Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REVIEW ESSAY: II
record of planning has hardly been brilliant. For all we know, the
few apparent successes (if there are any) constitute no more than
random occurrences. Despite the absence of evidence on behalf of
its positive accomplishments, planning has retained its status as a
universal nostrum. Hardly a day goes by in some part of the world
without a call for more planning as a solution to whatever problems
all the society in question. Doubts as to the ettlcacy of national
economic planning are occasionally voiced, casually discussed, and
rarely answered. Advocates of plans and planning, naturally
enough, do not spend their time demonstrating that it has been suc-
cessful. Rather they explain why planning is wonderful despite the
fact that, as it happens, things have not worked out that way. Plan-
ning is defended not in terms of results but as a valuable process. It
is not so much where you go that counts but how you did not get there.
Thus planners talk about how much they learned while going
through the exercise, how others benefited from the discipline of
considering goals and resources, and how much more rational
everyone feels at the end. When really pushed to show results,
somewhere, some place, sometime, planning advocates are likely to
cite the accomplishments of indicative planning on the French
model as the modem success stow of their trade.
book has a fault, it is that the e_thor does not follow through com-
pletely on the implications of his devastating analysis.
Cohen defines indicative planning succinctly as a '%enign cycle."
Each sector of industry is given a series of mutually consistent de-
mand projections, and appropriate facilitating actions are suggested.
The more the firms in a given sector accept the information in the
plan, the more each will make it come true to their common advan-
tage. Indicative planning is meant to be a form of self-fulfilling
prophecy. Indicative planning is not based on coercion. Positive
incentives in the form of subsidies are offered to those firms that
follow the guidelines in the plan, but there are no penalties for firms
who deviate. Thus the members of each industry essentially plan
their own future, with the government planners running the meet-
ings and the Treasury making it pleasant for them to agree with one
another. The influence of a plan may be determined, therefore, by
the degree to which projects that would not have been undertaken
without it are pushed forward and projects that would have been
started are held back. There is, as Cohen says, no way of unraveling
this knotty problem of causality. He goes on to observe that while
small firms might be persuaded by their need for capital, the more
important large ones are not likely to be in this position. They are
continually engaged in making investments and "it is a relatively
simple matter for such a firm to alter certain elements of an invest-
ment program (often very minor elements) so as to fit the entire
project under one of the titles for which incentives are granted."
Indicative planning in this sense is a way of providing public money
to the largest firms for doing what they would have done anyway.
When the financial incentives become routine "they lose their value
as stimulants to change and become rewards for good behavior."
laoM
of theCohen's detailed
first four plans. account,
To whatonedegree
can draw
have up a score
their card
intentions
for the economy been realized in practice? In regard to the Monnet
plan, created in 1945-6, Cohen reports that it over-estimated the
amounts of investment funds that would be forthcoming. By 1948 it
was apparent that the targets of the plan were over-opiimistic. The
plan was unlikely to have contributed to the ending of inflation
because the increase in consumer goods came from sectors rather
removed ifrom the plan's targets, because the plan was not designed
to maximize the flow of consumer goods in a short period, and be-
cause the abundant harvest of 1948 was apparently due largely to a
change in the weather. No doubt the achievements of planning are
better appraised by reference to the second, third, and fourth plans
during Which indicative planning was in the ascendancy. During
the period from 1952 through 1956, when the second and third plans
were being constructed, government policy ignored or ran directly
contrary to their recommendations. Cohen reports that in 1952,
"Pinay's two principle programs---slashing state investment credits
and shifting the form of savings--both ran counter to the plan which
emphasized the importance of maintaining investment." The Mollet
98 THE PUBLIC INTEREST
/_he follows
understand the
that fortunes of the various
implementation plans,
is a critical CohenAs life
aspect. comes to
deals
.ozs _mc wongr o0
harshly with the aspirations of the planners, decisions are taken and
events occur that preclude the possibility of realizing their original
aspirations. The moment of truth comes when the plans have to be
abandoned or revised. Gohen's comments on the fate of the housing
program under the Monnet plan demonstrates how detailed investi-
gation deepens one's understanding of the content of planning. He
shows how
the housing program provides some insight into the relation of the
original planned targets to economic and political reality. The targets
may well indicate what the planners would like to see, and also what
they really expect to see. But if the plan must be modified during the
course of its four year life, the original planning document is only an
approXimate guide to what the planners will fight to save, and even less
indicative of what the Ministry of Finance will agree to. Thus, an analy-
sis of the effects of the plan on the economy, which strictly limits itself
to determining the percentage realization of the plan's original targets,
is largely a futile and misleading exercise, irrelevant to the question of
how French planning affects the economy. For the planners must always
be ready to prepare a stripped-down version of the plan--when the
Ministry of Finance begins a belt-tightening austerity program as a
short-run response to an inflationary situation. The pruned version of
the first plan abandoned non-essentials, that is, everything not directly
related to the development and reform of the nation's basic industrial
plant. It abandoned the housing program. It abandoned efforts to in-
fluence the short-term economic situation and concentrated on promot-
ing the long-term modernization and development of the basic industrial
plant, underneath short-term ups and downs.
shape the world in accord with the desires of the planners. At this
point Cohen becomes ambivalent. He shows that planning fails but
he resists saying so explicitly. His concluding section may contain
a clue, because it deals with problems of democratic planning.
