rcherif1_siraanamwongGettyImages_handspluglightbulb

„Opravdová“ průmyslová politika pro všechny

Oct 30, 2019 Reda Cherif , Fuad Hasanov

WASHINGTON, DC – V časopise The Atlantic z ledna roku 1954 tehdejší mladší senátor USA za stát Massachusetts John F. Kennedy obhajoval, že probíhajícímu přesunu průmyslových odvětví z Nové Anglie na americký jih by se nemělo bránit. Vyzval vládu, aby raději zajistila půjčky a jiné formy podpory na pomoc podnikům se sídlem v Nové Anglii, k rekvalifikaci průmyslových dělníků a financování místních agentur průmyslového rozvoje.

Kennedy si uvědomoval, že vláda musí plnit významnou úlohu jak při pozvedání jihu, tak při podněcování nových odvětví v Nové Anglii. Po desítkách let na okraji politické debaty je dnes průmyslová politika opět na pořadu dne. Vedle čínské iniciativy Vyrobeno v Číně 2025, nedávno vydané Průmyslové strategie Spojeného království a manifestu nové francouzsko-německé politiky, také země Rady pro spolupráci v Perském zálivu přijaly strategie rozvoje neropných sektorů a obdobné snahy o diverzifikaci uskutečňují mnohé rozvojové země.

Tyto politiky se objevily v reakci na tlaky mezinárodní konkurence, rozsáhlého zpomalení růstu produktivity, ztráty pracovních míst ve výrobě a stoupající nerovnosti. Průmyslová politika ale vždy rozdmýchává vášnivou debatu v řadách tvůrců politik a akademiků. Kritici tvrdí, že se takové strategie v mnoha zemích neosvědčily a vyústily spíš ve zneužívání konexí a korupci. Lepším přístupem, argumentují, je úlohu státu v ekonomice omezit, zlepšit podnikatelské prostředí a investovat do infrastruktury a vzdělávání. Za příznivých podmínek se objeví firmy a podnikatelé a ve velkém porostou. Platnost tohoto názoru dokládají selhání průmyslových politik v praxi Latinské Ameriky i jinde.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Reda Cherif

Writing for PS since 2019
3 Commentaries

Reda Cherif is Senior Economist at the International Monetary Fund.

Fuad Hasanov

Writing for PS since 2019
3 Commentaries

Fuad Hasanov is Senior Economist at the International Monetary Fund and Adjunct Professor of Economics at Georgetown University.

Is China’s Innovation Strategy An Unfair Trade Policy?
Zhang Bin/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images

Is China’s Innovation Strategy An Unfair Trade Policy?

Shang-Jin Wei argues that US criticism of Chinese industrial policy is hypocritical and unfounded.

5
Breaking the Oil Spell in 2017 PS OnPoint
Antonio Scorza/Getty Images
Subscriber Exclusive

Breaking the Oil Spell in 2017

Zhu Min advises countries that are trying to diversify their economies to look at past success stories.

0
Are Moonshots Still Possible? PS OnPoint
Apic/Getty Images
Subscriber Exclusive

Are Moonshots Still Possible?

Martin Rees reflects on the legacy of the Apollo program and the future of human space exploration.

8

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

Jag Patel Oct 31, 2019

It may very well be the case that a true industrial policy is really about encouraging technology and innovation but, the problem with intervening in the market with public funds 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, ahead 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.

It is, as the economist Randall Holcombe puts in his book "Political Capitalism" a “system in which the economic and political elite cooperate for their mutual benefit.” The political elite tilt the economic playing field in favour of the economic elite, privileging them through subsidies, regulatory protections and targeted tax breaks. In exchange, the economic elite then help to ensure that the political elite remain in power. The rest of us pay the bill for this quid pro quo through higher taxes, higher prices, and a less efficient, less dynamic economy.

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 is a question mark about the ability of people in the pay of the State.

Here in the UK, the government’s much heralded Industrial Strategy white paper finds that the skills and capabilities of those employed in the Private Sector need upgrading, if the UK is to realise its vision of a Global Britain and pay its way in the world, post-Brexit. But there is no recognition that people in the pay of the State – the other party to this Industrial Strategy, on whom its success is wholly dependent – are equally ill-equipped for their public sector roles. This lack of acknowledgment is not a surprise. The Industrial Strategy was, after all, written by people in the pay of the State!

It would explain why there is very little confidence in the ability of big government to fix market failures, use the instrument of regulation to curb anti-competitive behaviour, manage outsourced public service contracts or secure value for money for investments made in infrastructure.

Indeed, the reputation of people in the pay of the State is further diminished by the fact that their ability to innovate, solve problems, learn from past mistakes and adapt to change, which is a distinctive characteristic of people in the Private Sector, has been erased in the Public Sector due to incessant conditioning of the mind from an early age. And, of course, people in the pay of the State are very good at talking a “big game” but they can’t “do it”.

But, what is especially worrying about people in the pay of the State is that they haven’t got a clue about what it is that drives the behaviour of for-profit organisations in the free market – not least, because they have not spent a single day of their lives in the Private Sector – and yet, they have been put in charge of spending taxpayers’ money to the tune of £292 billion per year to buy goods, services and labour from non-public sector organisations.

Worse still, in specialised markets such as that in military equipment for the Armed Forces, the role of the regulatory authority and sponsoring agency has been combined in one department of state – the Ministry of Defence – which means that the independent scrutiny function, free from political interference, is non-existent.

So, successful capture of a department of state by the defence industry amounts to taking control over both roles!

In no other field of human endeavour are such ill-equipped people allowed to ply their trade as in defence procurement – which would explain why the government has been getting appallingly poor value for money these last several decades.

Additionally, the culture in Whitehall has always put greater emphasis upon people who master rules, regulations and processes instead of valuing smart working, execution and delivery. What’s more, civil servants have migrated over the years, in overwhelming numbers, to the Private Sector via the ‘revolving door’ in pursuit of a second career and infected it with these traits. Which would probably explain why the defence industry has failed so miserably to deliver equipment to the Armed Forces that is fit for purpose, adequately sustained in-service and constitutes value for money through-life – bearing in mind that 99% of people who work in the defence industry right now, were previously in the pay of the State.

Instead of doing the decent thing and educating people in the pay of the State about the ways of the Private Sector, defence contractors are busy exploiting their ignorance, for one purpose only – relieving them of taxpayers’ money – which has, in itself, left the public finances in pretty bad shape.

There is something very disturbing about people who have previously, as public servants sworn undying allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, only to then engage in defrauding Her Majesty’s Government of taxpayers’ money on behalf of vested interests.

Remember the much-vaunted principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership in public life which were supposed to guide the conduct of public servants? Well, there is pitifully little sign of them right now. It seems that these values have been left behind in the Public Sector for others to cherish!
@JagPatel3
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Oct 30, 2019

Regarding Latin America as proof of anything, it must be said that the typical political cycle on the continent contains an equal part of IMF austerity regimes, each time erasing the often ambitious development policies of the socialist governments that they alternate with every 5-10 years.

The conclusion to be drawn there would have something to say about such a cycle of extremes (obviously counterproductive). It cannot tell us much about any steady and sustained policy, because neither free market policy nor subsidized development policy were around for long periods of time. For that we would have to look at Asia, Europe, or the US for evidence.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/HJF2NF8cs

„Opravdová“ průmyslová politika pro všechny

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Is China’s Innovation Strategy An Unfair Trade Policy?

Breaking the Oil Spell in 2017

Are Moonshots Still Possible?

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

„Opravdová“ průmyslová politika pro všechny

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification