Within the debate on industrial policy, it is still true that “any random collection of six economists is sure to produce at least a dozen different opinions on the subject” (Gerosky 1989, 20). This chapter conceives the notion of industrial policy as “all government interventions on production dynamics driven by national societal goals” (Di Tommaso and Schweitzer 2013, 3). It is based on three main policy elements: targets, tools, and goals. In this framework, industrial policies can target manufacturing, but also other sectors (services, construction, and agriculture), and companies, regions, population subgroups, or other relevant actors and networks (e.g., universities). Thus, industrial policy is not restricted to industrial production, but has a wide range of targets. Moreover, industrial policies may adopt a variety of policy tools, ranging from financial measures to new rules that modify incentives along with individual and collective behaviors (Di Tommaso and Schweitzer 2013; Barbieri et al. 2019a, 2019b). Finally, in our interpretation, industrial policy is not just about targets and tools; rather, it is about societal goals as defined by each specific community of people, groups, and interests. Industrial policy entails specifying “goals,” “targets,” and “tools,” and should be conceived of as a political intervention to redesign our future, favoring (or preventing) a transformation of industry, the economy, and society. This conception of industrial policy connects us to the debate within social economics about the relationships between the economy and society, as we agree that “economic values cannot be separated from social values, and that economic relationships are framed by broader social relationships” (Davis and Dolfsma 2008, 2). Despite the neglect in mainstream thinking about the role of societal values, it is increasingly evident that governments adopt belief systems and values that shape and define their policies, thereby influencing the transformation of their economies and societies. In line with Dannreuther and Kessler (2008), we consider it fundamental to engage with the question of the role of the state in economic and societal processes, overcoming the separation of the public and private spheres. From this perspective, this chapter analyzes the long history of industrial policy in the United States, especially in relation to promoting an American model of society. In the spirit of cross- fertilization that characterizes social economics (Pressman 2006; Davis and Dolfsma 2008; Elsner 2017), this chapter analyzes the role of the US government regarding industrialization as driving the transformation of the economy and the society in the long run.
Di Tommaso M. R., Tassinari M., Ferrannini A. (2020). Industrial Policy and Societal Goals. A new look at the American case (from Hamilton to Obama and Trump). GBR : Routledge.
Industrial Policy and Societal Goals. A new look at the American case (from Hamilton to Obama and Trump)
Di Tommaso M. R.;
2020
Abstract
Within the debate on industrial policy, it is still true that “any random collection of six economists is sure to produce at least a dozen different opinions on the subject” (Gerosky 1989, 20). This chapter conceives the notion of industrial policy as “all government interventions on production dynamics driven by national societal goals” (Di Tommaso and Schweitzer 2013, 3). It is based on three main policy elements: targets, tools, and goals. In this framework, industrial policies can target manufacturing, but also other sectors (services, construction, and agriculture), and companies, regions, population subgroups, or other relevant actors and networks (e.g., universities). Thus, industrial policy is not restricted to industrial production, but has a wide range of targets. Moreover, industrial policies may adopt a variety of policy tools, ranging from financial measures to new rules that modify incentives along with individual and collective behaviors (Di Tommaso and Schweitzer 2013; Barbieri et al. 2019a, 2019b). Finally, in our interpretation, industrial policy is not just about targets and tools; rather, it is about societal goals as defined by each specific community of people, groups, and interests. Industrial policy entails specifying “goals,” “targets,” and “tools,” and should be conceived of as a political intervention to redesign our future, favoring (or preventing) a transformation of industry, the economy, and society. This conception of industrial policy connects us to the debate within social economics about the relationships between the economy and society, as we agree that “economic values cannot be separated from social values, and that economic relationships are framed by broader social relationships” (Davis and Dolfsma 2008, 2). Despite the neglect in mainstream thinking about the role of societal values, it is increasingly evident that governments adopt belief systems and values that shape and define their policies, thereby influencing the transformation of their economies and societies. In line with Dannreuther and Kessler (2008), we consider it fundamental to engage with the question of the role of the state in economic and societal processes, overcoming the separation of the public and private spheres. From this perspective, this chapter analyzes the long history of industrial policy in the United States, especially in relation to promoting an American model of society. In the spirit of cross- fertilization that characterizes social economics (Pressman 2006; Davis and Dolfsma 2008; Elsner 2017), this chapter analyzes the role of the US government regarding industrialization as driving the transformation of the economy and the society in the long run.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
