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
43
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.
According to the passage, which of the following is NOT true?
选项
A、The author holds that Solow’s 1956 contribution was a substantial feat.
B、Solow thinks that progress can be made with more labour and capital.
C、The author concludes that manufacture of ideas is not a good business to go into.
D、It is impossible to challenge the two articles Mr. Solow issued.
答案
A
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ouSO777K
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
ThecompanyisallbutbannedinAmericabecauseoffearthatitswarescontain"backdoors"forChinesespookstoeavesdropond
Thisisanabidingcomplaintamongyoungmeninacountrywithasurfeitofconsensus.
Everyautumn,retailershirelargenumbersofseasonalworkerstohandletherushofholidaybusiness.Then,afterthenewyear
Inthefaceofthe________ofhisnation,thepoetwasverysadanddeterminedtodevotehimselftothecountry,yethiseveryef
TheAPPwillkeep________ofyourexercisesonitslog,andformapersonalhealthandphysicaldocumentation.
旅游是一项集观光、娱乐、健身为一体的愉快而美好的活动。旅游业随着时代进步而不断进步。从20世纪中期起,现代旅游业在全世界迅速发展。游客人数不断增长,旅游业规模持续扩大,旅游经济地位显著提升,旅游活动愈益成为各国人民交流文化、增进友谊、扩大交往的重
作为一名运动员、教练员和体育管理者,尤其是作为奥运会的技术官员,我最大的体会是:在奥运会中,没有什么比运动员的利益更重要了。我们整个奥运计划的制定是以运动员需要为中心的。//在做任何决定时,我们都要问一问自己,什么对奥运会和残奥会运动员最有利。在国际单项体
A、Efficiencyofgovernment.B、Environmentalprotection.C、Decentralization.D、Trafficconcerns.C根据题干要求找寻到有关韩国总统的说法,发现原文第三段“hes
Whatdidthespeakerexpectoflifeinacountrytown?
Belgiummayappeartooutsidersasagoodexampleofethnicpowersharing,butthelasttimetheFrench-speakingWalloonssuppli
随机试题
甲公司持有乙公司3%股权,对乙公司不具有重大影响。甲公司在初始确认时将对乙公司股权投资指定为以公允价值计量且其变动计入其他综合收益的金融资产。2×18年5月,甲公司对乙公司进行增资,增资后甲公司持有乙公司20%股权,能够对乙公司施加重大影响。不考虑其他因素
鸡传染性支气管炎的病原是
头痛是哪些疾病的先兆症状()。
甲县某烟草公司去相邻的乙县收购烟叶,2017年6月9日支付烟叶收购价款80万元,另对烟农按收购价款的10%支付了价外补贴,下列纳税事项的表述中,正确的是()。
实践中,我国境内商业银行可以向外籍自然人发放个人住房贷款。()
对生产计划的监督、检查和控制,发现偏差及时调整的过程可称为()。
随着社会的飞速发展和二胎时代的到来,家长“望女成凤”“望子成龙”的希望没有丝毫的减退。家长们都不希望自己的子女输在起跑线上,在幼儿园阶段就已经纷纷攀比起来,尤其是部分家长的“神童”情结泛滥。他们给孩子报了大量的补习班,导致这些孩子在掌握了大量的知识的同时也
以下社会组织属于财团法人的是()。
TheCapitalAirportisthelargestoneinChina.TheCapitalAirportis______anyotherairportinChina.
I.Q.standsfor"IntelligenceQuotient"whichisameasureofaperson’sintelligencefoundbymeansofanintelligencetest.I
最新回复
(
0
)