INTEGRATED PLANNING
Economic Planning: Revisiting Early Debates
Pradeep Banerjee Management Consultant, Bangalore 1/20/2011 3:31:40 AM
The middle decades of the erstwhile century are important for it is during these decades that a number of countries emerged as independent nations across the world. These nations in most cases emerged as those that had experienced colonial rules. The transition was from one of being locked into a centre-peripheral structural mode to that of emerging into a status where the immediate relationship was relatively less tied up with such historical determinacy. Size of these newly crafted nations notwithstanding, the contextual concerns that emerged were those related to prospects that these nations had as new bodies situated in the prevailing network of existing nations. It is not surprising, therefore, that developmental economics as an academic discipline, with a focus on the economy and the polity of these nation units, emerged as a concurrent body with an autonomous approach. It may not be an exaggeration to add that the approach was one that transcended many others; in terms of practice, the approach found support from political practitioners. The perspective to be adopted for endearing a move-forward of the economy also benefited from experiences of a number of other nations. 
The period of Great Depression and the manner in which the State had stepped in offered an experiential learning the magnitude of which had hitherto not been witnessed. Again the pattern of State intervention in the management of the Soviet economy during the twenties and the thirties offered illustrative lessons that emergent nation States could count on as options tried out elsewhere. As far as the productive capacity of the nation was concerned and as far as the gross outputs produced by these installed productive capacities were concerned, the lessons were there to see. The history of events of the world earlier had not probably seen anything of the magnitude that these illustrations confirmed. If it was possible elsewhere at the event level, it was not difficult to recognize the possibility that similar results could be replicated in these newly emerged nations. The formats were to be arrived at and inputs from academic disciplines referred to in stand-up relationship with political feasibilities specific to a nation did seemingly offer a broad framework in which economic growth in large measures could be targeted by the State.
This general framework was applicable to the Indian case too. The sluggish backwardness associated with the Indian economy was a scenario that required measures of interventions that could support leap forwards of the type witnessed in other economies. And this could be done, it was recognized, by invoking the role of certain institutions. The role of the State was coming to be recognized as an important one as illustrations of remedy measures taken to address depression, or a loss in growth in the economy on the one hand, and that to accelerate growth in the other were recorded. State as an institution could not remain a laissez faire one in such times. The other institution was that of the market. The market brought with itself a number of issues which were quiet clear when a comparative picture was drawn of those economies that had developed markets and those that had only nominal ones. Underdeveloped economies and underdeveloped markets seemingly share a sine qua non relationship inimical to economic development. The State and Market relationship had, then, a validity that needed to be accounted for. If these were some of the important institutions, then there were certain methodologies that were required to be put in place so as to provide a manner to address these as part of a common framework. Economic planning was an early answer as the bridge between the State and that of market. The role of the State in forging the relationship by adopting this bridge was an activity of essence. The State in India opted for this as part of its intervention in the politico-economic landscape. It did so by setting up the Planning Commission, and also made this institution organizationally relevant by relating it to the political leadership in charge of deciding on construct of economic policies expected to engender the process of economic development. Planning for the economy was a critical input, and the State soon after independence took steps to institutionalize the process of planning for the economy as part of the economic development process.
The prospects of what are identified as ‘market failure’ and that of ‘government failure’ were aspects that could well happen on putting the stated State, market and economic planning troika-schema into practice. These were concerns not just for select nation states as India. There were issues that were faced by emergent nations across the world at those points in time. Where the differences between nation states emerged as issue of consequence was in that of the specific historicity of each of these nations. The historic specificity of India emerging from long period of direct colonial rule was different from that of Korea which had a comparatively much shorter period of Japanese rule. Nonetheless, in both instances the role of the State in relating with the market and the adoption of state planning in matters economic are very much in evidence. Historic evidence also points out that the pattern in which this eventually worked out was quiet different in one nation state over that of the other. The manner of intervention that the combination of State, market and economic planning was structured, that is the combinatorial input, was specific to a nation state and the results that were realized say in terms of the changes in per capita income confirm this in good measure.1 The role of each of the combinatorial input is important, and so is that of the effect that the combinatorial input has when brought in as a whole. The manner in which economic planning was leveraged by the State to both intervene and as also to develop the market was a critical one.
