- citati u SCIndeksu: [6]
- citati u CrossRef-u:[1]
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
 ]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:4
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:3
|
|
|
2015, vol. 63, br. 1-2, str. 1-15
|
|
Strategijsko razmišljanje - nova vizija industrijalizacije privrede i modernizacije društva
Think through strategy: New vision for industrialization of economy and modernization of society
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Ekonomski fakultet, Katedra za poslovnu ekonomiju i menadžment
Sažetak
U strategijskom razmišljanju o privredi Srbije postoje dva povezana pitanja. Šta ona trenutno predstavlja? Šta bi mogla da bude u budućnosti? Povodom prvog pitanja, odgovor je da je Srbija mikroskopska ekonomija u dugoj regresiji, kasni sledbenik u razvoju koji beleži zaostajanje u tranziciji prema putanji višeg nivoa razvoja. Ocena strateške pozicije Srbije govori o prisustvu duge liste indikatora ranjivosti. Postoji opasna kombinacija strukturnih neravnoteža i geopolitičkog zaglavljivanja. U državi koja je zavisna od uvoza i kredita, visoka finansijalizacija višestruko narušava stanje u ekonomiji. U poslednjih dvadeset pet godina Srbija je izgubila skoro 1/10 svog stanovništva i skoro 1/6 svoje teritorije bogate značajnim prirodnim nasleđem. Autput u stalnim cenama u 2014. je za skoro 1/3 manji u odnosu na 1989. godinu. Prethodne činjenice otvaraju suštinsko pitanje: zašto se ljudi u dugom periodu ponašaju u suprotnosti sa svojim interesima? Odgovor je jednostavan, pogrešan sistem. Njega ne treba popravljati. Njega treba promeniti. To nije jednostavan zadatak zbog toga što u vreme diskontinuiteta dobra strategija i efikasan model rasta predstavljaju pokretne mete. U novom kontekstu, ključna kompetentnost svake nacionalne ekonomije, male ili velike, razvijene ili nerazvijene, stagnantne ili brzorastuće, postaje strategijska fleksibilnost. U strategijskom razmišljanju ključno pitanje nije: šta je ispravno? Već: šta bi trebalo da bude ispravno? U novom kontekstu uloga vlade se ne sastoji u tome da se ostvari samo dobro geopolitičko pozicioniranje i održi politička stabilnost i socijalna kohezija, već, takođe, i dominantno, da se podstakne razvoj novog modela ekonomskog rasta i odgovarajuće platforme za vođenje ekonomskih politika. Ortodoksije vođenja ekonomske politike u Srbiji su toliko ukorenjene da je neophodno napraviti zaokret kako bi se mogla ispratiti promena paradigme u ekonomskoj teoriji i politici. U potrazi za rešenjem, klatno se ne može pomeriti iz jednog ekstremnog institucionalnog izbora, po principu da je tržište najbolji regulator, ka drugom koji podrazumeva da je država jedini donosilac odluka. U našim prethodnim radovima [2], [3] i [4] mi smo se opredelili za heterodoksni pristup koji povezuje model razvoja i platformu za vođenje ekonomskih politika pomoću složenijeg pristupa nove strukturne ekonomske teorije. Prema novom pogledu, industrijska politika predstavlja kritičan elemenat. U ovom radu skoncentrisaćemo se na strategiju ekonomskog razvoja Srbije koja podržava prethodni izbor.
Abstract
In strategizing about Serbia's economy, there are two related questions. Where is it now? What it could be in the future? As far as the answer to the first question is concerned, Serbia is microscopic economy in long regression, late developer with delay in transition toward the road to higher development. Strategic audit of Serbia's position reveals long list of vulnerability indicators. Dangerous mix of structural imbalances and geopolitical stuck in the middle exists. In import and debt dependent country, high financialization undermines its economy in many ways. In the last 25 years, Serbia lost roughly 1/10 of population and approximately 1/6 of its territory rich with significant natural resource endowment. Output in constant prices in 2014 is almost 1/3 lower in comparison with 1989 level. The previous facts raise fundamental question: Why do people in the long period act against their own interest? The answer is simple: wrong system. We do not want to fix it up. We must change it. It is not easy because in the age of discontinuity great strategy and efficient model of economic growth are moving targets. In the new context the core competence for each national economy, small or large, early developer or late developer, stagnating or fast-growing, is going to be strategic flexibility. In thinking through strategy, the key question is not what is right? But, what would have to be right? In the new context, the role of government is not only to achieve greater geopolitical positioning and maintain political stability and social cohesion, but also, and predominantly, to encourage development of new model of economic growth and related economic policy platform. The orthodoxies governing the economy in Serbia are so entrenched that we need breakthrough to articulate the paradigm change in theory and policy. In quest for solution, pendulum should not be shifted from one extreme institutional choice that the market is the best regulator to the other which assumes that the state is the only master. In our previous articles [2], [3], and [4] we opt for heterodox approach which realigns development model and economic policy platform based on conceptually more complex approach of new structural economics. Industrial policy is a crucial element of the new wisdom. In this article, we concentrate on the strategy for economic growth in Serbia supporting previous choices.
|
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
 
|
Christensen, C., Bever, D. (2014) The capitalist's dilemma. Harvard Business Review, 92, (6), 60-68
|
|
11  
|
Đuričin, D., Vuksanović, I. (2013) Reindustrialization strategy of Serbia: How to get it and how to use it. Ekonomika preduzeća, vol. 61, br. 5-6, str. 289-308
|
|
4
|
Đuričin, D., Vuksanović, I. (2014) How to be ahead of the curve: The role of politicians in Serbia's reindustrialization. Ekonomika preduzeća, vol. 62, br. 1-2, str. 1-20
|
|
10
|
Đuričin, D., Vuksanović, I. (2014) Quest for new development model and economic policy platform for Serbia: The role of industrial policy. Ekonomika preduzeća, vol. 62, br. 5-6, str. 229-250
|
|
|
European Commission (2012) Six-pack?, two-pack?, fiscal compact?: A short guide to the new EU fiscal governance. http//ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/articles/governance/2012-03-14_six_pack_en.htm, March 14
|
|
|
European Commission (2013) Two-pack' enters into force, completing budgetary surveillance cycle and further improving economic governance for the euro area (memo). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO- 13-457_en.htm, May 27
|
|
2
|
Hidalgo, C.A., Klinger, B., Barabasi, A.-L., Hausmann, R. (2007) The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science, 317(5837): 482-487
|
|
|
Lafley, A.G., Martin, R.L. (2013) Playing to win: How strategy really works. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press
|
|
2
|
Lin, J.Y. (2012) New structural economics: A framework for rethinking development and policy. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
|
|
|
Malinić, D., Milićević, V., Glišić, M. (2014) Uslovljenost veličine i vitalnosti preduzeća u srpskoj privredi. Ekonomika preduzeća, vol. 62, br. 7-8, str. 323-347
|
|
|
Porter, M., Happelman, J. (2014) How smart connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92, (11), 64-88
|
|
11
|
Raghuram, R. (2010) Fault lines: How hidden fractures still threaten the world economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
|
|
|
Stiglitz, J.E., Lin, J.E., ur. (2013) The industrial policy revolution I: The role of government beyond ideology. New York: Palgrave MacMillan
|
|
2
|
Stiglitz, J.E., Lin, J.Y., Monga, C. (2013) The Rejuvenation of Industrial Policy. u: Policy Research Working Papers, Washington, DC: World Bank
|
|
|
|
|