DOCSLIB.ORG

IIPP Newforum Report Formatted

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NO. 05 2020 Working Papers Challenge-driven economic policy: A new framework for Germany Rainer Kattel, Mariana Mazzucato, Keno Haverkamp and Josh Ryan-Collins Impressum: Forum New Economy Working Papers ISSN 2702-3214 (electronic version) Publisher and distributor: Forum for a New Economy Neue Promenade 6, 10178 Berlin, Germany Telephone +49 (0) 30 767596913, email [email protected] Lead Editor: Thomas Fricke An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded · from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com · from the RePEc website: www.RePEc.org · from the Forum New Economy website: https://www.newforum.org Challenge-driven economic policy: A new framework for Germany Rainer Kattel*, Mariana Mazzucato, Keno Haverkamp and Josh Ryan-Collins Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, University College London Abstract German government is stepping into a new era with its COVID-19 recovery support measures. It is leaving behind its ordoliberal foundations which see the role of the state as making sure policy conditions enable markets to function properly. In this view, the state should fix market failures and leave the rest to industry. Already before the pandemic, Ger- man policy makers were showing increasing appetite to go beyond market-fixing and experi- ment with a more overt activist state. With the handling of COVID-19, Germany has taken another step in this direction– it is now at the forefront of taking bold policy action to reshape its economy in the face of the pandemic. Yet, this paper argues Germany’s public funding of R&D supports mostly incremental advances and its financial system is largely still funding carbon lock-in and value extraction rather than transforming the economy to deal with 21st century challenges. Germany needs to build on its recent economic policy initiatives, and successful institutions such as the KfW, and develop a bold new industrial strategy that en- compasses science, technology and innovation, financial and procurement policies. The new industrial strategy is not about ‘more state’ or ‘less state’, but a different type of state. One that is able to act as an investor of first resort, catalysing new types of growth, and in so do- ing crowd in private sector investment and innovation which represent expectations about fu- ture growth areas. This requires a new form of collaboration between state and business – more about picking the willing than picking winners. JEL codes: E50, G20, H57, L50, O30 Keywords: Germany, industrial policy, mission-oriented innovation. *Corresponding Author: Rainer Kattel, Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP), University College London (UCL), 11 Montague Street, London, WC1B 5BP, UK. [email protected] Research for the report was supported by the New Economy Forum. We are grateful for comments and sugges- tions on an earlier draft by Heike Belitz, Peter Bofinger, Kenneth Frisse, Michael Hüther, Dalia Marin, Philipp Nießen, Christian Odendahl and Jens Südekum. 1. INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic presents a profound challenge to governments worldwide — from the provision of income support to citizens and aid to struggling companies, to strengthening frontline health services. By the summer of 2020, countries around the world had dedicated eight trillion US dollars and counting, to relief packages with fiscal support or credit and equity injections.1 The crisis has affected a number of countries disproportionally due to different degrees of preparedness, foresight and public-sector capacity to steer economic activity. Countries like the UK and the US in particular have realised how vulnerable their production and public health systems were; and how difficult it is to ramp up production and coordinate supply chains of food, medicine, ventilators, protective equipment and test kits. In these econ- omies, the pandemic has pointed to the damage done by managerial reforms in the public sec- tor, such as outsourcing, and by financialisation of the economy. These have diminished the resilience of socio-economic systems remarkably. Many corporations in the US and UK have been more occupied with financialised practices such as maximising value for shareholders than solving societal problems and prioritising their broader stakeholders.2 Germany stands in stark contrast to these experiences. Impressive infection-test capacity in Germany was made possible by the existence of public laboratories and the presence of indus- tries that could supply the required safety equipment and chemicals.3 While countries in South- east Asia learned from their relatively recent experiences of tackling SARS and were quick to respond with large-scale tracking of infections, establishing travel limitations and social dis- tancing rules;4 in Germany learning from managing floods and influenza during the last two decades led to operational emergency plans and risk analyses available since 2013 for pandem- ics and floods.5 Existing labour market support systems such as the Kurzarbeit scheme have prevented a surge in unemployment. By the end of May 2020, there were over eight million people benefitting from the Kurzarbeit scheme.6 1 IMFBlog, ‘Fiscal Policies to Contain the Damage from COVID-19’, IMF Blog (blog), 2020, https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/15/fiscal-policies-to-contain-the-damage-from-covid-19/. 