This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Moved the following from the article to here:
-- S.K. 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
This article, I believe, is wrong to say that a planned economy "is an economic system in which government decisions are made by central state economic managers." Parecon for instance is a planned economy but it is neither centralised nor planned by government or managers. What makes a planned economy a planned economy is that it is planned ahead of time. I've changed the intro to what I believe is a more appropriate summary. Christiaan 00:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the article to do several things:
Hopefully these edits are helpful. The Land 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Something about this paragraph doesn't seem quite right:
Shouldn't the bold terms be switched around, as this article is named "planned economy?" I interchanged them, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Fephisto 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I got this of the FSE website : "Wars, stocks, the economic miracle: 20th century
The internationally oriented Frankfurt Stock Exchange was very hard hit by World War I and its consequences. Foreign shares and bonds were sold by German investors out of fear of instrumentalization by the opposing states; freed up capital was invested mostly in government bonds. By the end of the war, all foreign securities had disappeared from German exchange lists, as a result of which especially Frankfurt lost its standing as an international stock exchange. By the end of the war, the international contacts of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange had been destroyed. Stock market transactions only began restabilizing during the twenties.
However, the world economic crisis followed in 1930, with its disastrous effect on the economy. Huge volumes of assets fell victim to inflation. The German stock exchanges even had to be closed temporarily in 1931.
With the Nazi takeover in 1933, overall economic policy was incorporated into the general government and war policy. Stock exchange supervision was taken away from the states and made the domain of the central government, with the number of stock exchanges reduced from 21 to 9. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange incorporated the Mannheim Stock Exchange in 1935, with the merged institution called henceforth the Rhine-Main Stock Exchange. Although the Frankfurt Stock Exchange continued to function as a "domestic stock exchange", in fact it no longer fulfilled an important function. Nazi economic controls hindered the development of the free market, and with it stock market trading as well. By and large, potential capital assets were only supposed to benefit the war economy and could no longer be invested in larger bonds or shares. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange building was badly damaged during an allied air raid in 1944. Stock exchange meetings could therefore only be held in the cellar rooms of the building.
Following the collapse of the Nazi regime in 1945, the exchange remained initially closed for half a year. Nevertheless, it was already reopened in September 1945 as one of the first German stock exchanges.
It was only following the currency reform of 1948 and the growing consolidation of the German economy that the Frankfurt Stock Exchange gradually recovered its old significance. Beginning in 1956, the purchase of foreign securities was again permitted in Germany. Frankfurt could accordingly return to its tradition of international business, again occupying the top position in Germany. The stock exchanges played an important role as capital intermediaries for the country's postwar reconstruction. Through their activity, they were also decisively involved in the subsequent "economic miracle" and the achievement of a top world economic position by the Federal Republic of Germany."
So it seems the war economy took over. -- max rspct leave a message 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Advocates of CPEs considered this organizational form to have important advantages. First, the government could harness the economy to serve the political and economic objectives of the leadership. Consumer demand, for example, could be restrained in favor of greater investment in basic industry or channeled into desired patterns, such as reliance on public transportation, like trains and trams, rather than on private automobiles.
Second, CPEs could maximize the continuous utilization of all available resources. Under CPEs, neither unemployment nor idle plants should have existed beyond minimal levels, and the economy should have developed in a stable manner, unimpeded by inflation or recession. Third, CPEs could serve social rather than individual ends; under such a system, the leadership could distribute rewards, whether wages or perquisites, according to the concept of "social value" of the service performed, not according to supply and demand on an open market.
Critics of CPEs identified several characteristic problems. First, given the complexities of economic processes, the plan must be a simplification of reality. Individuals and producing units can be given directives or targets, but in carrying out the plan they may select courses of action that conflict with the overall interests of society as determined by the planners. Such courses of action might include, for example, ignoring quality standards, producing an improper product mix, or using resources wastefully. Second, critics contended that CPEs have build-in obstacles to innovation and efficiency in production; managers of producing units, frequently having limited discretionary authority, see as their first priority a strict fulfillment of the plan targets rather than, for example, development of new techniques or diversification of products. Third, the system of allocating goods and services in CPEs was thought to be inefficient.
Most of the total mix of products was distributed according to the plan, with the aid of a rationing mechanism known as the System of Material Balances. But since no one could predict perfectly the actual needs of each producing unit, some units received too many goods and others too few. The managers with surpluses were hesitant to admit they had them, for CPEs were typically "taut," that is, they carried low inventories and reserves. Managers preferred to hoard whatever they had and then to make informal trades when they were in need and could find someone else whose requirements complemented their own.
Finally, detractors argued that in CPEs prices did not reflect the value of available resources, goods, or services. In market economies, prices, which are based on cost and utility considerations, permit the determination of value, even if imperfectly. In CPEs, prices were determined administratively, and the criteria the state used to establish them were sometimes unrelated to costs. Prices often varied significantly from the actual social or economic value of the products for which they had been set and were not a valid basis for comparing the relative value of two or more products to society, and this lead to what has been termed a shortage economy.
East German economists and planners were well aware of the alleged strengths and weaknesses of their system of planned economy. They contended that Western critics overstated the disadvantages and that in any case these problems were not inherent in the system itself. They directed their efforts toward preserving the fundamental framework of the system while introducing modifications that could address the problems just noted.
"Eastern became the first major airline to make a profit without taxpayer subsidy and continued to hold this enviable position for many years. World War II found Eastern Airlines in a position of stability that permitted it to go "all out" in assisting the war effort. Half of the fleet of 40 airplanes was turned over to the Armed Forces by V.J. Day and approximately 1,200 employees had been furloughed to enter military service. Eastern's Military Transport Division manned by EAL crews in Air Transport uniforms, operated from Miami to San Juan and Trinidad. It was later extended to South America and across the Atlantic to Africa by way of Ascension Island." - from [1]. Any comments? -- max rspct leave a message 02:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that China is nowadays a mixed economy, but in other Communist states the transition did not go via a lengthy mixed econmy phase as in the Chinese case. All the Eastern European countries are market economies nowadays (except Belarus, and Ukraine to some extent). Therefore, it's not correct to change the name of the paragraph from 'market' to 'mixed'. The aim of the transition is to achieve a market economy, not a mixed economy. Therefore, a mixed economy may be part of a transition phase, but is certainly not the end goal of it. Luis rib 15:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, a true full market economy means no government expenditure, in this sense technically all governments are mixed economies (including those that say they are 100% socialist, simply because of black market activity, no matter how small). The true difference comes from saying how much of a market economy (approxiamately) a country has, because the term "mixed economy" is so broad. fephisto 12:33, 3 November 2005
A planned economy and a command economy are not exactly the same thing. Even Marxists concede this point.
The element of top-down control is the key difference between the two.
The idea that top-down direction or government "planning" can ensure sufficient production and distribution is an economic theory -- not a doctrine that Wikipedia should endorse. We need to say which economists assert the excellence command or planned economies. But we should also add criticism from economists who assert that a market economy does (or can do) a better job.
