Is competition and “creative destruction” the solution?

In theory, the solution to the problem of low growth and low technological progress is simple: Competition must be strong to prevent corporate concentration and the proliferation of companies with dominant positions from leading to a decline in innovation and investment; “Creative destruction” (old companies disappear and are replaced by modern ones) must be allowed to prevent the emergence of “zombie” firms, which are overly indebted and technologically obsolete, do not invest enough, achieve few productivity gains and oddly monopolise bank credit. But the reality may be more complicated than the theory : It may be more efficient to finance the transition of old-technology companies to new technologies than to allow them to disappear in favour of new companies; the disappearance of companies is a brutal event that destroys jobs, skills and capital. The question is then the ability of companies to embark on a credible transition; At any given point in time, especially during a crisis, it is very difficult to know which companies should be supported so that they do not disappear and which companies should be allowed to disappear. It is not known what the nature or level of demand for different goods and services will be after a crisis: will demand return to normal (in which case bankruptcies should be avoided), or will it remain depressed (and delay the adjustment and the retraining of workers)? Technological progress and innovation are not necessarily associated with “ good jobs”: online services and platforms create many repetitive, low- skilled and poorly paid jobs. Since the economy began to digitalise, the structure of jobs has skewed in favour of unsophisticated, low-wage jobs in domestic services.