O economista chefe do World Bank apresenta sua proposta. A Anne Krueger mostra que, como a proposta não tem lá muito de novo, as críticas de sempre seguem valendo:
"What purports to be the “new” part is the assertion that coordination and upgrading of infrastructure should in some way be related to particular industries. It is at this point where a question arises: most economists would accept the view that cost–benefit analysis should be used in the choice of infrastructure projects. If “externalities” and “coordination” are important, are they important for specific industries or for the entire industrial economy? If the former, how are those industries to be identified, and how would the externalties be estimated in cost–benefit analysis? Or would they? If infrastructure is seen to be industry-specific, it is not clear what it is. As with the possible existence of infant industries, it is one thing to believe that there are such industries (perhaps) and quite another to identify ahead of time which they are. And even if such industries exist and are identified, questions arise as to the incentives that would be appropriate for the government to foster these industries. (Would they be firm-specific treatment? Tariffs? Subsidies to firms or industries? Each has huge problems.) And if it is more “conventional,” what is new? If infrastructure is specific to industry (or a group of industries), the same questions must be addressed. (...)
“Picking winners” as industries is difficult; it cannot be firm specific or the usual problems of corruption and cronyism arise. And yet supporting an industry or industries as an undifferentiated entity is difficult: are textiles an industry? Or is synthetic fiber an industry? Or is nylon an industry?"Vale a pena ler o texto inteiro.