首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Fifty years ago, Robert Solow published the first of two papers on economic growth that eventually won him a Nobel prize. Celebr
Fifty years ago, Robert Solow published the first of two papers on economic growth that eventually won him a Nobel prize. Celebr
admin
2017-03-15
69
问题
Fifty years ago, Robert Solow published the first of two papers on economic growth that eventually won him a Nobel prize. Celebrated and seasoned, he was thus a natural choice to serve on an independent "commission on growth" announced last month by the World Bank. (The commission will weigh and sift what is known about growth, and what might be done to boost it.)
Natural, that is, except for anyone who takes his 1956 contribution literally. For, according to the model he laid out in that article, the efforts of policymakers to raise the rate of growth per head are ultimately futile.
A government eager to force the pace of economic advance may be tempted by savings drives, tax cuts, investment subsidies or even population controls. As a result of these measures, each member of the labour force may enjoy more capital to work with. But this process of "capital deepening", as economists call it, eventually runs into diminishing returns. Giving a worker a second computer does not double his output.
Accumulation alone cannot yield lasting progress, Mr. Solow showed. What can? Anything that allows the economy to add to its output without necessarily adding more labour and capital. Mr. Solow labeled this font of wealth "technological progress" in 1956, and measured its importance in 1957. But in neither paper did he explain where it came from or how it could be accelerated. Invention, innovation and ingenuity were all "exogenous" influences, lying outside the remit of his theory. To practical men of action, Mr. Solow’s model was thus an impossible tease: what it illuminated did not ultimately matter; and what really mattered, it did little to illuminate.
The law of diminishing returns holds great sway over the economic imagination. But its writ has not gone unchallenged. A fascinating new book, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations by David Warsh, tells the story of the rebel economics of increasing returns. A veteran observer of dismal scientists at work, first at the Boston Globe and now in an online column called Economic Principals, Mr. Warsh has written the best book of its kind since Peter Bernstein’s Capital Ideas.
Diminishing returns ensure that firms cannot grow too big, preserving competition between them. This, in turn, allows the invisible hand of the market to perform its magic. But, as Mr. Warsh makes clear, the fealty economists show to this principle is as much mathematical as philosophical. The topology of diminishing returns is easy for economists to navigate: a landscape of declining gradients and single peaks, free of the treacherous craters and crevasses that might otherwise entrap them.
The hero of the second half of Mr. Warsh’s book is Paul Romer, of Stanford University, who took up the challenge ducked by Mr. Solow. If technological progress dictates economic growth, what kind of economics governs technological advance? In a series of papers, culminating in an article in the Journal of Political Economy in 1990, Mr. Romer tried to make technology "endogenous", to explain it within the terms of his model. In doing so, he steered growth theory out of the comfortable cul-de-sac in which Mr. Solow had so neatly parked it.
The escape required a three-point turn. First, Mr. Romer assumed that ideas were goods—of a particular kind. Ideas, unlike things, are "non-rival": Everyone can make use of a single design, recipe or blueprint at the same time. This turn in the argument led to a second: the fabrication of ideas enjoys increasing returns to scale. Expensive to produce, they are cheap, almost costless, to reproduce. Thus the total cost of a design does not change much, whether it is used by one person or by a million.
Blessed with increasing returns, the manufacture of ideas might seem like a good business to go into. Actually, the opposite is true. If the business is free to enter, it is not worth doing so, because competition pares the price of a design down to the negligible cost of reproducing it.
Unless idea factories can enjoy some measure of monopoly over their designs—by patenting them, copyrighting them, or just keeping them secret—they will not be able to cover the fixed cost of inventing them. That was the final turn in Mr. Romer’s new theory of growth.
How much guidance do these theories offer to policymakers, such as those sitting on the World Bank’s commission? In Mr. Solow’s model, according to a common caricature, technology falls like "manna from heaven", leaving the bank’s commissioners with little to do but pray. Mr. Romer’s theory, by contrast, calls for a more worldly response: educate people, subsidies their research, import ideas from abroad, carefully gauge the protection offered to intellectual property.
But did policymakers need Mr. Romer’s model to reveal the importance of such things? Mr. Solow has expressed doubts. Despite the caricature, he did not intend in his 1956 model to deny that innovation is often dearly bought and profit-driven. The question is whether anything useful can be said about that process at the level of the economy as a whole. That question has yet to be answered definitively. In particular, Mr. Solow worries that some of the "more powerful conclusions" of the new growth theory are unearned, flowing as they do from powerful assumptions.
At one point in Mr. Warsh’s book, Mr. Romer is quoted comparing the building of economic models to writing poetry. It is a triumph of form as much as content. This creative economist did not discover anything new about the world with his 1990 paper on growth. Rather, he extended the metre and rhyme-scheme of economics to capture a world—the knowledge economy—expressed until then only in the loosest kind of doggerel. That is how economics makes progress. Sadly, it does not, in and of itself, help economies make progress.
Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?
选项
A、A government eager to force the pace of economic advance may encourage savings, cut taxes, grant investment subsidies or even population control.
B、The new book Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations challenges the law of diminishing returns.
C、Neither the book Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations nor Mr. Solow’s theory is grounded.
D、Mr. Solow has expressed insistence that policymakers need Mr. Romer’s model.
答案
B
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/7wSO777K
本试题收录于:
NAETI高级口译笔试题库外语翻译证书(NAETI)分类
0
NAETI高级口译笔试
外语翻译证书(NAETI)
相关试题推荐
U.S.jobgrowthwassurprisinglystrongin2018,butdon’texpectthattohappenagainthisyear,witheconomicheadwindsintens
WhenFacebooksaiditwouldstartadatingserviceinColombiainSeptember,ErikaRamossignedup.Single,35,livinginBo
Allaroundherthroughthedaypeoplespokequietlyandwept.Andsomeoftherefugeeshavemedicalbackgroundstendedtothewo
Theelectionsof2015and2017broughtin103newToryMPs,madeupathirdofthepartyintheCommons.
Itwouldbewrongto________someoneforerroneousremarksbecauseitisimpossibleforpeopletogeteverythingrightwhenthey
为了成为国际一流的商业银行,今后国有商业银行必须围绕以下两个重点加快综合改革:一是进行产权制度改革,通过建立多元化股权结构,实现所有权与经营权的分离,建立起法人治理结构和现代银行制度。二是推进银行内部机制改革,强化内部管理,建立创新和激励机制,提高核心竞争
A、Becauseofthedatathatcontaincreditcardinformation.B、Becauseofthedatathatcontainsocialsecuritynumbers.C、Becaus
A、Topromotesalesofbicycles.B、Toencouragecycling.C、Toreducecaraccidents.D、Toimproveroadconditions.B
A、Thepianistwaswhisperingtotheaudienceimpolitelywhileplaying.B、Thenoisedidn’tbotherthepianist.C、Thepianistdist
A、Theoldershegotthemorecomfortableshewaswithherself.B、Asshegotoldershenolongerransacredanymore.C、Now,alot
随机试题
关税
超声经腹诊断前置胎盘时,膀胱应
患者,男,32岁。工作时不甚从脚手架上坠落,头部受伤,一过性昏迷,头痛、呕吐急诊入院。为预防脑水肿,降低颅内压,护士应协助患者采取
对一般感染伤口进行紫外线照射时应采用
A.描述性研究B.病例对照研究C.队列研究D.实验性研究E.理论性研究
对于财政部代理发行地方政府债券的投标最高限额限定,下面说法正确的是()。
土地一旦被用于某种运输设施建设,就不能同时用于其他产品的生产或提供其他服务,这说明资源的使用会产生()。
某校学生参加秋游,如果每台车坐60人,则调15台车还不够,若每台车坐70人,则调14台车还空余。最后决定改乘面包车,每台可坐x人,只需调x台车正好坐满,共有多少师生参加秋游?()
Bigcompaniesswallowlittleoneseveryday.Sothe【C1】________onMarch25thbyYahoo(annualrevenue,$5billion)ofSummly,a
某系统的可靠性结构框图如图6-1所示。该系统由4个部件组成,其中2、3两部件并联冗余,再与1、4部件串联构成。假设部件2、3、4的可靠度分别为0.80、0.80、0.90。若要求该系统的可靠度不低于0.75,则进行系统设计时,分配给部件1的可靠度至少应为(
最新回复
(
0
)