Powrót polityki przemysłowej?

• Autorzy: Robert H. Wade

Warianty tytułu

Return of Industrial Policy?

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

W artykule przedstawiono podstawowe założenia stojące za neoliberalnym konsensusem - w szczególności zaś przywołano opinie jego zwolenników kwestionujących zasadność prowadzenia polityki przemysłowej. W dalszej części artykułu przytoczono argumenty na rzecz twierdzenia, że rząd Stanów Zjednoczonych od dawna prowadzi - skrywany i z dobrym efektem - słabo dotychczas rozpoznany typ polityki przemysłowej. Nie koncentruje się ona ani na indywidualnych firmach, ani na obszarze geograficznym, ale na sieci firm. Ta zmiana (niewielka) w sposobie podchodzenia do gospodarki pojawiła się w Stanach Zjednoczonych po 2008 r., prowadząc do wzrostu przyzwolenia na odgrywanie przez rząd sterującej roli wobec rynków. Ponadto, część państw przynależących do grupy krajów o średnim dochodzie, głównie z sektorami wytwórczymi kurczącymi się w obliczu konkurencji ze strony Azji Wschodniej, zaczęła na nowo wykazywać zainteresowanie polityką przemysłową. Wreszcie, część ekspertów Banku Światowego zaczęła w ostatnim okresie wykazywać zainteresowanie "budowaniem konkurencyjnych przemysłów" (czyli defacto polityką przemysłową ujętą pod inną nazwą), co ma miejsce po raz pierwszy od połowy lat osiemdziesiątych XX w. Kombinacja tych różnych czynników może zwiastować pojawianie się klimatu na rzecz podejmowania przez państwo bardziej znaczącej roli w zakresie wspierania rozwoju, przynajmniej w "zależnych gospodarkach rynkowych", takich jak te znajdujące się na peryferiach Europy. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

For the sake of freedom, economic growth and poverty reduction the state in market economies should limit itself to regulating markets and (sometimes) correcting "market failures". This neoliberal conception has been the nearconsensus for the past two to three decades in the West and in western-led international organizations like the World Bank. But as of recently the consensus has been challenged by circumstances with which it cannot contend, notably the Great Western Slump which started in 2008. Yet even as the narrative in Europe shifts away from emphasising the need for "austerity", emphasising instead the need for "growth", the measures invoked to promote growth mainly conform to the long-established neoliberal consensus, which are entirely consistent with the "austerity" agenda. The article spells out key ideas behind the neoliberal consensus - in particular, its rejection of industrial policy. It then argues that the US government has long practiced - below the radar, and to good effect - a hitherto little noticed type of industrial policy focused neither on the individual firm nor on the geographic region but on networks of firms, and that a (small) change in the American normative climate has occurred post 2008 in favour of a government steering role in markets. Moreover, some middle-income countries, with manufacturing sectors shrinking in the face of East Asian competition, have recently shown renewed interest in industrial policy. Finally, parts of the World Bank have recently begun to operationalize industrial policy, under the banner of "building competitive industries" (industrial policy by another name), as has not been the case since the mid 1980s. The combination of these several forces may herald the emergence of new norms in favour of a more "developmental" role of the state, at least in "dependent market economies" such as those on the European periphery. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Polityka przemysłowa; Neoliberalizm; Ekonomia rozwoju

EN

Industrial policy; Neoliberalism; Development economist

• Czasopismo: Zarządzanie Publiczne / Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie
• Rocznik: 2013
• Numer: nr 1 (23)
• Strony: 33--49

