Individualism and Economic Order

Rating:
Summary: One essay towers above the rest ...
Review: F.A. Hayek, well-deserved recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, 1976, wrote several other deep books on political economy. This book is about how individuals are better decision-makers when it comes to their own lives, and that a "Committee" of "Planners" cannot possibly do a better job (How can you tell that someone else is happy? What they need? What they want?). It is no accident that countries with relative freedom on economics are more productive and wealthier overall (US/Hong Kong) than countries with little or no economic freedom (India/sub-Sahara Africa) and lots of gov't planning. It can't be mere exploitation or culture, as India has the largest middle-class and a great population of educated people. India has more college-degree persons than the US, yet is significantly poorer. Hayek investigates this. A good book, especially for leftists and right-wing oligarchs. I used to be a commie too, but open your mind and put the rhetoric on hold, just for a moment.

Rating:
Summary: Misses important point
Review: Hayek doesn't mention that indignity, disempowerment, and hunger accompany capitalism worldwide. No one sensibly denies this, yet even among those who despise capitalism, most fear that suffering would increase without it. While some certainly find capitalism odious, few celebrate an alternative and those who do generally favor "market socialism," But there's a great alternative. To transcend capitalism, we can advocate equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological balance. What institutions can propel these values in domestic economics, as well as get economic functions done well?
To start, we should advocate public/social property relations in place of privatized capitalist property relations. In the new system, each workplace is owned in equal part by all citizens. This ownership conveys no special right or income. Bill Gates doesn't own a massive proportion of the means by which software is produced. Instead, we all do--or symmetrically, if you prefer, no one does. At any rate, ownership of productive property becomes moot regarding distribution of income, wealth, or power. In this way the ills of private ownership such as personal accrual of profits yielding huge wealth, disappear. But that's it. We haven't accomplished anything more than that, only a removal. We must go much further.
Next, workers and consumers are organized into democratic councils with the norm for decisions being that methods of dispersing information to decision-makers and at arriving at preferences and tallying them into decisions should be such as to convey to each actor about each decision, to the extent possible, influence over the decision in proportion to the degree they will be affected by it. Councils exist at many levels, and have subunits such as work groups and teams and individuals, as well as supra units such as workplaces and whole industries. Councils are the seat of decision making power. Actors in councils are the decision-makers. Votes could be majority rule, three quarters, two-thirds, consensus, etc., and would be taken at different levels, with fewer or more participants, all as appropriate depending on the particular implications of the decisions in question. Sometimes a team or individual would make a decision pretty much on its own, though within a rubric of other encompassing decisions that were made more broadly. Sometimes a whole workplace or even industry would be the decision body. Different voting and tallying methods would be employed, as needed for different decisions. There is no a priori single correct choice. There is, however, a right norm to try to efficiently and sensibly implement: decision-making input should be in proportion as one is affected by decisions.
Next, what about the organization of work? Who does what tasks in what combinations? Each actor does a job, of course, and each job is composed of a variety of tasks, of course. What changes from current corporate divisions of labor to a preferred future division of labor is that the variety of tasks each actor does is balanced for its empowerment and quality of life implications. Every person participating in creating new products is a worker. Each and every worker has a balanced job complex. The combination of tasks and responsibilities you have accords you the same empowerment and quality of life as the combination I have accords me, and likewise for each other worker and their balanced job complex. We do not have some people overwhelmingly monopolizing empowering, fulfilling, and engaging tasks and circumstances. We do not have other people overwhelmingly saddled with only rote, obedient, and dangerous things to do. For reasons of equity and especially to create the conditions of democratic participation and self-management, we establish that when we each participate in our workplace and industry (and consumer) decision-making, we each have been comparably prepared by our work with confidence, skills, and knowledge to do so. The typical situation now is that some people who produce have great confidence, social skills, decision-making skills, and relevant knowledge imbued by their daily work, and other people are only tired, de-skilled, and lacking relevant knowledge due to their daily work. Balanced job complexes do away with this division of circumstances. They complete the task of removing the root basis for class divisions that is begun by eliminating private ownership of capital. They eliminate not only the role of owner/capitalist and its disproportionate power and wealth, but also the role of intellectual/decision making producer who exists over and above all others,. They retain the needed tasks, but they apportion them and also rote and unempowering responsibilities more equitably and in tune with true democracy and classlessness.
But how much are people paid? We work. This entitles us to a share of the product of work. But how much? This new vision says that we ought to receive for our labors an amount in tune with how hard we have worked, how long we have worked, and with what sacrifices we have worked. We shouldn't get more by virtue of being more productive due to having better tools, more skills, or greater inborn talent, much less by virtue of having more power or owning more property. We should be entitled to more consumption from society's product only by virtue of expending more of our effort or otherwise enduring more sacrifice in its creation. This is morally appropriate and also provides proper incentives due to rewarding only what we can affect, not what we can't. With balanced job complexes, for eight hours of normally paced work Sally and Sam will receive the same income,. This is so if they have the same job, or any job at all. That is, no matter what their particular job may be, no matter what workplaces they are in and how different their mix of tasks is, and no matter how talented they are, if they at a balanced job complex, their total work load will be similar in its quality of life implications and empowerment effects, so the only difference specifically relevant to reward for their labors is going to be length and intensity of work done, and with these equal as well, the share of output earned will be equal. If length of time working or intensity of working differ somewhat, so will share of output earned. And who mediates decisions about the definition of job complexes and about what rates and intensities people are working? Workers do, of course, in their councils and with appropriate decision-making say using information culled by methods consistent with employing balanced job complexes and just remuneration.