NPOV should forbid us contributors from merely praising our favorite system. Uncle Ed 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know of ANY Western economies that do not utilise some forms of both direct and indicative planning, and it's time that people here stop thinking that planned economies are solely Soviet-style command economies!!! Hauser 0148, 14 November 2005 (NZEST)
"A planned economy is an economic system in which decisions about the production, allocation and consumption of goods and services is planned ahead of time, in either a centralized or decentralized fashion." Reading this definition, it seems that it would apply to just about any economic system.— Nat Krause( Talk!) 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it to say "A planned economy is an economic system in which decisions about the production, allocation and consumption of goods and services are planned ahead of time by a single agency." -- Nikodemos 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of "Objections to centrally planned economies and central planning" reads as follows:
While all these statements can individually be interpreted in certain ways such that they are technically true, the gist of this paragraph is that planned economies involve taxation: essentially narrowing the debate to state-capitalism against laissez-faire-capitalism. It is not made clear that the problems of mixed economies are not necessarily the problems of command economies and vice versa. While state-capitalism may be within the remit of the article, we need to make clear what we're talking about at any given moment. Therefore, I popose we split the section into subsections: Objections to primarily planned economies and Objections to planning within a mixed economy. Any objections? -- Nema Fakei 12:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has a strongly one sided view on the nature of a planned economy, namely that of a centrally bureaucratically one. That there also is such a thing as a democratically planned economy is completely omitted. And yes, we already have an article about
participatory economy, but that has some differences. And the sentence "While the term planned economy usually refers to centrally-planned economies, it may also be used to refer to decentralized systems of planning such as participatory economics." doesn't quite cover it imho. I think there should be a clear difference between bureaucratically (i.e.: the stalinist model) and democratically planned economy. What do others think about this?
Q-collective
03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the title is overly broad. We are actually describing the central planning imposed by socialist states. The idea of a "planned economy" as superset of this, has not been clarified.
Perhaps this is because the term "command economy" has a bad reputation, and the word "planned" sounds neutral or positive?
I'd like to move the article back to Command economy and focus it on the way Communist countries have regulated their economies. If someone can write a more general article which includes other types of planning, so much the better. -- Uncle Ed 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this generally considered to be a form of planned economy? If so, this would contradict the statement that planned economies always involve central planning by the state.
Also, it says somewhere that orthodox Marxists believe that state planning is essential to Socialism. Presumably, this can only be true if Socialism is being used in the sense of the intermediate system which exists before the state is abolished and Communism is achieved. Maybe this should be clarified in the article.
Any thoughts? Cadr 09:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you break down Marxism into forms of economies then it would be market economy (capitalism), planned economy (socialism), and participatory economy (communism). Planned economy in Marxism does not mean that a small group of people take care of all the economic decisions in the nation, actually that would be capitalism, since the capitalists are less than 1% of the population and thus would be a small group. In the Marxist sence a planned economy is when the workers control production and distribution in the state through communes and assemblies. So technically the economy is planned by the "state", but it's not overcentralized as it was in the soviet union, nor is it despotic. ( Demigod Ron 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
I haven't got enough time to action this myself, but there is a problem with this article. The title is "Planned economy" but it almost exclusively discusses centrally planned economies. I think either it needs to be split up into two articles: "Planned economy" and "Command economy" or that this division needs to be more obvious within the article. Christiaan 07:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree: Not the same. For those interested see
War economy and
military Keynesianism --
max rspct
leave a message
21:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That intro is better -- max rspct leave a message 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If command economy means elimination of market and property ala Stalinist states, the Third Reich economy cannot be labelled as being that. -- max rspct leave a message 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
To say that "A planned economy is one that is, well, planned by some central authority" directly implies that a centralized minority group has executive powers over the formulation and implementation strategy of the social plan. There are, of course, notable examples of models and practices of planning where executive functions and authority are distributed in a largely decentralized manner. [4] BernardL 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
There is another, deeper problem with the article: it spends far more time discussing possible advantages and disadvantages of a planned economy, when the term itself needs further exploration and delineation. How much planning makes an economy planned? Chancellors and Finance ministers across the globe make planning decieions, but it's not clear to readers that most countries would be considered planned economies. Furthermore, there's no exploration of participation within a planned economy, for example, by utilising popular feedback under the broader framework of a state medium. The only hint of this sort of discussion is tucked away within "Planned economies and socialism".-- Nema Fakei 12:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm late to this debate but I think it has been framed incorrectly and so far conflate too many political and economic systems into "planned economy", which seems far too benign a term. There's a world of difference between "to command" and "to plan".
Finally, free economies are "planned", that is by private economic agents. Unless there's been wide revision of economic texts in the last five years, "central" has to go along with the "plan" for this article title to make any sense. patsw 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This might go under the 'infringement on individual freedom' section, but I might as well throw it out there.
Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, which is typically pretty well-known (it made a few most-influential books lists) posits the argument, from what I understand it, that:
Once planning agencies start they will
Should I gather up the sources to at least have some mention of Hayek's work in here? Fephisto 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following to talk:
" ===Inefficient resource distribution — surplus and shortage===
Critics of planned economies argue that planners cannot detect consumer preferences, shortages, and surpluses with sufficient accuracy and therefore cannot efficiently co-ordinate production (in a market economy, a free price system is intended to serve this purpose). For example, during certain periods in the history of the Soviet Union, shortages were so common that one could wait hours in a queue to buy basic consumer products such as shoes or bread. [1] These shortages were due in part to the central planners deciding, for example, that making tractors was more important than making shoes at that time, or because the commands were not given to supply the shoe factory with the right amount of leather, or because the central planners had not given the shoe factories the incentive to produce the required quantity of shoes of the required quality. This difficulty was first noted by economist Ludwig von Mises, who called it the " economic calculation problem". Economist János Kornai developed this into a shortage economy theory (advocates could claim that shortages were not primarily caused by lack of supply).
There is also the problem of surpluses. Surpluses indicate a waste of labor and materials that could have been applied to more pressing needs of society. Critics of central planning say that a market economy prevents long-term surpluses because the operation of supply and demand causes the price to sink when supply begins exceeding demand, indicating to producers to stop production or face losses. This frees resources to be applied to satisfy short-term shortages of other commodities, as determined by their rising prices as demand begins exceeding supply. It is argued that this " invisible hand" prevents long-term shortages and surpluses and allows maximum efficiency in satisfying the wants of consumers. Critics argue that since in a planned economy prices are not allowed to float freely, there is no accurate mechanism to determine what is being produced in unnecessarily large amounts and what is being produced in insufficient amounts. They argue that efficiency is best achieved through a market economy where individual producers each make their own production decisions based on their own profit motive."
