Although industrial policies in many countries have failed, a country＇s economic development is bound to be unsuccessful without industrial policy. The responsibility of an economist is not to object to any kind of i...Although industrial policies in many countries have failed, a country＇s economic development is bound to be unsuccessful without industrial policy. The responsibility of an economist is not to object to any kind of industrial policy for fear of failure, nor unconditionally support all kinds of industrial policies because industrial policy is a necessary condition for the success of economic development. An economist should explore the causes behind the success or failure of industrial policies so as to help government reduce the chance of failure and improve the probabilities of success in applying industrial policies. This paper analyzes why industrial policy is necessary for successful economic development. This paper notes that synergy of ＂efficient market＂ and ＂facilitating state＂ is indispensable for economic development, and also analyzes why developed and developing countries failed in applying industrial policies. From the perspective of New Structural Economics, in this paper industries in China are divided into five types： catching-up industries, leading-edge industries, comparative advantage-losing industries, short innovation cycle industries and comparative advantage-defying strategic industries. The paper also analyzes how to formulate effective industrial policy in China. It is noted that, based on the characteristics of each industry, ＂efficient market＂ and ＂facilitating state＂ should both play their respective roles in promoting China＇s industrial transformation and upgrading.展开更多
The structural adjustment of China＇s economy requires the support of economic theories dedicated to structural issues. But new structural economics （NSE） is significantly different from old structural economics （...The structural adjustment of China＇s economy requires the support of economic theories dedicated to structural issues. But new structural economics （NSE） is significantly different from old structural economics （OSE） in terms of development strategies and policies. They expound on the paths of industrial structure improvement and steady economic growth for developing countries from two different perspectives, comparative advantage and first-mover advantage, which result in a toss-up. From the clashing theories and observations of the true state of Chinese economy, we can see that the core features of China＇s current economic structure are a cumulative result of the insufficient ＂complementary＂ and ＂inducing＂ roles of government investment, which requires the introduction of certain investment models to design an effective structural adjustment plan. From the perspective of investment priority, scope （public service or production）, motives, capacity and decision-making and multi-sectoral coordination, this paper analyzes the key connections between NSE and OSE and strives to design an appropriate and accurate investment plan from the perspective of stability, flexibility and under- pinning in the hope of resolving the issues facing the structural adjustment of the Chinese economy. The first step is to identify investment priorities and enable the market to play the decisive role and the government the guiding role. The second step is to identify crucial nodes and adapt investments to trends of the new industrial revolution. The third step is to focus on the resolution of livelihood issues to steer China out of the low-income trap and clear of the middle-income trap. Not only do investment variables have to become an instrument to continuously improve Chi- na＇s factor endowment structure, but also investment as a mechanism underpinning development has to be adopted throughout the entire duration of the process of reform to fulfill the goal of structural adjustment pursued by both NSE and OSE.展开更多
文摘Although industrial policies in many countries have failed, a country＇s economic development is bound to be unsuccessful without industrial policy. The responsibility of an economist is not to object to any kind of industrial policy for fear of failure, nor unconditionally support all kinds of industrial policies because industrial policy is a necessary condition for the success of economic development. An economist should explore the causes behind the success or failure of industrial policies so as to help government reduce the chance of failure and improve the probabilities of success in applying industrial policies. This paper analyzes why industrial policy is necessary for successful economic development. This paper notes that synergy of ＂efficient market＂ and ＂facilitating state＂ is indispensable for economic development, and also analyzes why developed and developing countries failed in applying industrial policies. From the perspective of New Structural Economics, in this paper industries in China are divided into five types： catching-up industries, leading-edge industries, comparative advantage-losing industries, short innovation cycle industries and comparative advantage-defying strategic industries. The paper also analyzes how to formulate effective industrial policy in China. It is noted that, based on the characteristics of each industry, ＂efficient market＂ and ＂facilitating state＂ should both play their respective roles in promoting China＇s industrial transformation and upgrading.
文摘The structural adjustment of China＇s economy requires the support of economic theories dedicated to structural issues. But new structural economics （NSE） is significantly different from old structural economics （OSE） in terms of development strategies and policies. They expound on the paths of industrial structure improvement and steady economic growth for developing countries from two different perspectives, comparative advantage and first-mover advantage, which result in a toss-up. From the clashing theories and observations of the true state of Chinese economy, we can see that the core features of China＇s current economic structure are a cumulative result of the insufficient ＂complementary＂ and ＂inducing＂ roles of government investment, which requires the introduction of certain investment models to design an effective structural adjustment plan. From the perspective of investment priority, scope （public service or production）, motives, capacity and decision-making and multi-sectoral coordination, this paper analyzes the key connections between NSE and OSE and strives to design an appropriate and accurate investment plan from the perspective of stability, flexibility and under- pinning in the hope of resolving the issues facing the structural adjustment of the Chinese economy. The first step is to identify investment priorities and enable the market to play the decisive role and the government the guiding role. The second step is to identify crucial nodes and adapt investments to trends of the new industrial revolution. The third step is to focus on the resolution of livelihood issues to steer China out of the low-income trap and clear of the middle-income trap. Not only do investment variables have to become an instrument to continuously improve Chi- na＇s factor endowment structure, but also investment as a mechanism underpinning development has to be adopted throughout the entire duration of the process of reform to fulfill the goal of structural adjustment pursued by both NSE and OSE.
