Economic planning: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Robot: Editing intentional link to disambiguation page in hatnote per WP:INTDABLINK (explanation))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Economic systems sidebar}}
{{Economic systems sidebar}}
{{About|an planning conducted by the state|information on "participatory" and de-centralized planning|Participatory economics}}
{{About|an planning conducted by the state|information on "participatory" and de-centralized planning|Participatory economics}}

Revision as of 02:38, 7 September 2010


Economic planning (also central planning and central economic planning) refers to any directing or planning of economic activity by the state, in an attempt to achieve specific economic or social outcomes. Planning is an economic mechanism for resource allocation and decision-making in contrast with the market mechanism. Most economies are mixed economies, incorporating elements of market mechanisms and planning for distributing inputs and outputs.[1] An economy primarily based on centralized planning is a planned economy, where resource allocation and quantity of goods to be produced is determined by a comprehensive plan of production specifying mandatory output requirements.[2]

Economic planning can apply to production, investment, distribution or all three. Planning may take the form of directive planning or indirect planning (indicative planning).

Socialist economic planning

Socialists and Marxists differentiate between the concept of command economy, which existed in the Soviet Union, and economic planning, defining a command economy as top-down administrative planning based on bureaucratic organization (akin to organizing the economy as a single capitalist firm).[3]

Classical socialists and Marxists define economic planning as directly producing use-values and coordination of production, and consider this to be a fundamental element of a socialist economy. Economic planning implies production for use, planned use in the allocation of surpluses and often calculation-in-kind. For Marxists in particular, planning also entails control of the surplus product (profit) by the associated producers in a decentralized, democratic fashion.[4]

State-oriented socialists and technocratic socialists hold the view that in a socialist society based on economic planning, the primary function of the state apparatus will change from one of political rule over people (via the creation and enforcement of laws) into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control and cease to be a state in the traditional sense.[5]

Other socialists, such as Libertarian socialists, Syndicalists, Trotskyists, orthodox Marxists and democratic socialists advocate de-centralized democratic planning. In a de-centralized planned economy, economic decision-making takes place in a democratic manner from the bottom-up in the workplace, along with worker self-management and self-governance in the process of production without any central directing authority.

In some socialist theories, economic planning completely substitutes the market mechanism and supposedly renders monetary relations and the price system obsolete. In other theories, planning is utilized as a complement to markets. Polish economist Oskar Lange and American economist Abba Lerner proposed a form of market socialism where a central planning board would adjust prices of publicly-owned firms to equal marginal cost to enhance the market mechanism by achieving pareto efficient outcomes.

In general, the various types of socialist economic planning listed above exist as theoretical constructs that have not been implemented fully by any economy, partially because they depend on vast changes in social and economic development on a global scale (see: mode of production). In the context of mainstream economics, socialist planning usually refers to the Soviet-type command economies, regardless of whether or not they actually constituted a type of state capitalism or a third, non-socialist and non-capitalist system such as Coordinatorism and Bureaucratic collectivism.

Intra-firm and intra-industry planning

Large corporations allocate resources internally among different divisions and subsidiaries through planning. Many modern firms also utilize regression analysis to measure market demand in order to adjust price and decide on the optimal quantity of output to be supplied. Planned obsolescence is often cited as a form of economic planning employed by large firms to increase demand for future products by deliberately limiting the operational lifespan of a product.

In The New Industrial State, economist John Kenneth Galbraith posited that large firms can managed prices and consumer demand, and because of increasing technological capacity, management has become increasingly specialized and bureaucratized. The internal structure of a corporation has been reorganized in what he calls a "technostructure", where specialized groups and committees are the primary decision-makers and specialized managers, directors and financial advisers and formal, bureaucratic procedures have replaced the individual entrepreneur's role. He states that both the obsolete notion of "entrepreneurial capitalism" and democratic socialism are impossible for managing the modern industrial system.[6]

Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that the changing nature of economic activity; the increasing bureaucratization and specialization of production; was one of the main reasons capitalism would eventually evolve into socialism. The role of the businessman was increasingly bureaucratic and specific functions within the firm required increasing specialized knowledge, which can just as easily be supplied by the state apparatus.