Reason: In the entire section there is just one reference and that reference is to a .doc format economics course wherein the author is not even clearly identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardL ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a bold move, but I have removed most of the article because it has been completely lacking in references for a long time- thus it is totally unauthoritative. I have left the introduction intact because it is sourced and seems fairly npov. Editors can now feel free to build it up from scratch with reliable sources. Or if you disagree feel free to revert and I will not resist. But I think it is better like this, with much less disinformation. BernardL ( talk) 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't completely lacking in references, and gradually new references were being added as well as better organisation of the material. Since neutral sources on this topic simply don't exist, it isn't all that easy. Well, maybe on second thoughts maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for this sort of article. See if anyone bothers rebuilding it. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.12.133 ( talk) 10:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
References
A section about real-socialism (socialism of Central and Eastern European countries, that were the part of the Eastern block) is needed here. Kubura ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Vast tracts of this article are completely unreferenced, and as such amount to little more than the personal opinions of past editors. I believe a complete rewrite is needed, treating the subject of a planned economy from the perspective of the scholarly literature on comparative economic systems. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
My edits constitute a expansion, not a rewrite. If you have objections to any specific edits, let's hear them.
The only edits to existing material include the removal of a fragment with statements like "Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement" (which are tangential to the subject of the article), and rephrasing of the statement that early-1930's economic policies of the Soviet Union resulted in a "significant decline in individual living standards", which was not only unsourced, but incorrect. -- Itinerant1 ( talk) 12:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Critics of centrally planned economies assert that people working for the State are not far removed from slaves. Any mechanized economy, planned or market, is a slave owning society because of the existence of machines. A backhoe does the work of, say, ten pick & shovel laborers, & the driver is the overseer of a mechanical slave. The more slaves the better, so long as the slaves are mechanical. It would seem that the Soviet economy was well placed to arrange large scale automation, & if such automation had happened, most Soviet citizens would, eventually, have moved up to the level of a leisured class. Accusations of slavery are unimportant if the slaves are mechanical. -- DavidJErskine ( talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Economists sometimes declare that in a market economy the customer is king, that is millions of individual people, by their aggregate demand, allocate economic resources. That is individual people indirectly plan the economy. Seen this way, the state in a CPE can be seen as the customer for most, perhaps all, purchases, & so plans the economy by way of being a customer. I realise that individual people are still the end customers for food & clothes, but many other products, for example for defence, health & education, are bought by the state. Market economies also have state run defence, so the state is the customer for military products in a market economy, & so plans the defence sector. --- DavidJErskine ( talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the use of the phrase Stalinist countries as examples of planned economies, since it is misleading word. The Soviet Union in 1956 refuited Stalin and "Stalinism" but still maintained a planned economy. Also the word "stalinism" is used only by pro-stalinists in a positive sense as in "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism" or used by anti-soviet union"ists" in a negative sense, to make it different from Leninism or Marxism. Using stalinism which isn't a objective word doesn't belong in this article.
Actually Ron, Stalinism is not a objective word. While the implementation or not of Stalinism is objective, the "true" definition of Stalinism isn't. Which carried on into defining it's implementation. 203.206.11.70 ( talk) 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
The result of the proposal was not moved. Planned economy appears to the universal term. -- rgpk ( comment) 21:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Planned economy → Command economy — Planned economy is too vague and has led to users creating a new article out of disagreement with this article's title. An economic system whereby a highly centralized bureau or agency directs all economic activity is not a planned economy but rather a command economy. "Planned" can describe both a centralized and decentralized system. 98.82.60.202 ( talk) 22:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Some Google searches for web, books and scholar:
Interesting? I started these because I was interested in whether the decentalised planned economy article (an alleged content fork of this one, see above) is even an encyclopedic topic, but it appears to be so. Whether the current article there is NPOV is another question. While wanting to assume good faith it seems likely that there's at least a little POV in this topic area of Wikipedia at present. Andrewa ( talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The article raised this interesting point. Western economists studying the Soviet economy often regarded it as the world’s largest corporation. Seen from this point of view, the Soviet Union should have functioned adequately, assuming that the planners were well informed & competent. In a market economy, the economic planners are in private industry, & usually have good feedback on the effects of their planning. Feedback is the key, & poor feedback presumably explains the poor economic performance of the Soviet Union. DavidJErskine ( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In section: Lack of incentive for innovation The article suggests in a free market "inventors can reap huge benefits by patenting new technology". However there is a problem calling patents part of the free market.
From the article about Free markets on wikipedia: "The necessary components for the functioning of an idealized free market include.... ..... arguable patents"
I think it would be better to change the article to talk about the benefits on innovation without bringing the questionable topic of patents into it. ie: "inventors can reap huge benefits, by using innovation to improve or create a product, which would then be the best on the market and so can be sold at a high price" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.44.228 ( talk) 12:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The part about innovation no longer seems to be there. This makes the text "Robin Hahnel notes that, even if central planning overcame its inherent inhibitions of incentives and innovation" a bit of an orphan as it doesn't explain the inhibitions. I'm not an expert, but I think the problem with innovation in a planned economy is an essential flaw in the idea. Innovations are disruptive and unplannable by their very nature. I believe any planned economy inherently fails to innovate unless forced to compete like in a (cold) war. AdriaanRenting ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It certainly was under Gaddafi, now economic reforms are planned, so I am not sure whether it should be still called a planned economy Diegoami ( talk) 00:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The Planisme article does not present a sufficient amount of information to stand on its own. As such, it should be merged here. Neelix ( talk) 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading the article. I think the layout is wrong. Having an "advantages" section means that misleading and incorrect pro-planning points of view are given without balancing information. That section as it stands now is HIGHLY misleading.
I propose that the adv/dis sections are merged into a single section which covers, point by point, the major issues in economic planning, where each issue is properly covered.
Toby Douglass 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a link-off to a Criticisms of Planned Economies in the same way that most other articles link-off criticisms? Fephisto 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatsmore, there's little point discussing advantages and disadvantages if we don't talk about aims we want to achieve. Meeting collective objectives is a section which is a major disadvantage for me (and I believe for majority of people), as I believe that my well-being is far more important than mere existence of heave industries. Meeting collective objectives might be planned economy's advantage if the aim is for example producing enough tanks to defend the country in a war. In most cases the aim is at individual well-being and people don't wish to sacrifice. /tkadlubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.105.136 ( talk) 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of anti planned economy books out there which is are based on pro-"Free market" propaganda. This has made the disadvantage section 3 times bigger then the advantage section, with most of the references coming from right wing books. I think it should be balanced out by adding two new sections to advantages.
We should keep the three disadvantage sections and change the advantage section to the following.
1. Bigger project are easier for a plan economy as the have all their resources centralized. We see it today and in the past, that government with these type of model have an easier time bring in new infrastructure.
2. lower unemployment. It is noted that in 2012 in cuba unemployment is 3.8%, and in Laos 2009 it was 2.5%. These numbers from there own wiki pages with their own references.
3. Free healthcare, and other benefits. Cuba has been noted to have free healthcare and education for it citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.217.195 ( talk) 02:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
?
[[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose so, but doesn't every human society also have a state? [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Suppsed to be" is nothing but propanda exposed for what it is. And you and your wife are members of a state, yes? [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does the planet earth as such, or "all of human society thereon" have an economy? an economy misguidedly segmented, but still AN economy in the same sense that a state has one?
