Category — History

The port of Shanghai from WikiCommons

Dani Rodrik recently had a commentary where he argued that industrial policy is returning to the main stage.  Within the Tallinn School (i.e. the economic research associated with the Technology Governance program in Tallinn) active government policies are seen as essential in order to create the ‘virtuous circles’ of high value-added economic activities. Rodrik (not associated with Tallinn), argues that industrial policy is  (i) “a state of mind rather than a list of specific policies” (ii) “relies on both carrots and sticks” and (iii) “industrial policy’s practitioners need to bear in mind that it aims to serve society at large” As Erik Reinert has shown, history abounds with  examples of how almost every successful economy has at some point employed some kind of industrial policy. Skeptics usually reply, yes, but what about all the failures?   By no means is industrial policy always effective and how well it works in a specific case depends on an inordinate amount of variables. Importantly, it is “a state of mind” and one must experiment to see what works. I would rather ask: what is the alternative, if industrial policy is the only way we know to have worked? Recently, the World Bank has come off as a bit more positive towards industrial policy, but their understanding is quite narrow:

“If industrial policy is nothing more than government agencies organizing conferences with private sector players, I’m all for it. If we include in the definition of industrial policy the supply of classic public goods like infrastructure and education in coordination with the needs of the private sector, I am still fully in support. However, I tend to part ways when the state gets involved to the point of picking winners, which must inevitably be the case when more heavy-handed interventions are put on the table. ” from the World Bank Private Sector Development Blog.

Industrial policy is more than supplying basic infrastructure, but still it is not about picking winners. One aims to develop specific sectors of the economy, calculating that the spillover effects will benefit the economy as a whole. The Asian economies, of India and China,  but also Brazil are recent examples of how industrial policy has been implemented successfully. But Chris Blattman points to an interesting example of how it has been carried out for shoe manufacturing in Ethiopia.

From my experience, how one looks at industrial policy depends a lot on one’s view of economics: In the first post here at Evolution-Revolution, we argued that “understanding the dynamics that propel the economy into the unknown should be at the core of economics, rather than optimizing a static economy that only exists in the abstract.” As such if one believes the most efficient allocation of today’s resources is essential one quite naturally comes to the conclusion that any form of intervention is inefficient. By incorporating the dimension of time however, one can more easily conclude that its worth sacrificing a little efficiency today for what might be a much more prosperous tomorrow.

Holocaust surviver and psychologists Viktor Frankl delivers an amazing speech on searching for meaning and thinking the best of people. And as Goethe agrees with him, it must be true.

If you haven’t read his memorial from Auschwitz, Man’s Search for Meaning, you should

I was recently reading some older posts on Andrew Clavell’s Financial Crookery, and came across a post from early January on the decision made by Iceland’s President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson to let the so-called Icesave bill (with which Iceland agrees to pay back Britain and the Netherlands the deposits made by its citizens that were lost by its banks) be subject to a popular referendum that it surely would not survive. It didn’t, on March 6th 93% of voters wanted it dead, compared to a diminutive 1,6% who wanted Iceland to [Read more →]

Above: Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division after one of Steve Ballmer’s “angry” days.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft management is cracking down on the use of iPhones amongst company employees. In a recent meeting executives Andy Lees (who is in charge of mobile-phone software development) and Robbie Bach (President of Entertainment and Devices Division, responsible for a.o. the Xbox) were chastised by CEO Steve Ballmer when arguing that [Read more →]

How about a really big steel plant… right here?

A friend and fellow Technology Governance student here at the Tallinn University  of Technology shared with me two papers by Tatiana Mikhailova from Harvard’s Davis Center and Boston University’s economics department, in which she argues that spatial inefficiency caused by Soviet planning may be costing Russia more than 1,2% of their GDP annually compared to a market-based counter-factual scenario, chiefly because of higher energy costs necessitated by cold weather.

I’ve included the abstract of Mikhailova’s paper The Cost of the Cold: The Legacy of Soviet Location Policy in Russian Energy Consumption, Productivity, and Growth below:

The spatial allocation of productive resources in present day Russia is inherited from the Soviet Union. Soviet system allocated investments without regard to economic efficiency, as the result the colder regions of Russia are significantly overpopulated compared to the market-based counterfactual. This paper estimates the cost imposed on Russia by this excess exposure to cold through excess energy use and loss of productivity. We show that the inherited spatial inefficiency costs Russia above 1.2% GDP annually in extra energy consumption and construction productivity alone.

Thanks to Mihhail, a loyal Evolution-Revolution reader, for sharing the papers.

