Re: prices and information

At 01:49 AM 12/15/99 -0600, you wrote:

>Dear WSN,
>
>There is a virtual consensus in liberal political philosophy that "Hayek
>has shown" that planned economies must be hopelessly inefficient, that
>markets are necessary.  


Well, whether or not this consensus exists within the classical liberal
tradition depends upon what you mean by a "planned economy."  Are you
talking about "indicative planning" as practiced, e.g., in France and
Japan, or Stalinist central planning?  Certainly, there are those who can
be located within the classical liberal tradition, like Robert Wade and
Chalmers Johnson, who believe in the "developmentalist state."

That's not really to your point, I know.  It's just that as a person within
the liberal reform tradition, I hate to see the looney libertarian likes of
Hayek elevated into "the" authoritative spokesman for classical liberalism.
 The Hayekians would certainly like to think they are such spokesmen;
unfortunately, they seriously flatter themselves.


The most prominent academic "Marxists" now
>defend only "market socialism." Yet the essence of Marx's vision of a
>communist society is one where human relations are unmediated by money,
>where collective rationality and science can govern our interactions in
>a way that expresses communist principles.
>
>Does anyone know of any literature that attempts a Marxist reply to the
>Hayek argument about prices and information? Thanks in advance.
>


The problem is that the only people who care enough about Hayekian
economics to write about it are people in the Hayekian tradition itself (by
any chance, are you getting the impression I'm hostile to the Hayekians? :
) ).  Thus, I haven't been able to find much in the way of an explicit
Marxist response to Hayek.  However, here are a couple of citations that
may help you.

 

>Adaman, Fikret, and Devine, Pat.  "The economic calculation debate:
Lessons for socialists."  Cambridge Journal of Economics. v20n5 Sep 1996.
p.523-537 

The standard account of the economic calculation debate is summarized, as 
well as the modern Austrian reinterpretation of the debate based on the
centrality of tacit knowledge and discovery, and a neglected third strand
in the historical debate, Dobb's insistence on the uncertainty associated
with atomistic decision making and the need for ex ante planning. Some
lessons are drawn for socialists from the debate and a possible market
socialist response to the modern Austrian challenge is considered. A model
of participatory planning is outlined which incorporates both the modern
Austrians' insight into the importance of tacit knowledge and Dobb's
insistence on ex ante coordination.



>TI:  Boettke's Austrian Critique of Mainstream Economics:  An Empiricist's
Response
>AU:  Mayer,-Thomas
>SO:  Critical-Review; 12(1-2), Winter-Spring 1998, pages 151-71.
>AB:  Many of Boettke's criticisms of formal economics are justified.
However, he defines formalism so broadly that it becomes practically
synonymous with mainstream economics, while his criticisms primarily target
the sins of formalist economics more narrowly defined.  And since he treats
Austrian economics as the only viable alternative to mainstream economics,
he incorrectly awards victory to Austrian economics. While Austrian
economics has some valuable ideas to contribute to mainstream economics, it
has serious deficiencies of its own.
                  
--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567
Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
______________________________________________
If the world were rational, nothing would ever
happen--Feodor Dostoevsky