More generally, does an economy have to be "had"? In Aristotelean terms, is it a property attached to a substance, or is it itself a substance? The difference between the terms "society" and "economy" isn't a difference in what they describe, but in how it might be studied. Both words simply name the fact of human interaction -- a sociologist studies it on one set of principles, an economist on another (and you might say that a politician or political scientist/philosopher on a third set, hence the term "state"). -- Christofurio 13:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
What is the difference between communism and a "command economy"?
~Random wiki user
Planned economy: an economic system in which the government controls and regulates production, distribution, prices, etc. [14]
Command economy: n economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned [15]
Command economies are a subset of planned economies. A command economy is necessarily a planned economy, but not vis a vis. I have friends who agree with me on this, and three professors. I mentioned this in the previous topic asking to unmerge the articles. A good example of command economy: USSR and the Five-year plans. A good example of just planned economy: Nazi Germany and the Four-Year_Plan. Although, yes, I agree that the terms are vague, but it's like liberal and conservative in its scope as to what it falls under, yet has specifics meanings between themselves.
If I don't receive any objections by the end of next week, I'll go ahead and at least restart the command economy article. Fephisto 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The question now is finding more sources to back these definitions up, correct? If this is the case, I'll need quite a bit of time as I'm quite busy to contact some actual people/books instead of websites to back up the definition of command subset planned, probably a month. Then according to the sources, it can be decided whether just the paragraph stays or a split should occur, is this O.K.? Fephisto 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so, officially, here are my small results:
Gary Stasko, my Econ Dmacc Prof. agrees with the definition I've given. Proof of this is pretty much class notes.
Joydeep Bhattacharya, probably more qualified (CV here: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/people/faculty/CV/48joydeep.pdf), said the following in a e-mail:
"as far as I know, there is [no difference]. A command economy is one controlled by a central authority (who sets prices and production targets etc.). A planned economy is exactly the same. Now, maybe it is the case that a command economy is the same as a 100% planned economy (no role for the market whatsoever) but a planned econom ymay just be partially planned and partially left to the market.
Hope this helps,
JB"
Also, most dictionaries that I've looked in libraries are more akin to state that command and planned economies are the same rather than the other way around. The actual mention of these topics in actual economics books, I have not seen.
Any opinions on where to go from here? Fephisto 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just asking out of curiosity and wondering if they overlap. -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's unfathomable for me that an article about planned economies can contain no reference to the mass starvations in China, Communist Vietnam, Communist N. Korea and the SU. The wikipedia shouldn't be a place where revisionists of socialist/communist history have absolute free reign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.68.252 ( talk) 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"If food is so scarce, then why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" - "Some unimportant" british guy;) 80.94.160.227 ( talk) 11:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I wrote two short paragraphs on the subject of economic planning using computer technology, and I expect to be adding more to the new section soon. But if anyone is interested feel free to add to the new section. Here is a link to a freely available copy of the book I refer to in my first paragraph: [16]
I also think this Wikipedia article is too much oriented towards the economy of the Soviet Union, and consequently on the faults of the Soviet political system. This does not make a good basis for the article because as the book I linked shows economic planning does not have to be built the way the Soviet system was. One almost gets the feeling the article dismisses the subject of planned economies just on the basis of the failure of the Soviet Union. That is a biased POV and should not be present in a good Wikipedia article. We have a lot of work to do. --- The Holistic Detective ( talk) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"In their book Towards a New Socialism (1993) the computer scientist Paul Cockshott from the University of Glasgow and the economist Allin Cottrell from the Wake Forest University shows in detail how a democratically planned economy built on modern computer technology is possible." -- That is editorializing: no doubt the authors *claim* to "show in detail" that it is possible. Whether they *do* so show is a matter of judgment, and should not be put in this article. 24.239.177.111 ( talk) 03:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I thought it was suspicious to see Venezuela listed under 'Soviet-type economy' in the 'See also' section. From what I have read, the government is not marxist-leninist or the sole employer, which is what the page for "Soviet-type economic planning" describes. 74.81.112.46 ( talk) 14:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Quambo4ever 16 May 2019
This and the article on Economic planning have been flagged for overlap in content, with a suggestion for merging them. This is a mistake, the two articles have different scopes and topics: a planned economy refers to a non-market economic system based on economic planning, referring to hypothetical socialist economies and the actually-existing Soviet-type planned economies; economic planning focus on specific planning processes used in planned, market and mixed economies. The latter article includes planning mechanisms used to guide the development of a market economy as well as planning practices within industrial policy and individual firms, which is something very different from an integrated society-wide planned economy.
Therefore the articles should not be merged, but the content should be better organized between the two. This article in particular is very weak in its treatment of the theory of planned economies, the Soviet-type economies, and hypothetical models of socialism. Battlecry 10:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is this section in the article? There's no equivalent in Market economy or Palace economy. At the very least it should be moved to the end of the article and not in the middle of its body. 97.115.106.13 ( talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
For example, Trotsky advocated for centralized planning, only a democratic form where the entirety of society controlled the inputs and outputs. The article makes it seem that Trotsky opposed centralized planning. 94.66.58.240 ( talk) 18:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Planned_economy#Advantages:
In Socialist China under Mao, China's growth in life expectancy between 1950 and 1980 ranks as among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00324728.2014.972432:
Although exploratory, our results suggest that gains in school enrolment and public health campaigns together are associated with 55–70 per cent of China's dramatic reductions in infant and under-5 mortality during our study period.
These results underscore the importance of non-medical determinants of population health, and suggest that, in some circumstances, general education of the population may amplify the effectiveness of public health interventions.
Reference abstract does not support the implication that the fall in child mortality is attributable to economic planning.
Peaceandlonglife (
talk)
16:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Command economy" section of the article, and the article's treatment of the term "command economy" in general, is in an extremely confused state.
The lead seems to define a "command economy" as a planned economy which uses Soviet-style planning. But then the first paragraph of the "Command economy" section defines "planned" and "command" economies, contrasting the two, implying they are separate types of economy. The second paragraph of the section opens with "This is contested by some Marxists," which is cited to two texts... the excerpts of which say absolutely nothing about command economies, or the distinction between planned/command economies. What are they contesting, then? The rest of the second paragraph is about decentralized planned economies, which maybe implies an understanding of "command economy" as meaning a centralized planned economy, but does not clarify what is being contested. Then the fourth paragraph says it's been contested whether the Soviet system was actually a planned economy at all, throwing things into even deeper, unexplained confusion.
Is a command economy a type of planned economy? Are the two terms synonymous? Are they different things entirely? The article currently contains material that seems to imply all of these contradictory things- likely as the residue of many editors with different understandings of the term adding new material and removing old material, without harmonizing the article as a whole. (The confusion is reinforced by the fact that "command economy" currently redirects to "planned economy" (this article)- and there's a lingering wikilink to "command economy" in the lead, which is thus a recursive link.)
