Macroeconomic Policy and U.S. Competitiveness

Richard H.K. Vietor; Matthew  Weinzierl

Article | Harvard Business Review | March 2012

Macroeconomic Policy and U.S. Competitiveness

by Richard H.K. Vietor and Matthew Weinzierl

Abstract

The United States is on a glide path to fiscal disaster, with experts projecting that the federal government will take in far less money than it spends-indefinitely. Our current fiscal policy is eroding competitiveness in several ways, and business conditions in the U.S. will deteriorate if there's no change in direction. The authors examine how fiscal policy relates to the three drivers of productivity: improving human capital, increasing physical capital (equipment or software, for example), and using these forms of capital more efficiently. Government spending for many public goods, such as education and infrastructure, contributes directly to one or more of them, whereas spending on health care and entitlements does little to enhance competitiveness directly. Taxes are needed to fund public goods, but they sometimes distort the allocation of human and physical capital. And large government deficits put upward pressure on the cost of borrowing for companies. The authors propose a plan-they call it "20/21 by 2021"-to reduce the deficit from 3.8% of GDP (the Congressional Budget Office's most likely scenario) to just over 1%.

Keywords: Macroeconomics; Government and Politics; Financial Crisis; Policy; Competition; Public Administration Industry; United States;

Format: Print

Purchase

Citation:

Vietor, Richard H.K., and Matthew Weinzierl. "Macroeconomic Policy and U.S. Competitiveness." Harvard Business Review 90, no. 3 (March 2012).

Case | HBS Case Collection | April 2020 (Revised June 2020)

SpaceX, Economies of Scale, and a Revolution in Space Access

Matthew C. Weinzierl, Kylie Lucas and Mehak Sarang

From the time he transformed the world of online banking, Elon Musk established himself as a bold innovator. After selling X.com to PayPal in 2002, he founded a series of revolutionary start-ups, starting with Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). Hoping to "make human life multiplanetary", Musk aimed to establish the first Mars civilization, but was unable to procure rockets that would be cheap or reliable enough to make the journey. Over the course of the next decade, SpaceX developed a line of revolutionary rockets that transformed the commercial space launch industry. Using reusable rockets to exploit the benefits of economies of scale, SpaceX cut costs to orbit by a factor of 18 and captured a large percentage of the global launch market, once thought to be inaccessible to newcomers in the industry. But after a remarkable decade, Musk's original goal to reach Mars seemed both within reach and impossibly optimistic. SpaceX developed technologies that would be critical in supporting a crewed mission to Mars, but the cost to get there was estimated to be well above $200 billion dollars in 2014, nowhere near revenues from the launch services market. Would there be enough demand for launch services to make Elon Musk's vision a possibility, or would SpaceX have to find other ways to get there?

Keywords: space tech; space access; vision; Economies of Scale; Technological Innovation; Emerging Markets; Commercialization; Finance; Aerospace Industry;

Citation:

Weinzierl, Matthew C., Kylie Lucas, and Mehak Sarang. "SpaceX, Economies of Scale, and a Revolution in Space Access." Harvard Business School Case 720-027, April 2020. (Revised June 2020.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase

Since its expulsion from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had transformed itself from a third world island nation into a vibrant city-state with one of the highest levels of GDP per capita in the world. However, sluggish demand among Singapore's major trade partners began testing the nation's export-driven growth model. It was also becoming clear that the Singaporean government could no longer focus single-mindedly on economic growth. Was Singapore facing a mid-life crisis? If so, how could the government revive optimism in the nation's future?

Twenty years after the end of Apartheid, South Africa's democracy persists, albeit with problems. A tripartite coalition—the African National Congress, the labor unions, and the Communist Party—still controls the political system but with diminishing economic results and authority. Since 2010, the economy has grown at 1.4% annually, with unemployment at 25%. Several national plans have been initiated but none with success. Most recently, the National Development Plan is the Zuma administration's approach. And then, at the end of 2015, cronyism sunk the stock market and the currency, causing a political crisis. Pravin Gordhan, an experienced bureaucrat, is once again Finance Minister but faces the tradeoff between growth and debt reduction. With the recent resignation of Zuma and the instatement of former deputy president and wealthy businessman Cyril Ramaphosa as President, it was still to be determined if a change in leadership would be enough to improve the country's economic and social situation.

Faculty & Research

Macroeconomic Policy and U.S. Competitiveness

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors