Saturday, October 25, 2014
7

发展3.0

北京——在工业革命以前,世界各国人均收入相当。但是从那以后,随着一些西方工业化国家在政治和经济方面迅速统治世界,各国财富急速分化。近些年,即使是在爆发2008年金融危机之前,全球经济形势已发生了显著变化。直到2000年,七大工业国约占全球GDP的三分之二。今天,中国和一些大型发展中国家已经成为世界发展的领头人。

然而,尽管是在谈论亚洲的崛起,但是在过去几十年中只有少数的东亚经济体实现了从低收入到高收入的转变。此外,从1950年到2008年,世界上只有28个经济体能够以十个百分点或者更快的速度缩小与美国的人均收入差距,其中只有12个非西方经济体。与此同时,150多个国家被困在低收入或中等收入的状态中。缩小与高收入工业化国家的差距仍是世界发展面临的主要挑战。

二战后的后殖民时期,结构主义模式是主流的发展模式,目标是为了改变贫困国家的产业结构,使其与高收入国家的产业结构相似。通常,结构主义者会建议政府采取进口替代策略,通过公共部门的干预来克服“市场失灵”。称此为“发展经济学1.0”。采用这种方式的国家,获得了初始投资导向型的成功,紧随其后的是不断的危机和萧条。

从“发展思想”转变成新自由主义华盛顿共识,即私有化,自由化,稳定化,这些将会给发展中国家带去理想化的市场体系,这些体系在发达国家已经建立起来了。称此为“发展经济学2.0”。华盛顿共识改革的结果充其量也就只引起了一点争议,但在许多发展中国家,一些经济学家甚至将20世纪八九十年代描述为“迷失的年代”。

鉴于发展中国家持续贫困,双边捐助者和全球发展社区越来越关注该地区的教育和卫生项目,既是出于人道主义的原因又是为了带来经济增长。但是服务提供系统却不尽人意,所以焦点转移到促进该项目的绩效,埃斯特·迪弗洛等麻省理工学院贫穷行动实验室的研究人员率先对此进行了随机对照试验。

我称其为“发展经济学2.5”. 在北非的旧体制下,人们的教育程度大幅提高,但是却没能促进经济发展,也没能给受过教育的青年创造就业机会。从北非的经历来看,这种发展政策的有效性值得怀疑。

实现了动态增长和工业化的东亚及其他经济体,没有采取进口替代策略。相反,他们追求出口导向型增长。同样地,毛里求斯、中国和越南没有施行华盛顿共识所提倡的快速自由化(所谓的“休克疗法”),他们遵循一种双轨渐进的方法(但是各种管理指标却一直表现很差)。

在教育,卫生,缓解贫困和其他人类发展指标方面,两组国家都取得了巨大进展。他们都没有使用随机控制实验来设计他们的社会或经济项目。

如今,需要一个“发展经济学3.0”。我认为,从认识一个国家的经济结构到促使其改变,这种转化如同将婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉。记住,亚当·斯密将其巨著称为《对国民财富产生的原因和性质的研究》(简称《国富论》)。同样,发展经济学应该建立在现代经济增长的产生原因和性质的研究之上,也就是,在经济发展过程中的结构变化的研究。

迄今为止,“发展思想”主要关注发展中国家所没有的(发达国家的资本密集型产业),以及发达国家表现较好的方面(华盛顿共识的政策和管理方式),或者是在人道主义立场看来很重要但并未直接导致结构变化的方面(卫生和教育)。

在《新结构经济学》一书中,我提出,以发展中国家所拥有的(他们的禀赋)为基础,将焦点转向他们好的方面(他们的相对优势)。动态结构变化从那里开始,成功将孕育成功。

在我们这个全球化的世界,一个国家的最佳产业结构,即所有的产业都符合国家的相对优势,在国内国际市场具有竞争优势,这种产业结构是由该国的禀赋结构所决定的。一个运转良好的市场需要激励国内企业的投资选择与该国的竞争优势相一致。

如果整个国家的企业能这样做,那么该国的经济将会具有竞争力,资本将会迅速积累,禀赋结构将会改变,有竞争优势的领域将会转化,经济也会需要升级其产业结构到一个相对较高的资本密集度。所以,成功的产业升级和经济多元化需要首位行动者,而且需要技能、物流、交通、融资渠道的提升,以及其他各种变化,许多都超出了首位行动者的能力。政府需要提供足够的鼓励措施,来激励首位行动者,而且应该发挥积极作用,提供必要的改进措施或协调私人公司在那些领域的投资。

很明显,结构改变具有创新性。发展中国家,通过复制高收入国家的结构变化,可能会因此受益于自己的后发优势。基于成功国家的经验,每一个发展中国家在几十年里有可能继续保持8%的年增长率(或更高),在一代或两代里成为中等收入甚至是高收入国家。关键是要有正确的政策框架,促进私营企业与国家的比较优势相一致,在结构变化的过程中受益于后发优势。

Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedMukesh Adenwala

    I wonder if this is not more than a bit idealistic. Such a course of development can be available to developing countries if and only if man is merely homo economicus. We are in a world where everything cannot be and will never be freely shared and where the likes of agricultural subsidies would prevail. Countries would, as they do, use exchange rates, pollution norms, taxation, corruption, etc. to gain and protect comparative advantage. There will be wars if and when these interest in the form of comparative advantage, or even consolidation thereof, is challenged or threatened.

