Produtividade, apoios, e destruição criativa

Ontem ao fim da tarde li "Swedish PM Kristersson says EU needs to discuss competitiveness, not just state-aid":

""We need to start a real discussion on how to improve productivity, how to enhance competitiveness and how to attract more companies based on our own capabilities and not based on long-term state aid rules," Ulf Kristersson told reporters during a media conference with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen."

Se recordarmos Maliranta no que escrevi em 2007:

"It is widely believed that restructuring has boosted productivity by displacing low-skilled workers and creating jobs for the high skilled."

Mas, e como isto é profundo:

"In essence, creative destruction means that low productivity plants are displaced by high productivity plants." 

Por favor voltar a trás e reler esta última afirmação.

E o grande finale:

"As creative destruction is shown to be an important element of economic growth, there is definitely a case for public policy to support this process, or at least avoid disturbing it without good reason. Competition in product markets is important. Subsidies, on the other hand, may insulate low productivity plants and firms from healthy market selection, and curb incentives for improving their productivity performance. Business failures, plant shutdowns and layoffs are the unavoidable byproducts of economic development."

Também recordei logo estes gráficos:

Depois, recordei o capítulo "Bricolage" do livro "The Upside of Uncertainty" de Nathan Furr que li durante a caminhada matinal:

"Sometimes we wait to start taking action because we feel we don’t have the resources we need. But there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that successful innovators do just the opposite, getting started with what they have rather than waiting till the conditions are perfect. Bricolage is a French word coming from the medieval verb for “to fiddle or tinker”; sociologists use it to describe how innovators use what they have on hand to do something. Bricolage is closely related to one of the most prominent explanations of how entrepreneurs succeed, a process called effectuation

...

RCA Victor, one of the dominant players in TVs and radios, recognized the disruptive potential of the transistor and so authorized a landmark $100 million investment in R&D to one day replace vacuum tubes with transistors. But in another corner of the world, a scrappy, young Japanese company named TTK, a newcomer to the industry, adopted a very different approach. Instead of pouring money into R&D, they decided to use the transistor to make a small, portable radio. The transistors were so weak that the radios were poor quality compared to RCA’s (the sound was tinny and weak), but people with small budgets and teenagers who wanted to get out of the house to listen to rock and roll loved them. TTK sold tens of thousands of radios, improving them with each production run until their transistors became so good, the company realized they could use them to make TVs. RCA was already making big color televisions for the mainstream market, and TTK could only make tiny, black-and-white TVs, but these proved immensely popular for people who couldn’t afford or didn’t have a place for big TVs. “Once again, TTK sold tens of thousands, improving with each round of bricolage and learning by doing until the once-tiny company, now named Sony, disrupted RCA’s main market with cheaper, more reliable color televisions and radios. Although RCA had started with far more money, they never really caught up to Sony’s bricolage approach."

Tudo isto me leva a pensar num texto que tenho a fermentar na mente há dias sobre  objectivos versus processos.