Economics

Pas de demi-mesure pour la croissance

Jan 20, 2015 Michael Spence

MILAN – En période de croissance médiocre, tous les pays essayent de trouver une stratégie efficace pour redresser durablement l'économie. Le mot clé est stratégie : pour réussir, les dirigeants politiques doivent appliquer l'ensemble des mesures destinées à ouvrir l'économie, relancer les investissements publics, renforcer la stabilité macroéconomique, s'appuyer davantage sur les marchés et accroître les incitations à répartir au mieux les ressources. Appliquer seulement quelques-unes de ces mesures ne peut donner que des résultats bancals.

La Chine en offre la parfaite illustration. Avant que Deng Xiaoping ne lance sa politique de "réforme et d'ouverture" en 1978, les investissements dans le secteur public étaient relativement importants. Mais l'économie planifiée ne stimulait pas suffisamment les marchés et elle était essentiellement fermée aux grands marchés mondiaux en matière de biens, d'investissements et de technologie. C'est pourquoi le retour sur les investissements publics était modeste et les résultats de l'économie chinoise médiocres.

La transformation économique de la Chine a commencé avec l'introduction de mesures de stimulation des marchés dans le secteur agricole. Les premières réformes ont été suivies par une ouverture graduelle en direction de l'économie mondiale, un processus qui s'est accéléré jusqu'au début des années 1990. Peu après la mise en œuvre des réformes, le taux de croissance économique a fait un bond, dépassant à 9% du PIB, et il en a été de même du retour sur les investissements publics.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Michael Spence

Writing for PS since 2008
168 Commentaries

Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics Emeritus and a former dean of the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. He is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Senior Adviser to General Atlantic, and Chairman of the firm’s Global Growth Institute. He is Chair of the Advisory Board of the Asia Global Institute and serves on the Academic Committee at Luohan Academy. He is a former chair of the Commission on Growth and Development and the author of The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World (Macmillan Publishers, 2012).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

Bakhodur Eshonov Jan 23, 2015

Back in 50th-60th last century most of developing countries were facing similar problems.Developing world these days is much more diverse. It's a majot challenge now for developing agencies (IFIs, UNDP and etc.), which also evolved back in 50th last century, not to suggest universal prescriptions, but to understand 'the dynamics of development', to accept that development is as a process.
https://undp.unteamworks.org/node/459177
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bakhodur Eshonov Jan 23, 2015

Indeed, more holistic rather then segmented approach, accomodating key spill-over effects engaging both economic, social, spatial, technological and instituational transformation.
https://undp.unteamworks.org/ru/node/465307
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
PierPaolo Cassese Jan 22, 2015

Sir Spence,
Your note concerning the growth is pretty encouraging for the contribution that supplies to the European reformism.
Unfortunately, unlike as it is theorized by the European policy makers few years ago, little improvements have been effectively implemented within the European Community. (Hereafter EU).

In the recent years, Germany has overwhelmingly abused of its bargaining power in imposing the belief of the Austerity throughout Europe and to the European Citizens. A suitable example is the awkward behavior assumed by the German politics in managing the Maastricht treaty which has been partially blamed of locking the stimulus for the growth.

Being an investment strategist, that one I have always wondered, concerns the unsolvable problem of the fiscal convergence never issued in the European Monetary Union. My very simplified thought is justified enough by the so called “fiscal arbitrage” among the Countries that either belong to the EMU or to the CEE. (i.e Luxembourg is a fair example of, as well as Ireland with its green zone, but on top of the list, the hit remains the case of Italian Swiss dispute on the disclosure of the owners of the bank accounts held by the Swiss banks which remains an open issue).

From an unified point of view, I would like to ask you a personal judgment about the resolution of the export issue which is affecting the European Union since Germany is not abiding by the Macroeconomic imbalance procedure for the last 3 years.

Don’t you believe that such a bad German attitude will seriously damage the commercial balance-sheet of the remaining European players who have lost the opportunity to boost their economy by exploiting the export momentum?

Bringing ahead the discussion, another interesting point raised in your article is referred to the market incentive for the public investments to be underpinned to grant to the Europe to get rid of the recessive spiral. Well, both Europe and Italy have allocated plenty of public spending for the public investments such as Lion-Torino (TAV project, as well as the Mestre bridge or, to close the loop, the project developed close to the Rhine river.).
In fulfilling these tasks, an important financial aid is provided by the European Investment Bank (BEI), whose investment plans have allowed the BEI itself to sign a remarkable project with the Italian Government to finance the project dubbed “Passante di Mestre” allegedly 350 Mln of €.

From my historical experience, albeit such projects are useful for sustaining the national growth, for the time being have not promoted any hoped effect. My skepticism is due to the delays and to the bureaucracy to be respected for getting the needed licenses to start building the projects themselves.

I would end up my post with a common advice to be delivered to the European politicians and that regards the effort to be undertaken in streamlining the bureaucracy to speed up and achieve the so hoped sustainable growth. Without any anti-corruption policy the progresses done by the European Parliament will be converted into a burden for Europe rather than an opportunity.
On top of that, nowadays the economic development is put in place by looking at the energy efficiency, by paying attention to the preservation of the global ecosystem, which means to put in place strategic investments needed for mitigate the climate changes that are undermining the Earth.
Maybe it’s time to orient the economic growth topics toward both the new structural and sustainable development targets such as the work flexibility and the climate change prevention.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Jan 21, 2015

Michael Spence describes so well the concept of 'half a loaf growth', one which would be meaningful for income mobility; private investments have failed to achieve this denouement given its complete lack of focus on the human side of the problem, namely building the human capital.
Half a loaf growth should focus on creating engineers, doctors, teachers, people engaged in public works, or simple mass of trained people who can make things, who have been replaced now by 'smart's.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.