Twórcy

autor

Robert H. Wade

• Londyńska Szkoła Ekonomii

Bibliografia

• Becker G. (1985). "The best industrial policy is none at all", Business Week, August 25.
• Besley T., Persson T. (2011). Pillars of Prosperity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Best M. (1990). The New Competition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Chang H.J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder? Economic Development in Historical Perspective. London: Anthem.
• Easterly W. (2002). "The failure of development economics", Challenge, t. 45, nr 1, s. 88-103.
• Easterly W. (2009). "The indominable in pursuit of the inexplicable: The world development reports' failure to comprehend economic growth despite determined attempts, 1978-2008", w: S. Yusuf (red.), Development Economics Through the Decades: A Critical Look at 30 Years of The World Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Etzkowitz H., Ranga M., Brenner M., Fuaranys L., Maculan A.M., Kneller R. (2008). "Pathways to the Entrepreneurial University: Towards a global convergence", Science and Public Policy, t. 35, nr 9, s. 681-695.
• Feldman M., Kelley M. (2001). "Leveraging research and development", w: Ch. Wessner (red.), The Advanced Technology Program: Assessing Outcomes, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Franco G. (1996). Veja, November 15.
• Galbraith J.K. (1999). The Affluent Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Hicks J. (1946). Value and Capita (wyd.2). Oxford University Press.
• Human S., Provan K. (2000). "Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm networks", Administrative Science Quarterly, t. 45, nr 3, s. 327-365.
• Kitson M. (2005). "The American economic model and European economic policy", Cambridge Journal of Economics, t. 39, nr 7, s. 987-1001.
• Klein N. (2009). "Why we should banish Larry Summers from public life", Washington Post, April 19.
• Kohli A. (2004). State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lal D. (1983). The Poverty of'Development Economics'. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
• Leunig T. (2010). "Economy class: Public or private?", Prospect, 21 sierpnia.
• Lin J.Y. (2010). "Six steps for strategic government intervention", Global Policy, 1.1, nr 3, s. 330-331.
• Lin J.Y, Chang, H.J. (2009). "Should industrial policy in developing countries conform to comparative advantage or defy it?", Development Policy Review, t. 27, nr 5.
• List F. (1966). The National System of Political Economy. New York: Kelley.
• Mahbubani K. (2011). "US needs to shed its taboo on economic planning", Financial Times, May 06.
• Mankiw G. (2006). "Repeat after me", The Wall Street Journal, January 03.
• Mann M. (1997). "Has globalization ended the rise and fall of the Nation State?", Review of International Political Economy, t. 4, nr 3, s. 472-496.
• Matthews J. (2010). Strategizing in Industrial Clusters: Collective Efficiency, Increasing Returns and Higherorder Capabilities. Lund: University of Lund.
• Newsweek (2009). February 16.
• Noland M., Pack H. (2003). Industrial Policy in an Era of Globalization: Lessons from Asia. Washington DC: Institute of International Economics.
• Ozawa T. (2009). The Rise of East Asia: The Flying-geese' Theory of Tandem Growth and Regional Agglomeration. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
• Park S., Vetterlein A. (red.) (2010). Owning Development: Creating Policy Norms in the IMF and the World Bank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Philips K. (1992). "US industrial policy: Inevitable and ineffective", Harvard Business Review, t. 70, nr 4.
• Reinert E. (2007). How Rich Countries Got Rich... and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. London: Constable.
• Salazar-Xirinachs J., Niibler I. (2010). Review of Industrial Policy and Development M. Cimoli, G. Dosi, J. Stiglitz (red.) (2009), New York: Oxford University Press, International Labour Review, t. 149, nrl.
• Schrank A., Whitford J. (2009). "Industrial policy in the United States: A neo-Polanyian interpretation", Politics and Society, t. 37, nr 4, s. 521-553.
• Seers D. (1963). "The limitations of the special case", Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, t. 25, nr 2, s. 77-98.
• Skidelsky R., Martin F. (2011). "For a National Investment Bank", New York Review of Books, April 28.
• Storm S., Naasterpad C. (2005). "Strategic factors in economic development: East Asian industrialization 1950-2003", Development and Change, t. 36, nr 6, s. 1059-1094.
• Streeten P. (1983). "Development dichotomies", World Development, 1.11, nr 10, s. 875-89.
• Wade R. (1996). Japan, the World Bank, and the art of paradigm maintenance: The East Asia miracle in political perspective", New Left Review, t. 217, s. 3-36.
• Wade R. (1998). "The Asian debt-and-develop- ment crisis of 1997-? Causes and consequences", World Development, t. 26, nr 8, s. 1535-1553.
• Wade R. (2003). "What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of'development space'", Review of International Political Economy, t. 10, nr 4, s. 621-644.
• Wade R. (2004). Governing the Market. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Wade R. (2011a). "Emerging world order? From multipolarity to multilateralism in the G20, the World Bank, and the IMF", Politics and Society, t. 39, nr 3, s. 347-378.
• Wade R. (2011b), "Globalization, growth, poverty, inequality, resentment and imperialism", w: J. Ravenhill (red.), Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wolf M. (2004). Why Globalization Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Wolf M. (2011). "In the grip of a great convergence", Financial Times, January 05.
• World Bank (2009). Industrial Policies. Knowledge in Development Notes, December 31.
• Yusuf S., Nabeshima K. (2009). Tiger Economies Under Threat. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.7366/1898352912303