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
50
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 expression "manna from heaven" (Para. 11) can be best replaced by______.
选项
A、disaster
B、unexpected benefit
C、illusion
D、common sense
答案
A
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/zuSO777K
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
CitingOhioordinancesthatallowindividualstoseekchargesagainstsomeonethey’veseencommitacrime,sevenEuclidresident
Shecoversdeadbodiessothattheydonotseebychildrencominghomefromschool.
Likeplantsthatjostleforabareminimumofsoilandlight,humanbeingswouldeventuallyfillalltheavailableterritory,he
Howmuchphysicalactivityshouldteenagersdo,andhowcantheygetenough?Manyteenagersspendalotoftimebeingsedent
EveryyearBerryBros&Rudd,Britain’soldestwinemerchant,issuesapocket-sizedpricelist.Readingoldcopiesmakesamateur
EveryyearBerryBros&Rudd,Britain’soldestwinemerchant,issuesapocket-sizedpricelist.Readingoldcopiesmakesamateur
今天来这里开会,我的心情十分沉重。印度洋大地震及其引发的海啸,在短短几小时内就夺去了十几万人的宝贵生命,造成了巨大的损失。这不仅是有关国家的灾难,也是全人类的灾难。这场灾难牵动着每一个中国人的心。我愿借此机会,代表中国政府和13亿中国人民向遭受灾难的国家和
Thankyouall.Mr.VicePresident;SecretaryGates;MadamSpeaker;JusticesoftheSupremeCourt;membersofmyCabinetandadmi
A、Nobodywerekilled,fourinjured.B、Twowerekilled,fiveinjured.C、Twowerekilled,seveninjured.D、Nobodywerekilled,sev
随机试题
Ifthedeveloping-worldColombiansarehappymostlybecausetheyreallyliketobeandthedeveloped-worldJapanesearenotsoh
以下最有助于苯胺中毒诊断的是
砖基础施工技术要求,砖基础的转角处和交接处应同时砌筑,当不能同时砌筑时,应( )。
我国有许多新股是采用网上定价发行方式,其发行价格确定于()。
国际资本流动的内在动力在于()。
国内某企业欲在非洲直接投资建厂,生产治疗疟疾特效药,直接供给当地市场。根据国际生产折中理论,该企业至少具备的条件有()。
材料:今天语文课的学习内容是一篇文言课文。上课伊始,老师说:“这篇课文比较长,我们将用两节课学完”。说完,便转过身去板书。他刚写完课文题目,便听到有同学喊:“报告!”“什么事?”老师问。“老师,我不同意用两节课的时间学习这篇课文。”喊报告的那位同
“笔墨当随时代”的绘画理论是扬州八怪的主张。()
E-MailMadness:BreakingRulesandLovingItForalltheculturalupheavalsbeingwroughtbynewtechnology,thespreadofwr
A、Itmakesyoubelievethatbeingordinaryisnothingbad.B、Itmakesyoubelievethatyouhavealoserlifeunlessyoufollowt
最新回复
(
0
)