2 William Lazonick and Mariana Mazzucato, ‘The Risk-Reward Nexus in the Innovation-Inequality Relationship: Who Takes the Risks? Who Gets the Rewards?’, Industrial and Corporate Change 22, no. 4 (1 August 2013): 1093–1128, https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtt019. 3 Guy Chazan, ‘How Germany Got Coronavirus Right | Free to Read’, 4 June 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/cc1f650a- 91c0-4e1f-b990-ee8ceb5339ea. 4 Charlie Leadbeater, Ravi Gurumurthy, and Christopher Haley, ‘The COVID-19 Test’, nesta, 2020, https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/covid-test/. 5 Geert Bouckaert et al., ‘European Coronationalism? A Hot Spot Governing a Pandemic Crisis’, Public Administration Re- view n/a, no. n/a (2020), https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13242. 6 See German employment agency’s data here: https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statistikdaten/Detail/202005/arbeits- marktberichte/monatsbericht-monatsbericht/monatsbericht-d-0-202005-pdf.pdf 2 Germany is also at the forefront of taking bold policy action to reshape its economy in the aftermath of the pandemic. Other countries are lending to companies with no strings attached while Germany is proposing to take ownership stakes in ailing companies,7 an idea that seems to enjoy wide support among leading domestic economists.8 While in the 2010s, German re- sponse to the financial and fiscal crisis was largely defined by austerity9 and by supporting existing industrial practices such as scrappage support for old cars (Abwrackprämie), this time the government has taken a bolder sustainable approach in its support measures published on June 3rd, 2020.10 There seems to be much stronger appetite for bold action among coalition partners11 and the recovery plans have been received mostly positively12 or even very posi- tively by leading economists.13 Germany finds itself indeed in a peculiar situation of having gone in the last two decades from the ‘sick man of the euro’14 to Exportweltmeister to one of the exemplar countries in COVID- 19 handling and responses. And while there are signs of a changing economic consensus,15 the collective political mindset seems to be about catching up with leading economies rather than being a leading economy.16 The new industrial strategy agenda, Nationale Industriestrategie 2030,17 launched in 2019, seems already outdated by the policies tackling COVID-19. Germany is stepping into a new era. Nachfolgemodell Deutschland, the modernisation agenda of the past four decades, relied on the Ordnungspolitische Prinzipien which cast the state as guardian of framework conditions 7 Laurie Macfarlane and Simone Gasperin, ‘State Holding Companies: An Opportunity for Economic Transformation?’, Me- dium, 9 June 2020, https://medium.com/iipp-blog/state-holding-companies-an-opportunity-for-economic-transformation- 3604093bab87. 8 Peter Bofinger et al., ‘Economic Implications of the Corona Crisis and Economic Policy Measures’, Wirtschaftsdienst 100, no. 4 (1 April 2020): 259–65, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-020-2628-0. 9 Achim Truger, ‘Austerity in the Euro Area: The Sad State of Economic Policy in Germany and the EU’, European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 10, no. 2 (1 September 2013): 158–74, https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2013.02.02. 10 Bundesfinanzministerium, ‘Corono-Folgen Bekämpfen, Wohlstand Sichern, Zukunftsfähigkeit Stärken. Ergebnus Koaliti- onsausschuss 3. Juni 2020’, 2020, https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Schlag- lichter/Konjunkturpaket/2020-06-03-eckpunktepapier.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8. 11 Wirtschaftsforum, ‘Wege in Den Neustart – Weichen Für Die Zukunft Stellen’, Diskussionspapier (Wirtschaftsforum der SPD e.V, 2020). 12 Sebastian Dullien, ‘GroKo-Paket Bleibt Hinter Möglichkeiten Zurück’, Forum for a New Economy, 4 June 2020, https://newforum.org/the-state/groko-paket-bleibt-hinter-moeglichkeiten-zurueck/. 13 Jens Südekum, ‘Corona-Hilfen: Dieses Konjunkturpaket Hat Tatsächlich Wumms - WELT’, 2020, https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus209085389/Corona-Hilfen-Dieses-Konjunkturpaket-hat-tatsaechlich- Wumms.html. 14 See The Economist, June 3rd, 1999, https://www.economist.com/special/1999/06/03/the-sick-man-of-the-euro. 15 Caroline de Gruyter, ‘[Column] Hawks to Doves? Germany’s
Recommended publications
  • • SSH-2007-8.2 Horizontal Measures to Support International

    • SSH-2007-8.2 Horizontal Measures to Support International

    The EULAKS Summer School TheRoleof theSSH in theConstruction of theKnowledge-basedSociety – European and Latin American Perspectives Dirk Johann (ZSI), Austria MOST II – 10th Session of the Intergovernmental Council UNESCO Paris, 14 March 2011 Project funded under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities www.eulaks.eu GENERAL INFORMATION • SSH-2007-8.2 Horizontal measures to support international cooperation • Project Reference: 217190 • Type of contract: Support Action (CSA) • Start: 2008-02-01 (5-month extension requested) • End: 2010-10-31 • Duration: 33 months • Estimated costs: € 775,942.00 • EC Funding: € 694,094.00 2 1 EULAKS IS … … a Euro-Latin training and learning network in the Social Sciences and Humanities 3 EULAKS PRETENDS TO … … promote a shared unterstanding of the challenges in the construction of Knowledge Societies in Europe and Latin America through the support for networks and partnerships between social science communities of both regions 4 2 EULAKS CONSORTIUM 3 European and 4 Latin American partner institutions 5 EULAKS OBJECTIVES • To promote the role of the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the EU – LAC policy dialogue on S&T cooperation • To support current and future collaborative research endeavours in the field of SSH between the European Union and Latin America • To strengthen networks that link social science communities and institutions to policymakers and practitioners in both regions 6 3 The EULAKS Summer School at FLACSO 7 Organisation • Academic Committee (launch of call, evaluation of applications,
  • Technical Change and the New Context for Development.Pdf

    Technical Change and the New Context for Development.Pdf

    Technical change and the new context for development Carlota Perez Published as: Perez, Carlota (1994) "Technical change and the new context for development", in Lynn Mytelka ed., South-South Co-operation in a Global Perspective, OECD, Paris, pp. 55-87 Table of contents Introduction 1. The growth of intangibles in investment 2. Investing in organizational change: a. Organization as the Achilles heel of the traditional technology leader b. A change in common sense and the difficulty of diffusion c. Reorganization as an effective option of modernization 3. Investing in human capital a. From people as cost to investment in people b. The need for a participatory framework c. Education and training at the core or development strategies 4. Investing in technological capability a. A new focus on innovation and diffusion b. Networks of collaboration c. Networks and the habits of an ISI past 5. Market focusing and strategic specialization a. The collective dimension of specialization b. Turning static advantages into dynamic strengths: rescuing the development value of natural resources c. Market segment and technology focus d. Networks and territorial proximity 6. Internal constraints and windows of opportunity a. Obstacles to surmount and opportunities to pursue b. Some avenues for south-south cooperation Bibliography 1 Introduction For the past two decades the world has been shaken by three successive waves of change. First there was the all-pervasive impact of information technology on products, production, services and communication. Then there was the managerial revolution with the diffusion of organizational practices pioneered by the Japanese and other challenges to traditional mass production emerging in various countries of Europe and elsewhere.
  • Kattel Et Al

    Kattel Et Al

    3rd International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP3) June 28-30, 2017 – Singapore Panel T06P01 Public Sector Innovation: Organizational and Institutional Trends in the Post-New Public Management Era Innovation Bureaucracy: Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation? Author(s) Rainer Kattel, Wolfgang Drechsler, Erkki Karo All Ragnar Nurkse School of innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia; [email protected] Innovation Bureaucracy: Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation? Abstract: Current research on how to organize the roles of government in promoting innovation converges around a rather simplified single-organization explanation: support of innovation requires either (Weberian) elite expert organizations or (Schumpeterian) fluid peripheral organizations. We show that looking at history of innovation bureaucracy, a more complex picture emerges: historically we find a rich organizational variety in how governments have organized different innovation promoting activities. We show that historically this organizational variety is, first, driven by highly diverse public-private relationships; second, the variety is of evolutionary nature; third, the diversity of organizations itself is an important factor in success and failure of innovation policies. Combining analytical lenses created by Weber and management literature on capabilities and ambidexterity, we build analytical framework to understand how organizational variety of innovation bureaucracy evolves
  • Economics 18.Qxd

