In the video below, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz describes the comeback of industrial policies in economic debate and policy. Stiglitz comes from the centre-left politically, and certainly takes progressive views on issues such as inequality and state intervention.
He has chosen to critique mainstream neoclassical thinking from ‘within’ by focusing on market failure and imperfections, which opens the way to policies designed to make the market work better. It remains a market-centric viewpoint.
While taking on the mainstream is admirable, this necessarily leaves out the interdisciplinary perspectives of political economy, which in my view offer a richer understanding of socioeconomic phenomena. For those more wedded to the latter, coming from outside the mainstream, industrial policy has been studied in depth for some time.
Despite this, Stiglitz remains an interesting and influential figure.
In the short video below, Evelyn Dietsche outlines what she calls a ‘modern’ approach to industrial policy that developing countries can apply to their policymaking. She contrasts the lessons of those countries in East Asia that industrialised successfully in the post war period, with the relative failures of such policies in other nations.
The video does discuss the need to look at the specific contexts in which industrial policy takes place in different countries. This is an important point. In some cases, a successful industrial policy may require some kind of prior political reform; in others, a particular economic policy may be implemented straight away. In both situations, governments and other institutional actors need to adopt an experimental approach, and learn from successes and failures as they go.
Overall the video makes some helpful points in introducing some of the modern research findings on industrial policy. The latter has had something of a bad name in mainstream circles, but the tide has been shifting in recent years.
More from iconoclast Professor Michael Hudson’s book J is for Junk Economics (p.30-32). For a more detailed account, I can recommend his book America’s Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914, which I have posted on here.
“American School of Political Economy: The northern economists who focused on protective tariffs, infrastructure investment and a national bank to promote industrial and agricultural technology before and after the Civil War (1861-65). Mathew and Henry Carey, Henry Clay and William Seward among the Whigs and, after 1853, the Republicans, provided the economic policy that enabled America to industrialize and overtake England. They also emphasized the positive effect of rising wage levels and living standards on the productivity that made the American economic takeoff possible. Every major Northern politician and region was associated with a major economist: Alexander Everett for Daniel Webster and other Bostonians; Calvin Colton for Henry Clay; the Careys for Pennsylvania industrialists; and E. Peshine Smith for Seward and the Republicans. They developed the logic for tariff protection as opposed to Ricardian free-trade theory, and for government-sponsored internal improvements and a national bank to finance industry and achieve monetary independence from Britain.
It is testimony to the censorial power of subsequent free-trade ideology that these writers make no appearance in histories of economic thought. Historians have also ignored them, focusing on the Democratic Party (which meant mainly the South seeking to add slave states). At issue was whether the United States would suffer deflation and monetary and trade dependency on Britain, or would become independent. The American School opposed westward expansion and Manifest Destiny, and also opposed the Anglophilia of free traders and slave owners. The latter demanded monetary deflation to prevent industrialization so as to keep food prices low (and hence the cost of feeding slaves).
When the Civil War brought the Republicans to power, the American School found that the most prestigious colleges – founded originally to train the clergy – simply taught mainstream British free trade economics (largely because New England and southern seaboard schools favored free trade). The path of least intellectual resistance was to create a new set of schools – business schools and state land-grant colleges.
A central tenet of the American School was technological optimism in contrast to the Dismal Science of Ricardo and Malthus based on diminishing returns in agriculture and overpopulation leading to poverty. Also central was the Economy of High Wages doctrine: “It is not by reducing wages that America is making her conquests, but by her superior organization, greater efficiency of labor consequent upon the higher standard of living ruling in the country. High-priced labor countries are everywhere beating ‘pauper-labor’ countries.”
By the late 19th century nearly all the major American economists studied in Germany and followed the Historical School. Returning to America, they developed the Institutionalist School to explain why the United States should follow a different economic path from free-trade Britain. They continued to elaborate the logic for the protective tariffs that were nurturing American industry, as well as for public support for internal infrastructure improvements so as to create a low-cost competitive US economy. Most notable was Simon Patten, the first professor of economics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He taught protectionist trade theory and led economists into the discipline of sociology to analyze what he called the Economy of Abundance that resulted from the increasing returns in industry and agriculture.
When the United States achieved world industrial and financial dominance after World War I, it deterred other countries from protecting their own industry and agriculture – while continuing to protect its own. This about-face emulated British experience in urging free trade on other countries so as to make them dependent. This free-trade logic remains the buttress of today’s financial austerity and privatization policies imposed on debtor economies by the United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. These policies are the opposite of America’s own protectionist takeoff, the Economy of High Wages Doctrine and the Economy of Abundance that powered its rise to global economic supremacy. The lessons of the American School of Political Economy provide a more realistic model for other countries to emulate.”
Justin Lin, a former Chief Economist at the World Bank, is the author of several works on what he calls ‘new structural economics’. His latest book, Beating The Odds, is co-written with Célestin Monga, the current Chief Economist at the African Development Bank. It is ambitiously subtitled Jump-Starting Developing Countries.