Economic Planning — Issues that Play a Critical Role
A superficial reading of economic planning as a mode of intervention by the State would mean taking an instrumentalist view of that which is meant to be associated with planning. Economic planning need not be brought down to a level of being a mode of an instrumentalist intervention alone. Viewed as such, the essence dwindles to one of methodology and we are presented with an approach that gets limited to the richness, or the lack of it, of that methodology. In an early paper, Hayek initiated a debate on economic planning2. And he did so by asking a question, and which was as to, ‘What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order?’3 Hayek alluded that if looked at using common suppositions, that is the instrumentalist format referred to here, the answer is not far and it is amenable to logical inference. What is implied is that in case we have all the appropriate information about what society wants, and also the obtainable ways and means to address these, the economic calculus to be adopted for addressing the economic problem posed is not a difficult one to resolve. The error in methodology is in the assumption that we know the blueprint in which allocation of resources is to be done. In other words, the assumption depends on the strong case that there indeed is ‘a single mind’ that sets upon itself to arrive at a solution to the problem that the data makes it available for working out a resolution. The problem in creation of a rational economic order instead, and as Hayek points out, is not about the calculus that we exercise to allocate the given resources that we have; it is about ‘how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only those individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge not given to anyone in totality.’4 The essential point of note is that the issue has been widened to bring in the ‘use of knowledge in society’ to address the aspect of planning that is involved when the task before us is one about allocation of resources that the process of economic development calls for. It is a misnomer, then, to assume that there indeed could be a planner who can take on himself the task of allocation of resources and work on an economic calculus that when implemented would lead to economic development. A search for a rational economic order by adoption of this process could quiet likely lead to entering a blind alley. This so for while planning is ‘the complex of interrelated decisions about the allocation of our available resources’, the format required to put this into practice at the economy wide level posed a number of issue that required decisions.5
The issue is not one of the applicability of economic planning per se as a mode of choice to bolster economic development. That is given, for economic development is about economic activities at one level and it is unlikely that any economic activity can indeed be bereft of economic planning. Transactions carried out in society involve the coming together of people, and implicit in this coming together is that people interact with each other in order to carry out transactions. The economic process involved here is continuously triggered by transactions and in which interacting people who cooperate with each other to carry forward transactions of an economic nature come with knowledge to do so that they bring along with them. Each interacting agent comes along with a plan or the knowledge of as to how best to allocate resources such that he can efficiently participate in transactions that interest him. These in turn forms the basis that makes up the economic process. Noting the holding of dispersed knowledge amongst many people, Hayek points out that one of the problems of coming with economic policies that would engender ‘an efficient economic system’ is related to this dispersal of knowledge. The dispersal of knowledge among many makes it that much difficult to collate the available knowledge as an aggregated unit available with one single mind.
Economic Planning is a Responsibility — Identifying Actors
While the issue of collation of dispersed knowledge remains, there remains yet another question that is connected with economic planning. It is that of ‘who is to do the planning’. As regards the answer to this, Hayek puts forward in a manner that is best written citing his words. ‘This is’, Hayek writes, ‘not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not. It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is it to be divided among many individuals.’6 Economic planning had entered the lexicon with a tilt on central planning and this implied driving the entire economic system of a nation in accordance with a cohesive plan made ready for the economy. This was in contrast to that which was underscored as competition, for competition referred to decentralized planning and wherein this planning was carried out by those who came onward to carry out transactions according to preferences that they had set up for themselves. As regards tying up the planning process with the existing knowledge, for that is what planning was supposed to deal with, it was to be decided as to which of the chosen systems turned out to be more efficient to put into effect on hand existing knowledge. For it is with fuller exercise of existing knowledge that planning for the economy would work out to be the best for society. In terms of working out as to how this is to be carried out in the real frame of an economy, the germane question is the feasibility of doing so.
