Economic intervention (sometimes state intervention ) is an economic policy perspective that supports government intervention in market processes to improve market failures and improve public welfare. An economic intervention is an action taken by governments or international agencies in a market economy in an attempt to influence the economy beyond the basic rules of fraud and enforcement of contracts and the provision of public goods. Economic intervention can be aimed at various political or economic goals, such as encouraging economic growth, increasing employment, increasing wages, raising or lowering prices, promoting income equity, managing money supply and interest rates, increasing profits, or overcoming market failures..
The term intervention assumes at the philosophical level that states and economies must be inherently separated from each other; Hence the terminology applies to a capitalist-based market economy in which government actions disrupt market play power through regulations, economic policies or subsidies (but state-owned enterprises operating on the market do not constitute intervention). The term "intervention" is commonly used by supporters of laissez-faire and free markets.
The capitalist market economy that has a high level of state intervention is often referred to as a mixed economy.
Video Economic interventionism
Perspektif politik
Libertarians, liberals and other supporters of the free market or laissez-faire economics generally view government intervention as dangerous, due to the law of unintended consequences, belief in the inability of governments to effectively manage economic problems, and other considerations. Government officials tend to naturally want to seek more power and authority, and money that is usually used with those items, and these searches often take the form of economic intervention which they then try to justify. Many modern liberals (in the United States) and contemporary social democrats (in Europe) tend to support intervention, viewing state economic intervention as an important means of promoting greater income equality and social welfare. Government intervention should be made when the potential benefits outweigh the (external) costs.
On the other hand, Marxists often feel that government welfare programs may disrupt the purpose of overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with socialism, because the welfare state makes capitalism more tolerable by the average worker. Socialists often criticize interventionism (as supported by social democrats and social liberals) as untenable and tend to cause long-term economic distortions. From this perspective, any attempt to "patch up" the contradictions of capitalism will cause distortions in the economy elsewhere, so the only real and lasting solution is to completely replace capitalism with the socialist economy.
Conservative politics from various nationalists also often support economic intervention as a means of protecting the strength and wealth of a country or its people, especially through the advantages given to industries that are seen as vital national.
Maps Economic interventionism
Effects
The effects of government economic intervention are widely debated.
Regulatory authorities do not consistently close the market, but as seen in the economic liberalization efforts by countries and institutions (International Monetary Fund and World Bank) in Latin America, "... financial liberalization and privatization coincide with democratization". One study showed that after a decade lost an improved "regulatory authority" emerged, the actors were involved in economic restructuring in Latin America. Latin America during the 1980s has experienced a debt crisis and hyperinflation (during 1989 and 1990). These international stakeholders limit the economic influence of the state, and bind them in contracts to work together. Various projects and failed years of business, for the Argentine state to comply, renewal and intervention seem to be stalled. Two major intervention factors that incite economic progress in Argentina, substantially increase privatization and the formation of currency councils. As can be seen, this shows the global institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank instigating and spreading openness to increase foreign investment and economic development in places including Latin America.
In Western countries, government officials theoretically weigh the cost benefits for intervention for the population or they are lost under duress by a third private party and must take action. Also the intervention for economic development is at the discretion and interests of shareholders, the various interpretations of development and development theory can be meaningful. To illustrate this during the 2008 debt crisis; governments and international agencies do not encourage Lehman Brothers because it allows them to file for bankruptcy. A few days later when AIG shrank toward destruction, the state spent public money to prevent it from falling. These companies have interrelated interests with the state. Therefore, their incentive is to influence the government to establish regulatory policies that will not hinder the accumulation of their assets.
In Japan, Abenomics is a form of intervention against Prime Minister Shinz? Abe's desire to restore the glory of the country in the midst of the global economy.
US. government intervention
President Richard Nixon signed an amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1970, which expanded it into state and federal regulatory mandates both automobiles and industries. It was later changed further in 1977 and 1990.
