文档介绍：OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL. 12, NO. 3
TECHNOLOGY AND
COMPETITIVENESS
JAN FAGERBERG
ESST, University of Oslo, and Norwegian Institute of International Affairs1
I. INTRODUCTION not many outside the inner circle. Not so with
‘petitiveness’. Almost every-
‘Technology’ and ‘competitiveness’ are two of the body seems to know something about—and even
most popular buzz-words of our time. Increasingly have an opinion on—the petitive-
policy-makers on both sides of the Atlantic link the ness of their country.
two. But what do we really mean when we talk
about the petitiveness of a coun- How can that be? The reason is simple. It is not a
try? And what does technology have to do with it? concept invented by theoreticians, but by practical
Is there a theory behind this link? What about the people close to the policy-making process. Although
empirical evidence? This paper addresses these it is widely used, some theoreticians detest it. Paul
questions from a long-run Krugman, for instance, has gone so far as to talk
about the concern for the petitive-
ness of a country as a ‘dangerous obsession’
II. PETITIVENESS ISSUE (Krugman, 1994). This led to a spirited debate in the
American journal, Foreign Affairs, in 1994.
Many concepts used by economists in professional
discourse are virtually unknown to the broader Why does the issue attract so much attention, not to
public. Who, for instance, has heard about ‘Ricardian say emotion? Let us start by stating a few simple
equivalence’(and knows what it means)? Probably facts regarding the concept and its use. First, it is
1 I want to thank Andrea Boltho and three referees for ments and suggestions, while retaining sole responsibility
for remaining errors and omissions.
2 Hence, the paper does not deal with the short-run variations in costs or prices that people often associate with changes in
competitiveness.
© 1996 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AND THE OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY LI