Faced with this situation, the way forwards is to ask as to whether there would be success in transferring the knowledge that is dispersed among many individuals to a centralized authority such that this body can make decisions regarding allocation of resources. Note that in this case the data that is currently dispersed as knowledge amongst many individuals have to be first transferred to the central agency. The knowledge data flow includes data that is related to even incremental changes that occur in the economic process. Economic transactions are entered into by individuals and by firms, and any participant in a transaction knows that incremental changes that constitutes the day to day level of activities come in a myriad of forms and very often do come with a compelling time constraint. The knowledge data, in other words, has time relevance and that of place relevance too. There is an essential relevance of incremental changes in knowledge data. Incremental changes in knowledge data, a common place event of occurrence, represent a change in the state of the economic process and this change in the state is an important event that has to be provided for. A steady state situation that records no incremental changes could be a theoretician’s delight but a practitioner’s no-go situation. True as much as a steady state could be desirable, it still remains confined to an assumed state that is much away from the realities of economic life. The knowledge data under reference, then, is a sum total of all these changes. It is only on receipt of such knowledge data that the central agency responsible for economy wide planning can move ahead with the task of economic planning. The resultant economic order is an output of the aggregation and integration of data received by the central planner and the actions that he initiates. A contra to this would be to determine the feasibility of transferring such additional knowledge as would be required to those who already had knowledge to start with such that these dispersed individual knowledge holders could arrive at plans that are in sync with those their collaborating partners come up with. The point is as to which of the option would society expect to more likely succeed when relating to economic planning to start with and economic development as a consequence of the opted planning mode?
Offer of Planning Options to Choose From
This is the point of a fork in the road that requires to be addressed. Herein onwards the choice requires to be made as to how society would be able to deliver for itself the more efficient pattern of economic development using the most appropriate pattern of economic planning. The chosen format would henceforth be required to address economic problem of society. The format requires addressing the part created by changes that are a part and parcel of the economic process itself. It is here that Hayek brings in a formulation of that what needs to be an integral ingredient of economic planning which seeks to address economic problem of society. And the role of changes is called upon centre stage, for it is these changes that are a proxy for economic life. Hayek points out that, ‘If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place, it would seem to follow that the ultimate decision must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of resources immediately available to meet them.’7 It follows that adoption of the route whereby data collected from dispersed units with knowledge and transferred to a central planning agency that integrates all such data elements and finally comes out with instructions as part of economic planning would be to travel a wide of the mark road. It is unlikely to work out when the practice for doing so is called for. The economic problem of the society, then, can be expected to continue given the unhelpfulness of the resolution mode so opted. The solution has to emerge on adoption of a format that is built on ‘some form of decentralization’. The adoption of decentralization as the format remains in sync with the observation about changes that these occur both in time and place. The process of decentralization helps because it enables the use of specific knowledge ‘of the particular circumstances of time and place’ by a knowledge bearer and this without any delay by the knowledge bearer in carrying out the change.
Knowledge of the here and now in a decentralized format is useful, and yet it is possible that this knowledge may have limitations insofar as decisions require to be taken based on this knowledge in formats that are in sync with changes that are occurring in the economic system in general. To bridge this gap there needs to be a method by which the decentralized decision maker gets to know that appropriate set of knowledge elements based on which he gets to be equipped to take correct decisions. It is not that he needs to know every single one of knowledge bit as with the central planner whose role assumes that he needs to do so. As to what he needs to know, Hayek points out that, ‘It is always a question of the relative importance of the particular things with which he is concerned, and the causes which alter their relative importance are of no interest to him beyond the effect on those concrete things of his own environment.’8 There is for that reason a narrowing down of the knowledge requirement by the decentralized decision maker. It is not on a global database that he requires to take decisions on which would impacts his planning. His decisions are based on having a knowledge of the specific issues that concerns him at that point in time and place. If he is a producer of goods that require say aluminum as an input material he needs to know the availability of the metal to him such that he can plan for its utilization. He needs to know for instance as to whether there is a need for substitution given the impact of a change that he witnesses as part of his interactions. The knowledge base that needs to be transmitted to the individual decision maker to augment his planning needs 
is restricted to those of direct concern alone. And this knowledge-need could turn out to be but a small fraction of all that which is happening in the real world concerning the input material. The available knowledge is dispersed amongst many knowledge bearers in the economy and that poses no problems in terms of planning by one such decision maker. This is in contrast to the other case where knowledge at the aggregate level has to be available to make a start on economic planning. The concern that remains to be addressed is as to the mechanism by which appropriate knowledge gets to be made available to a large number of people interested in that knowledge for effecting allocation of resources. It is to address the issue of that required mechanism that the price system is brought in as one that works as a mechanism that effectively augments communication of information required.
Hayek does elaborate the manner in which the price system works to address communication of information. The ‘most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action.’9 To illustrate the way the price system works, the instance of the supply of a raw material like tin is taken. Proceeding with a situation wherein the supply of tin to existing users gets constrained given that a new opportunity has emerged, or that an existing source of supply has closed shop, the point that is made is that to a great many users the reason as to why there has arisen a constraint in supply of the material is knowledge that they do not seek to know. They need to know as to the manner in which the utilization pattern of tin is altered such that the changed pattern of utilization dampens impact of non-supply of the material. While some would work on meeting demand by opting for alternate sources of supply of tin, in other cases the knowledge bearers would work on substitution measures that reduces consumption of tin per se. In case some knowledge bearers come to know of the new demand for tin, they would take measures to address the new demand by transferring supplies to cater to the new point of demand. All these activities would get initiated without most knowledge bearers knowing the reasons as to why the constraint in supply occurred in the first place. As against the central planner who requires knowing causes at the global level and working the impact at a local level, the dispersed knowledge bearers, restricting themselves to information accruing from immediate interactions, come to receive the information content relevant to them in terms of planning on allocation of the resource that they need to carry out. The entire network works out as a single market with relevant information available to the dispersed units. This is what the price system gets done in an economy. Hayek, accordingly points out that, ‘The mere fact that there is one price for any commodity … brings about the solution which (it is just conceptually possible) might have been arrived at by one single mind possessing all the information which is in fact dispersed among all the people involved in the process.’10 The price system which has not been one that has been arrived at as a premeditated construct instead works as a ‘marvel’. The ‘marvel’ is that a scarcity in availability of the input material tin in the illustrated instance leads a large number of users of the raw material shift their options to alternate directions. What is also important is that this movement is associated with very few being in the know of the reasons for the emergence of scarcity. Given the scarcity, alternatives are sought out by tens of thousands of respondents without any one of these respondents being ordered to do so. In this case, the market and its participants have not been offered conscious directions to do so by any centralized authority. This formulation turns out to be the answer for the option that is available as regards the choice that is to be made between decentralized planning and that of centralized planning.
Economic Planning as Part of a Larger Construct
The decentralized perspective of economic planning was not viewed without its political counterpart. The decentralized aspect was viewed as one that was closely tied to that of freedom given that the decentralized option was considered akin to ‘freedom in economic affairs’. Centralized economic planning, it was held, was not so, and Hayek brought in an added implication of drawing up a single plan for allocation of resources of society by a centralized agency. The issue was one about 
ends that were involved when planning of this type was opted for. There was a need for addressing planning requirements by what was acknowledged as a ‘moral rule’ and by adopting of which central planners could take responsibility for allocation of resources held by society. It follows, then, that there needs to emerge an agreement on the ends that were to be realized by centralized planning such that the questions of many could be addressed. The availability of such a ‘moral rule’ was a moot issue, for such a ‘moral rule’ that would be all encompassing was simply not available. The worrying aspect was that in the absence of such availability, the operant format for economic planning that would be adopted instead would be one that sought agreements otherwise and compulsion was not ruled out from the scenario.
The implications that Hayek arrived at following this perspective was the impact that such a compelled application of economic planning would have on the political environment. Such an allowance, Hayek emphasized, would lead to a ‘clash between planning and democracy’, and wherein the clash ‘arises simply from the fact that the later is an obstacle to the suppression of freedom which the direction of economic activity requires.’11 Mises12, of the same Austrian School that Hayek belonged to, had earlier written about as regard the inherent shortcoming in arriving at economic calculation in a socialist economy. Basing his arguments on the less than effective pricing system which allows pricing of producer’s goods in a socialistic environment, Mises observed that the system could only gravitate into an uncertain one without a rational economic order. In his influential 1920 article, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, Mises wrote that ‘in the socialist commonwealth every economic change becomes an undertaking whose success can be neither appraised in advance nor later retrospectively determined. There is only groping in the dark. Socialism is the abolition of rational economy.’13 The debate that Mises initiated, and one that Hayek carried forward, was one of pitting liberalism against socialism, and in this debate the importance of economic planning was a central one.
Economic Planning and Sharpening of the Debates
The debates that were carried out on economic planning and centralized planning in the perspective of market processes held up important lessons for those that would be interested in these formulations. The debates were not just one-sided. It turns out that these were subjected to critical assessments. In this context Boettke points out that the ‘intellectual biases of the time failed to appreciate not only the economic problems of planning, but ignored political difficulties of planning.’14 Economic planning, in other words, could work insulated from political processes even if centralization of such planning was opted for. The formats of the political aspects opted for were muted ones indeed. Keynes, who would propose 
governmental role in economic planning in significant measures, wrote to Hayek stating that, ‘I should therefore conclude your theme differently. I should say that what we want is not no planning, or even less planning, indeed I should say that we almost certainly want more. But planning should take place in a community in which as many people as possible, both leaders and followers, wholly share your own moral position. Moderate planning will be safe if those carrying it out are rightly oriented in their own minds and hearts to the moral issues.’15 Keeping with this approach, Keynes proposed that, ‘What we need therefore, in my opinion, is not a change in our economic programmes…..what we need is the restoration of right moral thinking – a return to proper moral values in our social philosophy.’16 This was in response to the ‘moral rule’ that Hayek had referred to in the context of who would carry out economic planning for the economy. Keynes, one can read into this, was in favour of a pattern where centralized planning would be carried on by the political structure and aided for the purpose by benevolent civil employees responsible for such planning. The orientation of those in charge of carrying out centralized planning required being morally correct and when this was so it could be expected that the planning configure would be able to realize goals set for society. Keynes who was an active participant in matters related to governmental activities and aware of the trends that did take place in the societal context did however add something more in his correspondence with Hayek. ‘Dangerous acts’, Keynes wrote, can be done safely in a community which thinks and feels rightly, which would be the way to hell if they were executed by those who think and feel wrongly.’17 This, Friedman points out, is an expression of Keynes’s ‘bequest to politics’.18 The half way format, in a manner of speaking, was an allusion to the relationship of the State and economic planning.
This was not all, and other economists, concerned with the approach towards economic planning outlined by Hayek and Mises, debated that the move towards centralized planning was not a handicapped road to take. And nor did they agree that economic planning would lead to the emergence of an authoritarian political regime. Rebutting Hayek on the approach that he had adopted as regards political implication of centralized planning, Durbin, an academic, and a Labour Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, wrote in The Economic Journal stating that ‘in this country, we have no need to fear the development of a centralized administration. We have a long tradition of increasing democracy combined with the growing activity of the State.’19 Durbin offered a distinct approach to economic planning as an alternative. Durbin did this by clarifying as to what planning was not, and having done that stated as to what the term economic planning meant. Planning, then, ‘does not in the least imply the existence of a plan – in the sense of an arbitrary industrial budget which lays down in advance the volume of output for different industries. Planning does not, and should not, imply any dogmatism about the future. It is not possible to tell in detail what will happen to human tastes, to technical invention, to general standards of security and well being. It would therefore be foolish in the extreme to attempt to lay down plans which could not be amended quickly in the light of changing social requirements.’20 As regards what economic planning was, Durbin pointed out that, ‘We use that term to indicate a principle of administration and not an inflexible budget of production.’21 Economic planning also meant ‘a change in direction of responsibility‘, and whereupon, ‘Instead of looking towards small and unrepresentative minorities of shareholders, the persons or Corporations directing production would look upwards, or towards a Central Economic Authority, for guidance on the larger questions of output, prices, investments and costs.’22 The appeal to benevolent executors for executing economic planning as seen earlier was perceptible here to. The arrangement prescribes that the matter would be carried forward with due responsibility associated with such activities. As in the earlier instance where Keynes noted the possibilities of things not going fully right as expected, so it was here too. Durbin pointed out that with ‘centralising of responsibility’ it was not that problems in the economic sphere would not be there. ‘It is certain’, Durbin wrote ‘that great mistakes will be made in experimenting with new institutions’.23 That, however, need not be a deterrence for it was expected that economic planning carried out under this arrangement would quiet surely be an effective one.
Economic Planning — Debate Pointers and Current Validity
The early debates on economic planning referred here were carried out over nearly three decades and this during a period of time when new nation states were coming into being. These debates were instructive because these took up issues that were fundamental to the economy and the polity of nations. In the Indian instance it was of bearing given that the political independence of the country came in at a time when the debates had reached a peak level. The approach taken up in these debates had been broadened to include many a relevant aspect of economic planning and political form associated with planning. In other words, the debate pointers were well formed. Economic planning in the Indian context did involve 
the role of the State and while the political economy was not entirely a centrally administered one national planning impacted a significant part of the economy. The format of economic planning had an influence of that used in Soviet Russia. Economic planning strategies, for that reason, did include an important role for investment planning with investment targets being outlined as part of the period bound economic plans made for the economy. A part of the reason to promote investment planning was also to avoid market failures occurring from inadequate accessibility of infrastructural facilities required for the economy. In addition to investment planning, regulatory measures directing economic activities were introduced as part of the economic planning scenario adopted. These configures were part of methodologies related to allocation of resources. The experience of the economy since independence has been reviewed extensively, and explanatory thesis forwarded to explain the efficacies of economic planning and consequent economic development that has ensconced.24
In a study of economic performance carried out in the backdrop of development initiatives carried out in India, Datta-Chaudhuri points out that the ‘important question for developing societies is how to develop a mutually supportive structure of market and non-market institutions, which is well-suited to promote economic development. This makes normative development economics a difficult art.’25 That is also a reason as to why debates of the type referred to about economic planning bring in their relevance. The issues that were raised about economic planning retain their validity even as some time has elapsed from then when these were first raised. In the years that made up the closing decades of the century, there has been evaluation of the pattern that economies with centralized planning planned their economic development and following which methodologies in use have been changed. These have happened for both large economies and as also smaller ones. Such changes have occurred as a consequence of debates on the processes in use and economic planning has been one of these that have garnered attention. Revisiting early debates on economic planning in the context of the State and the market does provide a learning platform. The point of note is that issues raised in these early debates retain their validity. It is for this reason that revisiting these earlier debates retains relevance. An informed choice about options available on this date amongst the manner in which economic planning is to be carried out suggests such a revisit.
Endnotes and Additional Thinking
1 “World Bank Data on GNI” available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD (accessed 25th August 2010). The South Korean State (Republic of South Korea) had adopted state planning for the economy beginning the early sixties (1962). The GNI per capita was $16,900 in 2005. It grew to $21,530 in 2008. The comparative data for India was $740 and $1,040 respectively for these two years.
2 Hayek, F. A. (September 1945), “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, The American Review, Vol. XXXV, No. 4, pp. 520-530.
3 Ibid., p. 520.
4 Ibid., p. 520.
5 Ibid., p. 520.
6 Ibid., pp. 520-521.
7 Ibid., p. 524.
8 Ibid., p. 525.
9 Ibid., pp. 526-527.
10 Ibid., p. 526.
11 Hayek, F. A. (1944), ‘The Road to Serfdom’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p.70.
12 Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (1881-1973) was an influential economist of the Austrian School.
13 Mises, L. E., ‘Economic Calculation In the Socialist Commonwealth’, available at http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf (accessed 23rd August 2010), p.17.
14 Boettke, Peter, J. (1995), ”Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom Revisited: Government failure in the argument against socialism”, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 15.
15 Donald Moggridge, ed., John Maynard Keynes, The Collected Writings, Vol. XXVII: Activities, 1940-1946, pp. 385, 387, 388 referred to in Friedman Milton. (Spring 1987), John Maynard Keynes, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Economic Quarterly, Volume 83/2, p. 20.
16 Ibid.
17 Friedman, Milton. (Spring 1987), Op cit., p. 20.
18 Friedman, Milton. (Spring 1987), Op cit., p. 20.
19 Durbin, E. M. F. (December 1945), “Professor Hayek on Economic Planning and Political Liberty”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 55, No. 220, p. 370.Evan Durbin who taught at the London School of Economics during 1930-1945 was a contemporary of Hayek who was at the School during 1931 and till 1950. Durbin was the Labour MP (United Kingdom) for Edmonton Constituency during 1945-1948.
20 Durbin E. M. F. (1935), “The Importance of Planning’, New Trends in Socialism, pp. 149-150, referred to in Durbin, E. M. F. (December 1945), Op cit., p. 360.
21 Durbin, E. M. F. (1945), Op cit, p. 360.
22 Durbin, E. M. F. (1945), Op cit, p. 362.
23 Durbin, E. M. F. (1945), Op cit, pp. 366-367.
24 Bardhan, Pranab. (1984), ‘The Political Economy of Development in India’, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
25 Datta-Chaudhuri, Mrinal. (1990), “Market Failure and Government Failure”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 38.
(The views expressed in the write-up are personal and do not re?ect the official policy or position of the organization.)
<
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
*
|
| Name: |
* |
| Place: |
* |
| Email: |
* *
|
| Display Email: |
|
| |
|
| Enter Image Text: |
|
| |
|
