Even before the Covid-19 outbreak, the Chinese economy was slowing, after more than three decades of rapid economic expansion. Thirty years of recorded growth at around ten per cent per annum is unprecedented in human history. This has enabled hundreds of millions of people to be lifted out of poverty, and the material transformation of a poor country to one that is classified by the World Bank as upper-middle-income.
Despite all this, there is a broad consensus, including among Chinese government officials, that the country’s development model needs to change if it is to continue its transformation and become a rich country. Many economists argue that this will involve a rebalancing of the economy, in order to continue to grow and develop in a way that is more sustainable both for China itself, and for the rest of the world, given that as the world’s second largest economy behind the US, internal changes now have a major impact globally. Continue reading →
“When they hear someone criticizing free trade, free-trade economists tend to accuse the critic of being ‘anti-trade’. But criticizing free trade is not to oppose trade.
Apart from the benefits of specialization that the theory of comparative advantage extols, international trade can bring many benefits. By providing a bigger market, it allows producers to produce more cheaply, as producing a larger quantity usually lowers your costs (this is known as economies of scale). This aspect is especially important for smaller economies, as they will have to produce everything expensively, if they cannot trade and have a bigger market. By increasing competition, international trade can force producers to become more efficient – insofar as they are not developing country firms that would get wiped out by vastly superior foreign firms. It might also produce innovation by exposing producers to new ideas (eg., new technologies, new designs, new managerial practices).
International trade is particularly important for developing countries. In order to increase their productive capabilities and thus develop their economies, they need to acquire better technologies. They can in theory invent such technologies themselves, but how many new technologies can relatively backward economies really invent on their own?…For these countries, therefore, it would be madness not to take advantage of all those technologies out there that they can import, whether in the form of machines or technology licensing (buying up the permit to use someone else’s patented technology) or technical consultancy. But if a developing country wants to import technologies, it needs to export and earn ‘hard currencies’ (universally accepted currencies, such as the US dollar or the Euro), as no one will accept its money for payments. International trade is therefore essential for economic development.
The case for international trade is indisputable. However, this does not mean that free trade is the best form of trade, especially (but not exclusively) for developing countries. When they engage in free trade, developing countries have their chances of developing productive capabilities hampered…The argument that international trade is essential should never be conflated with the argument that free trade is the best way to trade internationally.”
Ha-Joon Chang (2014), Economics: The User’s Guide, Pelican Books, p.412-4.
Successful developing countries that have made the transition to advanced country status are relatively few in number. Those that have ‘made it’ in the wake of already rich countries have tended to adopt polices which encourage firms and sectors to ‘catch up’ over a sustained period.
When economies are far from the technological frontier they can achieve more when firms learn to use and adapt already existing technology rather than innovating themselves. Historically this has taken place in countries from the US and Germany to South Korea and Taiwan. One would expect firms to imitate technology more at an earlier stage of development, assuming that there are economies, sectors and firms ahead of them and closer to or at the frontier, while as they approach the frontier, innovation should become more important.
A recent article in the journal Industrial and Corporate Change looks into this process at the firm level. Ching T. Liao explores the differences between those firms that imitate others and those that innovate, and the effect this has on productivity. Continue reading →
For me, the argument is over. Big government is all-pervasive and inevitable in today’s democratic capitalism. Markets and states are or should be complements, not alternatives, in any society which is both wealthy and continuing to develop and improve the lives of its citizens in the widest possible sense.
This is not an argument for socialism, although there are some on the right who see big government as an evil leading inevitably to a totalitarian and repressive state. This remains a possibility, but it was big government that saved a system on the edge of collapse during the financial crisis, however imperfectly. Crises may be inevitable under capitalism, but it remains the job of government to improve economic and social performance by harnessing the dynamic potential of markets so as to serve the common good.
In today’s US, an unlikely president is unashamedly trying to subvert and dominate the system for his own ends. The process may seem incoherent, but perhaps it mostly boils down to serving a thirst for power and attempting to fill what some have called an ’emptiness’ at the heart of the man.
If one takes Trump’s recent State of the Union address as an accurate description of his political achievements and the state of the US, rather than analysing what he has actually done, one could be forgiven for thinking that all is well there. It is not.
This post is not an analysis of Trump’s achievements in office, rather a discussion based on three books which take a critical view of US capitalism and society, reaching beyond the current political cycle. Although each takes a slightly different perspective and more or less covers a different period in US history, the thread which links them is the idea that its economy and society are being held back by an excessive concentration of power. Continue reading →
The FT’s Rana Foroohar discusses the ‘evil’ side of ‘Big Tech’. She is pushing her new book, but it is an interesting interview which touches on a range of issues relevant to the economics, business, politics, finance and culture of this increasingly all-pervasive phenomenon.
Foroohar has also written on the dangerous and distorting power and influence of ‘Big Finance’, which has become known as financialisation and has generated a large and growing literature among political economists, particularly those writing in the Marxist and post-Keynesian traditions.
‘The Glorious Thirty’ was originally coined by the French demographer Jean Fourastié in 1979 to describe his country’s unprecedented economic boom between 1945 and 1975. Lasting from the end of World War Two to the first oil shock of the 1970s, it saw growth in output, productivity, wages and consumption faster than before or since, and significant structural change, as resources moved from the agricultural sector and luxury artisan products towards industry.
France rapidly closed the gap in living standards with the US over the period, more or less matched West Germany’s performance, and overtook the UK. It managed an average growth rate of 5.1% throughout the 1960s.
This was in many ways the heyday of state intervention in the major capitalist economies, and the use of various forms of industrial policy was widespread. Post-war France, as elsewhere in Europe, required a major rebuilding of infrastructure and industrial capacity after the damage wrought by conflict. These included transport, the utilities, capital goods and heavy industry.
Beyond this, the government felt that a high standard of living and strong national defence to preserve relative independence required industrialisation. It was decided that this could not be wholly left to the uncertain outcomes associated with market forces. After the experiences of economic planning in many countries during the war, state intervention was felt to be both necessary and effective for the purposes of accelerating recovery while preserving freedom, democratic institutions and private property as far as possible. Continue reading →
Last weekend’s G20 summit in Osaka resolved nothing substantial in the ongoing trade and technology war that the US is now waging with China. At best, a truce was agreed on any further escalation in tariffs and other measures against Chinese tech companies. But there was no long-lasting agreement reached. And that’s because this is […]
“Neoliberalism claims that free trade is the best way to foster economic development. But its doctrine is premised on the faulty notion that international competition levels the mighty and raises up the weak. Real competition operates quite differently: it rewards the strong and punishes the weak. From this perspective, the neoliberal push for unfettered free trade can be viewed as a strategy that is most beneficial to the advanced firms of the rich countries.
This also explains why the Western countries themselves, and subsequently Japan, Korea and the Asian Tigers, resisted free-trade theories and policies so strenuously when they were themselves moving up the ladder. Equally importantly, it allows us to make sense of the actual policies that they followed in their rise to success: using international access to markets, knowledge and resources as part of a greater social agenda. The object should not be to level the playing field, but to bring up the levels of the disadvantaged players. In this regard, practising neoliberalism on the poor of the world is a particularly cruel sport.”
Anwar Shaikh (2005), The Economic Mythology of Neoliberalism, in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston (eds.), Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, Pluto Press, p.48
Marxist Professor Fred Moseley’s recent work Money and Totality was 20 years in the making. A couple of weeks ago, in the midst of reading it, I remarked on this blog that it was thoroughly engaging, at least for those interested in Marxist economic theory and its application to the analysis of capitalism. I also promised further comment, once I had finished it, so here goes.
Moseley’s interpretation of Marx’s theory is ‘macro’ ie macroeconomic, in that it begins logically with the operation of the economy as a whole, and then proceeds to the ‘micro’ or the operation of the individual parts of the economy in question.
The interpretation is ‘monetary’ in that it argues that Marx’s theory uses values or prices quantified in terms of money. Capitalism is a money-using system, and in fact Marx defines capital itself as money which is used to make more money, or ‘self-expanding value’.
The title of the book is thus explained: ‘money and totality’, the latter as describing the importance of the macroeconomic system as a whole. Continue reading →
“Capital is a particular form of social wealth driven by the profit motive. With this incentive comes a corresponding drive for expansion, for the conversion of capital into more capital, of profit into more profit. Each individual capital operates under this imperative, colliding with others trying to do the same, sometimes succeeding, sometimes just surviving, and sometimes failing altogether. This is real competition, antagonistic by nature and turbulent in operation. It is as different form so-called perfect competition as war is from ballet.
…Real competition is the central regulating mechanism under capitalism. Competition within an industry forces individual producers to set prices with an eye on the market, just as it forces them continually to try to cut costs so that they can cut prices and expand market share. Cost-cutting can take place through wage reduction, increases in the length or intensity of the working day, and through technical change. The latter becomes the central means over the long run [my emphasis].
…The notion of competition as a form of warfare has important implications. Tactics, strategy, and resulting prospects for growth are central concerns of the competitive firm…In the battle of real competition, the mobility of capital is the movement from one terrain to another, the development and adoption of technology is the arms race, and the struggle for profit growth and market share is the battle itself.”