- "One of the first modern environmental protection laws enacted in the United States is the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires governments to consider the impact of their actions or policies on the environment. one of the most commonly used environmental laws in the country. In addition to NEPA, there are many pollution control laws applicable to certain environmental media such as air and water. The best known of these laws is the Clean Air Act (CAA) , The Clean Water Act (CWA), and Comprehensive Compensation and Comprehensive Environmental Accountability (CERCLA) commonly referred to as Superfund.Among other many important pollution control laws are the Conservation and Rescue Resource Act (RCRA) ), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Oil Pollution Prevention Act (OPP), Emergency Planning and Act Rights Me Community Knowledge (EPCRA), and Pollution Prevention (PPA). "
the main reason for policy intervention is to correct market failures, to ensure resources are allocated efficiently, etc.
The United States' pollution control law tends to be numerous and varied, and many of the environmental laws passed by Congress are aimed at pollution prevention, they often need to be expanded and updated before the impacts are fully realized. Pollution control laws are generally too broad to be managed by an existing legal entity, so Congress must seek or create an agent for each who will be able to carry out mandated mandates effectively.
During World War I, US government intervention mandated that automobile manufacturing be replaced with machines to successfully fight the war. Current government interventions can be used to break US dependence on oil by requiring US manufacturers to produce electric cars such as the Chevrolet Volt. Recently, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) said, "We need help from Congress," that is, renewing clean energy manufacturing tax credits and tax incentives that make plug-ins cheaper to buy for consumers. It is possible that the government mandated a carbon tax can be used to improve technology and make cars like the Volt more affordable for consumers. Unfortunately, the current bill shows the carbon price will only add a few cents to the price of gasoline, which has a negligible effect, compared to what it takes to change fuel consumption. Washington began investing in the auto manufacturing industry with some projected $ 6 billion worth of public and private investments since 2008, and the White House has taken credit for putting a down payment on the US battery industry that could reduce the price of batteries in the future. year. Currently, opponents believe that the carbon dioxide emissions tax, introduced by the US government, on new cars are unfair to consumers and look like fiscal interventions that increase revenue, rather than limiting the harm posed to the environment. A national fuel tax means everyone, no matter what vehicle they drive, will pay taxes. The amount of tax payable by each individual or company will be proportional to the emissions it generates. The more they drive, the more they have to pay. The tax is supported by motor manufacturers, but provisions confirmed by the National Treasury, stating that minibuses and midibus will receive a special exemption from the emissions tax on light commercial vehicles and cars, which came into effect on 1 September 2010. The exception is that these taxis are used for public transport, which opposed the tax does not agree with.
During George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, he pledged to commit $ 2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology through research and development initiatives. According to Bush supporters, he fulfilled that promise in the 2008 fiscal year budget request, allocating $ 426 million for the Clean Coal Technology Program. During his reign, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, funding research on carbon capture technology to remove and bury carbon in coal after it was burned. The coal industry received $ 9 billion in subsidies under the law, as part of an alleged initiative to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions. This includes $ 6.2 billion for new power plants, $ 1.1 billion in tax breaks to install pollution control technology and another $ 1.1 billion to make coal a cost-effective fuel. The law also allows redefinition of coal processing, such as spraying on diesel or starch, to qualify them as "non-traditional," which allows coal producers to avoid paying $ 1.3 billion in taxes annually.
The Waxman-Markey bill, also called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, endorsed by the Energy Council and Trade Committee in 2010, targets a dramatic CO2 reduction after 2020, when permission prices will rise to curb consumer demand for further CO2. goods and services are high. The law targets a 83 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2050. A study by the EPA estimates that permit prices will rise from about $ 20 per ton in 2020 to more than $ 75 per ton by 2050.
The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) indicates that federal subsidies for coal in the United States are planned to be significantly reduced between 2011 and 2020, provided the budget passes Congress and reduces four coal tax preferences: Exploration and Development Cost Expenditure, Burn Fossil Hard, Royalty Tax, and Reduction of Domestic Production for Hard Fossil Fuels. The 2011 fiscal budget proposed by the Obama administration will cut about $ 2.3 billion in coal subsidies over the next decade.
See also
- American School (economics)
- Austrian School
- Crow out
- Dirigism
- Indicative planning
- Keynesian Economy
- Fiscal Policy
- Mixed economy
- Monetary policy
- Search for stretch
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments