Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (45112)	1/10/2009 7:26:02 PM
From: elmatador	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217927

Special interest groups, or distributional coalitions, hinder economic growth in industrialized nations. Special interest groups slow the pace of change in industry. We will reorganize production and adopt new technologies more slowly as more coalitions form for the purpose of transferring wealth. Distributional coalitions are mainly a problem of wealthy nations. Paradoxically, poor nations can experience strong growth due to the fact that they have little to redistribute. Poor nations can therefore develop rapidly. The examples of postwar Japan and Germany fit Olson's thesis well. Japan and West Germany were devastated and left poor by the War, but developed rapidly afterwards. As Japan and Germany became affluent, distributional coalitions formed to retard further economic development. Olson does not explain the stagnation of so called third world nations. Why is it that Japan and Germany were able to "take advantage" of their postwar poverty, while many other nations remain "too poor" to support extensive distributional coalitions? Distributional coalitions actually abound in poor nations. The Rise and Decline of Nations does not explain all of history, but this is definitely part of the formula. Its examples are a little dated, but there is some great stuff here.

To: maceng2 who wrote (45112)	1/10/2009 7:27:37 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217927

This leads us to the second part of Olson's hypothesis, those nations with high numbers of special-interest or collusion groups have lower levels of economic growth. Olson writes, "Distributional coalitions slow down a society's capacity to adopt new technologies and reallocate resources in response to changing conditions, and they reduce the rate of economic growth" (65). First, distributional coalitions stymie technological adoption when such innovation stands to benefit a rival group. A present day illustration can be found in a labor unions vehement opposition to the implementation of labor saving machinery. Second, distributional coalitions will attempt to block policy initiatives that change the status quo. When policy needs to be developed to increase economic or social advancement, the special-interest groups are likely to feel a certain displacement and will act to prevent such policy. According to Olson, these actions, coupled with others, often lead to policies which promote policies which have the potential to stifle economic growth. collectibles411.com