Plans need not, after all, be solely concerned with economic growth
or conform to an essentially conservative world view. They could,
he believes, provide an instrument for democratic choice of clearly
stated alternatives with their implications worked out in advance.
Big business, he believes, would oppose increases in popular par-
ticipation and government administration of the economy that other
kinds of plans would provide. The "powers-that-be find themselves
interested in planning for development but not in sharing power,
hence their refusal to consider seriously radical changes in the
political process to control the planning mechanisms." Cohen con-
cludes his splendid book by saying that the basic issue "is the ex-
tent to wlaich critical centers of economic power are controlled by
the people." He believes that "planning began in France with the
goals of the technocrats, the civil servants and businessmen who
sought to rationalize, modernize and expand the French economy.
It must now mature with the goals of the democratic Left; to make
planning an instrument to aid the nation, acting through its dem-
ocratic institutions, to determine the direction of its own develop-
ment. The first goals have been realized; the second, postponed."
Let us reject, as Cohen does, totalitarian solutions. Does the French
experience lead anyone to believe that national planning, as en-
visioned by "the democratic Left," is feasible? Cohen demonstrates
that the planners have managed to survive by limiting themselves to
a narrow range of goals and by refusing to challenge the maior
governmental authorities and business interests. Yet even within
this context they do not in fact achieve what they set out to do.
France has grown economically, but not in the way or at the rate
specified in its plans. Does anyone believe (can anyone show?) that
France would have grown less or differently without its national
plans? Cohen brushes aside the suggestion that lack of knowledge in
an uncertain world is responsible for the planners' difficulty. That
would call into question the idea of democratic planning as well
as any other kind. His position suggests that if there were a dem-
ocratic majority agreed on its goals, if their purposes could be main-
tained over a period of years, if they had the knowledge and power
necessary to make the world behave as they wish, if they could control
the future, then central planning would work. If .... 1
What Cohen's book actually shows is that limited economic plan-
ning in a major industrial country possessing considerable financial
resources and talent simply did not work. What hope would there
be for developing nations whose accumulated wealth is definitely
less, whose reservoir of human talent is so much smaller, whose
information base is so much less reliable, whose whole life is sur-
rounded by uncertainties of a far greater magnitude? Why should
planning help secure radical change in Africa or Asia when it fails
to secure more limited changes in France?
DOES PLANNING WORK? I01
ANYONEengage
inthe Ofpl ing. Most
ofusengage
in goal-direeted behavior. We act in the present to seeure de-
sirah]e States of affairs in the future. In that sense virtually all
processes of decision can be considered forms of planning. But when
we talk about economic planning, we usually mean something more
than that. We mean controlling the decisions of many people, with
different interests and purposes, so as to.secure a premeditated ef-
fect. In short, the trick is to succeed in controlling the future---all
our futuresmto some extent.
Planning may be seen as the ability to control the future conse-
quences of present actions. The more consequences one controls, the
more one has succeeded in planning. Planning is a form of causality.
Its purpose is to make the future different from what it would have
been without this intervention. Planning therefore necessitates a
causal theory connecting the planned actions with the desired future
results. Planning also requires the ability to act on this theory; it re-
quires pOwer. To change the future, one must be able to get people to
act differently than they otherwise would. The requirements of sue-
cessful planning from causal theory to political power, grow more
onerous as its scope increases and the demands for simultaneous action
multiply! at a geometric rate.
Modem Capitalist Planning, as its title implies, deals with at-
tempts to plan in the context of a market economy where prices
provide Jan approximation of the value placed by people on goods
and services. The book does not deal with planning in the absence
of prices, where resources have to be allocated by administrative
mechanisms. Incomparably the finest essay I have ever read on plan-
ning by administrative decision is Ely Devons' "The Problem of Co-
ordination in Aircraft Production." Less technical than his seminal
work on Planning in Practice, (Cambridge University Press, 1950),
it conveys an overpowering sense of the actual complexities and
convolutions of decision-making in the aircraft industry in Great
Britain during World War II. No other paper I know contains so
many insights. Let us take just three examples out of the many that
could be offered.
1) Suppose one wished to know why administrative planning
resulted in production of many more spare parts that were in fact
used. I)evons offers the following explanation: