工业政策在一个联邦结构国家产业政策的美国文献翻译.doc

工业政策在一个联邦结构国家产业政策的美国文献翻译 2011 届本科毕业设计论文 外文翻译原文BEFORE INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN A FEDERALSTRUCTURESTATEINDUSTRIAL POLICY IN THE UNITED STATESConsidering stateindustrial policyeflforts directly let me say something about the scope and limits of the national initiatives that currently frame them I abstract initially from fiscal concerns iewhether there is any money to do that which is proposed and only look at contentTHE CLINTONIAN VIEW OF INDUSTRIAL POLICYThe "new Democrats11 of the Clinton administration came to power on the promise of delivering an economic policy different from the tax and spend and regulate policies alleged of old-style Democrats Whether they can deliver on that promise in a way that preserves discernible differences between Democratic and Republican economic policy is anyones guess The purported distinction from past policies on which this promise rests goes something like thisUnder "old" Democratic viewsdirect government regulation of prices and other conditions of market entry the use of government purchasing power to subsidize favored economic practices the redistribution of income on the basis of need rather than contribution and other efforts to alter the terms and conditions of economic reward were acceptable means of "promoting the general welfare The new1 Democratic view holds that such policies are generally pointlessself-defeating or malign They generate excessive bureaucracies inappropriately substitute government judgment for market judgmentare insufficiently attentive to labor supply effectsor otherwise presume greater government capacity to shape the economy than is warrantedOf the many reasons offered for this change of view the most basic concerns afundamental change in thestructureof the US economy itselfA generation agothe story goes the US operated as an essentially closed domestic system In that context effective government control of the domestic economy was indeed possibleNow however the US operates in a truly international economic system characterized by the relatively free flow of capital and goods across national borders In this world government can no longer directly determinea fortiori not with the command-and-control regulation and macro-economic policy tools available from old the character of production within its borderslargely because the very notion of economic "borders" is meaninglessThis viewit is emphasized does not amount to a prescription for laissez faire The Clintonians like the Dukakisites before them believe that government has an important role to play in securing "good jobs at good wages That role however is both diminished and changed by the new environment Instead of vainly trying to constrain capitals choices in economic development government should use its power to improve the factors of production at capitals disposal It should invest in physical infrastructure diffuse technology and improve the countrys human capital base This it is hopedwill make it an attractive site for investment by firms offering good jobs in particular those roving multinationals that locate their best jobs in rich nations even as they source much production to poor ones And thatit is thought is about as much as it is reasonable to hope forCompleting this story is a certain description of the current character of economic activity within the US itselfOn this description unrelenting pressures again heavily international ones are forcing a restructuring of US firms away from Taylorist production and toward "high performance forms of work organization engaged in "quality competition" As used in contemporary debates high performance organization roughly denotes the most complete and flexible deployment of firm resources to advance continuous innovation "Quality competition denotes a market strategy emphasizing non-price product or service features variety customization performancetimeliness in delivery attendantservicing of customers as well as cost Under a regime of quality competitionproducts and services are essentially all viewed as capital goods Customers assess their priceperformance ratiorather than price aloneIn a world economy densely populated by countries and firms paying a fraction of US wages such a quality strategy is essential to preserving living standards After all unless customers are getting a quality premium they will not be willing to absorb premium" labor costs But again according to the Clintonian viewfirms are already moving in the high-performance direction and it is assumed paying labor a premium as they do so There exists a happy congruence between what firms find they need to do to be profitable and what the society needs to secure the general welfareGovernments role in facilitating the high performance transition at home is equivalent to what is recommended for making the US an internationally attractive investment site education technology diffiisionmodernized