Even if we accept the validity of the Kondratieff Wave hypothesis, and many do not, potential long waves of innovation, with a duration about 50 years, seem to have disparate impact.
It is not true that any particular wave has universally-applicable and substantial transformative effects for all people, all regions, all counties, all firms or all segments of the economy. There always are leaders and laggards.
One big criticism of the theory is that there is significant disagreement about when such waves have started and ended in the past. Being off by 20 years might not matter for a historian. It is life and death for firms who are too early or too late.
Some argue the last wave ended in 2008, for example. Others believe that wave has not ended yet. Keep in mind there is a couple decades long pause between waves, characterized by recessions or slow growth.
If the last wave has ended, it might be decades before the next wave is identified.
Just as important, nobody knows when the next wave will break, though the theory suggests a new wave might be building. It all depends on where one believes the last cycle will run for a couple more decades or has already ended.
Still more contentious is the driver of the next wave. Lots of candidates will be offered. Perhaps none seem especially credible at this point.
It might seem obvious that the long wave theory is not precise enough to be useful for guiding firm strategy and investments. The larger point might be that even when we can correctly identify which era we might be in, such knowledge does not mean we have a magic bullet that causes economic growth everywhere, at the same rates.
It is similar to the argument that quality broadband causes economic growth. We might have made the same arguments about railroads, steam power, electricity, internal combustion, mass production or information technology.
Growth happens, but whether the underlying technologies can be harnessed everywhere, by everyone, at high levels, has proven untrue. Areas of low population density, for example, rarely benefit as much as areas of high population density.
Societies without a firm rule of law that protects property rights rarely, if ever, develop as much as regions with such protections. In fact, we probably continue to know very little about why development actually happens in particular circumstances.
Historically, productivity and population increases are associated with economic growth. Obviously population growth happens in lots of places without much growth. Productivity growth likewise is uneven.
No comments:
Post a Comment