    Economics 18.Qxd

    TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 18 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] The Economics of Failed, Failing, and Fragile States: Productive Structure as the Missing Link Erik S. Reinert, The Other Canon Foundation & Tallinn University of Technology, Yves Ekoué Amaïzo, UNIDO, Vienna 1 and Rainer Kattel , Tallinn University of Technology Jnauary 2009 1 Contact authors: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. The research for this paper was partially funded by the Estonian Science Foundation, grant no 6703. 1. Introduction: Lost Theoretical Insights from US Secretary of State George Marshall. More than sixty years ago, on 5 June 1947, US Secretary of State George Marshall gave a speech at Harvard University announcing what was to be called the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was probably the most suc- cessful development plan in human history, re-industrializing and industrial- izing countries from Norway and Sweden in the North to Greece and Turkey in the South-East. At about the same time, a similar process based on the same principles re-industrialized and industrialized East Asia, spreading from Japan in the North-East towards the South-West. In this way a cordon san- itaire of wealthy countries was created around the communist world, stemming the communist tide that was rising at the time of Marshall’s speech. One country to benefit from the Marshall-type ideology was South Korea, a country that in 1950 was poorer (GDP per capita estimated at $ 770) than Somalia (GDP per capita estimated at $ 1057; Maddisson 2003), which today is an example of a failed state (see Figure 1 below).
  • NSE KARO.Pdf

    NSE KARO.Pdf

    This article was downloaded by: [Professor Judith Clifton] On: 18 June 2015, At: 08:40 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Economic Policy Reform Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpre20 Economic development and evolving state capacities in Central and Eastern Europe: can “smart specialization” make a difference? Erkki Karoa & Rainer Kattela a Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia Published online: 08 Apr 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: Erkki Karo & Rainer Kattel (2015) Economic development and evolving state capacities in Central and Eastern Europe: can “smart specialization” make a difference?, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18:2, 172-187, DOI: 10.1080/17487870.2015.1009068 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2015.1009068 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
  • Welfare 5.0: Why We Need a Social Revolution and How to Make It Happen

    Welfare 5.0: Why We Need a Social Revolution and How to Make It Happen

    Welfare 5.0: Why we need a social revolution and how to make it happen By Hilary Cottam September 2020 Welfare 5.0: Why we need a social revolution and how to make it happen September 2020 Written by Hilary Cottam Published by UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) 11 Montague Street London, WC1B 5BP ucl.ac.uk/iipp This report can be referenced as follows: Cottam, H. (2020). Welfare 5.0: Why we need a social revolution and how to make it happen. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Policy Report, (IIPP WP 2020-10). https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/wp2020-10 © 2020 Hilary Cottam Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose The mission of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) is to change how public value is imagined, practised and evaluated to tackle societal challenges — delivering economic growth that is innovation-led, sustainable and inclusive. Growth has not only a rate but also a direction: IIPP confronts this directionality head on. Finding solutions to global challenges requires purposeful organisations to collaborate in fundamentally new ways — across the state, businesses and civil society. Together, they can help reshape markets to produce growth that delivers public value. Building symbiotic eco-systems requires new tools and new forms of collaboration. IIPP rethinks the role of the state in these collaborations. Rather than just a market fixer, it can be an active co-creator of value. A mission-oriented approach can be used to set inspirational goals, with dynamic tools — from procurement to prize schemes — to nurture bottom-up experimentation and exploration across different sectors.
  • The Baltic States and the Crisis of 2008-2011 Rainer Kattel and Ringa

