The ratchet effect in the Soviet economy meant that planners based current year enterprise output plan targets on last year's plan overfulfillment. Fulfilling output targets specified in the annual enterprise plan, the techpromfinplan, was required for Soviet enterprise managers to receive their bonus, a monetary payment equaling from 40 to 60 percent of their monthly salary. Typically, output plan targets were high relative to the resources allocated to the enterprise, as well as to the productive capacity of the firm. If managers directed the operations of the enterprise so that the output targets were overfulfilled in any given plan period (monthly or quarterly), the bonus payment was even larger. However, planners practiced a policy of "planning from the achieved level," the ratchet effect, so that in subsequent annual plans, output targets would be higher. Higher plan targets for output were not matched by a corresponding increase in the allocation of materials to the firm. Consequently, over-fulfilling output plan targets in one period reduced the likelihood of fulfilling output targets and receiving the bonus in subsequent periods.
Planners estimated enterprise capacity as a direct function of past performance plus an allowance for productivity increases specified in the plan. Knowing that output targets would be increased, that is, knowing that the ratchet effect would take effect, Soviet enterprise managers responded by over-ordering inputs during the planning process and by continually demanding additional investment resources to expand productive capacity. For Soviet enterprises, cost conditions were not constrained by the need to cover expenses from sales revenues. In other words, Soviet managers faced a "soft budget constraint." The primary risk associated with excess demand for investment was the increase in output targets when the investment project was completed. However, the new capacity could not be included as part of the firm until it was officially certified by a state committee. By the time this occurred, the manager typically had another investment project underway.
In response to the ratchet effect, Soviet enterprise managers also tended to avoid overfulfilling output targets even if it were possible to produce more than the planned quantity. Several options were pursued instead. Managers would save the materials for future use in fulfilling output targets, or unofficially trade the materials for cash or favors to other firms. Managers would produce additional output, but not report it to planning authorities, and then either hold or unofficially sell the output. Due to persistent and pervasive shortages in the Soviet economy, and the uncertainty associated with timely delivery of both the quantity and quality of requisite material and technical supplies, the incentive to unofficially exchange materials or goods between firms was very high, and the risk of detection and punishment was very low. Despite the comprehensive nature of the annual enterprise plan, Soviet managers exhibited a substantial degree of autonomy in fulfilling output targets.
During perestroika, policy makers lengthened the plan period to five years in order to eliminate the pressures of the ratchet. However, in an environment without a wholesale market, enterprise managers were dependent upon their supplier enterprises to meet their plan obligations, and fulfilling annual output plan targets remained the most important determinant of the bonus payments. In practice, lengthening the plan period did not eliminate the ratchet effect.
Bibliography
Birman, Igor. (1978). "From the Achieved Level," Soviet Studies 31 (2):153 - 172.
Gregory, Paul R. (1990). Restructuring the Soviet Economic Bureaucracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
—SUSAN J. LINZ
A metaphorical ratchet effect is an instance of the restrained ability of human processes to be reversed once a specific thing has happened, analogous with the mechanical ratchet that holds the spring tight as a clock is wound up. It is related to the phenomena of featuritis and scope creep in the manufacture of various consumer goods, and of mission creep in military planning.
|
Contents
|
Garrett Hardin, a biologist and environmentalist, used the phrase to describe how food aid keeps people alive who would otherwise die in a famine. They live and multiply in better times, making another bigger crisis inevitable, since the supply of food has not been increased.[citation needed] [1]
Austrian school economist Robert Higgs used the term to describe the seemingly irreversible expansion of government in times of crisis in his book Crisis and Leviathan.[2] Similarly, governments have difficulty in rolling back huge bureaucratic organizations created initially for temporary needs, e.g., at times of war, natural or economic crisis[citation needed]. The effect may likewise afflict large business corporations with myriad layers of bureaucracy which resist reform or dismantling[citation needed].
The ratchet effect can denote an economic strategy arising in an environment where incentive depends on both current and past production, such as in a competitive industry employing piece rates. The producers observe that since incentive is readjusted based on their production, any increase in production confers only a temporary increase in incentive while requiring a permanently greater expenditure of work. They therefore decide not to reveal hidden production capacity unless forced to do so.
The ratchet effect is central to the mathematical Parrondo's paradox.
In 1999 comparative psychologist Michael Tomasello used the ratchet effect metaphor to shed light on the evolution of culture.[3] He explains that the sharedness of human culture means that it is cumulative in character. Once a certain invention has been made, it can jump from one mind to another (by means of imitation) and thus a whole population can acquire a new trait (and so the ratchet has gone "up" one tooth).
A 'ratchet effect' can be seen in long-term trends in the production of many consumer goods. Year by year, automobiles gradually acquire more features. Competitive pressures make it hard for manufacturers to cut back on the features unless forced by a true scarcity of raw materials (e.g., an oil shortage that drives costs up radically). University textbook publishers gradually get "stuck" in producing books that have excess content and features.
Airlines initiate frequent-flyer programs that become ever harder to terminate. Successive generations of home appliances gradually acquire more features; new editions of software acquire more features; and so on. With all of these goods, there is ongoing debate as to whether the added features truly improve usability, or simply increase the tendency for people to buy the goods.
The term was included by the MAI Negotiating Group in the 1990s as the essence of a device to enforce legislative progress toward "free trade" by preventing legislative rollback with the compulsory assent of governments as a condition of participation.
Rollback is the liberalisation process by which the reduction and eventual elimination of nonconforming measures to the MAI would take place. It is a dynamic element linked with standstill, which provides its starting point. Combined with standstill, it would produce a “ratchet effect”, where any new liberalisation measures would be “locked in” so they could not be rescinded or nullified over time.[4]
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)