U ovom govor Romer iznosi svoju ideju i projekt zbog kojeg je dao ostavku na profesorsku poziciju na Stanfordu. Ideja ide korak dalje od njegovog prijašnjeg rada o ulozi i izvoru tehnološke promjene u ekonomskom rastu i životnom standardu. Iako je tehnologija izvor našeg (relativnog) bogatstva i njena promjena diktira promjenu u životnom standardu, tehnologija – ovisno kako je i definiramo – nije dovoljna da bi objasnila i riješila probleme sporog ekonomskog rasta, siromaštva i (ogromnih) razlika u per capita prihodu. Ekonomisti su nešto slično već znali godinama. Dobra i loša pravila koja potiču poželjne i nepoželjne ideje, ponašanja i ishode u društvu su jednako važna. Romer ima ideju kako smisliti i implementirati sistem novih pravila koja bi dala izbor za zamjenu starih pravila, potaknula širenje novih ideja, novih tehnologija, inovacije i naposljetku bolji život.

Objavljen je novi Indeks Ekonomskih Sloboda. Sa 55.1%

Hrvatska bilježi ocjenu nešto iznad prosjeka u trgovinskoj slobodi, financijskoj slobodi i monetarnoj slobodi. Inflacija je niska, a cijene su prilično stabilne, međutim ocjena hrvatske monetarne slobode je pogođena zadržavanjem državne manipulacije cijenama.

Cjelokupna slabost Hrvatske potječe od prevelikog državnog aparata. Povrh visokog nivoa državne potrošnje, prisutnost države je značajna i u drugim ključnim podrucjima gospodarstva. Postoji značajno otežana regulacija poslovanja, radne snage pa čak i prava na vlasništvo. Sudski sistem ostaje izložen korupciji, političkom uplitanju, i neefikasnoj birokraciji. Značajna neslužbena ograničenja stranih investicija, poput visoko politizirano donošenje odluka u području regulative, povećavaju trošak ulaganja u Hrvatsku. Opterećujuća i netransparentna administrativna regulativa, naročito na lokalnom nivou, nastavlja predstavljati izazov poduzetnicima.

The looming bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the forced sale of Merrill Lynch, two of the greatest names in finance, marks the end of an era. But what’s next?

Cycles of economic fashion are as old as business cycles, and are usually caused by deep business disturbances. “Liberal” cycles are followed by “conservative” cycles, which give way to new liberal ones, and so on. Liberal cycles are characterized by government intervention and conservative cycles by government retreat. A long liberal cycle stretched from the 1930s to the 1970s, followed by a cycle of deregulation that seems to have run its course.

With the nationalization of American mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the February nationalization of Britain’s Northern Rock, governments are stepping in again. The heady days of conservative economics are over for now.

Each cycle is triggered by crisis. The last liberal cycle, associated with the New Deal and economist John Maynard Keynes, was triggered by the Great Depression, although it took massive wartime government spending to get it properly going. During this era, governments in the capitalist world managed and regulated their economies to maintain full employment and moderate business fluctuations. The new conservative cycle was triggered by 1970s inflation. Milton Friedman, the economic guru of that era, asserted that the deliberate pursuit of full employment was bound to fuel inflation. Governments should concentrate on keeping money “sound” and leave the economy to look after itself. The “new classical economics” taught that, in the absence of egregious government interference, economies would gravitate naturally to full employment, greater innovation and higher growth rates.

The current crisis reflects the massive buildup of bad debt that became apparent with the subprime crisis, which has now spread to the whole credit market. “Think of an inverted pyramid,” investment banker Charles Morris has written. “The more claims are piled on top of real output, the more wobbly the pyramid becomes.”

When the pyramid starts crumbling, taxpayers must step in to refinance the banking system, revive mortgage markets and prevent economic collapse. But once government intervenes on this scale, it usually stays for a long time.

At issue is the oldest unresolved dilemma in economics: Are market economies “naturally” stable or do they need to be stabilized by policy? Keynes emphasized the flimsiness of the expectations on which economic activity in decentralized markets is based. The future is inherently uncertain; investor psychology is fickle.

“The practice of calmness, of immobility, of certainty and security, suddenly breaks down,” Keynes wrote. “New fears and hopes will, without warning, take charge of human conduct.” This is the “herd behaviour” that George Soros has identified as the dominant feature of financial markets. It is the government’s job to stabilize expectations.

The neo-classical revolution held that markets were much more cyclically stable than Keynes believed, that the risks in all market transactions can be known in advance, that prices will therefore always reflect objective probabilities.

