2012年(464)
分类: Delphi
2012-06-01 14:29:24
Perhaps I've got this wrong for machinery industry, but there is too little
effort to address such concerns among advocates for manufacturing. I'm not
interested in advocacy. I want to see a rigorous effort to control for these
kinds of effects, even if that's likely to cast
manufacturing in a less flattering light.
And then, Mrs Tyson continues,
there is the importance of manufacturing to innovation. She notes that
manufacturing accounts for 68% of business R&D spending, which might well be
true, but which tells us relatively little about contributions to innovation.
(To what extent does spending translate into innovation?) Ditto this, from a
Brookings' paper:
All manufacturing industries, including such reputedly “low
technology” ones as wood products, furniture, and textiles, exceeded the
non-manufacturing averages for both product and process introductions, while
only a few science-and information technology-intensive non-manufacturing
industries (software, telecommunications/ Internet service/Web search/data
processing, computer systems design and related services, and scientific R&D
services) equaled or exceeded the manufacturing averages.
Now wait a moment.
Many more Americans work in non-manufacturing industries like wholesale and
retail trade than in manufacturing industries, and so we might think it damning
to hear that most of these non-manufacturing industries are not particularly
innovative. Yet a moment's thought brings the realisation that the retail trades
are in the midst of revolutionary change spurred on by technological, process,
and business-model innovation. It just happens that this transformation is being
led by, "a few science-and information technology-intensive non-manufacturing
industries (software, telecommunications/ Internet service/Web search/data
processing, computer systems design and related services...)".
This brings us
to the crux of the issue. Mrs Tyson's piece was in some ways a direct response
to a column by economist Christina Romer, who argued in early February that
manufacturers don't deserve special treatment. Mrs Romer also came in for harsh
treatment at this morning's Brookings event. Manufacturing advocates (and plenty
of others, I suppose) seem to enjoy poking fingers in economists' eyes.
Mrs
Romer, one critique went, was trapped within her discipline's framework, looking
for and unable to find market failures sufficient to justify government
intervention.
Strikingly, however, the policies supported by Mrs Tyson and by
many of this morning's speakers are unlikely to inspire much opposition from Mrs
Romer who, as a relatively orthodox economist, is happy to have government
respond to clear market failures. Economists favour support for research,
recognising the positive externality of general knowledge creation. They favour
infrastructure investment on public good
grounds. They welcome investment in training, given the spillovers from
increased human capital investment. They favour a streamlined regulatory
environment and a simplified tax code with more competitive corporate tax
rates.