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
54
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 passage can be classified into______.
选项
A、argumentations
B、descriptions
C、comparisons
D、saga
答案
A
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/suSO777K
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
Underthecircumstanceofanewmediaage,emergenciesofpublichealthcanbemoredevastatingbecausetheycaneasilyresulti
Seekingtoframehisnewadministrationasonewithafirmfocusonclosingthegapbetweenchildrenfromaffluentandpoorfami
Shedidn’tanswer,onlysmiledthinly,becauseshecouldnever,givesahundredlifetimes,haveexplainedtohimthedistancesh
Accordingtothemortgagepoliciesofthebank,propertyonwhichmoneyhasbeenlentcanbe________whentheloanispaidback.
EveryyearBerryBros&Rudd,Britain’soldestwinemerchant,issuesapocket-sizedpricelist.Readingoldcopiesmakesamateur
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。
A、Itisaworldwideproblem.B、Itisaregionalproblem.C、Itisasocialproblem.D、Itisabiologicalproblem.A第一段第二句便提到“The
A、Becauseofthedatathatcontaincreditcardinformation.B、Becauseofthedatathatcontainsocialsecuritynumbers.C、Becaus
Thebasicstoryisveryoldindeedandfamiliartomostofus.Theheroine,Cinderella,istreatedcruellybyherstepmotherand
随机试题
泻下药中有效成分不溶于水,宜人丸散的约是()(1998年第29题)
下列数字中属于日本忌讳数字的有()。
中世纪的自治城市在意大利的典型形态是()
颅内生殖细胞瘤最常见于哪个部位
不符合病室交班报告要求的是
下牙槽神经
有一高速公路建设项目,项目所在地域属黄河阶地,分布在黄河南岸与黄土丘陵塬地之间,表面多为砂土,结构疏松。该项目沿线经过地区多数为耕地及经济林地,另有部分荒坡地,公路边沿地带有一湿地自然保护区,沿线存在居民点与学校。根据以上内容,回答以下问题。
根据个人所得税的规定,个人独资企业的投资者及其家属发生的生活费用与企业生产经营费用混合在一起且难以划分的,其正确的账务处理是()。
从人类开始有组织的活动开始,就一直实施着各种类型和规模的项目,只是人们并未意识到项目管理对社会进步的意义。因此,仅凭个人的智慧、才能和经验去完成任务,根本谈不上科学性和系统性。直到20世纪初,项目管理还没有先进的工具和方法、科学的管理手段、明确的操作规程和
在解应用题时,老师总是一再强调要读懂题目,必要时可以画示意图。他这样做的目的是为了让学生()。
最新回复
(
0
)