"In a stagnant economy, economic policy becomes zero-sum: the situation of some can only be improved by worsening that of others. This is a recipe for conflict. [Moi ici: Só esta citação já vale pelo artigo todo. A aposta portuguesa no socialismo, à esquerda e à direita, tem promovido acima de tudo políticas distributivas cada vez mais caras, mais caras porque suportam cada vez mais gente, suportadas em cada vez menos riqueza criada proporcionalmente] It is essential to generate sustainable economic growth, instead.
...
Why has UK growth slowed to a crawl? The best analysis I have seen of the determinants of growth is in Windows of Opportunity by David Sainsbury,
...
As Sainsbury states, neoclassical economics does not have a theory of growth, because it does not have a theory of innovation. He does: it is driven by innovative businesses. This he calls the “capability/market-opportunity dynamic”. There are four conditions for success: demand for new products and services; activity-specific technological opportunities; firms capable of exploiting those opportunities; and institutions able to support those firms. Growth then is an evolutionary process characterised by trial and error, uncertainty, economies of scale and scope, network externalities, temporary monopolies [Moi ici: Os meus monopólios informais] and cumulative advantage. Historical experience confirms that growth is a race to the top. [Moi ici: Nunca esquecer esta regra - race to the top, subir na escala de valor. Mudar de clientes!!! Mudar de produto/serviço!!!] It means exploiting new opportunities that generate enduring advantages in high productivity sectors and so high wages.
...
Sainsbury argues that there are four possible strategies towards innovation: leave it to the market; support the supply of relevant factors of production (science and skilled people); support key industries and technologies; and pick specific firms/technologies/products. He argues that governments should do the second and third, but not the last. [Moi ici: Quanto à segunda, não posso estar mais de acordo, é o "set the table" de Bloomberg. Quanto à terceira, tenha dúvidas. Não basta privilegiar um sector, isso não pode ser feito em abstracto. E quem é que vai aproveitar esse privilégio? Pois, os macacos não voam, trepam as árvores. Quanto à quarta, é típica dos governos socialistas, de direita e de esquerda, picking winners, promovendo o chamado "crony capitalism", o capitalismo da "famíglia", dos amigalhaços, dos donos disto tudo] That can be better left to bankers or venture capitalists. But governments can and must fund science and the development of scientific and other skills and should promote a few broad industries and technologies."
Trechos de Martin Wolf publicados ontem no FT em “Why once successful countries get left behind”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário