Not sure if those are fair analogies, nor an accurate representation of the choices. I live in a social democratic country and low unemployment has always been the cornerstone of social democratic policy. I associate basic income more with liberal politicians.
There are a lot ways in which a job centric approach would affect economic policy which doesn't necessarily mean hole diggers. E.g. in my home country Norway it was seen by the social democrats that maintain an industrial base and the jobs that came with that was crucial. That is why strict rules on usage of oil money in budgets were devised to hinder deindustrialization due to inflation and loss of industrial jobs.
When the oil was found, the conservatives in Norway were ready to hand all the work over to foreign companies. Norway had no expertise at all on oil drilling at the time. But the social democratic government decided that we should have our own oil industry and companies. They established schools, research and a state oil company to reach those goals. Some of the rules had similarities to what China has done to build up their industry with e.g. partnership rules. In fact the Chinese came to Norway decades ago to learn about our policies on this area (undoubtedly they went many other places as well). The previous Chinese experience was that foreign companies owned all the industry, knowledge and took all the profits.
The free market reforms in China has undoubtedly produced much prosperity. But it also seem clear to me that China including every other successful country has had some form of industrial policy. None of the successful asian tigers really follow a laissez-faire system. Pundits will argue they could have been more successful if they did, but I am not convinced.
Congrats to the Norwegian people for making better use of their oil money. I read this article about how an Iraqi engineer named Farouk al Kasim helped them get their priorities straight [1] :
> After growing up watching the benefits of Iraqi oil elude the Iraqi people, a young executive insisted that Norway do things differently.
For initial expansion of industry, I always felt that command and control economy works to an extend. Even the early soviet union was an example of rapid modernisation of an agrarian country to an industrialised one [2]. There are also examples of South Korea and how its government helped make them one of the best in the ship building [3].
To kickstart an industry government involvement is good to keep the pace and for the introduction of interlinked systems necessary for production where none had existed earlier, but there is no question the human cost soviet people had to pay and there is no justification to it. To keep people and companies from becoming complacent, the accountability and the skin-in-the—game feeling that capitalism brings is equally good. Little bit of both is what is good for developing economies and developing industrial sectors but we are still learning on where to draw the line on how much is too much but there is a lot to be learned yet.
Well said. India would be a good example of hole diggers.
If software engineers were oil, India produces the most but unlike China you don't see them producing a Baidu, Alibaba, HTC, Lenovo, Tencent etc. Like you say they have given away their oil to the West by being laissez-faire in IT. It's why there are no Jack Ma, Pony Ma type recognizable names out of India. Instead you see a Nadella and Pichai emerge in the US.
But the same country has done the opposite with its pharma/generic drug sector by being pragmatically protectionist. It's no surprise that some of the richest people in India are now from the pharma sector, which is producing much more sustainable jobs than its IT sector is.
Software engineering is a relatively nascent field. While India does produce a lot of software engineers, it will take some time before the expertise in software development that is required to run a successful business is prevalant enough in India to nurture independent companies and allow them to grow big. There are already a few successful Indian startups though e.g. Zomato, Flipkart.
Anecdotally, there is much activity in the startup sector in India and I am willing to bet it won't be long before we start seeing more success stories.
Zomato and Flipkart are not successful. They are just surviving. Most of the startups are "me too" kind just copying what has already been done but just localizing it to the Indian market. It just takes a foreign entity entering the Indian market and competing with these companies to start its collapse.
Also software engineering is not a nascent field. It was nascent in the 70's and 80's. All the low hanging fruits are gone. It is very hard to be a the next Sun, or Microsoft or Oracle. In fact India should start looking at more nascent and upcoming fields and try to be leaders in it.
> None of the successful asian tigers really follow a laissez-faire system. Pundits will argue they could have been more successful if they did, but I am not convinced.
Great post. I'm reminded of the book "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang.
There are a lot ways in which a job centric approach would affect economic policy which doesn't necessarily mean hole diggers. E.g. in my home country Norway it was seen by the social democrats that maintain an industrial base and the jobs that came with that was crucial. That is why strict rules on usage of oil money in budgets were devised to hinder deindustrialization due to inflation and loss of industrial jobs.
When the oil was found, the conservatives in Norway were ready to hand all the work over to foreign companies. Norway had no expertise at all on oil drilling at the time. But the social democratic government decided that we should have our own oil industry and companies. They established schools, research and a state oil company to reach those goals. Some of the rules had similarities to what China has done to build up their industry with e.g. partnership rules. In fact the Chinese came to Norway decades ago to learn about our policies on this area (undoubtedly they went many other places as well). The previous Chinese experience was that foreign companies owned all the industry, knowledge and took all the profits.
The free market reforms in China has undoubtedly produced much prosperity. But it also seem clear to me that China including every other successful country has had some form of industrial policy. None of the successful asian tigers really follow a laissez-faire system. Pundits will argue they could have been more successful if they did, but I am not convinced.