Undergraduate Economist

Thomas Tooke (1774-1858) made important contributions to monetary history, theory and policy. His monetary economics has been viewed in a favourable light by economists such as Ricardo and Marx. Moreover, Tooke’s conception of the rate of interest as a variable determined independently (of the profit rate) bears significant similarities with Keynes’s idea of the rate of interest as a ‘monetary phenomenon’. This post presents Tooke’s monetary theory in brief through his role in the debates between the Currency School (to which Ricardo belonged) and the Banking School (Tooke being the prominent member) in the early 1840s. The reference for this post is mainly the recent research carried out by Matthew Smith.

During Tooke’s time, the dominant view was that the rate of interest is governed by the rate of profit (on capital employed in production) implying that the former is determined by ‘real’ forces. In Smith, it is the competition of capital and for Ricardo, it is the wage rate and production conditions taken together. Tooke argued that the rate of interest is determined by institutional factors in the financial market and is independent of the rate of profit. In his later writings, he stated that it is the rate of interest which regulates the rate of profit with the former entering as a component in the costs of production of commodities.

The Currency School maintained that prices can be controlled by adjusting the quantity of money, as espoused by the quantity theory of money. That is, by altering the bank notes in circulation, it was believed that fluctuations in nominal income could be suppressed. This assumes that there are no time lags and that the velocity of circulation is constant. Tooke contested this policy and stressed the role for a discretionary monetary policy flexible enough to deal with different economic situations. The central principles of the Banking School are as follows: (i) the quantity of money in circulation is endogenously determined by the level of nominal income; (ii) ‘the rate of interest has no systematic influence on the inducement to spend’; and (iii) the rate of interest, being a component of commodity prices, exerts a ‘positive causal influence on the price level’ (Smith 1996: xliv-xlv). Such principles imply that the velocity of circulation is, in fact, a summary measure of the institutional setting of the financial market which can change when activity levels and prices vary.

Tooke’s contributions place a greater responsibility on the central banks. The principles of the Banking School imply that the interest policy of the monetary authorities can have lasting impact on real variables (such as income and employment) by influencing prices and the rate of profit. There is no long-run neutrality of money – monetary variables impact real variables. Moreover, attempts to control the quantity of money solely based on the rate of interest need not be successful since it is endogenously determined. Finally, the causation runs from prices to the quantity of money and not vice versa.

REFERENCE

SMITH, M. (1996), ‘Introduction’, in Variorum of the First and Second Editions of Thomas Tooke’s Considerations on the State of the Currency (1826), edited in collaboration with P. D. GROENEWEGEN, Reprints of Economic Classics, Series 2, Number 8, Sydney, Centre for the History of Economic Thought, The University of Sydney, pp. vi–xlvi.

There exist disagreements about the role economic growth plays in socio-economic development. Among economists, a divide exists between those who consider economic growth to be a necessary condition for economic development and those who do not. This blog post tackles this issue from the perspective of the ‘surplus approach’, an approach embedded in the works of economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx, and revived and improved in the 20^th century notably by Piero Sraffa and Pierangelo Garegnani. For our purposes, it is enough to focus on the concept of the social surplus.

Deducting necessary expenses (subsistence wages, raw material costs and depreciation) from the annual gross product of an economy leaves us with the surplus. In the work of classical economists, this surplus consisted of profits and rents. Wages could also contain a ‘surplus’ element when the economy is growing or when collective bargaining favours the working class. Most importantly, the surplus could be utilised freely (or for any purpose) without it affecting the ability of the economy to reproduce itself. Of course, for the economy to grow, some of that surplus will have to be reinvested. This reinvestment of a part of the surplus results in an expansion of productive capacity. When this expansion in productive capacity is matched by an equivalent aggregate demand, there will be economic growth.

In physical terms, the volume of the surplus depends on the methods of production in use and the magnitude of subsistence wages. The methods of production specify how much of output can be produced with a certain combination of inputs (given by the technical know-how and blue prints available with the firms). (To use marginalist terminology, the production function in classical economics is of fixed-coefficients; that is, labour and ‘capital’ cannot be substituted for each other such that the same commodity is produced.)

Leaving rent aside, the distribution of the surplus between capitalists and workers will depend on the strength of the labour unions and other labour market conditions. For instance, in India, it will also depend on the gender and caste determinants. Also, the distribution will vary depending on whether the firm is formal or informal. There exist sectors where productivity gains entirely accrue to the capitalists. Whereas, the distribution of the surplus between private individuals (both workers and capitalists) and the government depends on the prevailing income and corporate tax structure.

The surplus, as mentioned previously, can be used for reinvestment (to produce capital goods) or for luxury consumption (in the production of non-capital goods). Also, the surplus can accrue as taxes to the government. And we have seen that if the surplus is reinvested, there will be economic growth as long as there is adequate aggregate demand. How much of economic growth is good? Are all kinds of economic growth desirable? Are all kinds of economic growth sustainable? By ‘kinds of economic growth’, we refer to several combinations – driven by agriculture; service-led; consumption-driven; debt-induced; foreign trade-driven; or productivity-driven. These issues will not be addressed in this blog post. More precisely, we do not examine the difficulties associated with any of these drivers of growth.

So far, we have not discussed development. Let us define economic development to be the rise in the standard of living of the people in an economy/nation state. An overall increase in real incomes is necessary for an overall improvement in the standard of living. If all workers and capitalists have sufficient (real) incomes to access their as well as their dependents’ educational needs, health needs besides the basic needs of ‘decent’ food, shelter and clothing, we can safely say that the economy is ‘developed’. In an economy where workers do not have sufficient (real) incomes and/or there are socio-cultural impediments to access/consume any of their needs, development needs to take place.

