command economy

 

This article refers to an economy controlled by the state. For the proposed economic system that employes "participatory planning," see participatory economics.

Part of a series on Economic systems
Ideologies and Theories
Capitalist economy Communist economy Corporate economy Fascist economy Laissez-faire Mercantilism Natural economy Primitive communism Social market economy Socialist economy
Sectors and Systems
Closed economy Dual economy Gift economy Informal economy Market economy Mixed economy Open economy Participatory economy Planned economy Subsistence economy Underground economy Virtual economy
Related articles
Anglo-Saxon economy American School Global economy Hunter-gatherer economy Information economy New industrial economy Palace economy Plantation economy Token economy Traditional economy Transition economy
Business and Economics Portal
This box:

A planned economy is an economic system in which the state or government to one degree or another manages the economy.^[1] Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy^[2], centrally planned economy, or command and control economy^[3]) In such economies that the state or government controls manufacturing and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income,^[4] The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods.^[5] Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. a market economy, where production, distribution, and pricing decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their own and their customers' interests rather than upon furthering some overarching macroeconomic plan. Less extensive forms of planned economies include those that use indicative planning in which the state employs "influence, subsidies, grants, and taxes, but does not compel."^[6]

A planned economy may consist of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises directed by the state, or a combination of both. Though "planned economy" and "command economy" are often used as synonyms, some make the distinction that under a command economy, the means of production are publicly owned. That is, a planned economy is "an economic system in which the government controls and regulates production, distribution, prices, etc." [1] but a command economy, while also having this type of regulation, necessarily has substantial public ownership of industry. [2] Therefore, command economies are planned economies, but not necessarily the reverse (example: Nazi Germany's private ownership yet use of the Four Year Plan could construe them as a planned economy in the wide sense, but not necessarily a command economy, while the Soviet Union with public ownership would be a command economy).

Important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, which was for a time the world's second-largest economy, and China during its Great Leap Forward. Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, many governments presiding over planned economies began deregulating (or as in the Soviet Union, the system collapsed) and moving toward market-based economies by allowing the private sector to make the pricing, production, and distribution decisions. Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies, planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba, North Korea, and Myanmar.^[7]

Types of planned economies

Planned economies can be divided into two broad groups, centralized and decentralized. Centrally planned economies are the most common of the two, with many historical examples such as the Soviet Union.

On the other hand decentralized economies are theoretical and could best be categorized as participatory economies, nonetheless they are an important part of Marxist, syndicalist, and some anarchist theories. Marxists for one believe that after the proletarian revolution the nation (politically and economically) will be controlled by a loose system of communes. The worker-controlled economy will gear production directly for use, since profit motives will no longer exist. Syndicalists and anarchists have similar theories.

Advantages of economic planning

Part of the Politics series on

Socialism

Currents

Communism Democratic socialism Eco-socialism Guild socialism Libertarian socialism Market socialism Revolutionary socialism Social democracy Socialist market economy Utopian socialism

Regional variants

African socialism Arab socialism Chinese socialism Jewish socialism Melanesian socialism Zionist socialism

Religious socialism

Buddhist socialism Christian socialism Islamic socialism

Key issues

Criticisms of socialism History of socialism Socialist economics Socialist state Types of socialism

People and organizations

List of socialists First International Second International Third International Fourth International Socialist International WFDY IUSY

Related subjects

Anarchism Class struggle Democracy Dictatorship of the proletariat Egalitarianism Equality of outcome Internationalism Marxism Proletarian revolution Socialism in one country Trade union Utilitarianism

Politics Portal ·

Supporters of planned economies cast them as a practical measure to ensure the production of necessary goods—one which does not rely on the vagaries of free markets.

Stability

A planned economy can ensure the continuous utilization of all available resources. If isolated and unresponsive to consumer demand, a planned economy does not suffer from a business cycle. Under an ideally administered planned economy, neither unemployment nor idle production facilities should exist beyond minimal levels, and the economy should develop in a stable manner, unimpeded by inflation or recession.

Long-term infrastructure investment can be made without fear of a market downturn (or loss of confidence) leading to abandonment of the project. This is especially where returns are risky (e.g. fusion reactor technology) or where the return is diffuse (e.g. immunization programs or public education).

Conformance to a grand design

While a market economy maximises wealth by evolution, a planned economy favors design. While evolution tends to lead to a local maximum in aggregate wealth, design is in theory capable of achieving a global maximum. For example, a planned city can be designed for efficient transport, while organically grown cities tend to suffer from traffic congestion. Critics would point out that planned cities will suffer from the same problems as unplanned cities, unless reproduction and population growth is subject to strict control, as in a closed city.

