Jose Ortega y Gasset once said that "to define is to exclude and deny." The authors of the preceding article (hereinafter referred to collectively as Miller) attempt to discredit American-style industrial policy by mischaracterizing it. Miller does this through a series of historical and contemporary examples which in reality are easily criticized attempts at centralized planning and which bear little relation to the industrial policy strategies proposed for the 1980's. These inapt examples lead Miller to dismiss industrial policy on the ground that it would lead to politicized, collectivist action against the public good. They also compel him to favor reliance on the market, which Miller asserts "is the best coordinator of business, labor, and consumer decisions-especially in a complex industrial economy." Perhaps the most serious defect in Miller's discussion, however, is its failure to address three important realities that must be considered when evaluating the desirability of implementing an industrial policy: (1) government's inevitable involvement in microeconomic policy-making, (2) the nature of international economic competition, and (3) the difficulties that attend the present transition of the American economy from a manufacturing to a service and information economy.
Stuart E. Eizenstat,
Reindustrialization through Coordination or Chaos?,
Yale J. on Reg.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol2/iss1/3