learn from past experiences

2013-11-17 17:42:49

　　An alternative perspective on non-linearities was the Growth Diagnostics

　　or Decision Tree approach suggested by Hausmann, Rodrik, and

　　Velasco (2005). They recognized the central role of structural change in

　　economic development and argued that there are “binding constraints” on

　　growth in each country. These authors suggested that binding constraints

　　can vary over time and across countries. They concluded that identifi cation

　　of the binding constraint was therefore key in practice. This framework

　　highlighted pragmatically the inability of governments to reform

　　everything and stressed the need to prioritize reforms, which should be

　　done through the information revealed by shadow prices. It should be

　　noted that the Growth Diagnostics approach is not operational unless

　　one assumes away reform complementarities, which is the feature of

　　linear growth regressions.

　　The divergence in growth performance between developed and developing

　　countries, despite predictions of convergence from mainstream

　　economic theory, has led to controversy. Some have concluded that the policy

　　prescriptions, or expectations about their effectiveness, or both, were

　　wrong. Others have observed that growth researchers had paid limited

　　attention to heterogeneity (the specifi c characteristics of each country). The

　　suggestion that cross-country distribution may be multimodal (with the

　　existence of “convergence clubs”) did not settle the debate about which

　　new directions were needed for growth research. Instead, many basic questions

　　have come back on the agenda: Are development economists looking

　　in the wrong place in their quest for the determinants of growth? Should

　　the focus be on institutions (institutional outcomes), instead of or in addition

　　to policies? And, assuming that they are not refl ecting other factors,

　　how can good institutional outcomes be generated?

　　These unanswered questions were on the agenda for a long time. Starting

　　in the 1980s, many development economists tried to understand

　　better the causality of relationships and the various transmission channels

　　through which policies, institutional changes, or foreign aid affect

　　growth. They were also the rationale for an increased focus of growth

　　research on microbehavior issues at the household and fi rm levels, with

　　two goals: (i) allowing for heterogeneity in the economy (across and

　　within countries); and (ii) investigating how constraints to growth operate

　　at the microlevel.

　　The growing disappointment and disillusionment with aid effectiveness

　　also led to the quest for rigorous impact evaluation of development projects

　　and programs. This has generated a new approach to development

　　led by economists at the MIT Poverty Lab, whose goal is “to reduce poverty

　　by ensuring that policy is based on scientifi c evidence” through the

　　use of randomized control trials (RCT) or social experiments. Although

　　RCT are good tools for understanding the effectiveness of some specifi c

　　microprojects, they often do not start from a clear strategic assessment of

　　how a particular method would fi t the knowledge gaps of highest priority

　　(Ravallion 2009). All too often, research looks for topics “under the light.”

　　The positive outcomes for policymaking are more often the occasional

　　by-products of research than its objective from the outset.

　　Recent microempirical studies may have indeed shed light on some

　　important problems, such as the impact of the investment climate

　　on fi rm performance or the impact of household behavior on productivity

　　( Rosenzweig and Wolpin 1985). But “there is a risk the bulk of

　　present-day research in development economics appears to be too narrowly

　　focused and/or of too little generalizability to help much in the fi ght

　　against poverty and to facilitate structural change and sustained growth”

　　(World Bank 2010).

　　The time has come to reexamine the state of development economics,

　　to learn from past experiences and previous knowledge, and to offer new

　　thinking and a new framework. Drawing lessons from past experience and

　　from economic theories, the next section presents the key principles of a

　　new structural economics, which is a neoclassical approach to economic

　　structure and dynamic change in the process of economic development.1

本文摘自《新结构经济学》

　　 Economic development is a process of continuous technological innovation and structural transformation. Development thinking is inherently tied to the quest for sustainable growth strategies. This book provides a neoclassical approach for studying the determinants of economic structure and its transformation and draws new insights for development policy. The market is the basic mechanism for effective resource allocation at each level of development. However, economic development as a dynamic process entails structural changes, including industrial upgrading and diversification and corresponding improvements in hard and soft infrastructure. Such upgrading and improvements require coordination and go hand in hand with large externalities to firms transaction costs and returns to capital investment. Thus, in addition to an effective market mechanism, the government should play an active role in facilitating structural changes. The book provides empirical evidence in support of this framework as well as concrete advice to development practitioners.