Meeting collective objectives by individual sacrifice

A planned economy serves collective rather than individual needs: under such a system, rewards, whether wages or perquisites, are to be distributed according to the value that the state ascribes to the service performed. A planned economy eliminates the individual profit motives as the driving force of production and places it in the hands of the state planners to determine what is the appropriate production of different sets of goods.

The government can harness land, labor, and capital to serve the economic objectives of the state. Consumer demand can be restrained in favor of greater capital investment for economic development in a desired pattern. The state can begin building a heavy industry at once in an underdeveloped economy without waiting years for capital to accumulate through the expansion of light industry, and without reliance on external financing. This is what happened in the Soviet Union during the 1930s when the government forced the share of GNP dedicated to private consumption from 80 percent to 50 percent. ^[8] While there was a significant decline in individual living standards, the state was able to meet some of its "economic objectives."

Comparison with capitalist corporations

Taken as a whole, a centrally planned economy would attempt to substitute a number of firms with a single firm for an entire economy. As such, the stability of a planned economy has implications with the Theory of the firm. After all, most corporations are essentially 'centrally planned economies', aside from some token intra-corporate pricing (not to mention that the politics in some corporations resemble that of the Soviet Politburo). That is, corporations are essentially miniature centrally planned economies and seem to do just fine in a free market. As pointed out by Kenneth Arrow and others, the existence of firms in free markets shows that there is a need for firms in free markets; opponents of planned economies would simply argue that there is no need for a sole firm for the entire economy.

Disadvantages of economic planning

Inefficient resource distribution — surplus and shortage

Critics of planned economies argue that planners cannot detect consumer preferences, shortages, and surpluses with sufficient accuracy and therefore cannot efficiently co-ordinate production (in a market economy, a free price system is intended to serve this purpose). For example, during certain periods in the history of the Soviet Union, shortages were so common that one could wait hours in a queue to buy basic consumer products such as shoes or bread ^[9]. These shortages were due in part to the central planners deciding, for example, that making tractors was more important than making shoes at that time, or because the commands were not given to supply the shoe factory with the right amount of leather, or because the central planners had not given the shoe factories the incentive to produce the required quantity of shoes of the required quality. This difficulty was first noted by economist Ludwig von Mises, who called it the "economic calculation problem". Economist János Kornai developed this into a shortage economy theory (advocates could claim that shortages were not primarily caused by lack of supply).

There is also the problem of surpluses. Surpluses indicate a waste of labor and materials that could have been applied to more pressing needs of society. Critics of central planning say that a market economy prevents long-term surpluses because the operation of supply and demand causes the price to sink when supply begins exceeding demand, indicating to producers to stop production or face losses. This frees resources to be applied to satisfy short-term shortages of other commodities, as determined by their rising prices as demand begins exceeding supply. It is argued that this "invisible hand" prevents long-term shortages and surpluses and allows maximum efficiency in satisfying the wants of consumers. Critics argue that since in a planned economy prices are not allowed to float freely, there is no accurate mechanism to determine what is being produced in unnecessarily large amounts and what is being produced in insufficient amounts. They argue that efficiency is best achieved through a market economy where individual producers each make their own production decisions based on their own profit motive.

Cannot determine and prioritize social goods better than the market can

Some who oppose comprehensive planned economies argue that some central planning is justified. In particular, it is possible to create unprofitable but socially useful goods within the context of a market economy. For example, one could produce a new drug by having the government collect taxes and then spend the money for the social good. On the other hand, opponents of such central planning say that "absent the data about priorities conveyed through price signals created by freely acting individuals, [it is questionable] whether determinations about what is socially important can even be made at all."^[10] Opponents do not dispute that something useful can be produced if money is expropriated from private businesses and individuals, but their complaint is that "it’s far from certain that those monies could not have been spent better"^[10] if individuals were allowed to spend and invest as they wished according to their own wants.

We can see things of value being produced by the state taxing and using those funds to undertake projects which are believed to be social goods, but we cannot see what social goods have not been produced due to wealth taken out of the hands of those who would have invested and spent their money in other ways according to their own goals. These opponents of central planning argue that the only way to determine what society actually wants is by allowing private enterprise to use their resources in competing to meet the needs of consumers, rather those taking resources away and allowing government to direct investment without responding to market signals. According to Tibor R. Machan, "Without a market in which allocations can be made in obedience to the law of supply and demand, it is difficult or impossible to funnel resources with respect to actual human preferences and goals."^[10]

Lack of incentive for innovation

Another criticism some make of central planning is that it is less likely to promote innovation than a free market economy. In the latter, inventors can reap huge benefits by patenting new technology, so there is arguably much more incentive to innovate. Conversely, technological developments in a centrally planned economy can only occur if the state considers it to be in line with its objectives and allocates a great deal of resources into that area. The development of (Sputnik 1), the first to place an artificial satellite in orbit, is an example of this.