I am not personally in a position to revise/harmonize the article, not having any particular specialist knowledge on the subject. I came to this article hoping to learn what distinction, if any, there is between a "command" and a "planned" economy, and am simply more confused about the matter than ever. Yspaddadenpenkawr ( talk) 16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed addition to lede:
Planned economy has led to wide-spread poverty in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and was the main reason for the collapse of Communism. [1]
81.214.107.198 ( talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Moved the following from the article to here:
-- S.K. 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
This article, I believe, is wrong to say that a planned economy "is an economic system in which government decisions are made by central state economic managers." Parecon for instance is a planned economy but it is neither centralised nor planned by government or managers. What makes a planned economy a planned economy is that it is planned ahead of time. I've changed the intro to what I believe is a more appropriate summary. Christiaan 00:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the article to do several things:
Hopefully these edits are helpful. The Land 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Something about this paragraph doesn't seem quite right:
Shouldn't the bold terms be switched around, as this article is named "planned economy?" I interchanged them, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Fephisto 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I got this of the FSE website : "Wars, stocks, the economic miracle: 20th century
The internationally oriented Frankfurt Stock Exchange was very hard hit by World War I and its consequences. Foreign shares and bonds were sold by German investors out of fear of instrumentalization by the opposing states; freed up capital was invested mostly in government bonds. By the end of the war, all foreign securities had disappeared from German exchange lists, as a result of which especially Frankfurt lost its standing as an international stock exchange. By the end of the war, the international contacts of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange had been destroyed. Stock market transactions only began restabilizing during the twenties.
However, the world economic crisis followed in 1930, with its disastrous effect on the economy. Huge volumes of assets fell victim to inflation. The German stock exchanges even had to be closed temporarily in 1931.
With the Nazi takeover in 1933, overall economic policy was incorporated into the general government and war policy. Stock exchange supervision was taken away from the states and made the domain of the central government, with the number of stock exchanges reduced from 21 to 9. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange incorporated the Mannheim Stock Exchange in 1935, with the merged institution called henceforth the Rhine-Main Stock Exchange. Although the Frankfurt Stock Exchange continued to function as a "domestic stock exchange", in fact it no longer fulfilled an important function. Nazi economic controls hindered the development of the free market, and with it stock market trading as well. By and large, potential capital assets were only supposed to benefit the war economy and could no longer be invested in larger bonds or shares. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange building was badly damaged during an allied air raid in 1944. Stock exchange meetings could therefore only be held in the cellar rooms of the building.
Following the collapse of the Nazi regime in 1945, the exchange remained initially closed for half a year. Nevertheless, it was already reopened in September 1945 as one of the first German stock exchanges.
It was only following the currency reform of 1948 and the growing consolidation of the German economy that the Frankfurt Stock Exchange gradually recovered its old significance. Beginning in 1956, the purchase of foreign securities was again permitted in Germany. Frankfurt could accordingly return to its tradition of international business, again occupying the top position in Germany. The stock exchanges played an important role as capital intermediaries for the country's postwar reconstruction. Through their activity, they were also decisively involved in the subsequent "economic miracle" and the achievement of a top world economic position by the Federal Republic of Germany."
So it seems the war economy took over. -- max rspct leave a message 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Advocates of CPEs considered this organizational form to have important advantages. First, the government could harness the economy to serve the political and economic objectives of the leadership. Consumer demand, for example, could be restrained in favor of greater investment in basic industry or channeled into desired patterns, such as reliance on public transportation, like trains and trams, rather than on private automobiles.
Second, CPEs could maximize the continuous utilization of all available resources. Under CPEs, neither unemployment nor idle plants should have existed beyond minimal levels, and the economy should have developed in a stable manner, unimpeded by inflation or recession. Third, CPEs could serve social rather than individual ends; under such a system, the leadership could distribute rewards, whether wages or perquisites, according to the concept of "social value" of the service performed, not according to supply and demand on an open market.
Critics of CPEs identified several characteristic problems. First, given the complexities of economic processes, the plan must be a simplification of reality. Individuals and producing units can be given directives or targets, but in carrying out the plan they may select courses of action that conflict with the overall interests of society as determined by the planners. Such courses of action might include, for example, ignoring quality standards, producing an improper product mix, or using resources wastefully. Second, critics contended that CPEs have build-in obstacles to innovation and efficiency in production; managers of producing units, frequently having limited discretionary authority, see as their first priority a strict fulfillment of the plan targets rather than, for example, development of new techniques or diversification of products. Third, the system of allocating goods and services in CPEs was thought to be inefficient.
Most of the total mix of products was distributed according to the plan, with the aid of a rationing mechanism known as the System of Material Balances. But since no one could predict perfectly the actual needs of each producing unit, some units received too many goods and others too few. The managers with surpluses were hesitant to admit they had them, for CPEs were typically "taut," that is, they carried low inventories and reserves. Managers preferred to hoard whatever they had and then to make informal trades when they were in need and could find someone else whose requirements complemented their own.
Finally, detractors argued that in CPEs prices did not reflect the value of available resources, goods, or services. In market economies, prices, which are based on cost and utility considerations, permit the determination of value, even if imperfectly. In CPEs, prices were determined administratively, and the criteria the state used to establish them were sometimes unrelated to costs. Prices often varied significantly from the actual social or economic value of the products for which they had been set and were not a valid basis for comparing the relative value of two or more products to society, and this lead to what has been termed a shortage economy.
East German economists and planners were well aware of the alleged strengths and weaknesses of their system of planned economy. They contended that Western critics overstated the disadvantages and that in any case these problems were not inherent in the system itself. They directed their efforts toward preserving the fundamental framework of the system while introducing modifications that could address the problems just noted.
"Eastern became the first major airline to make a profit without taxpayer subsidy and continued to hold this enviable position for many years. World War II found Eastern Airlines in a position of stability that permitted it to go "all out" in assisting the war effort. Half of the fleet of 40 airplanes was turned over to the Armed Forces by V.J. Day and approximately 1,200 employees had been furloughed to enter military service. Eastern's Military Transport Division manned by EAL crews in Air Transport uniforms, operated from Miami to San Juan and Trinidad. It was later extended to South America and across the Atlantic to Africa by way of Ascension Island." - from [1]. Any comments? -- max rspct leave a message 02:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that China is nowadays a mixed economy, but in other Communist states the transition did not go via a lengthy mixed econmy phase as in the Chinese case. All the Eastern European countries are market economies nowadays (except Belarus, and Ukraine to some extent). Therefore, it's not correct to change the name of the paragraph from 'market' to 'mixed'. The aim of the transition is to achieve a market economy, not a mixed economy. Therefore, a mixed economy may be part of a transition phase, but is certainly not the end goal of it. Luis rib 15:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, a true full market economy means no government expenditure, in this sense technically all governments are mixed economies (including those that say they are 100% socialist, simply because of black market activity, no matter how small). The true difference comes from saying how much of a market economy (approxiamately) a country has, because the term "mixed economy" is so broad. fephisto 12:33, 3 November 2005
A planned economy and a command economy are not exactly the same thing. Even Marxists concede this point.
The element of top-down control is the key difference between the two.
The idea that top-down direction or government "planning" can ensure sufficient production and distribution is an economic theory -- not a doctrine that Wikipedia should endorse. We need to say which economists assert the excellence command or planned economies. But we should also add criticism from economists who assert that a market economy does (or can do) a better job.
NPOV should forbid us contributors from merely praising our favorite system. Uncle Ed 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know of ANY Western economies that do not utilise some forms of both direct and indicative planning, and it's time that people here stop thinking that planned economies are solely Soviet-style command economies!!! Hauser 0148, 14 November 2005 (NZEST)
"A planned economy is an economic system in which decisions about the production, allocation and consumption of goods and services is planned ahead of time, in either a centralized or decentralized fashion." Reading this definition, it seems that it would apply to just about any economic system.— Nat Krause( Talk!) 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it to say "A planned economy is an economic system in which decisions about the production, allocation and consumption of goods and services are planned ahead of time by a single agency." -- Nikodemos 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of "Objections to centrally planned economies and central planning" reads as follows:
While all these statements can individually be interpreted in certain ways such that they are technically true, the gist of this paragraph is that planned economies involve taxation: essentially narrowing the debate to state-capitalism against laissez-faire-capitalism. It is not made clear that the problems of mixed economies are not necessarily the problems of command economies and vice versa. While state-capitalism may be within the remit of the article, we need to make clear what we're talking about at any given moment. Therefore, I popose we split the section into subsections: Objections to primarily planned economies and Objections to planning within a mixed economy. Any objections? -- Nema Fakei 12:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has a strongly one sided view on the nature of a planned economy, namely that of a centrally bureaucratically one. That there also is such a thing as a democratically planned economy is completely omitted. And yes, we already have an article about
participatory economy, but that has some differences. And the sentence "While the term planned economy usually refers to centrally-planned economies, it may also be used to refer to decentralized systems of planning such as participatory economics." doesn't quite cover it imho. I think there should be a clear difference between bureaucratically (i.e.: the stalinist model) and democratically planned economy. What do others think about this?
Q-collective
03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the title is overly broad. We are actually describing the central planning imposed by socialist states. The idea of a "planned economy" as superset of this, has not been clarified.
Perhaps this is because the term "command economy" has a bad reputation, and the word "planned" sounds neutral or positive?
I'd like to move the article back to Command economy and focus it on the way Communist countries have regulated their economies. If someone can write a more general article which includes other types of planning, so much the better. -- Uncle Ed 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this generally considered to be a form of planned economy? If so, this would contradict the statement that planned economies always involve central planning by the state.
Also, it says somewhere that orthodox Marxists believe that state planning is essential to Socialism. Presumably, this can only be true if Socialism is being used in the sense of the intermediate system which exists before the state is abolished and Communism is achieved. Maybe this should be clarified in the article.
Any thoughts? Cadr 09:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you break down Marxism into forms of economies then it would be market economy (capitalism), planned economy (socialism), and participatory economy (communism). Planned economy in Marxism does not mean that a small group of people take care of all the economic decisions in the nation, actually that would be capitalism, since the capitalists are less than 1% of the population and thus would be a small group. In the Marxist sence a planned economy is when the workers control production and distribution in the state through communes and assemblies. So technically the economy is planned by the "state", but it's not overcentralized as it was in the soviet union, nor is it despotic. ( Demigod Ron 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
I haven't got enough time to action this myself, but there is a problem with this article. The title is "Planned economy" but it almost exclusively discusses centrally planned economies. I think either it needs to be split up into two articles: "Planned economy" and "Command economy" or that this division needs to be more obvious within the article. Christiaan 07:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree: Not the same. For those interested see
War economy and
military Keynesianism --
max rspct
leave a message
21:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That intro is better -- max rspct leave a message 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If command economy means elimination of market and property ala Stalinist states, the Third Reich economy cannot be labelled as being that. -- max rspct leave a message 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
To say that "A planned economy is one that is, well, planned by some central authority" directly implies that a centralized minority group has executive powers over the formulation and implementation strategy of the social plan. There are, of course, notable examples of models and practices of planning where executive functions and authority are distributed in a largely decentralized manner. [4] BernardL 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
There is another, deeper problem with the article: it spends far more time discussing possible advantages and disadvantages of a planned economy, when the term itself needs further exploration and delineation. How much planning makes an economy planned? Chancellors and Finance ministers across the globe make planning decieions, but it's not clear to readers that most countries would be considered planned economies. Furthermore, there's no exploration of participation within a planned economy, for example, by utilising popular feedback under the broader framework of a state medium. The only hint of this sort of discussion is tucked away within "Planned economies and socialism".-- Nema Fakei 12:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm late to this debate but I think it has been framed incorrectly and so far conflate too many political and economic systems into "planned economy", which seems far too benign a term. There's a world of difference between "to command" and "to plan".
Finally, free economies are "planned", that is by private economic agents. Unless there's been wide revision of economic texts in the last five years, "central" has to go along with the "plan" for this article title to make any sense. patsw 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This might go under the 'infringement on individual freedom' section, but I might as well throw it out there.
Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, which is typically pretty well-known (it made a few most-influential books lists) posits the argument, from what I understand it, that:
Once planning agencies start they will
Should I gather up the sources to at least have some mention of Hayek's work in here? Fephisto 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following to talk:
" ===Inefficient resource distribution — surplus and shortage===
Critics of planned economies argue that planners cannot detect consumer preferences, shortages, and surpluses with sufficient accuracy and therefore cannot efficiently co-ordinate production (in a market economy, a free price system is intended to serve this purpose). For example, during certain periods in the history of the Soviet Union, shortages were so common that one could wait hours in a queue to buy basic consumer products such as shoes or bread. [1] These shortages were due in part to the central planners deciding, for example, that making tractors was more important than making shoes at that time, or because the commands were not given to supply the shoe factory with the right amount of leather, or because the central planners had not given the shoe factories the incentive to produce the required quantity of shoes of the required quality. This difficulty was first noted by economist Ludwig von Mises, who called it the " economic calculation problem". Economist János Kornai developed this into a shortage economy theory (advocates could claim that shortages were not primarily caused by lack of supply).
There is also the problem of surpluses. Surpluses indicate a waste of labor and materials that could have been applied to more pressing needs of society. Critics of central planning say that a market economy prevents long-term surpluses because the operation of supply and demand causes the price to sink when supply begins exceeding demand, indicating to producers to stop production or face losses. This frees resources to be applied to satisfy short-term shortages of other commodities, as determined by their rising prices as demand begins exceeding supply. It is argued that this " invisible hand" prevents long-term shortages and surpluses and allows maximum efficiency in satisfying the wants of consumers. Critics argue that since in a planned economy prices are not allowed to float freely, there is no accurate mechanism to determine what is being produced in unnecessarily large amounts and what is being produced in insufficient amounts. They argue that efficiency is best achieved through a market economy where individual producers each make their own production decisions based on their own profit motive."