The book contains some useful ideas on development policy, although for those more wedded to a political economy of development, rather than neoclassical economics, and all the self-styled ‘new’ branches of neoclassical theory, it is necessarily limited, compared to a more interdisciplinary story of development theory and policy.
I shall start with what is good in the book, and move on to what is missing, from the perspective of what I find to be a richer framework of political economy. Continue reading →
Tilman Altenburg of the German Development Institute discusses a range of issues related to industrial policy in developing countries. He is promoting his book, but that aside, he highlights some important points in the debates on industrial policy and its role in accelerating development.
The book itself is sitting on my bookshelf, and I hope to post on it at some point. In my view industrial policy, or at least state intervention to promote development, remains vital in both rich and poor countries. If it is to be successful, its form must necessarily change as countries approach the technology frontier in particular industrial sectors, but the need for it never really goes away.
It will also tend to vary depending on the structure of industry, the nature of technology and institutional and political factors.
“[O]rganised hypocrisy…characterises American industrial policy…mostly tucked away from public and academic attention, the US government has not had to navigate the tensions inherent in telling other countries–directly in bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements and indirectly through structural adjustment programmes in the interstate organisations where it is the dominant actor–‘do as I say, not as I do’. It says simply, ‘do as I (say I) do’. And so, ever since the 1980s, American and other Western governments have applied strong pressure on developing countries to ‘follow comparative advantage’ and keep specialising in exportable primary commodities, tourism and cheap-labour assembly manufacturing and to stop pressing for ‘policy space’ to develop production capabilities. This pressure continues imperial countries’ long history of trying to stop peripheral countries from entering dynamic sectors. The post-1980s push relies not on gunboats, colonial restrictions and racial ideology, but on conditional lending, ‘free trade’ agreements and neoclassical theory-the latter apparently justifying the proposition that developing countries should stick to their sectors of comparative advantage in their own best interest. This is a prescription for sustaining the core-periphery structure of the world economy, in which the activities with increasing returns, high linkages and high price and income elasticity of demand are located mainly in the core, sustaining the core’s prosperity relative to the periphery. One lesson…is that policy communities in other countries and interstate development organisations such as the World Bank and IMF should push pack when American policy makers and academics urge them to stick to the Washington Consensus ‘fundamentals’, whose efficacy can be seen from the economic success of the USA. The key point is this. For a developing country to sustain movement of the production structure into higher value-added activities (deploying technologies mostly developed elsewhere) the Washington Consensus agenda–opening the economy to the international economy and improving institutions of exchange–is at most a necessary condition. The American experience, and that of just about all the post-Second World War success stories, underlines the need for public policies to incentivize the production of some activities over others. Creating a level playing field does not ensure that the players turn up to play.”
Robert Wade, Cambridge Journal of Economics, May 2017
More on industrial policy, this time from Carol Newman of Trinity College, Dublin. She outlines some key findings on industrial development from some of the more successful late developers and looks ahead to what is necessary to encourage development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Interesting stuff. For such a short video, she manages to pack in quite a lot of information.
Here is a rather lively video introduction to South Korean development from VisualPolitik, describing how in the post-war period the political economy of the country encouraged rapid growth and transformation for many years. This enabled it to significantly catch up with the rich world’s economies. In the history of economic development, Korea has been a success story.
The video is partly wrong on the nature of trade policy: companies were encouraged to become successful exporters but there was at least temporary protection from selected imports at certain times.
It leaves out aspects such as the legacy of Japanese colonialism which bequeathed a particular political and social structure to the country. This certainly affected the path of development.
It also fails to mention the enlightened self-interest of the US, which provided aid and military support, as well as access to its markets, during the years of rapid growth. After all, they wanted to prevent the spread of communism and help create a successful capitalist South Korea. Continue reading →
Marxist economist Michael Roberts recently posted on the dire economic and social situation in Venezuela. An oil price boom in the 2000s allowed the government of Hugo Chavez to pour the resultant tax revenues into boosting the incomes and welfare of the poor. Significant progress was made with poverty reduction during this period and the economy grew relatively rapidly for a number of years.
All that is now going into reverse as the economy experiences a deep contraction, galloping inflation, and shortages of basic goods in the shops, alongside a consolidation of anti-democratic forces. With oil prices subdued and a lack of industrial diversification, the sources of any future economic recovery remain unclear.
As he has often argued when confronting the downsides of capitalism, Roberts argues that the problem is ‘not enough socialism’. His favoured policy response would be increased government ownership and direction of the economy via central planning, in order to boost investment and diversify the structure of the economy.
The intended ends of such a response are indeed laudable: during the boom years, the government relied on oil revenues to reduce poverty, as already mentioned. But it failed to encourage the diversification of production into higher value-added goods and services. Continue reading →