Săptămâna viitoare, fostul secretar de stat american Condoleezza Rice, unul dintre “starurile” de la Stanford, va susține cele două cursuri despre contextul global al managementului.
"Condi" la Stanford. Foto: Ed Caldwell
Bibliografia include ultima carte (The Next Convergence, apărută în mai anul acesta) a profesorului Michael Spence, laureat al Premiului Nobel pentru teoria semnalelor costisitoare în economie.
Acum câteva zile, am sublinat un pasaj în cartea lui Spence, pe care vreau să vi-l împărtășesc pentru că mi-a adus aminte de o politică dusă de mai toate guvernele românești post-decembriste. Zice economistul:
It is a strategically mistake, albeit an understandable one, to protect people by protecting their jobs. The short version of a better approach is: protect people, not jobs. It is easy to say but harder to do. Protecting companies and jobs is politically easier and tends to have the support of the incumbents (business and labor) and interests vested in the status quo. These interests are usually antithetical to new competition and growth. Sometimes they are politically quite powerful.
Protecting people means providing income support during periods of unemployment, effective retraining, and subsidized access to health, education and other basic services. Note that these services do not protect people from change. This safety net will always be seen as an imperfect substitute for job protection and employment security. But the best long-run protection for people is an economy with robust and growing labor demand and a high-rate of new productive employment creation. There is obviously a chicken-or-egg issue to be seen here in the interaction of economic dynamism and the protection of people through new employment creation.
There is a special problem with older workers in an economy that is rapidly changing structurally. Older workers are less mobile and hence much more vulnerable. The returns on retraining are lower because of the shorter time horizon in terms of their future working life. Fore these people, transitional-support mechanism may not be sufficient. The answer has to be a social commitment to longer-term income support – that is, a comprehensive and protective social security system.
:: Sursa foto: Ed Caldwell
hehe… discutam totusi de niste deficite bugetare extrem de mari, in mai toate statele bunastare din europa. in contextul pietelor financiare globale e greu de crezut ca guvernele vor cheltui mai mult, caci nu mai au de unde sa se imprumute, in ciuda multiplicatorului lui keynes. sa nu uitam ca la asta se adauga si factori precum imbatranirea populatiei si imputinarea resurselor, deci subiectul devine cu atat mai complicat. e nevoie de o regandire fundamentala a sistemelor economice in care traim, from craddle to grave ca sa spunem asa, pentru ca e nevoie si de creare de slujbe (ex: prin reforma sistemelor educationale, prin stimularea antreprenoriatului, prin dereglementare facuta inteligent) si de social safety nets, atat timp cat nu le cronicizezi pe acestea din urma. opinia mea per total este ca “the pie isn’t getting bigger”, a.i. va fi nevoie de solutii cu adevarat creative. oricum, m-ai convins sa cumpar cartea lui spence. 🙂
1. In Romania in primul rand ar trebui reduse taxele pe munca.
2. La noi nu esti stimulat sa muncesti mai mult si mai bine. La stat sau la privat ar trebui sa primesti salar in functie de ceea ce faci zi de zi.