Reason: In the entire section there is just one reference and that reference is to a .doc format economics course wherein the author is not even clearly identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardL ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a bold move, but I have removed most of the article because it has been completely lacking in references for a long time- thus it is totally unauthoritative. I have left the introduction intact because it is sourced and seems fairly npov. Editors can now feel free to build it up from scratch with reliable sources. Or if you disagree feel free to revert and I will not resist. But I think it is better like this, with much less disinformation. BernardL ( talk) 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't completely lacking in references, and gradually new references were being added as well as better organisation of the material. Since neutral sources on this topic simply don't exist, it isn't all that easy. Well, maybe on second thoughts maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for this sort of article. See if anyone bothers rebuilding it. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.12.133 ( talk) 10:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
References
A section about real-socialism (socialism of Central and Eastern European countries, that were the part of the Eastern block) is needed here. Kubura ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Vast tracts of this article are completely unreferenced, and as such amount to little more than the personal opinions of past editors. I believe a complete rewrite is needed, treating the subject of a planned economy from the perspective of the scholarly literature on comparative economic systems. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
My edits constitute a expansion, not a rewrite. If you have objections to any specific edits, let's hear them.
The only edits to existing material include the removal of a fragment with statements like "Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement" (which are tangential to the subject of the article), and rephrasing of the statement that early-1930's economic policies of the Soviet Union resulted in a "significant decline in individual living standards", which was not only unsourced, but incorrect. -- Itinerant1 ( talk) 12:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Critics of centrally planned economies assert that people working for the State are not far removed from slaves. Any mechanized economy, planned or market, is a slave owning society because of the existence of machines. A backhoe does the work of, say, ten pick & shovel laborers, & the driver is the overseer of a mechanical slave. The more slaves the better, so long as the slaves are mechanical. It would seem that the Soviet economy was well placed to arrange large scale automation, & if such automation had happened, most Soviet citizens would, eventually, have moved up to the level of a leisured class. Accusations of slavery are unimportant if the slaves are mechanical. -- DavidJErskine ( talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Economists sometimes declare that in a market economy the customer is king, that is millions of individual people, by their aggregate demand, allocate economic resources. That is individual people indirectly plan the economy. Seen this way, the state in a CPE can be seen as the customer for most, perhaps all, purchases, & so plans the economy by way of being a customer. I realise that individual people are still the end customers for food & clothes, but many other products, for example for defence, health & education, are bought by the state. Market economies also have state run defence, so the state is the customer for military products in a market economy, & so plans the defence sector. --- DavidJErskine ( talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the use of the phrase Stalinist countries as examples of planned economies, since it is misleading word. The Soviet Union in 1956 refuited Stalin and "Stalinism" but still maintained a planned economy. Also the word "stalinism" is used only by pro-stalinists in a positive sense as in "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism" or used by anti-soviet union"ists" in a negative sense, to make it different from Leninism or Marxism. Using stalinism which isn't a objective word doesn't belong in this article.
Actually Ron, Stalinism is not a objective word. While the implementation or not of Stalinism is objective, the "true" definition of Stalinism isn't. Which carried on into defining it's implementation. 203.206.11.70 ( talk) 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
The result of the proposal was not moved. Planned economy appears to the universal term. -- rgpk ( comment) 21:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Planned economy → Command economy — Planned economy is too vague and has led to users creating a new article out of disagreement with this article's title. An economic system whereby a highly centralized bureau or agency directs all economic activity is not a planned economy but rather a command economy. "Planned" can describe both a centralized and decentralized system. 98.82.60.202 ( talk) 22:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Some Google searches for web, books and scholar:
Interesting? I started these because I was interested in whether the decentalised planned economy article (an alleged content fork of this one, see above) is even an encyclopedic topic, but it appears to be so. Whether the current article there is NPOV is another question. While wanting to assume good faith it seems likely that there's at least a little POV in this topic area of Wikipedia at present. Andrewa ( talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The article raised this interesting point. Western economists studying the Soviet economy often regarded it as the world’s largest corporation. Seen from this point of view, the Soviet Union should have functioned adequately, assuming that the planners were well informed & competent. In a market economy, the economic planners are in private industry, & usually have good feedback on the effects of their planning. Feedback is the key, & poor feedback presumably explains the poor economic performance of the Soviet Union. DavidJErskine ( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In section: Lack of incentive for innovation The article suggests in a free market "inventors can reap huge benefits by patenting new technology". However there is a problem calling patents part of the free market.
From the article about Free markets on wikipedia: "The necessary components for the functioning of an idealized free market include.... ..... arguable patents"
I think it would be better to change the article to talk about the benefits on innovation without bringing the questionable topic of patents into it. ie: "inventors can reap huge benefits, by using innovation to improve or create a product, which would then be the best on the market and so can be sold at a high price" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.44.228 ( talk) 12:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The part about innovation no longer seems to be there. This makes the text "Robin Hahnel notes that, even if central planning overcame its inherent inhibitions of incentives and innovation" a bit of an orphan as it doesn't explain the inhibitions. I'm not an expert, but I think the problem with innovation in a planned economy is an essential flaw in the idea. Innovations are disruptive and unplannable by their very nature. I believe any planned economy inherently fails to innovate unless forced to compete like in a (cold) war. AdriaanRenting ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It certainly was under Gaddafi, now economic reforms are planned, so I am not sure whether it should be still called a planned economy Diegoami ( talk) 00:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The Planisme article does not present a sufficient amount of information to stand on its own. As such, it should be merged here. Neelix ( talk) 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading the article. I think the layout is wrong. Having an "advantages" section means that misleading and incorrect pro-planning points of view are given without balancing information. That section as it stands now is HIGHLY misleading.
I propose that the adv/dis sections are merged into a single section which covers, point by point, the major issues in economic planning, where each issue is properly covered.
Toby Douglass 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a link-off to a Criticisms of Planned Economies in the same way that most other articles link-off criticisms? Fephisto 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatsmore, there's little point discussing advantages and disadvantages if we don't talk about aims we want to achieve. Meeting collective objectives is a section which is a major disadvantage for me (and I believe for majority of people), as I believe that my well-being is far more important than mere existence of heave industries. Meeting collective objectives might be planned economy's advantage if the aim is for example producing enough tanks to defend the country in a war. In most cases the aim is at individual well-being and people don't wish to sacrifice. /tkadlubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.105.136 ( talk) 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of anti planned economy books out there which is are based on pro-"Free market" propaganda. This has made the disadvantage section 3 times bigger then the advantage section, with most of the references coming from right wing books. I think it should be balanced out by adding two new sections to advantages.
We should keep the three disadvantage sections and change the advantage section to the following.
1. Bigger project are easier for a plan economy as the have all their resources centralized. We see it today and in the past, that government with these type of model have an easier time bring in new infrastructure.
2. lower unemployment. It is noted that in 2012 in cuba unemployment is 3.8%, and in Laos 2009 it was 2.5%. These numbers from there own wiki pages with their own references.
3. Free healthcare, and other benefits. Cuba has been noted to have free healthcare and education for it citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.217.195 ( talk) 02:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
?
[[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose so, but doesn't every human society also have a state? [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Suppsed to be" is nothing but propanda exposed for what it is. And you and your wife are members of a state, yes? [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does the planet earth as such, or "all of human society thereon" have an economy? an economy misguidedly segmented, but still AN economy in the same sense that a state has one?
More generally, does an economy have to be "had"? In Aristotelean terms, is it a property attached to a substance, or is it itself a substance? The difference between the terms "society" and "economy" isn't a difference in what they describe, but in how it might be studied. Both words simply name the fact of human interaction -- a sociologist studies it on one set of principles, an economist on another (and you might say that a politician or political scientist/philosopher on a third set, hence the term "state"). -- Christofurio 13:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
What is the difference between communism and a "command economy"?
~Random wiki user
Planned economy: an economic system in which the government controls and regulates production, distribution, prices, etc. [14]
Command economy: n economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned [15]
Command economies are a subset of planned economies. A command economy is necessarily a planned economy, but not vis a vis. I have friends who agree with me on this, and three professors. I mentioned this in the previous topic asking to unmerge the articles. A good example of command economy: USSR and the Five-year plans. A good example of just planned economy: Nazi Germany and the Four-Year_Plan. Although, yes, I agree that the terms are vague, but it's like liberal and conservative in its scope as to what it falls under, yet has specifics meanings between themselves.
If I don't receive any objections by the end of next week, I'll go ahead and at least restart the command economy article. Fephisto 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The question now is finding more sources to back these definitions up, correct? If this is the case, I'll need quite a bit of time as I'm quite busy to contact some actual people/books instead of websites to back up the definition of command subset planned, probably a month. Then according to the sources, it can be decided whether just the paragraph stays or a split should occur, is this O.K.? Fephisto 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so, officially, here are my small results:
Gary Stasko, my Econ Dmacc Prof. agrees with the definition I've given. Proof of this is pretty much class notes.
Joydeep Bhattacharya, probably more qualified (CV here: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/people/faculty/CV/48joydeep.pdf), said the following in a e-mail:
"as far as I know, there is [no difference]. A command economy is one controlled by a central authority (who sets prices and production targets etc.). A planned economy is exactly the same. Now, maybe it is the case that a command economy is the same as a 100% planned economy (no role for the market whatsoever) but a planned econom ymay just be partially planned and partially left to the market.
Hope this helps,
JB"
Also, most dictionaries that I've looked in libraries are more akin to state that command and planned economies are the same rather than the other way around. The actual mention of these topics in actual economics books, I have not seen.
Any opinions on where to go from here? Fephisto 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just asking out of curiosity and wondering if they overlap. -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's unfathomable for me that an article about planned economies can contain no reference to the mass starvations in China, Communist Vietnam, Communist N. Korea and the SU. The wikipedia shouldn't be a place where revisionists of socialist/communist history have absolute free reign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.68.252 ( talk) 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"If food is so scarce, then why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" - "Some unimportant" british guy;) 80.94.160.227 ( talk) 11:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I wrote two short paragraphs on the subject of economic planning using computer technology, and I expect to be adding more to the new section soon. But if anyone is interested feel free to add to the new section. Here is a link to a freely available copy of the book I refer to in my first paragraph: [16]
I also think this Wikipedia article is too much oriented towards the economy of the Soviet Union, and consequently on the faults of the Soviet political system. This does not make a good basis for the article because as the book I linked shows economic planning does not have to be built the way the Soviet system was. One almost gets the feeling the article dismisses the subject of planned economies just on the basis of the failure of the Soviet Union. That is a biased POV and should not be present in a good Wikipedia article. We have a lot of work to do. --- The Holistic Detective ( talk) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"In their book Towards a New Socialism (1993) the computer scientist Paul Cockshott from the University of Glasgow and the economist Allin Cottrell from the Wake Forest University shows in detail how a democratically planned economy built on modern computer technology is possible." -- That is editorializing: no doubt the authors *claim* to "show in detail" that it is possible. Whether they *do* so show is a matter of judgment, and should not be put in this article. 24.239.177.111 ( talk) 03:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I thought it was suspicious to see Venezuela listed under 'Soviet-type economy' in the 'See also' section. From what I have read, the government is not marxist-leninist or the sole employer, which is what the page for "Soviet-type economic planning" describes. 74.81.112.46 ( talk) 14:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Quambo4ever 16 May 2019
This and the article on Economic planning have been flagged for overlap in content, with a suggestion for merging them. This is a mistake, the two articles have different scopes and topics: a planned economy refers to a non-market economic system based on economic planning, referring to hypothetical socialist economies and the actually-existing Soviet-type planned economies; economic planning focus on specific planning processes used in planned, market and mixed economies. The latter article includes planning mechanisms used to guide the development of a market economy as well as planning practices within industrial policy and individual firms, which is something very different from an integrated society-wide planned economy.
Therefore the articles should not be merged, but the content should be better organized between the two. This article in particular is very weak in its treatment of the theory of planned economies, the Soviet-type economies, and hypothetical models of socialism. Battlecry 10:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is this section in the article? There's no equivalent in Market economy or Palace economy. At the very least it should be moved to the end of the article and not in the middle of its body. 97.115.106.13 ( talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
For example, Trotsky advocated for centralized planning, only a democratic form where the entirety of society controlled the inputs and outputs. The article makes it seem that Trotsky opposed centralized planning. 94.66.58.240 ( talk) 18:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Planned_economy#Advantages:
In Socialist China under Mao, China's growth in life expectancy between 1950 and 1980 ranks as among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00324728.2014.972432:
Although exploratory, our results suggest that gains in school enrolment and public health campaigns together are associated with 55–70 per cent of China's dramatic reductions in infant and under-5 mortality during our study period.
These results underscore the importance of non-medical determinants of population health, and suggest that, in some circumstances, general education of the population may amplify the effectiveness of public health interventions.
Reference abstract does not support the implication that the fall in child mortality is attributable to economic planning.
Peaceandlonglife (
talk)
16:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Command economy" section of the article, and the article's treatment of the term "command economy" in general, is in an extremely confused state.
The lead seems to define a "command economy" as a planned economy which uses Soviet-style planning. But then the first paragraph of the "Command economy" section defines "planned" and "command" economies, contrasting the two, implying they are separate types of economy. The second paragraph of the section opens with "This is contested by some Marxists," which is cited to two texts... the excerpts of which say absolutely nothing about command economies, or the distinction between planned/command economies. What are they contesting, then? The rest of the second paragraph is about decentralized planned economies, which maybe implies an understanding of "command economy" as meaning a centralized planned economy, but does not clarify what is being contested. Then the fourth paragraph says it's been contested whether the Soviet system was actually a planned economy at all, throwing things into even deeper, unexplained confusion.
Is a command economy a type of planned economy? Are the two terms synonymous? Are they different things entirely? The article currently contains material that seems to imply all of these contradictory things- likely as the residue of many editors with different understandings of the term adding new material and removing old material, without harmonizing the article as a whole. (The confusion is reinforced by the fact that "command economy" currently redirects to "planned economy" (this article)- and there's a lingering wikilink to "command economy" in the lead, which is thus a recursive link.)
I am not personally in a position to revise/harmonize the article, not having any particular specialist knowledge on the subject. I came to this article hoping to learn what distinction, if any, there is between a "command" and a "planned" economy, and am simply more confused about the matter than ever. Yspaddadenpenkawr ( talk) 16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed addition to lede:
Planned economy has led to wide-spread poverty in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and was the main reason for the collapse of Communism. [1]
81.214.107.198 ( talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
References