Xero Shoes Barefoot-Inspired Sport Charcoal/Coal Black/Black Sandals - Z-Trek Shoes - Men - Coal Black/Black 10 M US Charcoal/Coal Black 3ee9e85 - tips-homebasedbusiness.infoCurrent industrial policy: business knowledge and innovation
The prime objective of industrial policy is to help companies and sectors equip themselves with the dynamic capabilities they need to compete globally and negotiate a changing market landscape. Industrial policy has no fixed, immutable formulation as regards the measures or instruments used. In each economic period, industrial policy adopts the kinds of measures seen as necessary to cope with observed market failures. These measures can take different forms, for example: (a) encouraging the growth of advanced services markets in cases where private initiative is inadequate or lacking (incubators, technical training, financing, innovation…); (b) provision of support to emerging sectors; (c) assisting companies with the funding of their R&D activities and favouring science and technology development and transfer throughout the business community; (d) support to organisational innovation; (e) facilitating the transformation and redevelopment of obsolete industrial and business structures; and (f) supporting firms in their international expansion.
The aim of this study is to consider the main factors affecting the industrial policy in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) by elucidating the issues such as; the connection between competitiveness and industrial policy, innovation, manufacturing, green growth and environment. The objective is to inspire thought in the reader and to highlight the necessity for a new industrial policy, which considers regional differences and specializations in the catching up economies of the CEECs.
Cluster policy should contribute to unique strengths in a region and not focus on removing weaknesses (RIS3 strategy). These strengths ideally have a certain critical mass to build upon. Clusters can help to diagnose these strengths (EDP), determine its competitiveness and to strategize; by and setting up a profile. Increasing the (related) variety in a region can enhance regional economic power, as different industries inspire new activities and learning opportunities on related issues. In economic policy in India clusters are a way of organizing the medium and small enterprises (MSME). In Russia these are tools available (as subsidies, tax regimes, cooperation with government-sponsored enterprises) for a few leading clusters. Competition is changing and the organization of enterprises and clusters are changing too. Internet of Things has the potential to change the nature and the principles of product design and to value chains and to offer new products and services.
The need to construct an effective strategy for industrial development in low-income countries has been largely ignored by development economists because industrial policies have failed in many developing countries. This does not imply, however, that industrial development cannot be promoted. This paper attempts to synthesize the conventional wisdom in development economics with recent advancements in various fields of economics (such as theories of endogenous growth and agglomeration economies) to provide a useful framework to design a strategy for industrial development, which consists of investments in managerial human capital followed by the provision of credit and the construction of industrial zones.
The present study reviews a diverse set of countries with the most successful industrial policy experiences since the Second World War – namely, the US, Germany, Japan, Italy, Finland, (South) Korea, Singapore, China, and Brazil – with a view to deriving lessons for the UK.
In section 1, we start by reviewing the current state of the manufacturing sector in the UK, especially, although not exclusively, comparing it with the nine countries whose industrial policy we review in this state. The picture that emerges is an alarming one, in which the UK’s industrial performance distinguishes itself for being poor and is still declining further.
In section 2, we discuss some of the key theoretical issues in the debate on industrial policy. We discuss: (a) different definitions of industrial policy, especially focusing on the relationship between and the relative merits of ‘horizontal’ (or ‘general’) and ‘vertical’ (or ‘selective’) industrial policies; (b) the special role of the manufacturing sector in the overall economy, especially as the source of productivity growth, innovation, learning, and resilience; (c) main theoretical justifications for certain notable industrial policy tools and institutions used in the countries reviewed.
In Section 3, we review the industrial policy experiences of the nine comparator countries. While historical material dating back from the 18th century is covered when appropriate, the focus is more on the recent period, since the 1980s or the 1990s, depending on the country.
In Section 4, we draw lessons for the UK’s industrial policy from the nine country experiences that we review in Section 3, filtered through the theoretical discussions provided in Section 2. We draw the lessons along several dimensions: (a) the role of ‘vision’; (b) institutional settings (e.g., coordination within the government, the role of surrounding institutional networks); (c) finance and corporate governance; (d) promotion of innovation; (e) management of transnational corporations (TNCs); (f) support for SMEs; (g) skills and training.
In Section 5, we look ahead for the future of the UK’s manufacturing sector, taking into account our theoretical discussions, country case reviews, and the lessons we have drawn from those discussions.