Picture from http://www.jimrlong.us/

On our recent and very pleasurable trip the the United States, some of my more conservative friends who we were visiting insisted on showing us one of their new favorite movies - An American Carol. The movie is a railing if highly inconsistent criticism of any and every idea championed by liberal America anno 2008, in particular its anti-war sentiment. The main character of the movie is Michael Moore (“Malone” in the movie), who takes the role as the scrooge of 4th of july – and is visited by three ghosts, amongst them General George Patton and country singer Trace Atkins (proudly playing himself). On his way to salvation and pro-war attitudes, he is slapped in the face repeatedly by an (as always) morally righteous Bill O’Reilly (also played by himself), who warns Moore that he is abusing his freedom of speech by preaching pacifism. In particular, the film echoes conservative America by claiming that Michael Moore and his followers – by questioning the moral superiority of the United States at war [Read more →]

Me and the Sundance Kid have recently to an old Norwegian economist by the name of Torkel H. Aschehoug. Although he died a little more than a hundred years ago, his economics – and especially his approach to economics – remain highly relevant today. As opposed to presenting a single theory or logical system as proven and true, his work is characterized by broad inclusiveness. Firmly rooted in the history of economic thought, he consistently presents the work of several different schools of thought when dealing with economic questons, as if creating a “smorgasbord” of economics for the critical reader to pick and taste from. In the first edition of his 2400-page magnum opus, Socialøkonomik (Economics), written during the last years of his life, he cites almost 900 different economists, and more than a thousand in the second. He examines the work of different and disagreeing economists critically – often pointing out weak points in the various theories presented – but refrains from canonizing any one as indisputable and true. Rather, his epistemology is founded on the attitude that objectivity is achieved by viewing a particular question from as many different angles as possible. Above the age of 80, the old conservative eagerly read new and critical writings, constantly revising his manuscripts in order to include and reflect upon new and interesting directions taken in economics.

This “Smorgarbord Approach” to economics is radically different from what is the norm in mainstream economics today. In the latter, theory tend to be presented without reference to their origin or author – implying a timelessness and irrefutability far beyond what most of it deserves. And while some academic conflics are laid out, the vast majority of mainstream economics is not presented as the view of a particular school of thought – the Neoclassical one – in conflict with other schools, but rather as established truth. More importantly, its epistemological foundations suffer from an increased emphasis on the ability of new theory to be derived from particular mathematical methods and fit within the established axiomatic framework. Importantly, while there may be furious disagreements within the school, the theories of the various belligerents tend to be based on very similar methods and theoretical foundations. Still, empirical work within the mainstream has to some extent helped it stay more relevant and connected to reality. It has also tended to produce conclusions less consistent with established theory. However, econometric research also suffers from the fact that it largely emanates from a single school of thought, with biases and holy ghosts like any academic school of thought is bound to suffer from. There are always endless questions of what to control for and how to define variables, and as my econometrics professor at William & Mary tellingly taught his students: “If in doubt, we go with the theory.” – a rather dubious doctrine from a Popperian perspective.

I am not amongst those that think the methods, models, and theories of the Neoclassical school are devoid of value and relevance – far from it. I do, however, think that it is extremely damaging for Economics as well as the quality of work in the Neoclassical school that the latter is a de-facto “academic monopolist”. Neoclassical economists are right in their claim that structural monopolies tend to stifle both innovation and product quality – the same is true in academic research. Comparative advantage also applies – while Neoclassical economics may have a comparative advantage in dealing with some economic issues, other schools have a comparative advantage in areas that have been strongly dominated by the mainstream. Development economics is one field where this is particularly true, financial macroeconomics and (in)stability is another.

It is time for a return to a much more diverse Smorgasbord. As any nutritionist can tell you, a varied diet is key to good health. Even broccoli is unhealthy if you eat nothing but it.

The word economics stems from the Greek oikonomia, or simply put: household management. Historically, economists in the English tradition have dealt with how we can allocate the scarce resources we possess as efficiently as possible. The philosopher Adam Smith pointed out how increased division of labor, until an optimal point, will increase welfare. Later, David Ricardo, developed his theory of comparative advantage, explaining how trade can make both trading partners better off. 

What is striking, is that they were writing their works in Britain in the middle of the industrial revolution, not commenting on how innovation and technological development was forever changing the dynamics of growth, enabling an escape from the Malthusian trap (at least so far). In ancient Greece, where technological and economic development from generation to generation was minimal, it may have made perfect sense to mainly focus on efficient allocation of current resources. Luckily, we hardly live in ancient Greece.

Arguably the Soviet Union did not allocate its economic resources very effectively, but it was the lack of innovation that brought it down. Similarly, China is arguably wasting a large portion of its domestic product because of inefficient allocation, but this does not matter very much when yearly growth rates have been more than 10 percent the last decade as technology and innovation is absorbed from abroad. Efficient allocation is only truly important in an equilibrial steady state. We here at Evolution-Revolution have yet to find one off the blackboard, and strongly believe that understanding the dynamics that propel the economy into the unknown should be at the core of economics, rather than optimizing a static economy that only exists in the abstract.