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
67
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
Whenyoulookup,howfarbackintimedoyousee?Oursensesare【C1】________inthepast.There’saflashoflightning,and
CitingOhioordinancesthatallowindividualstoseekchargesagainstsomeonethey’veseencommitacrime,sevenEuclidresident
Everyautumn,retailershirelargenumbersofseasonalworkerstohandletherushofholidaybusiness.Then,afterthenewyear
Accordingtoevolutionarypsychology,wehadtobeevolvedtobenicetoeachotherbecausetherewasnobetter________.
随着中国实现总量控制的目标所面临的挑战日益严峻,以部门为基础分配减排责任的可能性越来越大。另外,根据最新修订的《空气清洁条例》,排放许可最终被赋予了法律地位,并在指定和执行减排义务中起指导性作用。//根据这两项最新的政策进展,美国环保协会已经和国家环保总局
中国拥有自己的体育传统。大约在公元11世纪宋朝的时候,人们开始玩一种叫做“蹴鞠”的游戏。这个游戏被认为是古代足球的起源,在当时非常流行,女性们也自成一队,玩得兴高采烈。现在,您该明白为什么我们现在的女子足球队那么厉害了。//在北京,有许许多多精彩
A、2million.B、5%.C、2.5%.D、Halfamillion.D原文关于跨种族通婚的数据颇多,根据题干内容可确定原文第一段最后一句中“...almosthalfamillionofthemarebetweenbl
ValeriePlameWilsonwasconvictedoflyingandobstructioninthatleakinvestigation.
听是我们做的第一件事情,也是我们做的最多的事情。平均每个人日常交流中45%的时间都是在听,剩下的55%则用于写、读以及说。average:每个人。这段话的翻译不是很难,第一句话开宗明义,后面的内容其实可以从第一话推出来主要讲什么,考生需要注意的是两个数字要
A、Tohearinspiringspeeches.B、Toelectanewpartyleader.C、Toappraisetheparty’sperformance.D、Todiscusspolicy.B
随机试题
A.天南星配生姜B.甘草配甘遂C.石膏配牛膝D.丁香配郁金E.藜芦配白芍
患者,男性,20岁。1周来有食欲减退、恶心、呕吐,尿色加深,巩膜有轻度黄染,既往无肝炎病史。下列哪项提示HBV在体内复制并具有传染性?()
()账户可用于支付工资及奖金。
税务师事务所质量控制的要素包括()。
联结主义学习理论认为()
我国目前已经识别和认定的民族共有56个,我国还有()多万人的民族成分尚未最后确定。
一、注意事项1、申论考试与传统的作文考试不同,是分析驾驭材料的能力与表达能力并重的考试。2、作答参考时限:阅读时间40分钟,作答110分钟。3、仔细阅读给定的资料,按照后面提出的“作答要求”依次作答在答题纸指定位置。4、答题时认准题号,避免答错位置
关于职业道德描述正确的是()。
[*]
Readingtooneselfisamodernactivitywhichwasalmostunknowntothescholarsoftheclassicalmedievalworlds,whileduring
最新回复
(
0
)