政府与殖民经济:另一种观点

IF 0.5 4区 历史学 Q4 ECONOMICS Australian Economic History Review Pub Date : 2000-03-01 DOI:10.1111/1467-8446.00056
L. Frost
{"title":"政府与殖民经济:另一种观点","authors":"L. Frost","doi":"10.1111/1467-8446.00056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Government is one of the crucial institutions that shape the development of economies and in a recent issue of this journal H. M. Boot contributed a useful survey of its effects on Australia during the colonial period. Boot emphasized the beneficial effects of government in terms of creating stability and secure property rights, but also argued that important decisions about capital works came to be influenced more by political expediency than by sound economic criteria. This flawed decision-making process created a significant field of unproductive investments which ‘crowded out’ private-sector activity and weakened the economy. The purpose of this article is to examine this argument closely and critically. It will argue that there is no evidence to support the contention that politicians saw public works simply as an opportunity to buy votes and that an awareness of the costs of unproductive investment forced Parliament to use market-based criteria to assess proposed spending. The article will suggest an alternative explanation of the failure of the private sector to generate sufficient investment to increase the rate of economic growth, and of the extent to which public investment crowded out the private sector.","PeriodicalId":54143,"journal":{"name":"Australian Economic History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-8446.00056","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Goverment and the Colonial Economies: An Alternative View\",\"authors\":\"L. Frost\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8446.00056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Government is one of the crucial institutions that shape the development of economies and in a recent issue of this journal H. M. Boot contributed a useful survey of its effects on Australia during the colonial period. Boot emphasized the beneficial effects of government in terms of creating stability and secure property rights, but also argued that important decisions about capital works came to be influenced more by political expediency than by sound economic criteria. This flawed decision-making process created a significant field of unproductive investments which ‘crowded out’ private-sector activity and weakened the economy. The purpose of this article is to examine this argument closely and critically. It will argue that there is no evidence to support the contention that politicians saw public works simply as an opportunity to buy votes and that an awareness of the costs of unproductive investment forced Parliament to use market-based criteria to assess proposed spending. The article will suggest an alternative explanation of the failure of the private sector to generate sufficient investment to increase the rate of economic growth, and of the extent to which public investment crowded out the private sector.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Economic History Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-8446.00056\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Economic History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8446.00056\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Economic History Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8446.00056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

摘要

政府是影响经济发展的重要机构之一,在本刊最近一期中,布特(h.m. Boot)对殖民时期政府对澳大利亚的影响进行了有益的调查。布特强调了政府在创造稳定和安全产权方面的有益作用,但他也认为,有关资本工程的重要决定更多地受到政治权宜之计的影响,而不是健全的经济标准。这种有缺陷的决策过程创造了一个重要的非生产性投资领域,“排挤”了私营部门的活动,削弱了经济。本文的目的是仔细和批判性地考察这一论点。它将辩称,没有证据支持以下论点:政客们仅仅将公共工程视为收买选票的机会,对非生产性投资成本的认识迫使议会使用基于市场的标准来评估拟议的支出。本文将对私营部门未能产生足够的投资以提高经济增长率,以及公共投资挤占私营部门的程度提出另一种解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Goverment and the Colonial Economies: An Alternative View
Government is one of the crucial institutions that shape the development of economies and in a recent issue of this journal H. M. Boot contributed a useful survey of its effects on Australia during the colonial period. Boot emphasized the beneficial effects of government in terms of creating stability and secure property rights, but also argued that important decisions about capital works came to be influenced more by political expediency than by sound economic criteria. This flawed decision-making process created a significant field of unproductive investments which ‘crowded out’ private-sector activity and weakened the economy. The purpose of this article is to examine this argument closely and critically. It will argue that there is no evidence to support the contention that politicians saw public works simply as an opportunity to buy votes and that an awareness of the costs of unproductive investment forced Parliament to use market-based criteria to assess proposed spending. The article will suggest an alternative explanation of the failure of the private sector to generate sufficient investment to increase the rate of economic growth, and of the extent to which public investment crowded out the private sector.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Australian Economic History Review is concerned with the historical treatment of economic, social and business issues, particularly (but not exclusively) relating to Australia, New Zealand and adjoining regions in Asia and the Pacific. Papers examine these issues not only from the perspective of economic history but also from the related disciplines of history, economics, history of economic thought, industrial relations, demography, sociology, politics and business studies.
期刊最新文献
The Power of Economic Ideas: The Origins of Keynesian Macroeconomic Management in Interwar Australia 1929–39 – By Alex Millmow Up From the Underworld: Coalminers and Community in Wonthaggi 1909 to 1968 – By Andrew Reeves Global Economic History: a Very Short Introduction – By Robert C. Allen The ‘Enfant Terrible’: Australia and the Reconstruction of the Multilateral Trade system, 1946–8 To Market! To Market! The Changing Role of the Australian Timber Merchant, 1945–c.1965
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1