|
Re: ...more government involvement in industry,... See the American School of Economics (19th century), China from Deng onward, industrial policy in Japan (Meiji Restoration, post-WWII), Germany (pre- and post-WWII), Israel, South Korea (post-WWII, particularly 1970 onward), the US (particularly FDR/WWII, also Cold War and much since), just off the top of my head. Whilst it's quite true that government involvement can go bad, it can also go quite well, and as with many matters, the distinction generally isn't between regulation and no regulation, but effective vs. ineffective regulation. If you read Adam Smith, you'll find that much of what he inveighs against is actually economic power compounding upon itself to interfere with what would otherwise be more productive economic organisation and activity. Protectionism and monopolisation (Smith's term was engrossment) have been harmful for many centuries. A more recent but fascinating account was compiled by Bernhard J. Stern in 1937, published as "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations": <https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...>. Markdown (my own effort): <https://rentry.co/szi3g>. Corporations are also very bad at predicting what will actually work or sell well, are risk averse, practice CYA, and ... seek to sway those susceptible to dinners, sports tickets, and personal favours, etc., etc., etc. There may even be a role for safety nets for companies, as operational concerns, but in which investors remain at risk. That is, yes, if your country is fundamentally reliant on, say, a well-functioning electrical (or other) infrastructure, banking / finance sector, pharmaceutical industry, manufacturing network (especially networks of smaller parts suppliers and service providers), then act to stabilise these when exogenous factors other than superior competition threaten them, but don't bail out the investors. Money can be sourced from elsewhere, but capital equipment, institutional knowledge, and market relationships can be easily destroyed and take many years or decades to restore, if at all. |
The examples of government intervention that you've cited mostly represent situations in which countries that already had more centralized government and broader economic intervention sought to purposefully imitate the industrial development that had emerged mostly organically in England due to its comparative lack of economic interventionism. And those efforts largely consisted of rolling back top-down interventions that had locked economies into increasingly obsolete patterns, and instead purposefully creating conditions for markets to develop.
Smith worrying about concentration of economic power is valid, but ultimately, there's no fundamental difference between governments and commercial corporations in this regard. They're both centralizing institutions operating on essentially equivalent incentive structures, managed by people with the same assumptions and conceits. Centralization itself is the problem, and polarizing around which type of organization we should favor universalizing it's failure modalities across the whole of society is more than a little silly.