DOCSLIB.ORG

In Kind Accounting of O. Neurath and A. Chayanov

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Kind Accounting of O. Neurath and A. Chayanov Calculating Without Money: in kind accounting of O. Neurath and A. Chayanov Nikolay NENOVSKY (University of Picardie Jules Verne) ESHET Annual Conference, 23-25 May 2019, Lille Objectives and contributions - Discuss proposals of alternative to money measurement and accounting, in particular 1918 – 1921 period, more precisely in kind models of A. Chayanov and O. Neurath - This is insightful for understanding currents technological trends and discussions on digital currency, decentralised and moneyless economy, “labour time banks”, EU discussion on clearing, on Target 2 etc. - Precursors (Chayanov) of frontier operational research productive efficiency of DMUs (DEA and SFA) - Fundamental discussion on possibilities of building socialism, planification (since Mises, …) Objectives and contributions - First post War and Bolshevik years - Russia and Austria (Hayek, 1935) - Austria (1919 O. Neurath’s proposal well known, Weber, Hayek etc.) - Russia (A. Chayanov, 1920 (1918?) less known outside Russia, unlike labour and energetical value models, according to L. Yurovsky Chayanov model has “some merits, the most logical proposal”) Neurath and Chayanov - O. Neurath (1882 -1945) and A. Chayanov (1888 - 1937) Common elements - War Economy, Bolsheviks practices (Russia, Hungary, Bavaria) - Ideas of Marxism, socialism, agrariarism, etc - Utopia as science - Neurath: “Utopianism as science” (System of socialisation, 1920) - Chayanov: on his literary, peasant utopias, see Raskov, 2014, Glovelli, 2004 Elements on Neurath and Russia On Neurath and Russia - Vienna, practical experiences during the war (Ministry of Planning, 1917/18) and Soviet Bavaria (April 1919) - “Economics in kind, calculation in kind and their relation to war economics” (1919/… 1916) - “Of the two stages of the future to came” (1919) - “System of socialisation” (1920/21) etc. - Translation of some of his books and articles in Russian, popularity - ex: VSNH journal , 1919, two articles on International clearing On Neurath and Russia - Original conceptual framework - Quality of life, conditions of life, order of life, basis of life, efficiency and plasticities etc.) - Order of society and order of community, principle of society and principles of community etc. (common forms of collectivist movements) - Social engineering, organisational reconstruction, economic planning (input/output), rationalisation etc Neurath and Russia - Original conceptual framework - Institutions of socialisation (similar to established by the Soviets) - Central Economic Administration (STO, Council of Labor and Defense) - Control centre (workers, soviets) - Centre for rationalisation, experts (VSNH, Supreme Council of National Economy) - Centre for calculation in kind (Gosplan) and Centre for organisation etc - Accounting office - Central Bank: 1) for socialisation and 2) for compensation - Monetary institutions - On Neurath and Russia - Basic movements of the total socialisation - From underutilisation to total utilisation - From economy of the masters to economy of community - From net profit to economic plan - From monetary economy to economy in kind (Naturalwirtschaft) - From rule of the masters to the rule of community - Monetary proposals are not technically elaborated - Sometimes monetary calculation will exist (as vouchers or unit of account, compensation) side by side with calculation in kind Destruction of money in Russia (Practice and discussions) 1918 – 1921 (War communism) - January of 1918 – Autumn 1918 “left communists” (Bukharin, Larine) for a radical elimination of money, Lenin hesitates (State Capitalism) - Autumn 1918 – January 1920 Lenin and the Party officially against money, number of official documents in this respect, in January 1920 the Central Bank merged with Treasury and transformed into Central Accounting Office - January 1920 – March 1921 Social accounting, moneyless economy January 1920 – March 1921 - Transitional Period (coexistence of basically two economic systems, two sectors): - S1: Nationalised, industry, town (“Product”) - S2: Private, cooperative, agrarian, village (“Commodity”) - Respectively two monetary regimes - For S1, when monetary revenue approaches 0 (1920) → organising social accounting, and moneyless economy, according to communist principles - For S2, and between S1 and S2 different mechanisms (1) paper money → (2) voluntary commodity exchange → (3) forced commodity exchange → (4) natural seizure (prodrazverstka) January 1920 – March 1921 - Establishing Central Accounting Office (Settlement, Clearing Administration) - Decrees of the Soviet Authorities - L. Obolensky, Governor, 1920 “At present, in Soviet Russia, the system of moneyless settlement is the first step on the road to the cancellation of monetary circulation in general» - In 1918, “unity of bank's cash register (unité de caisse)” at the Central Bank, Lenin: “Socialism is Accounting !” January 1920 – March 1921 - Mid 1918, later January 1919, VSNH, Settlement found at the Central bank - All ministries (glavki), enterprises, cooperatives and so on, are obliged to keep increasing amounts at this fund and to pay through it, there is also Treasury account - Task, attracting people to depose their saving (ex: for 3 months, 55% of the funds) - In 1919 “note for settlement”/“reckoning tokens” (razchetnii znak), not anymore “monetary unit” - January 1920, Central bank merged with Treasury and saving banks and became Central Budgeting and Accounting Administration (for 15 months, later NEP) Theoretical approaches - Destruction of money as means of payments, medium of exchange - Destruction of money as unit of account (measure of value) The future of the means of payments - Soviet monetarists («Theory of issue economy », S. Falkner, O. Schmidt) - Soviet ideologists («Theory of nullification », E. Preobrajensky, Y. Larin) [See annexe] The future of the unit of account - New measures of value - Theory of energetic unit (M. Smith) - Theory of energy-labour unit (S. Klepikov) - Theory of labour unit, tred (S. Strumilin, K. Shmelev) - In kind (in natura) measuring (A. Chayanov and followers) - Mixed model ‘in kind and labour, treds’ (A. Dembo) A. Chayanov and in kind measurement «Methods of moneyless accounting of economic enterprises” (written in January 1918, published as articles in October 1920, book published in 1921), in: Proceeding of Agrarian Academy (later Tymiryazev) - With collaboration of A. Vanstchein, K. Petuhov, N. Mackevic, F. Termitin, etc. - Main problem: of efficiency and rentability criterium (advantage/vigodnost) for socialist economy - Attempt to build an accounting system for the Soviet economy - Independently of O. Neurath (1919/1914/Mises, Weber, …/Barone/, in Russia - Novojilov, Brutzkus/… Hayek (1935) - Don Lavoie, 1985 in his “Rivalry and economic planning” notes Tschayanoff, 1923, in German Measure of advantage (rentability) - Capitalist economy: net revenue, profit, income (political economy, Marx) - Socialist economy: total revenue, income (new theory and methods for analysisng nature, level and measure of rentability) Measure of advantage (rentability) - Fundamentally for the both systems the same Law, “principle of economy of power, forces” = comparing efforts with results; A. Bogdanov) - Under Socialism, State behaves as a head of a patriarchal peasant household, “grandiose natural households” Socialist economy is: - Unified, organized, natural, consumer and labor - New principle of accounting (in natura, no price and money), p. 31 Old accounting tasks New accounting tasks 1) Full account of the turnover of 1) Full account of the turnover of products, materials and their value products, materials and labour 2) Definition of 2) Definition of - Net profit - Labour productivity - Rent - Efficiency of using materials, machines, - % on capital building, etc. 3) Accumulation and processing of 3) Accumulation and processing of material for organizational calculations material for organizational calculations Capitalist Economy Socialist Economy Socialist economy: - Efficiency only within the Max Accepted branches - Centre defines the frontier, norm (statistically or experimentally), and deviation from the frontier for each enterprise - (ex: Denmark, assessment of the milk productivity of cow "Rosa ») - Centre (Glavk) similar to market, p. 36 (Barone, Lange) - Data envelopment analysis (DEA, and SFA) is a nonparametric method in operations research and economics for the estimation of production frontiers. - It is used to empirically measure productive efficiency of decision making units (DMUs) (only for similar one) (“best-practice frontier”, "balanced benchmarking”) - Could be used in natural or monetary units Pioneering book: "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units" by Charnes, Cooper & Rhodes (1978) - For the production of 1000 units of cereal products are used factors as … - Norm limit and a concrete result of the undertaking - Overall assessment of success Max Observed Ratio Total assessment - Overall assessment of success for the all activities of the enterprise (field breeding, livestock breeding, vegetables … ) - Giving weighs of each activities … (?) Accounting in Socialist economy: - Main accounting book is different, closing accounts are: - capital account - state account - there is no general balance, no saldo In capitalist accounting we have - capital account - owner account - saldo account, net profit Capitalist accounting (P. Struve, J. Cartelier) - Measures in rouble - Final Saldo (net profit) Credit Debit - Socialist accounting - Measures in kind,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computers and Economic Democracy
