Regulation Theory - Macro Economics

Q & A inquire
2007/04/16
S.H. : Following the general seminar at MFJ EBISU (+) and the specialist seminar (!) thereafter, I have remarked that the cluster analysis on « the diversity of capitalism » appeared in chapter 4 and 5 of the course book (*) can be interpreted in various way. I am willing to focus on the following points.

(I) The five criteria of the cluster analysis, Product market, Labor market, Financial system, Social protection and Education, does they permit to offer the operational complementary value set to the politics of innovation ?
(II) The fifth criteria, education, which Prof. Amable has raised the vocational education in your course book, should be closely related to the innovation. How does it (cluster analysis on education criteria) provide the operational utility to the politics of innovation ?
(III) The notion of Innovation, that Prof. Amable has emphasized in his seminar (+), is appearing in the chapter 5, in terms of ICT. The other technological term like GMO, Renewable Energy, Environment technology can be also treated in this manner ?

Here, I develop my point of view.
The ensemble of the five criteria does not allow to measure quantitatively, Y = P + L + F + S + E, of course, this additional character is based on the assumption that each criteria is independent variable and the whole of macro economics Y is operational regarding to those each variable criteria, but, this is not the case here.
But anyhow, the argument of institutional complementarity, which is largely evoked in the seminar (!), is seemingly assumed by the operability between these five criteria, for example, I express this by following formula,
Y = P ⊗L ⊗F ⊗ S ⊗E, where ⊗is phase multiply operation
When the complementarity between L, S and E are found, it breaks in to the following,
Y = (P ⊗F) c(L ⊕S ⊕E), where ⊕is dependent additive operation,
and further more, this relation can be determined in a complementary form
U = u(L, S, E) = L ⊕S ⊕E ; {U(L,S,E) u=aL+bS+cE} or U=domain.
V = v(P, F) = P ⊕F ; {V(P,F) v=aP+bF} or V=domain.
These can be illustrated in the figure below.

Here, I just assimilate to the typical macro analysis, although I know these five criteria is not completely measurable variables, and they consists of the ensemble starting from the cluster analysis described in chap 4. But if your discussion concerning the institutional complementarity is optimally corresponding to the diversity of capitalism, I think, it should figure out anyhow, an aspect of complementary variable like (P, F) and (L, S, E) in this scheme. (Point I)

Supposing this complementary variables, I would like to argue on the political operability through the complementary variables (P, L, E) to the innovation policy in EU. (Point II). The description of the vocational education regarding the innovation in chap. 4 is right.
As a matter of fact, the policy of EU is emphasizing on the role of innovation, relatively small impact on Social protection, and largely depending on the Financial system, especially when the innovation matter is touching to the high technology. Here, I put my assumption of the complementarity between (P, L, E) and the total regional economics Y is expressed by below ;
Y = U ⊗F ⊗S
U (P, L, E) = sum U[i](P ⊕L ⊕E), [i]=technology {ICT, GMO, Energy, Environment etc}

Here I find, for the case of ICT, the complementarity is very large, as it is demonstrated in the bench mark figure of each countries shift in chap. 5. I agree with this. But probably, the degree of this complementarity is depending on the nature of technology, and this is very controversial to distinguish it’s impact like below ;
U[ICT] > U[Energy] > U[Environment]
where F and S is independent of the (P, L, E)

Additionally, here I try to reinterpret the notion of Education into the Research System. So, as far as we know, the elaboration of EU on the innovation policy is stressing clearly on the budge growth on U=sum U[i], but there apparently there are many barriers not permitting the complementarity of (P, L, E) even in the EU market. This is why the EU implicate the primary roll of ERA (European Research Area) and NoE (Network of Excellence) as an instrument of FP6, 7 for making the competitive platform of exchange portfolio of P, L and E.
The report of vocational education described in chap.4 is stressing on this aspect, I think, on L and E. So, my question is, according to your point of view, how your analysis tools provide the operational utility to the policy of innovation ? (Point III). Especially, when the variable set forms the ensemble of U[i] regarding to the different technology, {[i] i=ICT, GMO, Energy, Environment, etc}, how can it make effective the macro economics of regulation mode and acquisition regime ?
Myself is trying to an explanation on this regulatory aspect on techno-economy, which I mentioned in my previous email to Prof. Amable, on the series of Technology Assessment occurred very often late 1990 and 2005 in EU and in many European countries. In other words, I would like ask to express the socio-technological dimension of the Technology Assessment in terms of Regulatory Economics.