  2. CommentedMoctar Aboubacar

    This is a little optimistic, but the possibility is certainly there. Oil-producing African countries have a rather bad track record for upgrading their industrial structures and shifting their competitive advantages. But at the same time these countries have large informal sectors, low ease-of-doing-business indicators, and the state does not seem to actively promote these so-called first-movers.

    Gabon is a pretty good example of this. With the country's new 'Emerging Gabon' plan for economic diversification, there seems to be a similar logic to this article in the works --it would be interesting to see if this case lends any credence to the thesis put forth by Mr. Lin.

  3. Portrait of Shriya Anand

    CommentedShriya Anand

    What about countries with large natural resource endowments? We have observed the consequences faced by economies that depend heavily on the extraction of natural resources (which according to your argument would be the optimal thing for them to do because it is consistent with their endowment structures).

    It does not seem feasible for developing countries to follow your advice without first strengthening domestic institutions. This is the area where Development Economics 3.0 should focus its thinking and research.

  4. CommentedProcyon Mukherjee

    Mr. Lin’s moot point on national endowments and incentivizing private sector alignment to the cause that comparative advantage stemming from such endowments could be gainfully used for growth is well taken.

    I think the question on private sector alignment in the developing world is put to far greater scrutiny by the polity than what it deserves, which is one of the reasons why we have supply side issues in the first place, which causes spiraling inflation that affects the poor more than the rich. It is also an excuse used to delay projects that involve land acquisition, environment clearances. Where poverty is overwhelming as in the areas where tribal people live in India, the mines for Bauxite, Iron Ore, and many other minerals are situated, where wealth is below the ground. In exploiting these endowments the private sector interests can hardly be questionable whether it serves the national interests or is aligned towards profiteering, Here one is reminded of Milton Freidman, where he pointed out that, ‘The purpose of corporate social responsibility is to make profits’, which is so apt as the only social relevance it has is that without profits no economic activity in capital intensive industry is ever possible and this is the only way to create jobs. Under the verbiage of ‘inclusive growth’ and with a long lens of misplaced wisdom we have attracted many sympathizers but precious little to the cause of growth and job creation in these parts of the world.

    Procyon Mukherjee

  5. CommentedJonathan Lam

    gamesmith94134: Development 3.0

    Mr. Lim stated the key is to have the right policy framework in place to facilitate private-sector alignment with the country’s comparative advantages, and to benefit from latecomer advantages in the process of structural change, or what policy framework can facilitate the private-sectors alignment with country’s comparative advantage gain profitability in order to grant an extended structural development after the cost of the structural developments 1.0 and 2.0.

    I would agree the comparative advantage and its endowment would improve its probability to grow; however, it is only up to a point only if it can afford it. Therefore, using the public sector intervention to overcome ‘market failure’ causes financial disruption like ClubMed to debt crisis; and nationalized marketing like privatization, liberalization and stabilization demolished the market system in shifting the weights of control through the functionary measures like inflationary and deflationary measure in the hand of a few, and the populace was forced to secure the comfort zones on accountability and affordability that the price and value they cannot disclaim, and such process had undercut the human resources when the market was overheated and unemployment climbed.
    Since development 1.0 and 2.0 by the governmental incentives caused errors in sustainability and redistribution of wealth in the stratified social networks, such structural development did not benefit private sectors alignment in extending the change to grow after the governmental incentives.

    Onward in the development 2.5 is just another interruption of credit or monetary measure like Quantitative Easing that created the micro/macro financial cliffhanger. By manipulating the currencies variables that application on import/export balance only made it insoluble for sovereignty and made it even harder for its populace to adapt. After the expansion of the economy with lesser option to devaluation or inflation, the private sector’s dependency on credit and workers’ compensation escalated; they minimized the fluidity in the cash flow or saving ; eventually the private sectors cuts R&D or fresh employment on the youth or the new productivity and it stops to grow. It was because the structuralism or monetarism defies the market system with its mechanism like nationalized marketing, zombie banks, and sovereignty debts that many populaces cannot sync with its government price control or disinflationary measures.

    It is questionable that structural development economics is the major factor to change to improve the nature and causes of modern economic growth if profitability, sustainability, and redistribution of wealth are in jeopardy throughout our current financial crisis and political turmoil. Perhaps, in development 3.0, the development thinkers must think of restoring the market system that ‘A well-functioning market is required to provide incentives to domestic firms to align their investment choices with the country’s comparative advantages.’ And also, all sovereignties should work on its developments providing faith in its populaces with a soluble formula, which can give affordability a comfort zone, and accountability to sustain its livelihood with a balance on the principle of price and value -----an intrinsic market system with fair trade for all.

    Hopefully, “too big to fall” would become a part of our financial history that our children can read and understand.

    May the Buddha bless you?

  6. CommentedStefan Siewert

    It is an excellent way of understanding development and the classification is very convincing. It frames the way of evolution in Western thinking and global development.
    First of all, since Industrial revolution, we have a global economy and poor and rich societies are part of a system. Changes in their relations are linked with advances in technology and, thus, the promise of greater welfare for the whole system - as is recently happened with China when it became the world's manufacturer of choice.
    One remark: Innovation is permanent. Some industries have a "natural" innovation rate higher than others, for example palm oil vs. logging. Thus, an emergent new global division of wealth and comparative advantages is defined by a technology component as well. We might wish to recognize the limits of changing an institutional path way when thinking about development.

  7. CommentedSergio Reuben Soto

    With an industrial structure "consistent with the country's comparative advantages", you can't have a "competitive market". You will have, at least, a corporate market in that conditions..., and then an ineffective distribution of resources.
    Those are the contradictions of the "scholastic economics” you endorse.

Featured