Such market optimism led to deregulation of financial markets in the 1980s and 1990s, and the subsequent explosion of financial innovation that made it “safe” to borrow larger and larger sums on the back of predictably rising assets. The just-collapsed credit bubble, fuelled by so-called special investment vehicles, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations and phony triple-A ratings, was built on the illusions of mathematical modelling.

Liberal cycles, historian Arthur Schlesinger believed, succumb to the corruption of power, conservative cycles to the corruption of money.

Both have their characteristic benefits and costs. But if we look at the historical record, the liberal regime of the 1950s and 1960s was more successful than the conservative regime that followed. Except for China and India, whose economic potential was unleashed by market economics, economic growth was faster and much more stable in the Keynesian golden age than in the age of Friedman; its fruits were more equitably distributed; social cohesion and moral habits better maintained. These are serious benefits to weigh against some business sluggishness.

Of course, history never repeats itself exactly. Circuit-breakers are in place nowadays to prevent a 1929-style slide. But when the system seizes up as it has now, we are clearly in for a new round of regulation.

The cycles in economic fashion show how far economics is from being a science. One cannot think of any natural science in which orthodoxy swings between two poles. What gives economics the appearance of a science is that its propositions can be expressed mathematically by abstracting from the real world.

The classical economics of the 1920s abstracted from the problem of unemployment by assuming that it did not exist. Keynesian economics, in turn, abstracted from the problem of official incompetence and corruption by assuming that governments were run by omniscient, benevolent experts. Today’s “new classical economics” abstracted from the problem of uncertainty by assuming it could be reduced to measurable, hedgeable risk.

A few geniuses aside, economists frame their assumptions to suit existing states of affairs, then invest them with an aura of permanent truth. They are intellectual butlers, serving the interests of those in power, not vigilant observers of shifting reality. Their systems trap them in orthodoxy.

When events coincide with their theorems, the orthodoxy they espouse enjoys its moment of glory. When events shift, it becomes obsolete. As Charles Morris wrote: “Intellectuals are reliable lagging indicators, near-infallible guides to what used to be true.”

Lord Skidelsky is professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, England, and author of a prize-winning Keynes biography.

from www.cato.org posted with vodpod

Economic success-among individuals, firms, products and countries-is often unexpected and unpredicted. William Easterly will draw on insights from Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek to explain why prediction is difficult, success is rare and failure is common; the advantages of decentralized decision making to discover what works best in the market and in public policy; and the need to rely on dispersed and local knowledge, rather than government planning, for poor countries to achieve growth.

Najveći svjetski investitori nisu više kompanije sa Wall Streeta, već državne investicijske kompanije u JI Aziji i Bliskom Istoku. Upravo su one pumpale novac u Wall Street tokom ove financije krize. Zbog straha od političkih agenda iza tih investicija, Zapad podiže prepreke. WSJ piše o svemu tome na naslovnoj stranici u ponedjeljak. Država se afirmira i vraća u određene domene individua, poslovanja i investicija. Iako se ne radi o klasičnom protekcionizmu više, Thomas Friedmanov “ravni svijet” je sve manje ravan. On vjeruje da se radi samo o epizodi, dok Daniel Yergin vidi kraj lake globalizacije.

Rise of Nationalism Frays Global Ties – Trade, Environment Face New Threats; Balkanized Internet

By BOB DAVIS, April 28, 2008

The world isn’t as flat as it used to be.

During the long march toward globalization, international borders and trade barriers came down. Communism fell. Protectionist walls in Latin America and elsewhere were dismantled. Governments — long prone to meddling in trade — took a back seat to broader market forces.

In a globalization manifesto, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declared that the Internet and other planet-spanning technologies were erasing national boundaries. The world, he said in a 2005 best seller, was flat.

No longer. The global economy appears to be entering an epoch in which governments are reasserting their role in the lives of individuals and businesses. Once again, barriers are rising. Call it the new nationalism.

“The era of easy globalization is certainly over,” says Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Yergin, whose 1998 book, “The Commanding Heights,” detailed the triumph of markets over nations, starting with British deregulation under Margaret Thatcher. “The power of the state is reasserting itself.”

(Ostatak teksta niže)

Just a decade ago, Asia, Latin America and Russia were on financial life support from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The U.S. was planning yet another round of global trade negotiations. The European Union was writing a constitution to shift power to Brussels from member nations.

Now borrowers shun the IMF and World Bank. Trade talks are shelved. Barriers to foreign investment are rising around the world. State-owned companies are expanding, particularly in oil and gas. Public support of immigration restrictions is growing in countries from the U.S. to India.

