Search results

China’s experience of industrial growth is noteworthy for several reasons, not least because it has made a massive use of selective industrial policies. The industrial development guidelines set by the Five-Year Plans are extensively based on the choice of “strategic” or “pillar” industries to be promoted and supported. What remains unclear is the way in which such industries are identified among many. The purpose of this paper is to propose a debate on how to improve the government choice of strategic sectors and suggests a methodology to make this choice more transparent and rigorous.

The methodology allows ranking the different industries according to their strategic importance in the Chinese economy. The authors employ an uncertainty analysis methodology to verify the robustness of the ranking.

The results point to a list of strategic sectors for China. Comparing the ranking of the strategic sectors to the list of strategic priorities described in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, we find that, by and large, the ranking coincides with the list of strategic sectors of the Chinese government.

The authors argue that improving the transparency and the rigor of the choice of pillar industries can be crucial for the Chinese government to maintain social legitimization in the transition to a “market” economy.

Very little is known about the choice of strategic sectors in China in the international literature. By addressing the debate on the choice of pillar industries in China, the paper discusses a topic scarcely studied offering a unique and original contribute.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the efficiency and effectiveness of industrial policies by focusing on the peculiar experience of South Korea. It analyzes Korean structural change from a historical and empirical standpoint, highlighting industrial policy interventions involved in this process. The analysis presented offers important insights to inform the debate on the contemporary industrial policy, identifying specific elements and circumstances that can contribute to mitigate government failures and to improve the effectiveness of public action.

The paper adopts a historical and empirical perspective. Concerning the empirical analysis, a composite indicator to assess the process of structural change of economies is presented. This methodology provides annual rankings based on the different economic relevance of the manufacturing sectors over the period 1963–2012.

The paper shows that industrial policy has been extensively involved in South Korean structural development but public intervention interacted with several other factors, including gradual markets liberalization, education, societal and cultural characteristics and low level of income inequalities. As a result, economic development is conceived as systemic process, namely as the outcome of a balance in the roles played by government, markets and civil society. In this framework, government failures, as inability of the government to respond effectively and efficiently to the general interest of the society, are intimately inherent to the mechanisms that rule the relevant relationships within the system.

In the post-crisis debate, very little attention has been devoted in academic and political debate to the ways to mitigate government failures. By analyzing the historical and recent Korean experience with industrial policy, the paper addresses an issue insufficiently analyzed offering an innovative contribution.