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
95
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.
The sentence "Giving a worker a second computer does not double his output." (Para. 3) can be best interpreted as______.
选项
A、the measures adopted by the government are not effective at all
B、having more capital to work with is not necessarily effective
C、workers needs more than computers to achieve productivity
D、capital deepening leads to efficiency
答案
B
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/EuSO777K
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
People’snatural"flightorfight"responsewillbeautomatedwhen________withthephobiasource.
Thebest________ofpeople’sabilitytodealwellwithstressandanxietyistheirsocialconnection.
1986年全国人大常委会副委员长班禅喇嘛在西康地区大法会上教诲信徒们,要爱惜民族团结,维护祖国统一。在中国,公民的信仰自由受到法律保护。目前全西藏在寺僧尼约有14,000多人,另有800位宗教界人士在各级人大、政协、佛教协会和政府部门中工作。
海洋是全球生命支持系统的一个不可缺少的组成部分。海洋不仅是自然资源的宝库,同时也是我们人类居住环境的重要调节器。中国政府高度重视海洋的开发和保护,不断加强海洋综合管理,促进海洋产业的协调发展。中国已经形成了具有区域特征的多学科的海洋科学体系。国家
斯蒂芬?斯皮尔伯格最初执导电影的时候,导演在好莱坞最为重要,而如今拍摄电影正值市场控制了整个行业。无论在哪个时期他始终是世界上最有分量的制片人,这说明他才华横溢,又极富变通。斯皮尔伯格对现代电影最重要的贡献在于他有着敏锐的视角去发现并吸引广大观众
A、Itisaworldwideproblem,B、Itisaregionalproblem.C、Itisasocialproblem.D、Itisabiologicalproblem.A掌握同义词替换。原文中的un
A、Becauseofthedatathatcontaincreditcardinformation.B、Becauseofthedatathatcontainsocialsecuritynumbers.C、Becaus
WhichofthefollowingisNOTthepurposeofAmerica’scentralbank?
A、Blooddiseases.B、Heartattacks.C、Coldsorflu.D、Pneumonia.C
A、Thehugerolesomepeopleplayintransmittingideas.B、Thetransmissionofepidemicdiseases.C、Exceptionalepidemicdiseases
随机试题
使我们感到十分欣慰的是,警方正在调查事故的原因。
《抗菌药物,临床应用指导原则》属性是
各型链球菌中,致病力最强的是
其中核苷类药物主要有有关碘苷的抗病毒作用下列叙述不正确
在甲状腺激素合成过程中起关键作用的酶是
一般来说,企业编制的预算具有的作用包括()。
张某因工作调动于2010年8月将一套80m2的唯一家庭住房出售,售价100万元。该述中,正确的有()。
阅读下面的说明,回答问题1~问题4,将解答填入答题纸对应的解答栏内。[说明]阅读以下说明,回答问题1~问题4,将解答填入答题纸对应的解答栏内。windowsServer2003是一个多任务多用户的操作系统,能够以集中或分布的
第1台计算机在研制过程中采用了科学家()的两点改进意见。
Acommonassumptionabouttheprivatesectorofeducationisthatitcatersonlytotheelite.【C1】______recentresearchpoints
最新回复
(
0
)