I was reading a series of articles on competitiveness, with a focus on declining US competitiveness: America's tech decline: A reading guide, and it occurred to me that a focus on competitiveness may be misguided, and that a focus on productivity might provide better guidance.
The focus on competitiveness identifies winners and losers. It creates a context in which local relative advantage is preferred over global absolute advantage. Monopolies are favoured, to capture benefit locally, despite their reducing the total benefit obtained from the set of resources monopolized. Actions which decrease the competitiveness as others are promoted as legitimate means to "win" the competition.
A focus on productivity, on the other hand, would admit the possibility that we can all be winners. Decreasing productivity in other areas would, generally, not increase local productivity. Therefore, there would be less incentive to use resources sub-optimally.
There are ample and inevitable reasons for competition. World population is increasing rapidly while the supply of many primary resources is limited. Without increases in global productivity, global population growth cannot be supported. Current trends suggest a deteriorating situation for most people, with only those who are ruthlessly competitive being able to improve their situation. There is no shortage of people who are so competitive, and there is no morality in large corporate bodies - the corporations are far more ruthless and competitive than any of the individuals.
A focus on productivity would suggest curbing some of the more immoral behaviours of large organizations and promote an effective balance between socialism and central control on the one hand, and individualism, capitalism and free markets on the other hand. Extremes in either direction have been unstable and ultimately undesired in the long run, with all the best societies having a mixture of capitalism and socialism, personal liberty and central management.
If we can't have sufficient for everyone, we are destined for strife and conflict, potentially and, as resources become more limited, almost certainly brutal. If we can have ample for everyone, then there will be no compelling need for competition, and only our basic character (competitiveness, greed and envy are very common traits) to cause such strife. To have ample for everyone, we must increase productivity and distribute what is produced so everyone has a sufficient (ample) share.
Promoting competitiveness and making others lose may yield fantastic local benefits in the short term, but in the long run it may not be the best strategy.
