marin6_Hauke-Christian Dittrichpicture alliance via Getty Images_altmaierrobotarm

Economics

Las razones para una política industrial inteligente

May 9, 2019 Dalia Marin

MÚNICH – A principios de este año, el ministro de economía alemán Peter Altmaier reveló su “Estrategia Industrial Nacional 2030”, que busca proteger a las empresas alemanas contra competidoras chinas que reciben subsidios estatales. La estrategia identifica sectores industriales clave que recibirán apoyo especial del gobierno, pide establecer en Europa la producción de baterías para autos eléctricos y defiende la fusión de empresas como forma de obtener economías de escala.

Es un plan controvertido. Lars Feld, del Consejo Alemán de Expertos Económicos, dijo que esta estrategia es una aberración y acusó a Altmaier de pretender instituir la planificación central. Pero este no es un debate ideológico (como insinúa Feld); la pregunta, más bien, es si esa política industrial puede funcionar. Y aunque el plan de Altmaier contiene aspectos poco convincentes, hay buenos motivos para que el Estado dé apoyo a sectores (como la industria automotriz) que se basarán cada vez más en la inteligencia artificial (IA).

Es verdad que los economistas suelen ver con malos ojos las políticas industriales nacionales, sobre todo porque los gobiernos típicamente las han usado para ayudar a “perdedores”, lo que implica mantener en el mercado a empresas no competitivas. El argumento para defenderlas, sobre todo en los países en desarrollo, era que las industrias todavía no desarrolladas necesitan que se las proteja de la competencia extranjera para poder crecer y madurar. Pero el Banco Mundial concluyó hace mucho que esas políticas fracasaron, y dio la espalda a los programas de sustitución de importaciones en los años sesenta y setenta.

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

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

Jag Patel May 11, 2019

It is right to say that national industrial policies have acquired a bad reputation because all this talk about creating and protecting national champions and picking winners has only diverted attention from the most pressing issue for businesses in the European Union – how to deal with the problem of lack of competitiveness in both, the single market and in global markets.

The problem with interfering in the market is that, the decision to do so is in the hands of elected politicians who are highly susceptible to cronyism – the nexus between the governing elite and the business elite that contrives to put the interests of business first, at the expense of the wants, needs and expectations of ordinary citizens. This is because the twin evils of lobbying and corruption rear their ugly heads every time taxpayers’ money crosses the boundary between the Public Sector and the Private Sector.

On the other hand, it is right to say that the job of government is to foster an environment which causes the Private Sector to innovate, grow, create jobs and make a profit. It is not the job of government to create jobs.

It is the misinterpretation of this responsibility, on the part of some well-meaning people that has persuaded them to support the idea of an Industrial Strategy, which entails the government intervening in the market with public funds, to stimulate economic activity, boost productivity and export-led growth.

However, this means that people in the pay of the State get to choose which industry sector receives the subsidy, and which does not – leaving them exposed to the charge of favouring the privileged few at the expense of the many, and also skewing the market in favour of the same selected few, for decades to come.

Additionally, there exists an extremely high risk that public funds committed in this way will not deliver the return on investment as advertised, or worse still, squandered altogether because:

(a) Civil servants in central government who are charged with negotiating the contract details are ill-equipped to deal with the Private Sector, which means that they will be duped into spending taxpayers’ money on poorly conceived projects – only for this to come to light years later, when some committee in parliament produces a report on its findings.

(b) The internal business process used to select recipients for State Aid is susceptible to manipulation and distortion by parliamentary lobbyists in the pay of those who can afford to spend the most.

(c) It is certain that the final decision on the choice of recipients, which is in the hands of the governing elite will be made, not in the national interest but to serve the interests of career politicians.

So, until these fundamental problems are addressed and dealt with, individual EU governments should be wary about any sort of an industrial strategy.
@JagPatel3
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts May 9, 2019

Good summary.

It is worth mentioning that China's industrial planners are the smartest people in China and they have been successful for 70 years.

If the West wants successful government planning then the West has to hire planners of equal intelligence and experience and then implement their plans without fear or favor.

What are the odds?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/pfrPMlYes

Las razones para una política industrial inteligente

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Las razones para una política industrial inteligente

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification