水曜日, 6月 13, 2018

Theories of Growth in Different Social Systems (1970)


NAMs出版プロジェクト: カレツキの分配論(支出→生産→分配)1939

http://nam-students.blogspot.jp/2016/12/blog-post_5.html

カレツキ 成長論

http://nam-students.blogspot.com/2018/06/blog-post_4.html

無為=レッセフェール

http://nam-students.blogspot.jp/2014/04/laissez-fair.html?m=0

カレツキ(カレッキ)「計量経済学モデルと史的唯物論」1964〔"Econometric Model and Historical Materialism"

http://nam-students.blogspot.jp/2017/07/1964-econometric-model-and-historical.html


Theories of Growth in Different Social Systems (1970)


Theories of Growth in Different Social Systems [1] (1970)

1. The paper purports to develop the idea that the institutional framework of a social system is a basic element of its economic dynamics and thus of the theory of growth relevant to that system.The idea sounds plausible but nevertheless there is a tendency in Western economics-which shows at present a considerable interest in the theory of economic growth-to deal with something like a general theory of growth working on models fairly remote from the realities of the present capitalist, socialist, or 'mixed' economies. Actually the writings in question usually relate (at least by implication) to some sort of idealized laisser-faire capitalism.Their problems and results are easily translatable into the categories of a socialist system and, what is of interest, they fit in better here than with capitalism but not quite well still, for they concentrate frequently on points which do not happen to be most essential. There thus arises a situation which is not in frequent inthe history of economic thought: theories are being created which may raise problems of great interest but are not very conducive to understanding what actually happened, is happening, or should be happening. 

2. To my mind the central problem of the laisser-faire capitalist system to which apply the theories referred to above is that of effective demand, i.e. that of finding markets for its products at full utilization of resources. It is also this problem that in the1950s was still generally in the centre of interest of Western economists in connection with the theory of cyclical fluctuations and with the problem of government intervention to counteract them.
  But from the time the discussion of economic dynamics has concentrated on problems of growth the factor of effective demandwas generally disregarded. Either it was simply assumed that in the long run the problem of effective demand does not matterbecause apart from the business cycle it need not to be taken into consideration; or more specifically the problem was approached in two alternative fashions: (i) The growth is at an equilibrium(Harrodian) rate, so that the increase in investment is just sufficient to generate effective demand matching the new productive capacities which the level of investment creates. (ii) Whatever therate of growth the productive resources are fully utilized becauseof long-run price flexibility: prices are pushed in the long run inrelation to wages up to the point where the real income of labour(and thus its consumption) is enough to cause the absorption of the full employment national product.
    I do not believe, however; in justifying the neglect of theproblem of finding markets for the national product at full utilization of resources either in fashion (i) or (ii). It is generallyknown that the trend represented by the case (i) is unstable: anysmall fortuitous decline in the rate of growth involves a reductionof investment, and in consequence of the national income, inrelation to the stock of equipment, which affects investmentadversely and induces a further fall in the rate of growth. Thebelief that such disturbance creates merely a downswing followedby an upswing in relation to the growth proceeding at an equili-brium rate, i.e. that it yields a trend cum business cycle ismathematically indefensible: the underlying equations are inca-pable of producing a solution corresponding to a combination ofan exponential curve with a sine line.[2] Nor do I subscribe to thelong-run price flexibility underlying theories of the type (ii). The monopolistic and semi-monopolistic factors involved in fixingprices-deeply rooted in the capitalist system of all times-cannotbe characterized as temporary short-period price rigidities butaffect the relation of prices and wage costs both in the course ofthe business cycle and in the long run.

