Reviewing Industry Policy - Better and More Flexible Alternatives
Image Source: Ensia
As economies evolve and global markets integrate, governments are increasingly challenged with navigating their countries through waves of change. Many countries resort to industrial policies as a means to spur growth and maintain a competitive edge. But the macroeconomic shortcomings of these policies have long been a bone of contention among free market economists. They often assert that industrial policies, which may favour certain sectors over others, foster economic inefficiencies and undermine the dynamism of market forces.
Those on the side of free markets commonly state that industrial policies can create artificial economies of scale, distort resource allocation, and induce dependency on government support, leading to additional inefficiencies and moral hazard. Furthermore, they may inadvertently protect inefficient industries, hindering competition and innovation in the process. Dani Rodrik has noted the potential for these policies to incite "rent-seeking" behaviour and corrupt practices, thereby undermining their intended objectives.
Moreover, free market economists opine that these policies disrupt the equilibrium and autonomy of the market, bringing in diseconomies and policy-induced distortions. The so-called "picking winners" approach may unintentionally lead to "picking losers," as governments may lack the full informational capacity to predict which industries will be successful in the future.
While these objections hold validity, it is crucial to recognize that state intervention can be necessary due to the presence of time lags in the economy that may lead to market failures. Market signals may be too slow to reorient resources efficiently, and labour, in particular, may be unable to transition quickly across sectors without some form of state aid.
Thus, the macroeconomy is filled with time lags and as such resource inefficiency. Characterised by immobilities, the most egregious of examples is the labour market. As such, for a government to unlock growth, rather than utilising industrial policies, which tend to favour certain sectors over others, a strategy that builds an economy from the source, the people, will always be more optimal.
Indeed, a more efficient and targeted approach to managing these time lags would be to focus on labour market policies, particularly labour retraining schemes. Rather than manipulating industry structures or trade patterns, governments can invest in human capital to ensure a more adaptable and resilient workforce. As Ha Joon Chang insightfully reveals, some of the most successful economies like Germany and Singapore have robust vocational training and re-skilling programs that facilitate a smooth transition of labour across industries.
In today's globalised economy, uncertainty is an undeniable reality. Trade shifts, technological advancements, and geopolitical issues continuously evolve in unpredictable ways, impacting national economies and creating unexpected challenges. Although free-market principles can provide a foundation for prosperity, they may not always suffice in navigating this uncertainty. State intervention becomes essential in creating a safety net for the economy. As we have highlighted, a more refined state strategy is needed, one focused on retraining schemes rather than broad-based industrial policies. Underpinning this assertion is the understanding that while the future may be fundamentally uncertain, a scenario where state support exists — notably in facilitating labour mobility and adaptability — is always going to be preferred. The right intervention allows governments to steer their economies through turbulent waters of global change, offering stability and fostering resilience amidst the uncertainty.
Such trade reallocation training schemes can provide training and support to those displaced by the pains of trade within an economy. This not only reduces the occupational immobility of labour but also enables a more flexible economy where resources such as labour can autonomously divert themselves to industries of the future with minimal state intervention.
These retraining programs could potentially offer a superior alternative to broad-based industrial policies. They directly address the problem of labour market immobilities and equip workers with skills needed for the future, thus providing a long-term solution to structural unemployment. This way, the government is not playing favourites with industries but is rather empowering all sectors by providing them with a skilled and adaptable labour force.
Thus, while industrial policies can offer short-term respite, they often come with several macroeconomic shortcomings. A strategy centred on labour retraining schemes could be a more efficient, sustainable, and equitable approach to addressing the challenges of economic evolution and globalisation. Such a strategy, firmly rooted in the idea of enhancing human capital, aligns with the principles of free-market economists while also acknowledging the necessity for some state intervention to address market failures. It presents a promising path forward in the quest for sustainable and inclusive economic growth.