, who are the ones who economically bear the burden of government decisions. When the financial sector goes bankrupt, it is with money from taxes or other state sources that such a sector is rescued (Mazzucato, 2019). The question arises whether citizens would voluntarily hand over the money fruit of their labor, which is oriented to cover high salaries of financial managers and losses due to decisions that did not responsibly evaluate market risks. "The private sector does not invest in hazardous and uncertain projects precisely because they are very risky. To expect the State to do so is to socialize risks that society does not want to take" (Instituto Juan de Mariana, 2016, p.18). The concept of value must be rigorously analyzed and differentiated from exchange values in markets. The author's concern about whether price determines value, or vice versa, value determines price, must be evaluated, split, and explained in a particular economy. It must be determined which value-creating, value-extracting, and value-destroying activities are involved and the contexts in which they occur. Likewise, whether or not the State can create value or only distribute it must be clarified. The concern for value creation can have negative orientations, for example, when it focuses solely on maximizing shareholder value (Mazzucato, 2021b).

The idea of growth is a central idea and purpose of the author, "the real question lies in how the Government and its investments can create long-term growth" (Mazzucato, 2019, p.377), although the author points out that " it should focus less on the rate of growth and more on its direction" (p.377). The measurement of economic growth, which must necessarily be subject to a theory of value (consistent or inconsistent), can generate inappropriate results that lead to inappropriate interpretations and decision-making.

State support creates a parasitic, speculative, private system. When a government partially or eliminates subsidies, these organizations migrate to other countries where they are offered more support. When a government decides to support an activity, sector, or company, it must take into account that it is doing so with taxpayers' money; in this way, the public administrator will decide to spend or invest these resources in fields or events in which taxpayers would never be willing to deposit the fruits of their labor for these areas.

Two major fields of research emerge from Mazzucato's thinking. The first is based on an interventionist trend that, from theory and practice, seeks to justify the benefits of state intervention, considering that such control contributes to improving the living conditions of most of the population. The second is oriented to justify the benefits for the economy and society of the free action of individuals in the market. Both fields will be able to develop theoretical, historical, and empirical research on topics such as employment, inflation, productivity, value creation, satisfaction of basic needs, overcoming poverty, gross domestic product, per capita income, wealth concentration indexes, economic development, environmental and social impacts, among others. The results of this research will allow for validation of the field proposed by the author; likewise, such research should diminish the ideological weight of reflection, giving space to more rigorous and practical theoretical studies with greater empirical evidence. -