Political Econ of Growth. Paul A. Baran

Чтение книги онлайн.

       TWO

       The Concept of the Economic Surplus

      THE concept of economic surplus is undoubtedly somewhat tricky, and in clarifying and employing it for the understanding of the process of economic development neither simple definitions nor refined measurements can be substituted for analytical effort and rational judgment. Yet it would certainly seem desirable to break with the time-honored tradition of academic economics of sacrificing the relevance of subject matter to the elegance of analytical method; it is better to deal imperfectly with what is important than to attain virtuoso skill in the treatment of what does not matter.

      In order to facilitate the discussion as much as possible, I shall be speaking now in terms of “comparative statics”: that is, I shall ignore the paths of transition from one economic situation to another, and shall consider these situations, as it were, ex post. Proceeding in this way, we can distinguish three variants of the concept of economic surplus.

      Actual economic surplus, i.e. the difference between society’s actual current output and its actual current consumption.¹ It is thus identical with current saving or accumulation, and finds its embodiment in assets of various kinds added to society’s wealth during the period in question: productive facilities and equipment, inventories, foreign balances, and gold hoards. It would seem to be merely a matter of definition whether durable consumer goods (residential dwellings, automobiles, etc.) should be treated as representing saving rather than consumption, and it is undoubtedly quite arbitrary to treat houses as investment while treating, say, grand pianos as consumption. If the length of useful life be the criterion, where should one place the benchmark? In actual fact, it is essential for the comprehension of the economic process to make the distinction not on the basis of the physical properties of the assets involved, but in the light of their economic function, i.e. depending on whether they enter consumption as “final goods” or serve as means of production contributing thus to an increase of output in the subsequent period. Hence an automobile purchased for pleasure is an object of consumption, while an identical car added to a taxi-fleet is an investment good.²

      Actual economic surplus has been generated in all socioeconomic formations, and while its size and structure have markedly differed from one phase of development to another, its existence has characterized nearly all of recorded history. The magnitude of the actual economic surplus—saving or capital formation—is at least conceptually readily established, and today is regularly estimated by statistical agencies in most countries. Such difficulties as are encountered in its measurement are technical, and caused by the absence or inadequacy of statistical information.

      Potential economic surplus, i.e. the difference between the output that could be produced in a given natural and technological environment with the help of employable productive resources, and what might be regarded as essential consumption.³ Its realization presupposes a more or less drastic reorganization of the production and distribution of social output, and implies far-reaching changes in the structure of society. It appears under four headings. One is society’s excess consumption (predominantly on the part of the upper income groups, but in some countries such as the United States also on the part of the so-called middle classes), the second is the output lost to society through the existence of unproductive workers, the third is the output lost because of the irrational and wasteful organization of the existing productive apparatus, and the fourth is the output foregone owing to the existence of unemployment caused primarily by the anarchy of capitalist production and the deficiency of effective demand.

      The identification and measurement of these four forms of the potential economic surplus runs into some obstacles. These are essentially reducible to the fact that the category of the potential economic surplus itself transcends the horizon of the existing social order, relating as it does not merely to the easily observable performance of the given socioeconomic organization, but also to the less readily visualized image of a more rationally ordered society.

      II

      This requires a short digression. Indeed, if looked at from the vantage point of feudalism, essential, productive, and rational was all that was compatible with and conducive to the continuity and stability of the feudal system. Nonessential, unproductive, and wasteful was all that interfered with or was unnecessary for the preservation and the normal functioning of the prevailing social order. Accordingly Malthus staunchly defended the excess consumption of the landed aristocracy, pointing to the employment-stimulating effects of such outlays. On the other hand, the economists of the rising bourgeoisie had no compunctions about castigating the ancien régime for the wastefulness of its socioeconomic organization, and about pointing out the parasitic character of many of its most cherished functionaries and institutions.⁴

      But as soon as the critique of pre-capitalist society lost its urgency, and the agenda of economics became dominated by the task of rationalizing and justifying the victorious capitalist order, the mere question as to the productivity or essentiality of any type of activity taking place in capitalist society was ruled out of court. By elevating the dictum of the market to the role of the sole criterion of rationality and efficiency, economics denies even all “respectability” СКАЧАТЬ