In the first volume of Capital, Karl Marx identifies a tendency for capital to accumulate under capitalism, which leads to increasing industrial capacity due to increasing returns to scale. Capitalism eventually socializes labor and production to a point where the traditional notion of private ownership and commodity production are insufficient for managing and further expanding the productive capabilities of society[7], necessitating a socialist economy of the means of production and cooperative worker control over the surplus value.[8] Socialists see this as evidence of the increasing obsolescence and inapplicability of notions of perfect competition and as evidence of the increasingly trend toward economic planning in some form or another, the next stage of evolution being planning production on the level of the national economy.

Economic planning in practice

Command economy

United States

The United States utilized economic planning during the First World War. The Federal Government supplemented the price system with centralized resource allocation and created a number of new agencies to direct important economic sectors; notably the Food Administration, Fuel Administration, Railroad Administration and War Industries Board.[9] During the Second World War, the economy experienced staggering growth under a similar system of planning.

From the start of the Cold War to the present, the United States Federal Government directs a significant amount of investment and funding into research and development, often initially through the Department of Defense. The government performs 50% of all R&D in the United States[10], with a dynamic state-directed public-sector developing most of the technology that later becomes the basis of the private sector economy.[11] Examples include laser technology, the internet, telecommunications and computers.

East Asia

The government of Malaysia instituted a series of macroeconomic plans to develop its mixed economy. Singapore and South Korea were also partially based on economic planning with active government industrial policies during their development. However, the latter is better described as interventionist because the government intervened in a mainly market-based, rather than planned, economy.

Iran practices a degree of economic planning, but has experienced shortages of oil at pumping stations despite enormous natural reserves.


Under dirigisme, France practiced indicative planning and nationalized or established a number of state enterprises in "strategic" sectors of the economy. The concept behind indicative planning is the early identification of oversupply, bottlenecks and shortages so that state investment behavior can be modified in a timely fashion to reduce the incidence of market disequilibrium, with the goal being a concerted economy.


The most notable critique of economic planning came from Austrian economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Hayek argued that central planners could not possibly accrue the necessary information to formulate an effective plan for production because they are not exposed to the rapid changes in the particular time and place that take place in an economy, and are unfamiliar with these circumstances. Transmitting all the necessary information to planners to accumulate and form a comprehensive plan is therefore inefficient.[12]

Centralized economic planning has also been criticized by proponents of de-centralized economic planning. For example, Leon Trotsky believed that central planners, regardless of their intellectual capacity, operated without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy and understand/respond to local conditions and changes in the economy would be unable to effectively coordinate all economic activity.[13] Proponents of technocratic planning have responded by saying democratic planning would be inefficient due to the time it takes to deliberate and vote on action in a direct democratic setting. Democratic planning would also be ineffective because various economic decisions require specialized knowledge, which the majority of voters lack.

See also


  1. ^ In Defense of Socialist Planning, by Mandel, Ernest. 1986. From "New Left Review": "Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post."
  2. ^ Alec Nove (1987), "planned economy," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, pp. 879-80.
  3. ^ "Command Economy", Glossary of Terms:
  4. ^ Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998. From "Definitions of market and socialism" (P.58-59): "For an Anti-Stalinist Marxist, socialism is defined by the degree to which the society is planned. Planning here is understood as the conscious regulation of society by the associated producers themselves. Put it differently, the control over the surplus product rests with the majority of the population through a resolutely democratic process...The sale of labour power is abolished and labour necessarily becomes creative. Everyone participates in running their institutions and society as a whole. No one controls anyone else."
  5. ^ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, on "In 1816, he declares that politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. The knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo. Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production."
  6. ^
  7. ^ Marx and Engels Selected Works, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p. 40. Capitalist property relations put a "fetter" on the productive forces.
  8. ^ Capital, Volume 1, by Marx, Karl. From "Chapter 32: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation": "Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual with the conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of others, i.e., on wage-labor. As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers."
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^ Writings 1932-33, P.96, Leon Trotsky.