There is one very large step left to proposing an alternative to capitalism, even in broad outline. How are the actions of workers and consumers connected? How do decisions made in one workplace and all others, and by collective consumer councils, as well as by individual consumers, all come into accord? What causes the total that is produced by workplaces to match the total consumed collectively by neighborhoods and other groups and privately by individuals? For that matter, what determines the relative social valuation of different products and choices? What decides how many workers will be in which industry producing how much? What determines whether some product should be made or not, and how much? What determines what investments in new productive means and methods should be undertaken and which others delayed or rejected? These are all matters of allocation, among others that are too numerous to list in their entirety here. Existing options for dealing with allocation are central planning (as was used in the old Soviet Union) and markets (as is used in all capitalist economies with minor or greater variations). In central planning a bureaucracy culls information, formulates instructions, sends these instructions to workers and consumers, gets some feedback, refines the instructions a bit, sends them again, and gets back obedience. In a market each actor in isolation from concern for other actors well being competitively pursues its own agenda by buying and selling labor (or the ability to do it) and buying and selling products and resources at prices determined by competitive bidding. Each actor seeks to gain more than other parties in their exchanges. The problem is, each of these two modes of connecting actors and units imposes on the rest of the economy pressures that subvert the values and structures we favor. Markets, for example, even without private capitalization of property, distort valuations to favor private over public benefits and to channel personalities in anti-social directions diminishing and even destroying solidarity. They reward primarily output and power and not only effort and sacrifice. They divide economic actors into a class that is saddled with rote and obedient labor and another that enjoys empowering circumstances and determines economic outcomes, also accruing most income. They isolate buyers and sellers as decision-makers who have no choice but to competitively ignore the wider implications of their choices, including effects on the ecology. Central planning, in contrast, is authoritarian. It denies self management and produces the same class division and hierarchy as markets built first around the distinction between planners and those who implement their plans, and extending outward to incorporate empowered and disempowered workers more generally. Both these allocation systems subvert the values we hold dear, rather than propelling them. What is the alternative to markets and central planning.
In place of top-down imposition of centrally planned choices and in place of competitive market exchange by atomized buyers and sellers, we opt for cooperative, informed choosing by organizationally and socially entwined actors each having a say in proportion as choices impact them and each able to access needed accurate information and valuations and having appropriate training and confidence to develop and communicate their preferences. This choice is consistent with council centered participatory self-management, with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, with balanced job complexes, with proper valuations of collective and ecological impacts, and with classlessness. To these ends, activists favor participatory planning, a system in which worker and consumer councils propose their work activities and consumer preferences in light of accurate knowledge of local and global implications and true valuations of the full social benefits and costs their choices will impose and garner. The system utilizes a back and forth cooperative communication of mutually informed preferences via a variety of simple communicative and organizing principles and vehicles including indicative prices, facilitation boards, rounds of accommodation to new information, and so on - all permitting actors to express their desires and to mediate and refine them in light of feedback about other's desires, arriving at compatible choices consistent with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, balanced job complexes, and participatory self managing influence.



Rating:
Summary: Individualism and Economic Order
Review: In this fine and well written collection of writings, i.e., Individualism and Economic Order, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek discusses topics from moral philosophy and the methods of the social sciences to economic theory as different aspects of the same central issue: free markets versus socialist planned economies. First published in the 1930s and 40s, these essays continue to illuminate the problems faced by developing and formerly socialist countries

Rating:
Summary: Individualism and Economic Order
Review: In this fine and well written collection of writings, i.e., Individualism and Economic Order, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek discusses topics from moral philosophy and the methods of the social sciences to economic theory as different aspects of the same central issue: free markets versus socialist planned economies. First published in the 1930s and 40s, these essays continue to illuminate the problems faced by developing and formerly socialist countries

Rating:
Summary: Different Essays, Similar Themes
Review: Individualism and Economic Order contains several classic essays. Chapter two (Economics and Knowledge) examines decentralized economic planning by individuals. Plan coordination among individuals requires each to form plans that contain relevant data from the plans of others. We each acquire this data through competition in markets. Every time someone adjusts their plans, others must also change their plans. So, initial plan coordination requires each to fully anticipate the actions of others. Since this is impossible, order will emerge as a result of successive trials by individuals in markets. The price system enables individuals to adjust their plans with each other through time. This is the foundation of Hayek's theories of spontaneous order and social evolution. Hayek was far ahead of his peers in examining expectations formation.

