Efficiency

William S. Lear rael at dejanews.com
Tue Aug 11 07:48:07 PDT 1998


On Mon, August 10, 1998 at 20:52:57 (-0400) Mathew Forstater writes:
>Brett- I reject the concept of "efficiency" as defined in neoclassical
>economics. ...
> I think the critique of capitalism
>and the argument for an alternative should include discussions of
>things like "justice" "equality" "community" etc. best,

Does this mean you reject notions of Pareto optimality? Does it mean you think that discussions of things like efficiency should not stand alongside things like justice?

If yes, why so? I thought notions of Pareto efficiency, were unproblematic. Shouldn't we desire a just *and* efficient economy?

Hahnel and Albert, in their *Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics*, "find no fault with the concept of Pareto optimality as a formalization of the intuitive notion of social efficiency." (64) Elsewhere, Hahnel quotes Sam Bowles to the effect that, yes, there are other things besides efficiency that we must worry about:

Even if market allocations did yield Pareto-optimal results, and

even if the resulting income distribution was thought to be fair

(two very big "ifs"), the market would still fail if it supported

an undemocratic structure of power or if it rewarded greed,

opportunism, political passivity, and indifference toward others.

The central idea here is that our evaluation of markets -- and

with it the concept of market failure -- must be expanded to

include the effects of markets on both the structure of power and

the process of human development. As anthropologists have long

stressed, how we regulate our exchanges and coordinate our

disparate economic activities influences what kind of people we

become. Markets may be considered to be social settings that

foster specific types of personal development and penalize

others.... The beauty of the market, some would say, is precisely

this: It works well even if people are indifferent toward one

another. And it does not require complex communication or even

trust among its participants. But that is also the problem. The

economy -- its markets, work places and other sites -- is a

gigantic school. Its rewards encourage the development of

particular skills and attitudes while other potentials lay fallow

or atrophy. We learn to function in these environments, and in so

doing become someone we might not have become in a different

setting.... By economizing on valuable traits -- feelings of

solidarity with others, the ability to empathize, the capacity

for complex communication and collective decision making, for

example -- markets are said to cope with the scarcity of these

worthy traits. But in the long run markets contribute to their

erosion and even disappearance. What looks like a hardheaded

adaptation to the infirmity of human nature may in fact be part

of the problem.

Bill



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list