    Rev.econ.inst. vol.1 no.se Bogotá 2008 COMPUTERS AND ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY Computadores y democracia económica Allin Cottrell; Paul Cockshott Ph.D. in Economics, professor of Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, USA, [[email protected]]. Ph.D. in Computer Science, researcher of the Glasgow University, Glasgow, United Kingdom, [[email protected]].. The collapse of previously existing socialism was due to causes embedded in its economic mechanism, which are not inherent in all possible socialisms. The article argues that Marxist economic theory, in conjunction with information technology, provides the basis on which a viable socialist economic program can be advanced, and that the development of computer technology and the Internet makes economic planning possible. In addition, it argues that the socialist movement has never developed a correct constitutional program, and that modern technology opens up opportunities for democracy. Finally, it reviews the Austrian arguments against the possibility of socialist calculation in the light of modern computational capacity and the constraints of the Kyoto Protocol. [Keywords: socialist planning, economic calculation, environmental constraints; JEL: P21, P27, P28] El colapso del socialismo anteriormente existente obedeció a causas integradas en su mecanismo económico, que no son inherentes a todos los socialismos posibles. El artículo muestra que la teoría económica marxista, junto con la informática, proporciona el fundamento para adelantar un programa económico socialista viable y que el desarrollo de la informática y de Internet hace posible la planificación económica. Además, argumenta que el movimiento socialista nunca desarrolló un programa constitucional correcto y que la tecnología moderna abre nuevas oportunidades para la democracia.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Economics Institutional Economics
    INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Sponsored by a Grant TÁMOP-4.1.2-08/2/A/KMR-2009-0041 Course Material Developed by Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (ELTE) Department of Economics, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Balassi Kiadó, Budapest ELTE Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Author: János Mátyás Kovács Supervised by János Mátyás Kovács June 2011 INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Week 3 ”Old” Institutional Economics I Marxism and the German Historical School János Mátyás Kovács Contents • Marx • Collectivist utopias • German Historical School Marx • Marx versus Marxism • Did Marx have a concept of institution at all? – Institutions and systems: capitalism versus communism – Social-economic formations – Modes of production – Production relations, property relations – Division of labor – Superstructure, state – Classes and hierarchies – The capitalist firm – Market, commodity, capital, competition • Institutions and interests • Historical/dialectic approach • Institutional change and revolution • Class struggle: natural selection? Marx (cont.) • Is the Marxian concept of institution empirical? • Material interests: utilitarian bias? • Acquisitive values, and incentives • Rationality without methodological individualism • Agency problem: determinism; historical laws and institutional change • Capitalism: homogenizing the non-capitalist institutions (Engels: family, state, private property) • Development scenarios: change versus progress, evolutionary optimism • Marx as a German historicist: methodological collectivism? Marx (cont.) Analytical (rational choice) Marxism • An attempt at reinterpretation within the Marxian paradigm in the framework of the revisionist wave of the 1970/80s • The revision happened to become more radical than in the case of neo-Marxist tendencies. • It concerned the theory of capitalism rather than communism: September Group (John Roemer, Jon Elster, Adam Przeworski, etc).
    [Show full text]
  • Does Modern ICT Enable More Efficient Economic Models? Of
    Does modern ICT enable more efficient economic models? of. Dr. Burkhard Stiller Burkhard Dr. of. Gionata Genazzi Zürich, Switzerland Student ID: 09-742-669 Supervisor: Poullie, Patrick Date of Submission: December 15, 2014 Vertiefungsarbeit — Vertiefungsarbeit CommunicationSystems Group, Pr University of Zurich Department of Informatics (IFI) Binzmühlestrasse 14, CH—8050 Zürich, Switzerland Index 0 Introduction and motivation ................................................................................................. 1 1 Arguments against planned and moneyless economy ....................................................... 3 1.1 Economic calculation problem .............................................................................. 3 1.2 Distribution of consumption goods ........................................................................ 4 1.3 Innovation and technical progress ........................................................................ 5 2 Cockshott and Cottrell’s model ............................................................................................ 7 2.1 Labor time as measure of cost ............................................................................. 7 2.2 Labor token system of distribution ........................................................................ 8 2.3 Resource allocation .............................................................................................. 9 2.4 Democratic decisions on major allocation questions ............................................. 9 2.5
    [Show full text]
  • Jessica Whyte Calculation and Conflict
    Jessica Whyte Calculation and Conict In July 1919, the Austrian philosopher and econ- omist Otto Neurath was convicted of high trea - son for his role as head of the Central Economic Administration of the short-lived Munich Soviet Republic (Cartwright et al. 2008: 55)—the “most pronouncedly revolutionary episode of the Ger- man revolution of some endurance” (Uebel 2006: 81n87). The path that led to Neurath being sen- tenced to eighteen months imprisoned in a fortress began in January that year, when he presented a paper on the prospects for a socialized economy to the Bavarian Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council in Munich.1 There, Neurath invoked the impact of the Great War on the German economy: “Just as the economy had been made to serve the needs of war with the Hindenburg programme,” he wrote, “one should be able to make it serve people’s happiness” (quoted in Cartwright et al. 2008: 55). Neurath had argued for a planned economy that would place “the satisfaction of basic needs” (housing, nutrition, and clothing for all) above the desire for protability (44). This program had animated his brief stint as a revolutionary eco- nomic administrator. While the Munich Soviet Republic gave Neurath an opportunity to put his ideas into action, this opportunity was short-lived. The South Atlantic Quarterly 119:1, January 2020 10.1215/00382876-8007641 © 2020 Duke University Press Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-pdf/119/1/31/744605/1190031.pdf?casa_token=LYKNsUwo0zkAAAAA:nTeze575H8EGeePCEZcvTGxR4RlFEgSnQ2rkVAzF-k7RDJhGJAf7gMfcVEHDN9GumoV3Tua4tQ by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES user on 08 February 2020 32 The South Atlantic Quarterly • January 2020 On May 2, 1919, the right-wing Freikorps militias conquered Munich and bru- tally suppressed this experiment, killing six hundred people in the process (Balakrishnan 2000: 19).
    [Show full text]
  • Mises, Kantorovich and Economic Computation
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Mises, Kantorovich and Economic Computation Cockshott, W. Paul University of Glasgow 2007 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6063/ MPRA Paper No. 6063, posted 03 Dec 2007 14:34 UTC MISES, KANTOROVICH AND ECONOMIC COMPUTATION PAUL COCKSHOTT 1. WHAT IS ECONOMIC CALCULATION? In contemporarary society the answer seems simple enough: economic calculation in- volves adding up costs in terms of money. By comparing money costs with money benefits one may arrive at a rational - wealth maximising - course of action. In a famous paper[von Mises(1935)] the Austrian economist Mises argued that it was only in a market economy in which money and money prices existed, that this sort of economic rationality was possible. His claims were striking, and, if they could be sustained, apparently devastating to the cause of socialism. The dominant Marxian conception of socialism involved the abolition of private property in the means of production and the abolition of money, but Mises argued that "every step that takes us away from private ownership of the means of production and the use of money also takes us away from rational economics" ([von Mises(1935)]: 104). The planned economy of Marx and Engels would inevitably find itself "groping in the dark", producing "the absurd output of a senseless apparatus" (106). Marxists had counter-posed rational planning to the alleged ‘anarchy’ of the market, but according to Mises such claims were wholly baseless; rather, the abolition of market relations would destroy the only adequate basis for economic calculation, namely market prices. However well-meaning the socialist planners might be, they would simply lack any basis for taking sensible economic decisions: socialism was nothing other than the "abolition of rational economy".
