The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I suppose that industrial policy can use the location of an anchor firm, e.g. a turbine manufacturer, in order to draw suppliers to an area. But without a potential supplier base that seems like quite a job.
For example, a history of auto transmission plants, and the matching supplier base, links well to wind turbine gearbox production. The former is a step down gear, the latter a step up gear. The degree of complexity and tolerances are much higher in gearboxes, but still the existing industrial capacity matters. I don't think you really disagree with this, so I'm not sure if you are maybe overstating the neo-liberal tendency in the first piece. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
About the paper:
If we want a solar industry, we need to invest and develop the skills. The market may indicate that it is more efficient to spend that money on oil companies, for short term gain, but in the long term that is a dead end.
Basically it comes down to whether or not you believe in generative industrial policy. Outside of the US, the countries that have the background supply chain to do solar have it because they put up industrial policies to grow their silicon/electronics industries, many of them basically from scratch. I don't think that's an accident...
That said, I dislike that they talk about solar cells but not concentrating solar power, where there are lots of backward linkages to metal and glassworking. What I do see is that these guys take a network view of the economy which at at odds with the atomized view that neo-liberalism gives.
There's some sort of madness in the fact that neo-liberals tend to view that economic actors are homogenous and interchangeable, i.e. if all the automakers and their suppliers fail some other firm will go into that field. It's just so analysis.
I've been thinking of how this relates to Durkheim and the division of labor recently. The idea there is that it's the differences that keep the economy rolling. The butcher cuts meat, the baker makes bread, and the candlestick maker gets us our candlesticks. They specialize because that is what they are best at. It's this specialization and the development of specialized equipment and skills that leads to efficiency.
How does that square with the atomized view of the economy that neoliberals push? If the butcher goes out of business and the candlestick maker decides to try to step into that business they just aren't going to be as effective. I can't put my finger on it, or communicate it clearly, but there's a real paradox here. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Negligible bankruptcy costs was not necessarily a completely insane assumption in Walras' time. But in today's capital-intensive production it most certainly is.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2 6 comments
by gmoke - Sep 27
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Oui - Oct 13
by Oui - Oct 12
by Oui - Oct 121 comment
by Oui - Oct 112 comments
by Oui - Oct 11
by Oui - Oct 10
by Oui - Oct 101 comment
by Oui - Oct 9
by Oui - Oct 91 comment
by Oui - Oct 81 comment
by Oui - Oct 8
by Oui - Oct 74 comments
by Oui - Oct 67 comments
by Oui - Oct 56 comments
by Oui - Oct 4
by Oui - Oct 42 comments
by Oui - Oct 31 comment
by Oui - Oct 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 26 comments
by Oui - Oct 214 comments