The rising influence of governments can be seen in massive state-funded investment pools, many backed by countries that were reeling financially a decade ago. Sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East are now propping up wobbly financial institutions in the U.S. and Europe, and may hunt next for real-estate bargains. The growth of state power may also serve to make dealing with global climate change — the most borderless of all issues — even more difficult.

Security Concerns

What accounts for governments’ bigger role? The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, refocused the world on security concerns that can be addressed only by national governments. Countries enriched by the commodity boom are increasingly asserting their power, with Venezuela nationalizing oil fields and Russia threatening to cut off natural-gas supplies to Western Europe. A backlash against economic integration has also pressured national governments to retreat from multilateralism: Big pluralities in 21 of 34 nations polled by BBC World Service in December said the “pace of economic globalization” is moving too quickly.

The changes don’t presage an era of full-blown protectionism. The 15 countries that have shared the euro since 1999 will, despite occasional grumbling, continue to do so. Governments continue to obey rulings by the World Trade Organization, even if they must rewrite their own laws to comply. Mr. Friedman, the flat-world theorist, says that the reassertion of state power may turn out to be an “episode” rather than a trend, and that technologies will continue to empower individuals across boundaries.

Even so, there are mounting indications that governments are on the ascendant.

National boundaries are going up even on the Internet, the emblem of the borderless world. The Internet was designed to be beyond the reach of governments, shifting power to individuals or private organizations.

Now, pressured by Russia, China, India and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. company that assigns Internet addresses is working on ways for countries to use characters from their home languages. The familiar .org, .com and country codes in Web addresses will be replaced with their equivalents in Chinese, Hindi and many other languages. While that should help locals navigate the Web, it would also put many sites behind curtains to users from abroad. That would spell the end of the days when anyone with a keyboard that produces Latin letters can see sites in any land — essentially taking the “world wide” out of the World Wide Web.

“We’re facing a step-by-step Balkanization of the global Internet,” says Columbia University law professor Tim Wu. “It’s becoming a series of national networks.”

The rising strength of national governments expresses itself in different ways. For rich countries, it generally means higher taxes and more regulation. In the 30 mostly rich countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, tax revenue as a percentage of the local economy was higher in 2005, the latest year surveyed, than a decade earlier. That’s because of the rising cost to governments of health care and social security.

In the U.S., the severity and scope of the current financial crisis has eroded the case for letting markets operate with ever-lower government guard rails. The current question is not whether regulation will increase, but by how much. All three presidential candidates say they would pass tougher financial-market regulation and would also boost government programs to retrain workers battered by the global economy.

In rich and poor countries alike, immigration has become a powerful political issue, as improved transportation makes it easier for people to move across borders and compete for jobs with locals. There are backlashes against Burmese in India, Haitians throughout the Caribbean, Bolivians in Argentina and Zimbabweans in South Africa. In 44 of 47 countries polled by Pew Research Center last fall, majorities supported further restrictions on immigration.

In poorer countries of Africa and Asia, meanwhile, rising global food prices are prompting governments to erect new export barriers. “There is no place in the world that grows the food we need if we’re forced to import,” says India’s finance minister, P. Chidambaram. “Therefore we have to be nearly self-sufficient in all food items.”

Growing Influence

Capitals that once had little sway on the global scene now have a lot. The influence of Brazil, for example, has grown along with its economy. A week after WTO trade talks collapsed in July 2006, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab jetted to Brasilia to confer with the country’s foreign minister, Celso Amorim, who also handles trade issues.

Mr. Amorim has become an unlikely power broker in the bid to wrap up the negotiations, which began in 2001. The talks broadly involve a prospective deal: The U.S. and Europe would slash agricultural subsidies if developing nations would lower their tariffs for industrial goods and broaden foreign financial firms’ access to their markets.

In the past, developing nations essentially ratified global trade deals negotiated by the U.S. and Europe. But Brazil, India and China are no longer following that script. Mr. Amorim has put together a group of 20 developing nations that want to limit market openings at home while pressing for agricultural liberalization abroad. Their assent is essential to reaching a deal. So far they have withheld it.

“Brazil holds the key to getting this done,” says Ms. Schwab.

‘It Was a Party’

Citizens of poor countries feel exhilarated by their governments’ new power. In Rio de Janeiro, Maria Aparecida Lemos, an AIDS patient who lost her sight, says she “celebrated like it was a party” last year when Brazil’s president voided a Merck & Co. patent on an AIDS drug. A Brazilian company now makes the drug, Efavirenz, for a fraction of what Merck was charging. Under global trade rules, developing countries have the right to override patents in emergencies, but few had done so for fear of retaliation.