infrastructure High performance work organization characterized by flexible automation on-line quality control multi-skilled work groups flattened management hierarchies increased cross-department communication greater autonomy for front-line production workers in all maimer of decisions requires workers with high and broad skills which recommends greater efforts in education and training To meet demand for high-performance supplier chains government should help diffuse technology be difiused to those small and medium-sized enterprises "foundation firmscurrently frozen out of capital markets And to satisfy demand for modem logistics it needs to revamp its rotting infrastructureWHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTUREWhat are we to make of all this as a description of the world and of appropriate policy What I make of it is that it is seriously wrongheaded To be sureinternational competition is real and the tasks of social management of the economy have importantly changed To be sure something like "quality competition is necessary to defending living standards in the United States And to be sure industrial restructuring of the right sort will require better education more technology diffusion and the repair and modernization of our infrastructure But the way in which any ofthese tasks will need to be discharged the degree to which firms will need to be pressured to accomplish them and whether their accomplishment alone exhausts the list of needed or possible interventions depends on ones analysis of the options available to government and the actual facts of current restructuring in the United States And on both these fronts I think the Clintonians are mistakenFor starters the picture of a more or less complete internationalization of the US economy is overdrawn To believe the Clintoniansthe economy is now one in which all factors move freely across borders except those sunk in the ground or attached directly to human beings the institutional infrastructure of production labor market institutions producer associationscommunity ties of various stripes and kinds is largely irrelevant to the quality of production and government has no hard ground on which to stand in imposing any social control over the economy The real economy however is one in which most goods and services are still not directly exposed to international competition it is one in which quality competition is critically contingent on immobile institutional supports providing training and integrated social services facilitating firm innovation and learningenabling and encouraging producers to live up to international quality standards attaching to this support a variety of antecedent conditions on its receipt and it is one in which government purchasing power alone provides a powerful weapon to shape the path of development This reality suggests that the room for maneuver and guidance is far greater than the Clintonians would have us believe Government need not be entirely timidAnd the government had better not be timid since the path of current economic restructuring in the US is not nearly as happy as the Clintonians like to thinkMost US firms are not responding to competitive pressures by going the "high-wage high-performance" route but by either "sweating11 labor under conditions of very low investment in training and new technology or by advancing a species of "lean commodity production that uses advanced quality and production cost-cutting tactics but does not share the resulting productivity gains with labor This pattern of response is what explains the last twenty years of data on wage decline wage depressionamong the fastest growing segments of the economy and the weak or negative relation on a firm and sectoral basisbetween productivity growth and wages Far from a happy congruence between what is needed for profitability and what is needed for general welfaregood firms are losing out to "bad firms pursuing tactics which if generalized will be already have been disastrous for living standardsWhat the US needs most to do in this context is foreclose the low-wage option on restructuring With a stick of direct labor market and production regulation and a carrot of government purchases and assistance awarded those firms moving in the desired direction it needs to push restructuring in a direction other than the one it now "naturally" takes This need not involve government substitution of its judgment for that of firms on how results are best achieved Nor must it take the form of "picking winners and losers by industry group However it will require setting social standards of performance for firms and using government power to enforce them Regrettably this is just what the administration appears unwilling to do One consequence of this unwillingness will be a continuation of present trends toward declining living standards and increased inequality A more immediate consequence is that even the administration