    The Baltic States and the Crisis of 2008-2011 Rainer Kattel and Ringa

    The Baltic States and the Crisis of 2008-2011 Rainer Kattel and Ringa Raudla1 This essay explores how the Baltic republics responded to the crisis of 2008–2011.We argue that while there are significant differences in how the Baltic economies responded to the crisis, these responses not only remain within the neo-liberal policy paradigm characteristic of the region from the early 1990s, but that the crisis radicalised Baltic economies and particularly their fiscal stance. We show that there are a number of unique features in all three Baltic republics’ political economies that made such a radicalisation possible. However, these unique features make it almost impossible for the Baltic experience to be replicable anywhere else in Europe. 1. Introduction Europe, and the rest of the developed world along with it, seems to be mired in a debate over whether austerity brings growth or not. While there seem to be less and less candidates for actual European cases where fiscal retrenchment resulted in economic recovery and growth, the Baltic states persistently attempt to claim that austerity works. All three countries were painfully hit by the global financial crisis in 2008-2009 and topped the global charts in GDP contraction; all three responded to the crisis by adopting a series of austerity measures. In 2010, the Baltic states started to recover and recorded GDP growth between 5.5% and 7.6% in 2011. In the light of such temporal sequences of events, there has been a temptation in the policy circles both inside the Baltic states but also internationally to draw a causal conclusion and to claim that it was the austerity that led to growth.
  • Industrial Restructuring and Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990.Pdf

    Industrial Restructuring and Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990.Pdf

    TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 23 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] Industrial Restructuring and Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990 1 Rainer Kattel , Erik S. Reinert and Margit Suurna, Tallinn University of Technology May 2009 1 Corresponding author, email: [email protected]. Research for this study was partially supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (targeted financing grant no SF0140094s08), the Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (I-PUP grant) and the Estonian Science Foundation (grants no 7577, 6703 and 8097). 1. Introduction Until very recently, economic development in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries2 has been seen by most analysts in both academic and pol- icy circles as a largely positive if not a very positive story. For example, at the end of 2005, Business Week ran a cover story titled “Central Europe – Rise of a Powerhouse”. It has become commonplace to argue that the suc- cess of CEE development is mainly due to neoliberal economic policies (lib- eralized markets, balanced public budget, price stability, low tax burden, and strongly market oriented reforms in all socio-economic sectors) pursued by these countries since the early 1990s. In other words, CEE countries have been poster countries for Washington Consensus policies. Indeed, as we show below, during the entire decade of the1990s, industrial restruc- turing and embryonic innovation policies in CEE were largely dominated by Washington Consensus thinking.
  • TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE and OPPORTUNITIES for DEVELOPMENT AS a MOVING TARGET Distr

    TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE and OPPORTUNITIES for DEVELOPMENT AS a MOVING TARGET Distr

    TD(X)/RT.1/9 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT UNCTAD X High-level Round Table on Trade and Development: Directions for the Twenty-first Century TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT AS A MOVING TARGET Distr. GENERAL TD(X)/RT.1/9 20 December 1999 Original: ENGLISH UNCTAD X High-level Round Table on Trade and Development: Directions for the Twenty-first Century Bangkok, 12 February 2000 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT AS A MOVING TARGET* Paper prepared by Carlota Perez Independent Consultant, Caracas, Venezuela Honorary Research Fellow, University of Sussex, United Kingdom * The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNCTAD secretariat. GE.99- Executive Summary This paper provides an interpretation of development as a process of accumulation of technological and social capabilities in developing countries that is dependent upon their ability to take advantage of different and successive windows of opportunity. The nature of such windows would be determined by evolving technologies in the leading countries of the world system. The interplay of continuity and discontinuity, which characterizes technical change, would open successive spaces of possibility – some narrower, some wider, some only sufficient for initiating development processes, and others for allowing significant leaps forward. The shifts in the direction of technical change associated with each technological revolution would provide the best opportunities for catching up. At each stage, it would be vital to identify the changes in industrial power structures and the interests of firms in the advanced world in order to negotiate complementary strategies and establish positive-sum games.
  • Rethinking How Public Value Is Created, Nurtured and Evaluated