S.H.
Prof. Bruno Amable - Univ. Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
Bonjour
J'étais un participant de votre colloque à MFJ au 11. avril 2007.

Mercredi 11 avril 2007 18 h salle 601 * en franc,ais avec traduction
Confe'rence : ? Innovation et compe'titivite' en Europe ? * Bruno AMABLE, Universite' Paris I * Coope'ration : Hokkaido University - Advanced Institute for Law and Politics

Vers la fin de la séance, je vous posé la question commsuivant. La politique industrielle et de l'innovation issue de la commussion européenne, notament de FP6, 7 et son instrument ERA(European Research Area) va-t-il vraiment aboutir à la meilleur conséquence comme lui (CE) annonce de la primauté de la société des savoirs (Declaration de Lisbonne 2000).
En fin, comme vous avez témoigné, la declaration de Lisbonne, donc selons la prévision macro-économiste du néo-libéralisme, ne va pas vraiment mener l'ensemble de l'économie européenne tel qu'il est énoncé de la saute de la techno-économie innovatrice par l'expenditure 3% du PIB.
Mais, il est aussi vrai que cette expenditure réalisera cetains mesure officillement annoncé, comme l'infrastructure de ERA, NoE centralisation des resources de l'excellence de R&D, Mobilité des resources humaines et des savoirs de touttes les diversité, donc, la recherche de la société des savoirs va entrer dans la phase de la recherche interdisciplianire, dit, la fusion de la science technology et la société.
Comme vous avez mentionné "les capitalismes à cinq", les critère avec les quelles vous avez judgé ce typologie sont suffisament très bien établis comme outil d'analyse de macro-économie. Les cinq indices sont; 1) marché du produit, 2) marché du travail, 3) système financier, 4) protection sociale et 5) education (système de recherche).
Quand l'Europe va tenter de formuler un certain sanctuaire regulatrice, la zone Europe, avec une implication politique des citoyens, le cas de l'assessment technologique sur OGM, Energie renouvelable, et la lutte contre le changement du climat etc, est un meilleur exemple pour illustrer cette identité européenne. Pour cela, vous aves nombreux instrument, comme OPECST à l'assemblé national et au sénat en France, STOA au parlement européen, et EPTA à l'echelle europénne.
http://www.senat.fr/opecst/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm
http://www.eptanetwork.org/EPTA/

Mon argument est la suivante;
Est-ce que ces mesures sont vraiment mise à comte dans l'étude de l'économie microscopique et macroscopie ? De ce que je vois en Europe, c'est suffisement diversifié sur cette question là. Je ne suis pas spécialiste de l'économie, mais j'effectue ma recherche sur ce terme de Assessment de Technologie depuis ces années, et que je n'ai pas trouvé la preuve que l'Europe se base sur la théorie communne de partager la réguation technologique pour la gouvernance de la société. D'ailleur la relation d'entre la technologie et la société n'est pas la même dans tous les pays de l'Europe, comme vous avez mis dans le catégorie de capitalisme continental, néo-libéral, de sud, sociale-démocrate, bref, la diversité de la notion de techno-économie. Mais d'où vient-il cette diversité, vu de l'économie micro-scopique, surtout de l'économie de l'innovation, ne faudrait-il pas y ajouter la notion de la régulation technologique ? Et si c'est oui, comment peut-on analyser l'ensemble de l'économie de l'innovation et de la régulation d'innovation ?

Si vous pouvez accepter cette question, j'aimerais le discuter, je vais participer à votre séminaire ouverte à lundi prochain.

Merci beaucoup de cette lecture.
Shingo Hamada