narrower agenda of industry assistance will not enjoy broad business support and will have limited effect That agenda assumes an industry demand for higher quality factors in particular human capital that in most cases does not exist Advancing it risks having all the production and labor market effects of pushing on a stringHARD BUDGET CONSTRAINTS AND HARD LIBERALISMFinally hard budget constraints and an exceptionally "liberal institutional terrain create barriers to effective government intervention even of the narrower kind favored by the ClintoniansTo take only one examplethe administration had made clear its interest in devising a "school to work transition system in the US heavily modeled on German apprenticeship But the amounts of money being talked about are trivial To put this in perspective German apprentices each cost employers about 4500 a year on average in some areas of manufacturing the costs is several times this in what are typically four year programs of dual workplace-schoolinstructionWere a German apprenticeship system extended to the USwith thesixty-five percent rate of coverage for the total high school cohort claimed in Germany it would cost US employers about thirty-two billion dollars annuallyNo one seriously believes that anything approaching this effort will be made in the US anytime soon on behalf of young front-line workersEven if the money were available however a variety of institutional supports on which the German system relies are not available here In addition to high schools delivering young adults with sound knowledge tested at national standards something that it would be possible to do something aboutalbeit also costly the German system relies on several such institutional supports One is a dense network of more or less obligatory business association This assures requisite takeup rates among business of young apprentices and serves to generalize standards across firms A second is a fairly "patient" relationship between banks and industry This enables firms to invest in the skills of the future workhorse even during recession A third is an incredibly highly regulated youth labor market This makes it possible to set trainee allowances low which makes training itself affordable to firms It requires however limiting the availability of non-apprentice employment A fourth indispensable both to the provision and monitoring of trainingis competent and nearly universal worker representation in the forms of works councils and a powerful labor movement able to regulate training-compensation trade-offs and to push forindustrial upgrading society-wide Fifth and finally as that which apprenticeship both feeds and relies on is anindustrial culture in which firms are already organized in ways that take advantage of advanced skills This is what pulls the stringNone of this is available in the United States All of it would be powerfully resisted if anyone tried to build it And in no case can it be built overnight This lends an air of unreality to the bold claims being made for youth apprenticeship but not that program alone There are similar budget constraints and similar institutional gapsin virtually all the proposed areas of Clintonian intervention And so I am skeptical of itgoing very far So muchhowever for the national sceneSourceRogers Joel Canada United States Law Journal 1993Vol 19pl759p译文 工业政策在一个联邦结构国家产业政策的美国在考虑国家产业政策直接努力让我谈谈的范围和限制的国家行动目前框 架我最初抽象的财政问题比如说是否有任何金钱这是建议只看内容 clintonian的产业政策的意见新民主克林顿政府权力的承诺提供经济政策的不同税和开支和管制 的政策所称的旧型民主是否能兑现诺言保留明显分歧民主共和两党经济政 策是任何人的猜测据称从过去的政策区别的责任这一承诺是根据老民主意见政府直接管理的价格和其他条件的市场准入使用的 政府补贴购买力主张经济做法重新分配收入的基础上的需要而不是贡献和其 他努力改变条件的经济奖励手段是可以接受的促进普遍福利 新的民主 种观点认为这种政策是一般来说毫无意义的自取灭亡或诽镑他们产生过度 官僚机构不适当地替代政府判断市场判断不够重视劳动供应影响或以其他方 式擅自提高政府的能力形成经济比是值得的很多理由这种变化看最基本的问题的根本变化的结构的美国经济本身前 一代人的故事美国作为一项基本上是封闭的国内系统在这方面政府的有效控 制国内经济的确可能的然而现在美国的在一个真正的国际经济体制其特点 是比较资本自由流动和货物跨越国界的在这个世界上政府不再直接决定一一 个更不能与指挥和控制条例和宏观经济政策工具可以从旧的性质在其境内生产 主要是因为概念的经济边界是毫无意义这一观点强调没有一个处方放任clintonians的像dukakisites在他 们面前相信政府有一个重要的作用确保好工作好的工资这种作用但是 既减少和改变的新的环境而不是徒劳地试图抑制资本的选择经济发展政府应 使用其权力以改善生产要素在资本的处理应投资于基础设施传播技术提高 我国的人力资本基础这一点是希望将使它成为有吸引力的投资公司提供良好 的工作特别是这些巡回跨国公司找到他们最好的工作丰富的国家他们甚至 很多生产来源贫穷国家它是想是因为它是合理的希望完成这个故事是一定说明目前的经济性活动在美国本身这说明不懈压力 再次重国际的 迫使调整美国公司从taylorist生产对高性能形式的 组织工作进行质量竞争在当代辩论高性能组织大约是指最完整的灵 活部署资源推动公司不断创新"质量竞争指市场的战略强调非价格产品或服 务功能一品种改造性能及时提供相应服务的客户以及成本根据一项制 度的质量竞争产品和服务基本上是所有被认为是资本货物客户评估其价格 性能比率而不是价格本身在世界经济人口稠密的国家和企业支付一部分美国工资这种质量战略必 须维持生活毕竟除非客户得到一个质量保费他们将不愿意承担补价劳 动成本但据clintonian认为企业已经在高性能方向是承担支付劳动保费 他们这样做有一个幸福之间相互协调各公司找到他们要有盈利和他们的社会需 要确保一般福利政府的作用促进高性能过渡主是相当于什么是建议使美国国际上有吸引 力的投资网教育技术推广现代化基础设施高性能工作组织灵活的 特点是自动化在线质量控制多技术工作组缩减管理层次加强跨部门沟通 更大自治权的一线生产工人的所有方式的决定要求工人和广泛的高技能建议 更大的努力教育和培训为满足需求的高性能供应链政府应帮助传播技术传播 对小型和中型企业基金公司目前被冻结的资本市场和满足需求的现代物 流它需要改造其腐烂基础设施什么是错这种情况呢我们把这一描述的世界和适当的政策我做的是这是严重错误当然国 际竞争是现实的和任务的社会管理的经济有重要的是改变当然就像质量竞 争是要维护生活在美国和肯定产业结构调整对将需要更好的教育更多的 技术推广和修复和现代化建设的基础设施但是任何这些任务将需要履行的程 度公司将需要完成这些压力他们的成就和是否单独的废气的需要或可能取决 于干预的分析方法政府和事实目前的调整在美国和这两个方面的 clintonians我认为是错误的首先情况更不完整的国际化的美国经济透支相信clintonians现在的 经济是一