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/23/2021 09:27:24PM Via Free Access 168 Intervention
    Von Mises, Kantorovich and in-natura calculation W. Paul Cockshott* Th e article reviews the idea of calculation in kind. It is argued that Kantoro- vich and subsequent mathematicians essentially validated the idea of in-kind calculation. Th is has not been evident because Kantorovich nowhere deals with the Austrian school and they for their part have ignored him. Th e article con- tinues by examining improvements in linear optimisation since Kantorovich and the implications these have for economic planning. Finally it discusses the problem of deriving the plan ray in the context of markets for consumer goods. JEL classifi cations: C61, B14 Keywords: planning, calculation debate, linear optimisation 1. Introduction Th is paper presents a historical review and extended tutorial on the work of Kantoro vich and his position with respect to the famous economic calculation debate. It focuses on Kantorovich because he is the most signifi cant Soviet contributor to the question, and be- cause his ideas are less well known to modern Western economists than those of the Aus- trian school. A Western readership is more likely to be familiar with neo-Classical or Sraf- fi an approaches to economic calculation, so it is perhaps worth saying a little about how Kantorovich’s approach will be seen to diff er from these. We shall argue that in one sense Kantorovich’s methods are a generalisation of those of Ricardo, but one aspect of Ricardo’s work that Kantorovich shares, Ricardo’s analysis of foreign trade, is not one that the mod- ern neo-Ricardian school lays much emphasis on.
    [Show full text]
  • The Socialist Calculation Debate and New Socialist Models in Light of a Contextual Historical Materialist Interpretation
    THE SOCIALIST CALCULATION DEBATE AND NEW SOCIALIST MODELS IN LIGHT OF A CONTEXTUAL HISTORICAL MATERIALIST INTERPRETATION by Adam Balsam BSc [email protected] Supervised by Justin Podur BSc MScF PhD A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada December 11, 2020 Table of Contents The Statement of Requirements for the Major Paper ................................................................................. iii Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iv Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... vi Section I: Introduction, Context, Framework and Methodology .................................................................. 1 Preamble ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Context of this Investigation ................................................................................................................. 5 The Possibilities of Socialist Models ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism, Economic Calculation And
    SOCIALISM, ECONOMIC CALCULATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP BY Jesús Huerta de Soto TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1. SOCIALISM AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................... 1 The Historic Failure of Socialism ........................................................................ 1 The Subjective Perspective in the Economic Analysis of Socialism ................... 3 Our Definition of Socialism ................................................................................. 4 Entrepreneurship and Socialism ........................................................................... 5 Socialism as an Intellectual Error ......................................................................... 6 2. THE DEBATE ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIC 7 CALCULATION .................................................................................................. Ludwig von Mises and the Start of the Socialism Debate .................................... 7 The Unjustified Shift in the Debate toward Statics .............................................. 8 Oskar Lange and the “Competitive Solution” ...................................................... 9 “Market Socialism” as the Impossible Squaring of the Circle ............................. 9 3. OTHER POSSIBLE LINES OF RESEARCH ..................................................... 10 1. The Analysis of So-called “Self-Management Socialism” ............................. 10 2. “Indicative
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Calculation Controversy: Unraveling of a Myth
    Editorial Editorial Issue Three of Common Voice was put together during, and in the aftermath of, the bloody slaughter of ordinary men, women and children from a wide range of social backgrounds in London, Egypt, Turkey and Baghdad. While families and friends continue to mourn, news programmes, the press and the alternative media have devoted huge amounts of airtime, column inches and bandwith in an attempt to come to terms with these tragic events. In this context it may seem rather insensitive of us to devote an issue of Common Voice to the nuances of how a future post-capitalist society might organise production, how Marx viewed capitalist progress, or the (ir)relevance of ‘ultra-leftism’ at a time when revolution is not on the agenda. Yet among the more progressive elements of the alternative media there is agreement that any solution to terrorism, state violence, religious hatred and racism must point to a different set of values to those propagated by the warmongers and fundamentalists. In this sense Common Voice will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who argue that another world is not only possible but eminently desirable. This issue kicks off with a lengthy, in-depth analysis of the ‘Economic Calculation Argument,’ by Robin Cox. Cox uncovers the main assumptions of the argument which rests upon the idea that a post-capitalist economic arrangement cannot function effectively without the ‘guiding hand’ of the market. In exposing the fallacies of the ECA (based upon the idea that a post-capitalist economy would necessarily