Merck says it had already reduced the price of Efavirenz and was willing to cut further, but not enough to satisfy Brasilia. “Brazil may not be the kind of place you want to invest in,” says Jeffrey Sturchio, Merck’s vice president for corporate responsibility. Brazilian officials shrug off such threats, figuring the country’s growing wealth makes it a magnet for investment.

Energy companies have been among the first to feel the new nationalism. Since oil prices started rising in 2004, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have nationalized foreign-owned oil assets, the first big wave of nationalization since the 1970s. After Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm doubled its ownership of heavy-oil projects along the Orinoco River last year, ConocoPhillips pulled out, taking a $4.5 billion charge. Exxon Mobil Corp. left as well, and is suing Venezuela for compensation.

Growing petro-nationalism has prompted Royal Dutch Shell PLC to change the global scenarios its economists create to help the company plot its next moves. In the 1990s, Shell’s scenarios assumed government power was diminishing. The company invested heavily in Russia’s Sakhalin oil fields, assuming it would see minimal interference. But as the Kremlin tightened its grip on the energy sector, Shell was forced to sell half of its stake in the project to Russia’s state-owned OAO Gazprom.

In this decade’s models, governments play a more central role. One of Shell’s two current scenarios envisions that government dominion over resources — nearly 80% of world oil reserves are controlled by state-owned firms — will continue. In the other model, governments are still at the center of decision making but recognize a common interest and agree to address climate change, says Jeremy Bentham, Shell’s vice president for global business environment.

Recognizing the powerful role of state-owned oil companies, Shell is investing heavily in unconventional oil sources, many of which have little prospect of expropriation. It recently announced a $10 billion expansion plan in the tar sands of Canada. It has also increased its focus on biofuels made from, among other things, algae and wood chips.

Pitney Bowes Inc., a postal-machine maker in Stamford, Conn., is also trying to adapt. Over the past decade or so, it had moved a lot of its production to China. It also had outsourced back-office computer operations to India.

But more recently, the company has started worrying about the security of those supply lines. “We’re always concerned that the nationalists there will come and take over” our suppliers in China, says Cynthia Schmitt, the company’s vice president for enterprise risk management.

So over the past three years, the company and its overseas suppliers have begun stockpiling more postage-machine components. Pitney Bowes also began insisting that its vendors in India have backup servers in other countries. So many U.S. companies do business in Bangalore and other Indian cities, Ms. Schmitt fears they could become terrorist targets.

Similar concerns are felt by other big companies. AMR Research Inc., a Boston consulting firm, says it surveyed supply-chain managers at big U.S. firms in March about how they would rank the risks they face doing business globally. About 30% of them rated “country risk” — geopolitical problems or natural disasters — as their most significant.

Some companies are seeking havens closer to home. As some U.S. corporations relocate operations from lower-cost spots in Asia, Mexico — which has a free-trade pact with the U.S. — has seen a surge in foreign investment, up 21% last year to $23.2 billion.

Some of the world’s biggest new investors are government-run investment funds. In the Middle East and Russia, sovereign wealth funds are powered by oil revenue; in Asia, they’re fed by other export earnings. In all, the funds have a total of $3 trillion in revenue and have used the money to buy stakes in Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and other battered Wall Street firms. While the infusions have been lauded by the U.S. Treasury and capital-short Wall Street firms, they also aroused suspicions here and internationally that the investors could have political agendas.

Now, many national governments are raising barriers against such foreign investment. The U.S., Canada, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Hungary and Greece are proposing or enacting restrictions on investment by state-owned firms from other countries, according to a forthcoming study by the Council of Foreign Relations. China and Russia, which have sovereign wealth funds, are staking out “strategic sectors” where foreign investment would be restricted, say the study’s authors, investment-law specialist David Marchick and Dartmouth economist Matthew Slaughter.

National Muscle-Flexing

Muscle-flexing by national governments has also made it more complicated to tackle global environmental issues. In 1987, governments sent environmental ministers to Montreal to negotiate a global ban on the chlorofluorocarbons blamed for opening an ozone hole over Antarctica. The ministers expected the treaty would be ratified at home and enforced world-wide through trade sanctions. It was.

A decade later, the Kyoto Protocol flopped because the U.S. didn’t sign, and China and India weren’t required to limit emissions. Now, with national governments wary of making commitments, negotiators and think tanks in the U.S. and Europe are grappling with how to persuade states to take strong efforts to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. One possibility: encourage governments to take specific actions to cut emissions now, and hold off on a treaty until states are more confident that their rivals are taking global warming seriously.

