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
84
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
Everyautumn,retailershirelargenumbersofseasonalworkerstohandletherushofholidaybusiness.Then,afterthenewyear
Everyautumn,retailershirelargenumbersofseasonalworkerstohandletherushofholidaybusiness.Then,afterthenewyear
Chineseinvestmentstherehavesoared,tonearly$40bnin2016—almostwhatthepreviousyears’total.
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。
中国的对外开放是“引进来”与“走出去”相结合的对外开放。中国政府在鼓励外商来华投资的同时,支持并鼓励有实力的中国企业到海外投资。在中国政府的大力推进下,近年来,中国企业实施“走出去”战略实现了较大跨越。截至2006年底,中国企业在160多个国家和地区投资设
尊敬的来宾,女士们,先生们:早上好!我很高兴来参加《财富》全球论坛,也很荣幸在此与大家交流一下我的看法。27年前,“开放”对于中国还是一个很陌生的词汇。在27年问,国民生产总值增加了1,100%,平均增速达9.4%。开放给中国人民
中国西藏自治区位于青藏高原的主体,地势高峻,地理特殊,野生动植物资源、水资源和矿产资源丰富,素有“世界屋脊”和“地球第三极”之称。这里不仅是南亚、东南亚地区的“江河源”和“生态源”,还是中国乃至东半球气候的“启动器”和“调节区”。//西藏自治区面
Whatdidthespeakerexpectoflifeinacountrytown?
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
随机试题
焊接接头冲击试样的缺口不能开在()位置。
患者便血已半年,怯寒神疲,肛门下坠,舌质淡薄脉细弱。治则宜用
怀疑颈椎不稳,下列哪项检查有助于确诊若上述检查均未见异常,下列哪项检查最有助于确诊
疾病对患者的意义和影响主要是
A、骨B、筋C、气D、血E、脉久行伤()
D类神经症剖面图的特点是量表1、2、3的T分均高于65分,并且()。
计算
【S1】【S9】
MasstransportationrevisedthesocialandeconomicfabricoftheAmericancityinthreefundamentalways.Itcatalyzed(刺激)phy
A、Thesadnessofbeinginvolvedinaccidents.B、Waystolimittheuseofprivatecars.C、Theseriouspollutiononmotorroads.D
最新回复
(
0
)