May 18, 1994
"Competitiveness? Why Worry"
San Jose Mercury News
By Timothy Taylor
<< Back to 1994 menu
PAUL KRUGMAN of MIT, one of the world's leading specialists in international
economics, is on the warpath against the idea of competitiveness. He recently
wrote: "The whole concept of 'competitiveness' is at best problematic, at
Krugman is pushing this argument hard. He has a just-published book for non-specialist
readers called "Peddling Prosperity." The book was excerpted in the
March issue of Fortune; related essays by Krugman appeared in the March/April
Foreign Affairs, and the April Scientific American (the latter written with Robert
Lawrence of Harvard).
But what can Krugman possibly mean? Isn't competitiveness just obviously a
good thing, like parenthood and apple pie?
For Krugman, as for most economists, the economy exists to deliver a higher
standard of living, and higher productivity is a means to that goal. The link
is a tight one. Krugman cites evidence that domestic productivity increased a
total of 5.1 percent from 1979 to 1989, which is almost exactly the same as the
(pathetically small) increase in the average compensation of workers over that
Sometimes, "competitiveness" is just a flashy synonym for policies
to improve domestic productivity through the time-honored and well-proven methods
of sustained investment in physical capital, new technology, and skilled workers,
who are then allowed to function in a market-oriented environment.
But "competitiveness" can also describe an economic philosophy which
holds that a country cannot prosper without success in international markets,
particularly success in certain key industries (somehow decided upon). Further,
this philosophy often claims that a certain degree of government assistance (somehow
decided upon) can be critical in determining whether industry attains such an
Krugman holds that Clinton and many of his economic advisers have been led
astray by this broader idea of competitiveness.
Consider with cold logic, for example, the proposition that a country cannot
prosper without success in international markets, especially certain key markets.
But why not? Only 10 percent of the U.S. economy is exports and imports. About
two-thirds of the U.S. economy (on Krugman's estimate) is non-traded goods, essentially
unaffected by international trade.
If U.S. productivity were to increase substantially in the two-thirds of the
economy that isn't affected by trade, the national standard of living would rise
substantially, with no effect whatsoever on the U.S. position in those supposedly
key international markets.
Nowadays, everyone knows to snicker at the ponderous arrogance that once proclaimed
"what's good for General Motors is good for the country." But the competitiveness
mavens of today have simply updated the slogan to argue that what's good for the
export performance of certain industries that they choose is what's good for the
country. Cynicism about such sloganeering is in order.
Of course, there is no reason to neglect productivity gains in the international
trade sectors. But are those areas especially important?
The actual problem is that low U.S. productivity will always hurt the U.S.
standard of living more generally. Falling behind international competitors may
hurt our feelings, but it doesn't cause any additional reduction in the standard
Or as Krugman puts it: "The moral of our discussion, then, is that while
low productivity is a problem, international trade does not make it any more of
a problem. Instead, the option of exporting the things you don't make too badly,
and importing the things you do, reduces somewhat the costs of being unproductive
When "competitiveness" just means working toward high U.S. productivity,
it does little harm. "But ultimately," Krugman argues, "the rhetoric
of competitiveness will be destructive, because it can all too easily lead to
both bad policies and to neglect of the real issues."
For example, competitiveness policies tend to offer special benefits to the
minority of the economy involved in international trade, thus leaving the majority
of the economy at a relative disadvantage.
Talk of competitiveness tends to focus on a few visible industries where activist
politicians want to claim credit (like the flat-panel display industry) or on
industries that are suffering (like the U.S. auto and steel industries in much
of the last decade), rather than on creating economic conditions for a broad range
of industries to germinate and flourish.
Finally, competitiveness fanatics tend to focus on the fairness of rules about
trade, taxes, and subsidies. They are more interested in trade skirmishes than
in how to create conditions where the average American worker produces more per
International competitiveness may serve as a useful rallying cry for the Olympic
games, and for individual companies. But the economy is not an ice-dancing competition,
nor a profit-seeking corporation.
Productivity growth may not sound as catchy as competitiveness. But if policy
makers want to reinvigorate the standard of living for the average American, which
has now stagnated for two decades, higher productivity is the only way.
<< Back to 1994 menu