Discussion of the Paper by Professor Lindbeck

Michael Kaser and Richard Portes
Additional contact information
Michael Kaser: St Antony’s College
Richard Portes: Princeton University

A chapter in Planning and Market Relations, 1971, pp 108-113 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Abstract Dr Habr began his comments by observing that the paper was in the tradition of comparative systems analysis, a field in which the main difficulty was the lack of appropriate conceptual tools to deal with the great variety of national experiences. He questioned the efficiency criteria on which Professor Lindbeck based his own comparisons. First, the empirical evidence to which these criteria could be directly applied was very limited. Second, the theoretical basis for these concepts had not been developed in similar ways in Eastern and Western countries. Professor Lindbeck neglected the reasons for and implications of these differences in approach. For example, marginal concepts have been given greater attention in the West, average concepts in the East. Third, the criteria were of different sorts. Some were closely tied to reality, and it was easy to give them empirical content: innovation, product development and informational efficiency fell into this category. Others were more abstract and sophisticated, and consequently it was necessary to discuss them in the context of a specific model; an example here would be the representation of efficiency as a point on a transformation frontier. In doing this, however, we risked diverting our attention towards questioning the underlying models and their assumptions, to the neglect of the empirical data which we wanted to analyse for comparative purposes. More generally, he felt that some conceptual tools might themselves be system-tied and therefore ideologically biased in comparing planning and competition. In discussing technological efficiency, for example, Western concern focused on the problems of attaining the transformation frontier, while Eastern emphasis was on going beyond the ex ante known feasible space. In socialist countries ‘mobilisation of resources’ was supposed to transform the potential feasible space into a real one, even at the cost of static inefficiency.

Keywords: Central Planning; Socialist Economy; Conceptual Tool; Market Relation; Perfect Competition (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1971
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:intecp:978-1-349-15410-4_8

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9781349154104

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-15410-4_8

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in International Economic Association Series from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().