New nationalism could play out over a lengthy span, says Michael Klein, chief economist at the World Bank’s private-sector arm, the International Finance Corp. “Disparate national interests may pull [countries] in different directions and render global actions more difficult,” Mr. Klein says. “We’re in for several decades of these centrifugal forces.”

Hrvatska je nažalost opet loše prošla. To zvuči kao da nam je netko drugi kriv, a sami smo krivi, tj. oni koji nisu napravili dovoljno. Ali, bitno da je zabrana pušenja prioritet. To Sanader!

Priča je ove godine da se ukupna ekonomska sloboda u svijetu nije promjenila od prošle godine. Za 157 zemalja rezultat je gotov isti kao i prošle godine. No, bilo je uspiješnih reformatora koji su značajno skočili. Riječima Mary Anastasia O’Grady iz WSJ:

Yet the evidence is piling up that neither government nor multilateral spending on education and infrastructure are key to development. To move out of poverty, countries instead need fast growth; and to get that they need to unleash the animal spirits of entrepreneurs.

……

The nearby table shows the 2008 rankings but doesn’t tell the whole story. The Index also reports that the freest 20% of the world’s economies have twice the per capita income of those in the second quintile and five times that of the least-free 20%. In other words, freedom and prosperity are highly correlated.

……

Although overall global economic liberty did not expand, there were a few stars. Egypt was the most improved economy in the world, implementing major changes to its tax policies and business regulation environment and jumping to number 85 from 127th place last year. Mauritius was the second-best performer, moving into the top 20 from No. 34 last year. Trade liberalization and improved fiscal policies, including a flat tax, made Mongolia the third-best performer, and put it in the category of “moderately free” economies.

Three essays in the 2008 Index help illustrate why economic liberty matters to human progress. In “Economic Fluidity: A Crucial Dimension of Economic Freedom,” Carl Schramm, president of the Kaufmann Foundation, explains that growth-driving innovation results not only from sound macroeconomic policy, but also from dynamism at the micro level.

Most important is the interaction between “institutional, organizational and individual elements of an economy,” which gives rise to “the entrepreneurial energy and the speed of economic evolution.” Such “fluidity,” he writes, “facilitates the exchange and networking of knowledge across boundaries. This fosters both innovation and its propagation through entrepreneurship.”

Prošle godine Index je stvorio pravu buru reakcija u Hrvatskoj kad je Hrvatska pala sa 55. mjesta 2006. na 109. mjesto na globalnoj razini i 37. od 41 zemlje u Europskoj regiji izgubvši 0.9 od ukupnih bodova, što zbog promjene metodologije, što zbog ništa-se-nije-dogodilo-da-bi-napredovali. Hrvatska ekonomija je onda ocjenjena 55.3% slobodnom (100 znači najslobodnija) što je ispod europskog prosjeka od 67.5% i i spada u gurpu “uglavnom neslobodne” zemlje. Kako možete vidjeti iz grafa naših 10 sloboda niže, najbolje smo ocjenjeni u makroekonomskim parametrima, fiskalnoj i monetarnoj politici, a najlošije stojimo u institucionalnim faktorima poput lakoće poduzetništva, vlasničkih prava (pod kojim se gleda institucija pravosuđa), radnog zakona, korupcije, državnog “uplitanja.” Index i je kvalitativna mjera institucionalnih okvira u kojem poduzetnici, investitori i radnici donose odluke o ekonomskoj aktivnosti. S obzirom da smo pali i ove godine teško je da smo napredovali u bilo kojoj od sloboda.

Osim Hrvatske, podaci će biti predstavljeni i za Sloveniju te BiH. Index predstavlja 10 individualnih sloboda koje su vitalne za osobni i nacionalni prosperitet. Sad, sva ovakva rangiranja i ocjenjivana imaju svoje probleme (uglavnom političke prirode) i sive zone. No, to ne umanjuje njihovu važnost i utjecaj. Investicijske kuće ga koriste kao vodič i sve svjetske kuće prenose rezultate. Ja ću pisati o nekim zamjerkama za koji dan kada rezultati izađu i kad se malo prokomentiraju. Za one koje zanima, mogu pročitati rad Aleksandra Kešeljevića, Index Ekonomske Slobode – pregled i otvorena pitanja. (na engleskom). Nadam da će biti komentiranja u medijima. Kontraplana više nema, a dobro bi bilo vidjeti raspravu o rezultatima u prošlogodišnjem stilu na Otvorenom sa istim “glavnim” sudionicima.