Chapter four (The Use of Knowledge in Society) is another classic. Hayek contends that the economic problem is really one how to make use of fragmented and widely dispersed data. As he indicated in chapter two, full knowledge of economic conditions reduces the economic problem to one of pure logic. Markets increase our ability to take advantage of division of labor and capital formation by extending the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of any individual mind. The price system in markets does this by acting as a communications network. We can then each dispense with the need for conscious control over resources and rely on our own intimate knowledge of local economic conditions, and price information regarding general economic conditions. This proves that decentralized competitive systems will vastly outperform centrally planned systems.

Chapter five looks at the process of competition. Data regarding the least cost methods of satisfying consumer demand comes through the process of competition. The notion of competition as an end state, where we have attained perfect resource allocation, overlooks the importance of the actual processes by which market participants actually compete. Competition is a process of forming opinions and spreading information. It informs us regarding which alternatives are best and cheapest. Those who judge actual market outcomes with theoretical models that assume perfect information are putting the cart before the horse. Competition is the only means by which we can each acquire data on general economic conditions. Governmental bureaucrats do not simply know what the final outcomes of competition are supposed to be. This data is particular to the process of competition itself. We should therefore be wary of those who complain that markets do not deliver perfect competition based on perfect information. Markets are our best source on the data in question, albeit an imperfect one.

In chapter seven Hayek lays out the arguments that some make in favor of Socialism. Some claim that greater equality in incomes is worth the loss of efficiency that is inherent to Socialism. Others want to maintain some degree of free choice- consumer and occupational choice. Yet others want to restrict even these areas of personal choice. Socialists face a problem in trying to show how socialist planners could plan production in terms of satisfying consumer desires, without market prices. The labor theory of value did not explain actual behavior, but was instead an "a search after some illusory substance of value. Since we lack objective measures of the importance of the needs of different individuals, central planners face "a task which far exceeds the powers of individual men". In chapter eight Hayek points to specific informational problems that Socialist planners face. Of course, he deals with information in earlier chapters. But this chapter leads into the next. Chapter nine deals with proposals to simulate market competition under socialism. Hayek mentions that even if central planners have full knowledge of economic conditions, the calculations concerning the allocation of all resources is too difficult to perform. After dealing with the absurd notion of full information, Hayek turns to three issues. First, Socialists once aimed at overcoming the results of markets. Now they accept the results of market competition as a standard to aim at. Second, an omniscient and omnipresent dictator would also require omnipotence to plan an economy using their omniscience. Even if they had omniscience, the central planners would still have to work through an imperfect bureaucracy. So the notion of omnipotence is absurd. We must look at the actual bureaucratic problems that planners will face. Third, Perhaps, in a world of unchanging data Socialist planners could arrive at efficient prices for the means of production through trial and error. But, with changing data, the plans of the authority will never match the decisions of the 'man on the spot'. Hayek discusses incentive problems and knowledge problems at length, and also mentions the potential for abuse by concentrating power into the hands a few. This is the subject of his book "The Road to Serfdom".

The other chapters are not what I would call classics, but are generally of a high quality. Chapter eleven deals with an aspect of trade cycle theory. Chapter six (Free Enterprise and Competitive Order) deals with the limits of market and government and the influence of ideas. This is not Hayek's best effort in explaining these matters. Chapter one (Individualism, True and False) is much better. It discusses the drive to control individual action based on alleged notions of reason. True individualism requires humility towards the processes by which societal order emerges, not as a result of deliberate planning by any particular individual, but as an unintended consequence of self-serving individual interaction.

These are ideas that far too few appreciate. This book is key to understanding the way Hayek thought about social problems in general. The chapters might seem disjointed in the table of contents, but they have much in common. Anyone serious about understanding how society works should read this book, especially if they tend to disagree with the author's pro free market stance. Hayek is one of the worthiest opponents that Socialists face, and this book is one of his best.

Rating:
Summary: One essay towers above the rest ...
Review: own this book, please, if only for the essay "the use of knowledge in society". in a few short pages, hayek explores how to think about how people use and spread knowledge, and how that affects everyday economic behavior.