Industrial policy in the end there is no need to engage in caxa实体设计

Since the industrial policy in the end there is no need to engage in the Chinese Economic Forum 50 Huang Yiping reform and opening up, China’s economy has made remarkable achievements, but the industrial policy still seems lackluster. Or waste a lot of resources, such as local governments now settle a matter by leaving it unsettled, in response to the advocacy of "mass innovation, the entrepreneurial". Or like a swarm of bees, in a short period of time caused by the industry overcapacity, such as photovoltaic industry. In the end, is there any need for the industrial policy to adopt the industrial policy and the industrial policy? This is an important issue that scholars pay close attention to economic development. The issue of industrial policy may initially be related to the problem of "market failure". For example, the cost of innovation is high, the risk is large, but the income can not be fully internalized, it is difficult to develop new industries. In this way, if the government take some policy measures, may help overcome market failure. But there is no clear conclusion about the effectiveness of the intervention. The success of the case, of course, but most of the industrial policy is not successful. After the Second World War, some developing countries supported the "immature industry", which has not been developed for decades. Therefore, some scholars questioned the value of industrial policy: the government is smarter than the market? The so-called industrial policy, is a policy intervention taken by the government on the formation and development of specific industries of this intervention, can be all kinds of subsidies, can also be a specific administrative and regulatory means, in short is to help eliminate the bottleneck of the development of emerging industries. I am not an expert in the study of industrial policy, but I have been thinking about how to realize the upgrading of industry and the problem of the middle income trap. I understand the logic of industrial policy from the point of view of overcoming market failure. But what is the effective industrial policy? The answer may Different people, different views. I focus on the following five aspects: to adapt to the market, do not limit competition, cautious intervention, exit mechanism and post evaluation. If you can not do these, industrial policy is likely to get even more harm than good. The necessity of industrial policy on the role of industrial policy disputes, there are many reasons, there are factors of ideas, but also the implementation of the problem. Sometimes the same industrial policy and results, evaluation is not consistent. For example, the evaluation of industrial policy on the contribution of the East Asian miracle, there are differences. Chalmers? Johnson (Chalmers Johnson) is considered to be the main industry policy to promote Japan’s economic productivity and economic growth rate, while Heather? Smith (HeatherSmith) through the study of South Korea and Taiwan, but found that the main market is open and non industrial policy contribution. In addition, Hongkong advocates free market, while Singapore emphasizes government intervention. Which one is better? There seems to be no consensus. Even at different times, the conclusions are different. Some scholars hold a skeptical attitude towards industrial policy, which is easier to understand. China’s annual industrial policy, such as in 2016, the government decided to continue to support energy conservation and environmental protection, software, cloud computing, equipment manufacturing and light相关的主题文章:

Comments are closed.