Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
European Tribune - EREC EU policy conference
In his opening speech, Commissioner Piebald, through a speech reader, said that: "annual electricity growth will be 2.30% according to IEA, while power plants must be replaced to answer demands and respect new standards. But since we rely on markets, we can only steer companies to make the right choices". Later on, he argued that for this steering, "nor public opinion nor market forces will be enough."
This offering of stewardship from the Commission and the incident position it sees itself in --- a more dirigiste one --- is a bold statement. It was, however, not reiterated afterwards by other members of the Commission. Overall, this was the most interesting comment, since it anchored the discussion in a policy space; one can only regret this was not followed by most panelists.
I have not followed in detail Piebalgs' policy statements over his 5-year tenure but I believe this is a change in his tune. Too bad politicians only start saying sensible things when they have at least one foot out of office.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 05:16:25 AM EST
A variation of this theme (dirigism in the new millenium, to sex it up) is the subject of my next diary...

Ok, in case I don't follow up on that, here is the gist of my question. I work in a renewable energy investment fund. In what sense can I be said to work for the private sector, considering that:

  • my income is footed by taxes on electricity consumption;
  • the only way to operate is project finance, which increases returns and reduces taxes because projects are seen are no risk, and thus obtain low yields.
I fight with the idea that these links, while indirect, makes most of the REN industry akin to subcontractors. Of course, there are no contracts Governments anywhere; instead, "market mechanism" arrange for the centrally allocated funds to be share amongst the industry.

SO, is this just keynesianism in the new millenium? Or was the classical distinction between the private sector and government a myth to begin with?

I surely recall my teacher's insistence on the microfoundations of economic theory, yet not once was it brough up that homo economicus fills the ranks of public servants too.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:04:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
UnEstranAvecVueSurMer:
was the classical distinction between the private sector and government a myth to begin with?
I suggest reading Galbraith's The New Industrial State or Minsky's Stabilizing an Unstable Economy for discussions of how the market mechanism is incompatible with capital-intensive activities. (We're talking about physical capital with long lifetimes)

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:10:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I bought Galbraith's The New Industrial State last week because it kept coming up in your comments here. I'll let you know what I think.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series