در بحثهای اقتصادی دولتها تنها زمانی مجاز به دخالت در بازارها هستند که این نهادها دچار سقوط شده باشند و یا نتوانند با استفاده از اطلاعات موجود و تبادلات مرسوم به تعال برسند. با اینحال به استثناء چند دولت در همه دولت-ملتهای جهان دولت بیش از یک نجات دهنده است.
دولتها هم بعنوان یک کارفرمای عمده، هم به عنوان مالک بخشی از صنایع و هم بعنوان قانونگزار در بازارهای ملی و حتی بین المللی حضور دارند. ایشان با هدایت بودجه عمومی به سوی طرحهای عمرانی خاص بر زیرساختهای اقتصادی تاثیر می گذارند؛ بر رشد اقتصادی یک منطقه خاص می افزایند و یا با پرداخت یارانه باعث گسترش گروهی از صنایع می شوند، در حالیکه گروه دیگری از صنایع توسعه نایافته می مانند.
در نتیجه درعلم اقتصاد مداخله دولت که به دلایل مختلف در زمینه های مختلف صورت می گیرد، یک واقعیت است که معمولا مثبت دانسته نمی شود. توانایی یک بازار رقابتی و مسلح به جریان آزاد اطلاعات در تخصیص بهینه منابع معمولا یک اصل پذیرفته شده است و بسیاری دخالت دولت در اموربازار را مخل رقابت و جریان آزاد اطلاعات می دانند و در نتیجه آنرا بد می دانند.
طرفداری از بازار آزاد طی سالهای اخیر با طرفداری از آزادی عمل بنگاهها اشتباه گرفته شده است. . بسیاری از معتقدان به کارایی بازار در تخصیص بهینه منابع و قیمت گذاری دولت را بعنوان قانونگزار و مجری قانون می خواهند و نه قیمت گذار. این گروه، از جمله نویسنده، دخالت دولت را در تعیین قیمتها و تحمیل نرخهای اسمی به بنگاهها و محدود کردن آزادی عمل ایشان را در استخدام نیروی کار خود موجب اغتشاش شدید سیگنالهای بازار می دانند. نتیجه این امر افراط در مصرف کالاهای ظاهرا ارزان و تضییع منابع جامعه است.
با اینحال نباید از نظر دور داشت که بنگاهها در شرایط بازار انحصاریست که سودی بیش از هزینه واقعی منابعشان کسب می کنند. بسیاری از ایشان با استفاده از تبلیغات و بازاریابی می کوشند کالای خود را متفاوت از دیگران نشان دهند تا بتوانند یک بنگاه منحصر بفرد باشند. اگر انگیزه بنگاهها در رقابتی نگه داشتن شرایط مورد سوال است، می توان اطمینان داشت هیچ بنگاهی مایل نیست اطلاعات خود را به رایگان در دسترس مصرف کنندگانش قرار دهد. چرا که این امر باعث بهره برداری رقیبانش در بازار می گردد.
شاید درس بزرگ بحران اخیر آشکار شدن قدرت و انگیزه شرکتها در مختل کردن کارکرد بازار و ایجاد حبابهای قیمتی بوده است (این یک نظریه است و امکان دارد درستی یا نادرستی آن اثبات شده باشد). همانطور که دولتهای بزرگ، کارفرما و قیمتگذار می توانند کارکرد بازار را مختل کنند و مانع تخصیص بهینه منابع بشوند؛ شرکتهای بزرگ هم می توانند با محدود کردن دسترسی مصرف کنندگان به اطلاعات بازار رقابتی را به یک بازار انحصاری تبدیل نمایند.
سر خیابان فرصت 
I need to firmly disagree with you. Developmental states in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore managed to promote industrialisation through intervention in the market most especially by distribution of rents to their domestic manufacturing firms in the form of credit and export subsidies. Thanks.
I appreciate your comment, however I must emphasize that in none of these countries the subsidization policy was consumer oriented, as is in Iran. The governments did NOT control the price and did not take over industries. The private sector remained firmly in charge. It is crucial to note that the industrial expansion in these countries was never an effort to substitute imports, as it has been in Iran, but it was conducted to expand their exports. These are very significant discrepancies. And if i may add the same policy does not mean the same thing in different countries. I do not deny the role of government, however I do believe its large share of economy and its meddling in all aspects and details of economic life is counter-productive.
Thank you for your kind reply. Let me raise several points.
1) I highly agree with you about the ineffectiveness of the Iranian government’s intervention in the economy. (You did not mention anything about Iran in your article).
2) But about the developmental states. These states DID intervene in the markets through price controls. For instance, they put ceilings on both deposit and lending rates. Similarly, the incumbent government in China subsidies energy in order to nurture its manufacturing sector.
3) The contribution of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to national output was relatively high in these countries. For instance, SOE’s in Taiwan produced 16% of the total output during the 1960s and 1970s. In addition, many of the successful firms in East Asian countries such as the Singapore Airlines and POSCO (the giant Korean steel makers) were controlled by the government. It is crucial to mention that even in today’s China, 40% of industrial output is produced by SOEs.
3) I am not an advocate of the import-substitution strategy. But in my opinion the failure of this policy is sometimes greatly exaggerated. For instance, the first phase of the import-substitution plan in Brazil encouraged industrialisation during the 1960s and 1970s.However, I should stress that these policies ended up in a disaster in India and other Latin America.
Thanks for your comments, this is certainly an interesting debate.
1. As a matter of fact I do not blame the shortcomings of development policies on Iranian government. No government can be efficient having so many different enterprises to care about while trying to micro-manage all the details of economic life. Any government in this position would not be commented for competence.
2. I should have clarified my meaning of subsidies, yes governments subsidized their industries however many governments subsidized products and goods. This last one affect the whole society and market mechanism. Subsidizing a firm is a different matter than shutting down the market to foriegn competition, subsidizing energy for consumers and etc. These governments provided cheap production factors to domestic industries. Besides it does not seem this policy affect the competitiveness of these firms, so certainly this was not as excessive as some other countries.
3. %16 of market is a small share, compared to Iran and many other OPEC members. I agree several firms start as SOE, but they do not remain SOE and a privatization usually takes place. In none of these markets a government denies the rules of market, or the importance of private activities. As an observation, this does NOT justify any government’s intervention, it simply shows when market can not perform on its own, some initial help can set it on the right course.
4. I hardly think the disasterous effects of import substitution policies can be exaggerated. For decades such ambitions, motivated by political affiliations and idealogical beliefs, wasted scarce resources, dislocated the labor allocation and create mega-size enterprises that are monsters eating up these countries resources. The opportunity costs of implementing these policies can not be measured! Please remember we cannot wake up one the day and say today we will be developed, our opportunities are rare as well.
1) Fully agree.
2) Fully agree. But let me add that insulation of domestic producers from foreign competitors is not a bad policy per se. The US and all of the European countries as well as East Asian countries developed their manufacturing sector behind high tariff barriers. I don’t understand this sentence : “Besides it does not seem this policy affect the competitiveness of these firms, so certainly this was not as excessive as some other countries”.
3) Fully agree.
4) Fully agree.
If you take a look at my blog, you will realise that we agree on most of the above issues. Especially these two posts:
http://web.me.com/ramin_4/Site/Blog/Entries/2009/1/11_Ahmadinejad_economic_plan.html
http://web.me.com/ramin_4/Site/Blog/Entries/2008/12/10_Should_Iran_join_WTO.html
Sure, I will read your blog with great interest.