    Rethinking How Public Value Is Created, Nurtured and Evaluated

    Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose Rethinking how public value is created, nurtured and evaluated. Picking winners Picking the willing Outsourcing Capacity building Cost beneft Dynamic spillovers De-risking Welcoming uncertainty Fixing markets Co-creating and shaping Levelling the playing feld Tilting towards a direction Entrepreneurial societies need entrepreneurial states The UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) was founded by Professor Mariana Mazzucato, author of the highly-acclaimed The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths. IIPP aims to develop a path-breaking framework for creating, nurturing and evaluating public value in order to achieve economic growth that is more innovation-led, inclusive and sustainable. IIPP will lead a debate about the direction of economic growth and governments’ use of mission-oriented policies to confront the world’s most urgent challenges: from climate change to inequality and the problems facing ageing societies. Our work will feed into policies on innovation, fnancial reform, institutional change and sustainable development. A cornerstone of IIPP’s research is that markets are not created out of thin air: they are outcomes of the interactions between different actors in the economy, operating in the public, private and voluntary sectors. In this context, public policy is not just about fxing market failures, but about actively co-creating and shaping markets. Our teaching and research programmes will help public organisations refocus themselves to become more mission-led, driven by public purpose, and able to welcome and manage the explorative and risk-taking processes that structural change and transformation require. Policy-makers focusing on public versus private are asking the wrong question.
  • Cover Story Carlota Perez

    Cover Story Carlota Perez

    cover story Carlota Perez Basic facts NAME Carlota Perez TITLE Professor of Technology and Development, interdisciplinary social scientist, lecturer and consultant AGE 70 RESIDENCE Lewes, East Sussex, UK 10 • EBR #3 2009 RidingTEXT Nathan Hegedus PHOTO Chris Maluszynski the waves – and understanding what hit us When the stock market crashed and the global economy fell into a slump,p, we all wanted to know what hit us. Carlota Perez has some goodg answers. Advocating a return to heavier state involvement in the economy, she has a growingg g audience in both governmeng t and industry among those seeking long− term solutions for a crisis−ridden world. NDARKECONOMICTIMES, Carlota Perez offers a vision of a golden Ifuture, of a broad-based world recovery that harnesses the pow- er of globalization, “green” values and, most importantly, infor- mation and communication technologies (ict). Perez, a professor of technology and development, says that the current economic crisis is but one phase of a centuries-old pendular rhythm of capitalism. She argues that the world has seen five great surges of development since the Industrial Rev- olution in the th century, with the first half of each surge marked by speculation and dominated by new technologies and financial capital; the second half is usually an economic and EBR #3 2009 • 11 cover story Carlota Perez Background check ▶ Perez is a graduate in interdisciplinary social sciences from San Francis- co State University in the US, and the University of Paris VII in France. ▶ She is currently Professor of Technology and Development at Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia, and a research associate at the Cen- tre for Financial Analysis and Policy (CFAP) at the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge in the UK.
  • Carlota Perez Globelics Globalization DEF

    Carlota Perez Globelics Globalization DEF

    DRAFT: Not for quotation RETHINKING GLOBALIZATION AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE FINANCIAL BUBBLE An essay on the challenges of the Third Millennium Carlota Perez Honorary Research Fellow Independent Consultant Senior Research Fellow SPRU EUREKA, A.C. CERF Freeman Centre Qta.San Javier Judge Institute Sussex University 8va transversal Cambridge University Falmer, BN1 9RF Urb.Altamira. Trumpington Street United Kingdom Caracas 1060 Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK tel: +44-1273- 678173 Venezuela tel: +44-1223-760580 fax: +44-1273- 2646823 tel/fax: +58-212-283 5803 fax: +44-1223-33 97 01 E-mail: <[email protected]> Web page: www.carlotaperez.org Paper to be presented at the First Globelics Conference Rio, November 2-6, 2003 Contents A. Introduction: The sources and the forms of globalization.................................................. 1 B. Great Surges in economic development: Recurrence and uniqueness................................ 2 C. The ruthless role of the great financial bubbles .................................................................. 9 D. Recession, Turning Point and institutional recomposition............................................... 11 E. Post -neo-liberal globalization: Some thoughts for conceiving a North-South positive- sum game .......................................................................................................................... 13 List of figures Table 1. Five technological revolutions in 230 years: Main industries and infrastructure ....... 3 Figure 1 The double nature of technological