   3. To my mind the problem of the long-run growth rn a laisser-faire capitalist economy should be approached in precisely the same fashion as that of the business cycle. The 'pure' business cycle is a special case of the general phenomenon of trend cum business cycle where the rate of growth is equal to zero, i.e. where the economy is stationary. In the argument on which the theories of the business cycle were based certain quantities were assumed constant-this was partly linked with inadequate accounting for technical progress-which in an expanding economy must certainly grow. Thus it is necessary to deal with this limitation. (Which ties down the theory of the business cycle to a stationary economy; and arrive at a movement of the system comprising both the trend and cyclical fluctuations. or to put it somewhat differently: the central problem of the dynamics of the laisser-faire capitalist system is to show what makes the system expand if thesoiutions on the lines (i) and (ii) are discarded as inadequate.Indeed, the mere fact that capital accumulation creating new production potentialities is feasible does not prove yet that this investment will be forthcoming and the new production potentialities will be adequately used.
   There may arise a question at this point whether this problemis still of interest in the world of today in which the laisser-faire capitalist system is dead because of widespread government inter-vention. I still believe that the enquiry into dynamics of a laisser-faire system is of importance both in connection with economichistory, even fairly recent one, and because the present state of capitalist economies is an offshoot of a somewhat chaotic inter-play.between the laisser-faire tendencies and of government action.
  In any case these complicated phenomena cannot be adequately portrayed by models of laisser-faire economies referred to above in which the problems of effective demand and of utilizatibn of resources are nellected. There ls probably some interconnection between government intervention and these models but ratherpsychological in character: the high level of employment createsa climate favourable to their construction being unperturbed by the problem of effective demand.

   4. As already mentioned in section 1 the models of growth developed in Western economies are related explicitely to somesort of idealized laisser-faire capitalist economies with the implication, however, that the problems tackled are so general in character that with slight modifications the results are relevant to problems of a socialist system. This is perfectly true: indeed they do apply to socialist economies where the problem of effectivedemand is really solved in the way (ii) of section 2: prices arefixed by planning authorities in relation to wages in such a wayas to achieve full utilization of resources (and this is true not onlyin the long run but even in a short period).
   The trouble, however, arises out of the fact that'the models towhich we refer do not concentrate frequently on essential problems rooted in the realities of socialist economies. Two points ofthis character are worth emphasizing as examples.

   i. Most of the studies on long-run economic growth are writtenin terms of 'comparative statics'. For instance, the problem ofwhat capital-output ratio secures in a uniformly expanding systemthe highest real wage, while full employment is maintained, maybe of small practical importance; for if the initial capital-outputratio is less, the 'retooling' of the stock of capital in order toachieve this paradise means a long period of higher investment,in the early part of which the real wage would fare worse than ifno change in the capital-output ratio were attempted. We have here a typical case of 'sacrificing the present for the future' which I believe to be a political problem of first rank in the socialist economy. But the basis for political decisions on problems of this nature is a thorough economic enquiry into the transition from one curve of growth to another.
   
   ii. Nowhere in Western models discussed here appears the problem of 'long-run development bottlenecks'. When national incomegrows at a high rate the expansion of certain industries lagsbehind that of demand for their products because of certainorganizational or technological factors, for instance shortage ofappropriately trained personnel or difficulties in adaptation oftechnical improvements (the latter is especially the case in agri-culture). The resulting gaps have then to be made good by foreigntrade and to maintain the balance of the latter either some exportshave to be increased or some imports replaced by home produc-tion. These operations will be usually accompanied by higheroutlays of capital and labour and in this way affect profoundlythe problems of economic growth.
   The contradiction between consumption in the short period andin the long run and the long-run bottlenecks, appearing under theguise of the difficulties in balancing foreign trade, are in fact thecentral problems of a realistic theory of growth in a socialist economy.
  
   5. As observed at the end of section 3 the models of laisser-fairecapitalist economies which do not deal adequately with the problems of effective demand and utilization of resources are not asubstitute for an enquiry into the effects of government interven-tion aimed at tackling these problems. Nevertheless the literatureon this crucial subject of contemporary capitalism is astonishinglyscarce. Perhaps there exists here a rather perverse division of la-bour: the government acts to achieve a high utilization of resour-ces and the economists take this state as the point of departurein their discussion without mentioning who is responsible for it.There is, however, one exception to the rule: much space is beingdevoted to the theory of economic development of 'mixed' under-developed economies. By the way, the problem of deficiency ofeffective demand does not arise here, for government investmentis large in relation to the productive potential which is very lowdespite abundance of labour. As a result the situation is charac-terized by inflationary pressures on scarce supply of necessitiesrather than by inadequate effective demand, even though disguisedand also open unemployment is in existence.
   It seems to me that the central problem here is at whose expensethe country is to be developed. If inflationary pressures on scarcesupplies of necessities, especially of food persist, it is the broadpoverty-stricken masses of the population that bear the burdenof high investment. If this is to avoided, the rate of growth ofsupply of necessities must be kept in line with the rate of growthof the national income. And to make room for investment,consumption of non-essentials out of higher incomes must berestrained by an appropriate fiscal policy. This, however, makesthe 'non-inflationary' rate of growth dependent on agrarian con-ditions because they determine to a great extent the feasibleprogress of agriculture and thus of supply of necessities. The mainpart of 'financing' investment is played in this context by theability to grow food faster. This must be supported none the lessby financial measures in the strict sense aiming at restraining theincrease in consumption of non-essentials.
    As in a socialist economy, the problem of saving present forfuture consumption is involved here. But the contradiction is less acute, the 'sacrificed' consumption being of the rich and the well-to-do. This possibility, however, is too good to be true. Infact agrarian conditions prevailing in most of these countries(dependence of the peasant on the landlord, the merchant or themoney lender) permit the supply of food to expand only slowly. As a result the 'non-inflationary' rate of growth' of nationalincome is rather low. But if it is fairly high, inflationary pressuresare rampant and no relative shift in composition of consumption to the advantage of necessities, as described above, takes place.
   6. We shall now illustrate the fact discussed above at somelength-that to each social system there corresponds an appropriate theory of growth by showing that the same formula for therate of growth of national income should be interpreted in adifferent fashion depending on the social system we deal with.Let us denote the level of real national income in a given year by I and the increment of that income from the beginning to the end of the year by △Y. The latter will consist of three elements:(i) the productive effect of gross investment 1/m I where m is the so-called capital-output ratio and I the level of gross investment(i.e. before deduction of depreciation); (ii) the negative effect of the shrinkage of productive capacity as a result of scrapping ofobsolete equipment, - aY and (iii) the increase of national incomedue to betier utilization of the existing productive capacities as a result of organizational improvements, uY. We thus obtain

    △Y =1/m I - aY + uY
or
 r=△Y/Y=1/m 1/Y - a + u
where r is the rate of growth of national income.
   In a socialist economy all three coefficients m, a, and u atedetermined, so to say, on the supply side: ru and a depend on thedecision of planning authorities as to technique of production(capital intensity of new production and policy of scrapping obsolete equipment); a represents the rate of growth of utilization of existing equipment as a result of organizational progress.
   The formula will remain entirely correct in a laisser-faire capitalist economy but the interpretation of the coefficients is quitedifferent. The rate of change in the degree of utilization of existingequipment u depends on effective demand and in the business cycle it will even change its sign. But even if we take the long-run view, u is still determined, at least in part, on the demand side ifwe do not believe in the long-run flexibility of prices (cf. section 2). Even rn m therc may be demand elements: it is true that thenew and thus most modern equipment is likely to work to capacity but some under-utilization of equipment because of lack of effec-tive demand is not fully excluded even in this case.
   In the case of a 'mixed' economy where the rate of increase ofsupply of necessities is too low in relation to the rate of growthof the national income a different problem will arise in interpretation. The coefficients m and u may have the same meaning asin the case of a socialist economy but the division of consurnptionas between necessities and non-essentials may signify inflationary pressures and the resulting redistribution of income to the advantige of higher-income groups.
   We see again here that the theory of growth of a social systernof a certain type should reflect its crucial problems.


Socialism, economic  growth and efficiency of investment / edited translated by by Jerzy Osiatynski;選択した巻号等:記事・論文名:Theories Of Growth in Different Social Systems著者名:kalecki

0 Comments:

コメントを投稿

Links to this post:

リンクを作成

<< Home