Planned economy

Encyclopedia : P : PL : PLA : Planned economy

Economies
Sectors and Systems
  Closed economy
  Dual economy
  Gift economy
  Informal economy
  Market economy
  Mixed economy
  Open economy
Participatory economy
  Planned economy
  Underground economy
Real-World Examples and Models
  Anglo-Saxon economy
American School
Global economy
Hunter-gatherer economy
  Information economy
New industrial economy
  Palace economy
  Plantation economy
  Social market economy
  Transition economy
Ideologies and Theories
Capitalist economy
Corporate economy
  Natural economy
Socialist economy
  Token economy

A planned economy most often refers to an economic system that is under comprehensive control and regulation by a government in accordance with a plan of economic development.Planned economy entry in Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dicationary However, the term may also be used to refer to decentralized systems of planning such as participatory economics. [link] [link] [link]. A planned economy is in contrast to a market economy, where production, distribution, and pricing are left to be resolved by market forces.

Planned economies implemented by the way of authority, such as the economy of the Soviet Union, have become widely known as command economies. Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies, planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba and North Korea.

Contents

1 Support for centrally planned economies
2 Objections to centrally planned economies
3 Planned economies and socialism
4 Transition from a planned economy to a market economy
5 Similar economic models
6 See also
7 References

Support for centrally planned economies

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.

The government can harness land, labor, and capital to serve the economic objectives of the state (which, in turn, may be decided by the people through a democratic process). 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.
A planned economy can maximize the continuous utilization of all available resources. This means that planned economies do not suffer from a business cycle. Under a 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.
A planned economy can serve social rather than individual ends: under such a system, rewards, whether wages or perquisites, are to be distributed according to the social value of the service performed. A planned economy eliminates the dependence of production on individual profit motives, which may not in themselves provide for all society's needs.
While a market economy maximises wealth by evolution, a planned economy favours 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.

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.

Objections to centrally planned economies

Critics of command economy argue that planners cannot detect consumer preferences, shortages, and surpluses with sufficient accuracy and therefore can not 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. 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 where not primarily caused by lack of supply, but hoarding by consumers afraid of future price changes; this was especially the case in the late Soviet Union).

Critics also argue that the claimed advantages of the latter are in fact achievable by state intervention within the framework of market economy as well. 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. It is also claimed that market economies allow societies to evaluate the cost of social goods and choose rationally between different alternatives.

Critics also point out 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 (however, advocates of planned economy may point out that a market economy does not guarantee the existence of food and housing at the new location either).

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 socialist states. Socialism is concerned above all with achieving some degree of equality of wealth between members of society, but a planned economy, as such, does not necessarily imply an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Some authors have argued that elements of centralized economic planning exist in various modern non-socialist systems, such as the mixed economies of liberal democracies (widely seen as being capitalist countries) and the economies of fascist nations. Pre-modern economies (those existing before the industrial revolution) are more difficult to analyze by today's standards, but a number of them, particularly those of hydraulic empires, may be seen as having been centrally planned as well.

There is a Trotskyist theory of the 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. [A Permanent Arms Economy by Michael Kidron, First printed in International Socialism 1:28 (Spring 1967)]

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 is widely considered to be 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.

Similar economic models

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

References

[An article against "The myth of the permanent arms economy"]

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.