[발췌: Ferenc Jánossy's] The End of the Economic Miracle (1969?/1971)

출처: Ferenc Jánossy. The End of the Economic Miracle: Appearance and Reality in Economic Development. Routledge. 2015. 12. 22. 282쪽.

자료: 

• 구글도서
• 구글도서

#양서번역 #경제발전론

※ 주요 차례:

Preface

Introduction

PART I

• 1. All Economic Miracle Are Reconstruction Periods.
• 2. The End of the Japanese Economic Miracle
• 3. The Economic Miracle in the Federal Republic of Germany
• 4. The Economic Development of the Soviet Union, Its Trendline, and the Two Reconstruction Periods
• 5. Deviations from the "Classical" Reconstruction Period
• 6. 

PART II

• 7. 
• 8. 
• 9. The Diffusion of Innovations
• 10. The Quantity of Embodied Labor
• 11. 
• 12. 
• 13. Labor Power and Progress
• 14. The Tension That Underlies Progress and the Bond That Limits Its Tempo

※ 발췌 1 (excerpt):

Routledge Revival: The End of the Economic Miracle

Originally published in 1971, this report presents Dr Jánossy's attempt to demonstrate that all post-war economic 'miracle' lasted only until production levels reached the levels they should have done had there been no war and concludes that economic development is extremely consistent. Jánossy also provides a detailed growth theory which suggests that this consistency is reached purely by the development of mankind and occupational structure rather than research or capital development. This title will be of interest to students of Business and Economics. 

※ 발췌 2 (excerpt):

INTRODUCTION

THE TRUE VEHICLE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  While our perception of the particular knowledge of single individual will forever remain incomplete, and the sum total of all human capability, learning, and skill eludes us, its result─the product of human labor─manifests itself as a perpetually rising stream of concrete values that can be evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. Even if we follow this stream to its source, our attention will be captured by the machines from which it flows rather than by the activity, let alone the knowledge, of the men who ultimately determine its volume. Even here, at the source, labor embodied in the means of production occupies the foreground, while living labor─primarily due to the division of labor─appears to subordinate itself to the machine. Since the tool has long passed from the artisan's hand to the steel grip of the machine, and with it the artisan's skill, and since today even electronic brains instead of human brains frequently supervise and direct the work of the machine, it is not surprising if a nation's wealth appears to depend upon the machinery at its disposal.

  The fact that the basic vehicle of economic developments is the development of man himself is forgotten, and the tempo of progress seems to be determined today by the spread of a perpetually self-perfecting machinery. Just as an entrepreneur believes that his capital itself bears interest and creates new capital, that wealth begets wealth, and that poverty remains poverty because it has no capital, so it appears that one country is rich because it possesses modern means of production, and another is poor because it has only primitive ones. The backward country seems to be backward because it is too poor to obtain modern means of production, and the developed country seems to be developed because its wealth enables it to install the most modern equipment.

  It goes without saying that nobody will defend such an extreme overvaluation of the means of production and deny the importance of labor power; and nobody is likely to dispute the fact that the development of the means of production and of labor power proceed hand in hand. The role, however, that each of these two processes plays in their mutual development is subject to widely different evaluation.

  We take the position that the overwhelming factor in this interaction is the development of labor power, and that consequently the economic progress of a country ultimately depends─in the long run, in other words─on the full flowering of its labor power, since society creates over and over again, although often after delays and reverses, the means of production commensurate to the prevailing level of development of labor. Obsolete means of production, inadequate to the population's given state of development, can, of course, lower the production level temporarily, but in the long run they can only hold back the course of development if this inadequacy persists long enough to stunt the development of labor power itself.

  But it is premature to delve into theoretical reflections at so early a point and to attempt to disprove views which, however widespread, are based only on the appearance and not on the essence of the reproduction process. Only in Part II of this book can we try to convert the reader to our heretical views, after presenting in Part I statistical facts that are widely known but are here placed in a new context that will at least bring some accepted views into question.

  A country's undisturbed economic development, with harmony prevailing between development of labor power and the means of production, obviously cannot contribute much to the solution of our problem, for only when this harmony is disturbed does the overwhelming factor become apparent. The most instructive case would be one in which the population of two countries with different levels of development would change places, leaving behind their possessions, and thus also the means of production. In such a case─for which history offers no example─the means of production would be separated from labor, and it could be unequivocally shown whether the attained level is maintained through the former or the latter. Closest to it in causing a similar separation─although in a very different manner─is the case in which war destroys a great part of the means of production and thereby creates a situation in which the country's labor force, whose structure and status preserved, must cope with the reconstruction of the economy with inadequate means of production.

  Our interest in postwar economic reconstruction periods thus has nothing to do with war itself; it stems, rather, from general problems of economic development. The reconstruction period should not be examined in order to revive the memory of the past or to fight the danger of a third world war. We analyze the reconstruction period because it has far greater significance for understanding undisturbed economic development─particularly that of the future─than an isolated view of the economic events of the last decade might indicate. 

( ... ... )