Modern industrial policy tries to go beyond the old industrial policy debates around the role of government in the economy, in particular on the thorny question of whether governments should choose between sectors (that is, pick winners). Instead, today there is widespread acknowledgement that governments should and can select sectors. By now we have sufficient evidence that not all activities in the economy have the same consequences for development (for example, traditional agriculture versus modern manufacturing and services). We also know that development tends to be a slow and path- dependent process and, therefore, that the government has the natural desire and the ability to expedite it, especially if its industrial policy is based on collaboration between the private and the public sectors. The question today is how to select sectors and nurture them appropriately. In this regard, I welcome the insights that the Product Space and the Growth Identification and Facilitation Framework can provide, both extensively discussed in this volume.
- Freight rail is responsible for at least 7% of Minnesota employment— a quarter of a million jobs — and $40 billion of state GDP
- Freight rail adds about $2,000 to the average Minnesotan’s income – More than $5,000 per household
- Freight rail fosters enough statewide income for families and businesses to generate about $7 billion in state and local tax revenue
A number of factors have come together to heighten the importance of rail transit to the U. S. economy. These same factors present new opportunities for domestic manufacturers of rail cars and equipment to benefit, however, historical and structural barriers to seizing these opportunities exist. In brief, the scenario can be described as follows:
Rail ridership is strong and growing. Amtrak enjoyed its strongest year since its inception with ridership growing to 31.2 million passengers in Fiscal Year 2012, a 3.5% increase over the previous year, with July 2012 representing the single best month in Amtrak history. Overall ridership on commuter, light and heavy rail grew by 72% over the period from 1995 to 2008 and U.S. cities have added 29 new light rail and 20 new commuter rail systems in the last three decades.
Demand has led to new investment. In recent years Federal investments in rail passenger cars and locomotives have totaled several billion dollars. Efficiencies built into procurement policies for programs such as the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail initiative and implementation of the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee hold promise for continuing Federal awards. There have been parallel investments at the state level, for example, California’s investment of $8 billion to develop America’s first high speed corridor.
These factors create opportunities for U.S. rail manufacturing, but challenges exist. Consistent with provisions in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), and previous legislation, these recent rail procurements contain “Buy America” provisions that require the use of goods manufactured in the United States. Currently, however, most rail equipment manufacturers are foreign-owned and limit U.S. activities to some final assembly work. Decades of limited business opportunities in rail manufacturing have created significant gaps in both the capability and capacity of the domestic rail supply chain.
Innovation and intelligent investment can help capitalize on these opportunities. Public agencies, as the primary buyers of new rail cars and equipment, can use their power as “smart buyers” to support demand driven innovation strategies. Looking to tap unutilized capacity in the existing manufacturing sector through supplier scouting efforts, investing in supply chain connectivity, and leveraging ongoing efforts to develop a more competitive manufacturing workforce can all aid the domestic rail industry’s competitiveness. Examples from overseas present a variety of strategies that can accomplish these goals.
Networking supply chains, such as the Supplier Scouting work of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, represents a promising practice. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, housed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has utilized its network of 60 MEP centers around the country to develop business intelligence on rail transit supply chain needs. These centers can rapidly reach out to their network of tens of thousands of small and mid-sized manufacturers to meet emerging needs for domestic suppliers. A full description of the effort is included.
Rail manufacturing has potential as a driver of regional economic development. By combining top-down policies with a bottom-up approaches to viewing rail manufacturing as an economic development strategy communities and regions could generate significant synergies. Investments in rail infrastructure reduce costs and pollution while increasing efficiency of transportation, access to goods, and career options. Helping local manufacturers capitalize on the business opportunities represented by such investments would build on manufacturing’s strong multiplier effect and ripple these benefits out into the region in the form of new jobs, more dynamic businesses, and a prosperous and diverse local economy.
The rail sector makes a substantial contribution to the European Union (EU) economy, directly employing 577,000 people across passenger and freight operations and the provision of track and station infrastructure1. Some estimates suggest that, once the entire supply chain for rail services is taken into account (e.g. including train manufacturing, catering services etc.), the economic footprint of the rail sector in Europe extends to 2.3 million employees and €143 billion of Gross Value Added (some 1.1% of the total)2. It is also critical to the EU strategy for improving economic and social cohesion and connectivity within and between Member States, including through the further development of the TEN-T rail corridors, and is expected to play a major role in the reduction of carbon and other emissions from transport. The development of the sector has been encouraged over a period of more than 20 years through the implementation of an extensive legislative framework, including three major packages of legislation, and a fourth package currently being considered by the European Council and Parliament.