Lack of reward for hard work

When wages and prices are fixed by a central committee, there is no incentive for the wage earner to work harder -- indeed, the incentive is to work as little as possible without sanction from the supervisor. Under these conditions, overall productivity is poor.

Infringement on individual freedom

The top down structure of a centrally planned economy dictates a hegemonic operating culture - whereas in a free market economy several models of operating can compete simultaneously in a manner similar to organisms in an ecosystem.

Critics also hold that certain types of command economies may require a state which intervenes highly in people's personal lives. For example, if the state directs all employment then one's career options may be more limited. If goods are allocated by the state rather than by a market economy, citizens cannot, for example, move to another location without state permission because they would not be able to acquire food or housing in the new location, as the necessary resources were not preplanned.

Likewise, because of the state's controls over an individual's personal choices, critics contend that central planning intrinsically results in a top-down, dictatorial state where politicians and bureaucrats use the state to achieve their own ends, which are in turn described as the "social" objectives of the state. In essence, critics contend that socialism has nothing to do with the preferences of the individuals that comprise a society, but rather the abstract goals of some group.

This criticism is supported by Rummel's Law which states that the less freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them. R. J. Rummel's top three examples of 20th century "Megamurders" were Soviet Russia, People's Republic of China and Nazi Germany, all planned economies with limited individual freedom.^[11]

The Road to Serfdom is a book written by Friedrich Hayek and critical of collectivism, presenting the argument that a central planned economy must ultimately result in tyranny.

Planned economies and socialism

Main article: Socialist economics

In the 20th century, most planned economies were implemented by states that called themselves socialist. Also, the greatest support for planned economics comes from socialist authors. For these reasons, the notion of a planned economy is often directly associated with socialism. However, they do not entirely overlap. There are branches of socialism such as libertarian socialism, that reject a centralized state, and some of these tendencies reject economic planning as well.

Furthermore, planned economies are not unique to Communist states. There is a Trotskyist theory of permanent arms economy, put forward by Michael Kidron, which leads on from the contention that war and accompanying industrialisation is a continuing feature of capitalist states and that central planning and other features of the war economy are ever present.^[12]

See also: State capitalism

Transition from a planned economy to a market economy

The shift from a command economy to a market economy has proven to be difficult; in particular, there were no theoretical guides for doing so before the 1990s. One transition from a command economy to a market economy that a few consider successful is that of the People's Republic of China, in which there was a period of some years lasting roughly until the early 1990s during which both the command economy and the market economy coexisted, so that nobody would be much worse off under a mixed economy than a command economy, while some people would be much better off. Gradually, the parts of the economy under the command economy decreased until the mid-1990s when resource allocation was almost completely determined by market mechanisms.

By contrast, the Soviet Union's transition was much more problematic and its successor republics faced a sharp decline in GDP during the early 1990s. While the transition to a market economy proved difficult, many of the post-Soviet states have been experiencing strong, resource-based economic growth in recent years, though the levels vary substantially. However a majority of the former Soviet Republics have not yet reached pre-collapse levels of economic development.

Transition from a market economy to a planned economy

Main article: Corporatism

Government market regulation

Central governments are tempted to solve problems quickly by introducing additional market regulation. Once such regulation is introduced, it is rarely removed, ratcheting towards a gradual increase in government power and a constraint on the mechanism of the free market. Usually, big business has an advantage over small business in a strongly regulated market, because big business can cope with the bureaucracy and small business cannot take advantage of adaptivity.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was an example of market regulation used by the American government in an attempt to escape the Great Depression of the 1930's.

Corporate monopoly

The process of wealth condensation results in a small number of people controlling large sections of the economy.

The British East India Company is an example of government-granted monopoly.

American Telephone & Telegraph (formerly Bell Telephone Company), was regarded as a natural monopoly until it was broken up by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1974. This is an example of United States antitrust law being used to discourage centralization of corporate power.

Amalgamated trade unions

Small trade unions have limited power, especially against larger international corporations. Amalgamation of trade unions leads to an industry-wide group with more bargaining power but less individual interest in any particular worker. Such a union will bargain directly with government on an industry-wide basis and thus create a form of central planning that is distinct from typical (Laissez-faire capitalism).

Similar economic models

A palace economy may be considered as a subsistence economy augmented with elements of command economy.

Notes

References

• Alec Nove (1987). "planned economy," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, pp. 879-85.

See also

• Economy of the Soviet Union
• China's Great Leap Forward
• Communist economics
• Socialist economics
• Participatory economics
• Project Cybersyn
• Public ownership
• Mixed economy
• Dirigisme
• Market economy
• Technocracy
• Economics of fascism

External links

• An article against "The myth of the permanent arms economy"

Donate to Wikimedia