Abstract

This article systematically reviews trends in numerous economic policy indicators in eighteen OECD countries since the early 1980s, synthesizing findings about the fate of states’ economic interventionism from several customarily separate literatures. Rather than observing any paradigmatic policy shift, the review finds that policies with markedly different ideational foundations currently cohabitate. In line with non-interventionist prescriptions, policymakers have largely abandoned the intrusive heterodox ‘power tools’ of previous eras, while establishing new norms for monetary policy based on monetarist theory. However, this has not led to a full retreat of economic interventionism. Instead, policymakers are gradually developing a new, albeit more constrained, approach to promoting economic activity in line with selected distributional goals – here labelled the micro-interventionist state, or the ‘Swiss Army Knife State’, as it were. The cross-partisan appeal of the ‘multi-tools’ associated with this approach – such as horizontal industrial policy, active social policy, and strategic tax expenditures and procurement – partly stems from their versatility, as policymakers can use them to very different distributional ends. To better understand the politics and distributional consequences of contemporary economic policies, scholars need to take their versatility more seriously, shifting focus theoretically and empirically from how much to how policymakers intervene in the economy.

摘要

本文系统地回顾了自 1980 年代初期以来 18 个 OECD 国家众多经济政策指标的趋势，综合了几个通常独立的文献中关于国家经济干预主义命运的研究结果。审查没有观察任何范式政策转变，而是发现具有明显不同理念基础的政策目前共存。根据不干预主义的规定，政策制定者在很大程度上放弃了以前时代侵入性的非正统“动力工具”，同时基于货币主义理论建立了新的货币政策规范。然而，这并没有导致经济干预主义全面退却。相反，政策制定者正在逐渐开发一种新的，尽管受到更多限制，根据选定的分配目标促进经济活动的方法——这里称为微观干预主义国家，或“瑞士军刀国家”。与这种方法相关的“多工具”的跨党派吸引力——例如横向产业政策、积极的社会政策以及战略性税收支出和采购——部分源于它们的多功能性，因为政策制定者可以将它们用于非常不同的分配目的. 为了更好地理解当代经济政策的政治和分配后果，学者们需要更加认真地对待它们的多功能性，将理论和经验的焦点从 与这种方法相关的“多工具”的跨党派吸引力——例如横向产业政策、积极的社会政策以及战略性税收支出和采购——部分源于它们的多功能性，因为政策制定者可以将它们用于非常不同的分配目的. 为了更好地理解当代经济政策的政治和分配后果，学者们需要更加认真地对待它们的多功能性，将理论和经验的焦点从 与这种方法相关的“多工具”的跨党派吸引力——例如横向产业政策、积极的社会政策以及战略性税收支出和采购——部分源于它们的多功能性，因为政策制定者可以将它们用于非常不同的分配目的. 为了更好地理解当代经济政策的政治和分配后果，学者们需要更加认真地对待它们的多功能性，将理论和经验的焦点从政策制定者如何干预经济。