|
"Moreover, when we consider
that each product's status affects the status of many others, so that during
an iteration changes in eating out at restaurants will affect the status of
gas for cars and food for home cooking, we can see just how messy things
might become."
Is it possible to move such substantial amounts of information
to so many different nodes? Consider that we are talking about moving
electronic information. The U.S. postal system has the much harder task of
moving physical packages. In fact, in 1987 the federal postal service had
nearly 840,000 employees moving roughly 160 billion pieces of mail (about 656
pieces per capita). To accomplish this there are a little over 40,000 post
offices, stations, branches, and so on. Obviously a much smaller apparatus
would suffice for participatory planning's communicative infrastructure -
perhaps something about the size of United Parcel Services, operating a
communications process more like a computer information service.
"You suggest some level of work effort for yourself and,
implicitly, an average for everyone, and some level of consumption for
yourself and, again, implicitly, an average for everyone. To be realistic you
make these proposals compatible."
|
Converging
A little
thought reveals there is no reason to expect a totally unguided sequence of
participatory planning iterations to necessarily converge. For example, one
product that begins in excess demand could flip into excess supply in the
next iteration as workers offer to produce more and consumers to request
less, and this flip-flop could continue from round to round. Alternatively, a
good's status might not reverse every time but might follow a crazy path that
never converges toward equilibrium. Moreover, when we consider that each
product's status affects the status of many others, so that during an
iteration changes in eating out at restaurants will affect the status of gas
for cars and food for home cooking, we can see just how messy things might
become. Just as we make progress on one front, another could get farther out
of whack. Economists conveniently deploy simplifying assumptions to make
these problems go away in their economic models-must notably what they call
"convexity" and "gross substitutability" assumptions. But
the only way to make these problems "go away" in the real world is
to implement flexible rules and deploy experienced lFBs to help guide the
process. Clearly, we need to adopt rules and authorize interventions that do
not bias outcomes or reduce efficiency or equity unduly but that do ensure
that convergence occurs in a reasonable time.
We should
emphasize again that there is no one
correct way to operate a participatory planning system. Many features are
contingent. The various tasks we have enumerated could surely be carried out
in different ways. Facilitation boards could be defined differently or even
replaced by other institutions. Moreover, in real societies, economies exist
in social contexts co-determined by kinship relations, governing forms, and
cultural relations (as discussed further in our concluding chapter). There is
no reason to 'expect that participatory structures will be identical despite
differences in these other spheres of social life. Thus, developing preferred
rules and institutions will be largely a historical task. Chosen forms in any
particular society will have to fit particular environmental, historical, and
cultural circumstances that no abstract model such as ours can fully anticipate,
and, in any event, the character of optimal institutions and rules Will alter
as any particular participatory economy develops. It may even be that within
one economy different but compatible rule systems will operate in different
areas, reflecting differences in climate, resources, or culture. Here,
therefore, we only describe one workable
approach for getting the "bargaining process" to converge to a
desirable economic plan. Even the simple approach we highlight, however,
suffices to demonstrate the viability of participatory planning and
illustrate the kinds of calculations and decisions essential to its
operation.
The first
step in our example planning process is for each individual to think about
his or her plan for the year. We can save some mental energy by considering
someone who is intending not to save or borrow, since savers and borrowers
function identically after appropriate adjustments. Everyone works at
balanced job complexes and everyone receives an updated calculation of
projected averages for production and consumption before each iteration. The
iteration facilitation boards (lFBs) use knowledge of last year's plan,
productive investments, changes in the labor force, and estimates of
necessary "slack" to predict total output and translate this into
average consumption and work loads. Each individual thus has an idea of what
a fair consumption request and fair work proposal would be.
Now consider
making a first proposal. You suggest some level of work effort for yourself
and, implicitly, an average for everyone, and some level of consumption for
yourself and, again, implicitly, an average for everyone. To be
realistic-after taking into account what may be your above average needs-you
make these proposals compatible. Therefore, what you really propose is:
"I would like to work such and such an amount at my job complex and to
consume such and such a total, broken into the following particular items. My
work total and consumption total generally accord with each other and assume
such and such an average consumption and production for society."
Everyone makes a similar proposal in light of their particular preferences
and capabilities but recognizing that the overall amount consumed must be
produced, and that the distribution of burdens and benefits should be
equitable..
Note that it
wouldn't even be possible to actually enact everyone's first production
proposals, since in most workplaces one person in a team may have proposed
working more hours than another person in the same team, even though they can
only work together. The plant's first production proposal used for lFBs
calculations of new indicative prices, must therefore be calculated as an
abstracted average of all its workers' separate proposals. In any event,
after first proposals are summed and the results tabulated and summarized the
second iteration can proceed.
According to
the rule system in this example economy, everyone would still act
individually. You compare your proposed work load and proposed consumption
with the average of others' proposals. You also consider more localized
averages, for example in your workplace, industry, complex, or neighborhood.
You consider the status of each item you ordered and consult explanations of
what seemed to be oddities such as large changes in worker productivity or
consumer requests. Finally, you consult the new list of indicative prices
adjusted according to relative excess demands and supplies in first round
proposals. Then you make any changes you wish before entering your second proposal.
|
