12. 8. 2003
The discrimination of blacks has increased the number of jazz composersAn interview with economist William BaumolWilliam Baumol (81), is a native of New York. He is Emeritus Professor and Senior Researcher at New York and Princeton Universities. Baumol is well-known for his analysis of the production process, of monopolies and of growth within differing economic systems. Importantly, Baumol argues that economic growth isn't the result of competition in prices, but of competition in innovation. Under unfavourable social conditions -- for instance, when law and order is not upheld - talented individuals do not pursue innovation, but become involved in unproductive activities. This stunts economic growth. In this interview, William Baumol also discusses the possible causes of the Japanese economic stagnation, his nomination for the Nobel Prize, lists what he sees as the "most significant" economic discoveries and argues that it is important to study why the market economy is characterised by unrivalled economic efficiency.
This interview also exists in Slovak translation, HERE. |
The rule of law is essential for a society that not only creates many inventions but puts them to widespread and effective use
Talented individuals can enter all sorts of occupations. But entrepreneurship is a special sort of talent. The entrepreneur is often not the inventor but the one who takes the invention and makes sure it is put to use in a way that gives him wealth, power or prestige. Entrepreneurs become chess players only if it is a high prestige activity in the society and, preferably, if it is well rewarded. Of course, Einstein and Stravinsky were not primarily entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs are not always brilliant people. They are characterized by ability to organize, persuade others, and willingness to take risks. Their talents may be great but are very different from those of researches or composers. That may be true but I am not qualified to judge. I suspect, however, that not all psychologists agree with Spearman on this point I agree with you in general, but I think people differ considerably in their preferences and that some people are ready to sacrifice many things, including interest and enjoyment in what they do, to obtain wealth, power or prestige. I don't know what Edison might have done. He might have designed better suits of armor or better weapons. I can't answer your last question - I am not a psychologist. The social background is crucial. For example, I argue that the rule of law is essential for a society that not only creates many inventions but puts them to widespread and effective use. No, to me it means that van Gogh had little business ability and much artistic talent, while Dali was an effective and dedicated businessman with (in my view) somewhat less artistic talent. I am more than skeptical about the studies that claim black people are less intelligent than others. Many blacks are talented in other ways as well, and many are very intelligent. However, I would say that the work of a talented jazz musician is closer to that of Stravinsky. While even during the period of greatest discrimination some black people succeeded as scientists, artists and entrepreneurs, the number was small. I am sure you are right that this served to increase the number of jazz composers and performers. Absolutely not. There are many stupid rich men who obtained their wealth by accident, brute force or unimaginative crime. And of course there are many brilliant people who are not rich. You must ask the psychologists, not the economists. Innovation requires collaboration and competition
I am not an expert on the Japanese economy, but I understand that the main source of its economic problems are institutional and macroeconomic behavior, notably the way in which the banks select those to whom they will lend money. Also, innovation in Japan seems to be characterized by large firm activity, unlike North America where inventions like the airplane, the telephone, etc. were first created by private individuals, with most such inventions afterwards greatly improved by large firms. Japan, perhaps as a consequence, seems to be much better at improving inventions than at creating them in the first place. I think economic performance is stimulated more directly by the presence of a market economy than by democracy, though either of these tends to lead toward the other. No system can be expected to survive forever, but I see no evidence that capitalism will die very soon. Of course it is desirable to reform capitalism, by forcing accounting firms to be more honest, protecting the environment, helping poor people, etc. But that is not why capitalism seems likely to survive for a considerable time period. I have no idea. State intervention can help growth and the innovative process, particularly when government pays for innovation and basic research that private business will not carry out voluntarily. But none of this intervention is required to obtain the benefits of collaboration among firms, that the firms usually arrange for themselves. Incidentally, I think the growth process requires both some collaboration and very vigorous competition among inventive firms at the same time. The evidence indicates that over the last half century, the richest 10 to 25 countries have been converging. There has also been some convergence among the poorer countries among themselves but they have been falling further behind the wealthiest economies. I do not, however, think this is attributable to what Lenin's model claims to be the problem. For example, in many backward economies stupid military juntas have effectively done many things that prevented growth. I think the Roland explanation is a valid part of the story, but it also takes time for managers to learn how to manage efficiency, to be guided by market demand, to reorganize the firm. And workers have to learn not to follow the maxim ` we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us'. Remember, after World War II it took even the miracle economies of the Far East 10 to 20 years to begin to catch up. I know I have been proposed for the prize, but I don't think there is a Chicago mafia that controls what happens in Stockholm. It may be relevant that last month I was the first academic economist to receive in Stockholm the prestigious International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. It is impossible to determine what the greatest economic discoveries are. I would include the value theory of the classical economists, the theory of the firm of A.A. Cournot, Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, Walras' general equilibrium theory and Keynes analysis of employment and inflation. There is no limit to what should be studied, but to me an important priority is analysis of the reasons the free market economies have achieved productivity, innovation, living standards and growth unequalled for any length of time by any other type of economy, ancient or recent.
Related links:Official web-site of W. Baumol: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/baumolw/ The articles: http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/baumol.htm http://128.252.177.192/WoPEc/data/Persons/50484850485549488773767673657795666585777976.html" William Baumol, MIT press: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/author/default.asp?sid=DA5E5E92-FBEC-47C1-A4B1-FA54A4AB568E&aid=639
Honorable Mention, 2003 Association of American Publishers Award for Best Professional/Scholarly Book in Economics:http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7310.html Nobel Prize poll:1998: http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000241.php |