Abstract
The present debate on industrial policy has two main aspects: firstly, the general role of government in the national endeavour for more modern structures and procedures of production, and secondly, the consequences of an active government role for the international trade system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Robert Z. Lawrence, Comments on Paul R. Krugman, “The U.S. response to foreign industrial targeting,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity No. 1/84, p. 128.
See E. G. Uta Möbius, “Marktöffnungsstrategien: Globate und selecktektive Präferenzen sowie sonstige Formen der Handelsförderung”, in Fritz Franzmeyer/Hans J. Petersen (eds.), Neuorientierung in den Beziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und den Entwicklungsländern Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin, Sonderheft 140/1984, p. 59.
Similar arguments are given by Robert E. Baldwin and T. Scott Thompson, “Responding to trade-distorting policies”, in Economic Impact Nr. 48, 1984/4, pp. 28–32.
See e. g. Hans-Joachim Seeler, “Die Zukunft des GATT — Freihandel und Protektionismus im Welthandel” in Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft 36/1985 p. 94. In his article Seeler presents the point of view of the European Parliament.
The country profiles are based upon the preliminary results of a DIW study on the international comparison of industrial policy concepts, one of the main topics of the “structural reporting 1984–1987” requested by the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs. The study will be published by DIW in 1986.
See Walter A. Chudson, “Transfer of proprietary technology to developing countries”, Section 37, in Ingo Walter and Tracy Murray (eds.), Handbook of International Business, New York 1982, p. 37. 7.
In 1974–78, 1.2 per cent of the inward direct investment in 13 OECD countries was located in Japan, and this proportion declined from the beginning of the 1960s. Japan’s share in outward direct investment of the same countries, on the other hand, mounted from 2.4 per cent (196167) to 13 per cent (1974–79). See OECD, International investment and multinational enterprises: Recent international direct investment trends, Paris 1981, tables 3 and 4, pp. 40f.
In 1983, the surplus of Japan’s outward direct investment was $ 3.19 billion; the surplus of long-term capital movements as a whole was $ 12.63 billion. Cf. Eurostat, Statistische Grundzahlen der Gemeinschaft Edition 1984, table 2.3.4, pp. 80ff, where the figures are presented in ECU.
Cf. Paul R. Krugmann, loc.cit., pp. 93ff.
Cf. Kurt Vogler-Ludwig, “Flexibilisierung der Lohnstrukturen — Ein Patentrezept der Beschäftigungspolitik?”, in Ifo-Schnelldienst 16/85, p. 25f.
Cf. Mervyn A. King and Don Fullerton (eds.), “The taxation of income from capital: A comparative study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and West Germany”, N.B.E.R. monograph series, Chicago and London, 1984.
Cf. Robert Z. Lawrence, loc.cit., p. 129.
OECD, Costs and Benefits of Protection Paris 1985, e.g. p. 81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Copyright information
© 1987 Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche (WIIW) (The Vienna Institute for Comparative Economic Studies)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franzmeyer, F. (1987). Concepts of Industrial Policy in the Industrial West: are Mutual Trade Relations in Danger?. In: Saunders, C.T. (eds) Industrial Policies and Structural Change. Vienna Institute for Comparative Economic Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09779-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09779-1_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-09781-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-09779-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)