    [Show full text]
  • Planned Economy and Economic Planning: What the People’S Republic of Walmart Got Wrong About the Nature of Economic Planning Márton Kónya*
    THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS VOLUME 23 | No. 1 | 67–83 | SPRING 2020 WWW.QJAE.ORG Review Essay Planned Economy and Economic Planning: What The People’s Republic of Walmart Got Wrong About the Nature of Economic Planning Márton Kónya* JEL Classification: P21 Abstract: Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski’s The People’s Republic of Walmart entered the scene in 2019 with the remarkable idea that mammoth firms such as Walmart and Amazon, by being able to direct huge volumes of resources—sometimes with the capacity of entire countries—without an inner market to signal prices, are living evidence of the viability of a collectively planned economy. Moreover, they argue that the nondemocratic command system that often accompanies the structure of firms is due to their operation in a profit-seeking market system. Using the Austrian arguments propounded during the economic calculation debate, this essay shows that not only are firms, like other organizations, unable to substitute the market in coordinating their economic plans, but that their nondemocratic elements arise precisely from their function as “miniature planned economies,” demonstrating that the authors have misunderstood the nature of economic planning in a market economy. It is further argued that the problems that a planned economy would face * Márton Kónya ([email protected]) is a BA student of applied economics at the Corvinus University of Budapest. I would like to thank everyone who aided me in writing this paper, especially Dr. Karl- Friedrich Israel of the University of Leipzig and my good friend Bálint Madlovics. Quart J Austrian Econ (2020) 23.1:67–83 https://qjae.scholasticahq.com/ 67 Creative Commons doi:10.35297/qjae.010053 BY-NC-ND 4.0 License 68 Quart J Austrian Econ (2020) 23.1:67–83 without market signals would no less obstruct the efficient and successful operation of private firms if they ever tried to eliminate the market creating them.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Calculation: Private Property Or Several Control?
    Economic calculation: private property or several control? Paper to be presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Association for Heterodox Economics, 2-4 July 2014, University of Greenwich, London Andy Denis, City University London ([email protected]) Abstract As the centenary of the Russian revolution of 1917 approaches, it is worth reviewing the past 100 years’ discussion amongst economists on the possibility – or otherwise – of economic planning under socialism. The socialist calculation debate is of fundamental importance, not merely as a specialist application of economic ideas, but as an investigation of the foundations of all economic activity. Every economic action whatsoever is premised upon calculation, every choice depends upon an assessment of the costs and benefits of each alternative between which the agent is to choose. The view taken of that choice and its attendant calculation, in market and non-market contexts, is constitutive of the schools of thought – Marxian, neoclassical and Austrian alike – which have contributed to the debate. An understanding of the calculation debate is therefore required in order to understand how these paradigms stand in relation to each other. This paper addresses one particular detail of that debate – the claim by Austrian economists that socialism is impossible because the absence of private property in the means of production precludes economic calculation. The paper suggests that several control rather than private property is required for economic calculation, and that the latter is consistent with public ownership of the means of production. The Austrian argument on this point, therefore, is without force. 1 Introduction This is the first in a projected series of papers examining the socialist calculation debate in the run- up to the centenary of the Russian Revolution of 1917.
    [Show full text]
  • K. Yamamoto's Economic Calculation Hiroyuki OKON1
    A Japanese Contribution to the Calculation Debate: K. Yamamoto's Economic Calculation Hiroyuki OKON1 Introduction It goes without saying that the economic calculation debate is one of the most important incidents in the history of economics. It is not an exaggeration to say that we have been deepening our understanding of the essence of the market economy through seeing the calculation debate. The result of this importance of the calculation debate is publication of hundreds of papers and books over the calculation debate. Exhaustive discussions have been conducted after Ludwig von Mises denied the possibility of rational economic calculation under socialism in 1920. Various accounts of the debate have been presented. Every related papers and books seems have been scrutinized by historians of economic thought. Thus it seems that there is no room for new interpretation or new findings about the calculation debate. Nevertheless, the purpose of the present paper is to introduce still a new fact of the history of the calculation debate to the historians of economic thought. It is that a Japanese scholar published a book which analyses comprehensively arguments around the possibility of rational economic calculation in the socialist society in 1932. The name of the scholar is Katsuichi Yamamoto, and the title of the book is Keizai Keisan (Economic Calculation: Fundamental Problem of Planned Economy) . The structure of the paper is as follows. In the first section, Yamamoto’s life and works are reviewed. Then the general history of the calculation debate and some early comprehensive studies are retraced. We will see Yamamoto’s 1932 book , Keizai Keisan, in the third section.
    [Show full text]