What is the source of (economic) development? There has to be monetary resources available to build the lacking infrastructure or to directly import them where possible. One of the means of generating such resources is through economic growth. But, generating a surplus is clearly not sufficient. The manner in which the surplus is distributed among workers and capitalists as well as redistributed by the government is extremely crucial. There is no predefined way of going about this. It is determined by wider social, cultural and political factors. For example, if trees are felled during the creation of infrastructure, some of the surplus can go towards planting new trees. Or, some of the surplus accruing to the capitalists can be reinvested for improving the working conditions. The important point to note is that there are no automatic mechanisms which ensure such allocations. The market has no such interests or objectives. In short, the decision of ‘development’ is primarily undertaken in the socio-political arena. And, as long as we aspire for better standards of living, economic growth is necessary so that it generates adequate monetary resources in order that our aspirations may be met. But, yes, economic growth by itself cannot guarantee or ensure development.

The Economic Survey (ES hereafter) is a document which presents the macroeconomic situation of India during a given period. It is drafted by the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Government of India with the Chief Economic Advisor (CEA) playing a chief role. The current CEA is Raghuram Rajan. At the MoF website, detailed profiles of the people who drafted the Economic Survey 2012-13 are available.

This blog has analysed the previous three economic surveys (2009-10; 2010-11; 2011-12) undertaken under the guidance of Kaushik Basu, the predecessor to Rajan. The current analysis is broadly divided into two parts. The first part deals with the ES’s view of economic growth and employment and its theoretical underpinnings. Here, we discuss the gloomy industrial performance, issues surrounding productivity of labour and the role of government expenditure. The second part focuses on select policy proposals and examines it in brief; the debates surrounding oil subsidies, high current account deficit and attracting foreign capital fall under this section.

I

The underlying theory of growth outlined in the ES is what economists’ term supply-side growth theory. Growth in output per worker is determined by growth in the supply of factors – labour and capital (more precisely, produced means of production). Whatever be the growth in their supply, the demand will automatically adjust. In other words, aggregate demand adapts to aggregate supply and investment adjusts to saving. Thus, in equilibrium, there can be no unemployment of factors, including that of labour. It will presently be seen that it is such a framework which enables the ES to recommend a reduction of government expenditure which will apparently promote growth.

Rajan deserves praise for underscoring the importance of quality employment right in the beginning of the ES. In Chapter 2 entitled ‘Seizing the Demographic Dividend’, a case is made for improving labour productivity and for increasing both the quantity and quality of employment.

Policymakers are usually focused on short-run economic management issues. But the short run has to be a bridge to the long run. The central long-run question facing India is where will good jobs come from? Productive jobs are vital for growth. And a good job is the best form of inclusion. (p. 26)

‘Productive jobs’ refers to jobs where the productivity levels are high. Growth in per capita income is primarily determined by labour productivity, growth in the working population and growth in the working population who find jobs – the employment rate (p. 30). Labour productivity rises with greater investment in physical and human capital. The reason for low agricultural productivity is identified to be low investment and therefore the solution proposed is an increase in capital per worker (p. 32). Yes, technological advances are necessary but so are transformations in agrarian relations pertaining to caste and gender. Moreover, the presence of inter-linked markets makes agricultural markets very coercive, and less competitive.

Furthermore, low labour productivity is linked to rigid labour laws and excessive government regulations. It is of course necessary that the current labour laws be examined and improved upon whereby workers are provided decent wages, adequate sick and maternity leaves, indexation with inflation, etc. As the chapter rightly concludes, ‘We need to examine carefully whether regulations constrain businesses excessively and, if so, strip away the excess regulation while ensuring adequate protection and minimum safety nets for workers’ (p. 54).

But, the question remains: what is the mechanism by which employment rises? The answer provided is that saving generates investment and investment generates employment. ES points out that investment can be increased by increasing saving.

If India were to follow a similar path [like that of China], it would need to increase savings and investment, both of which will follow from the demographic transformation. But it will also have to increase the intrinsic productivity of jobs…. (p. 31)

But, why will aggregate investment increase without a corresponding rise in aggregate demand? And, where will this increase come from if all the individuals save more, based on the recommendation by the ES? (One only needs to recollect the ‘paradox of thrift’.) Investment is undertaken so that the commodities and services that are being produced can be sold. Only if they are sold can profits be realised.

The adherence to a supply side theory of growth is clearly visible in the chapter dealing with industrial performance (Chapter 9). Owing to this belief, the analysis carried out in that chapter mistakes correlation for causation and also gets the causal chain wrong.

The moderation in industrial growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector, is largely attributed to sluggish growth of investment, squeezed margins of the corporate sector, deceleration in the rate of growth of credit flows and the fragile global economic recovery.

Low investment is considered to be the primary cause of poor industrial performance with a slight mention of decline in foreign demand. Further, the authors’ of the ES maintain that a low investment has resulted in excess capacity (obviously!) and also a decline in capacity utilization. Yet, they fail to point out that it is a fall in demand for industrial products which has caused the fall in capacity utilization and to a reduction in investment! Although, unconnected to their narrative of industrial decline, they note a reduction in the rate of growth of sales of listed manufacturing companies. The rate of growth ‘declined from an average of 28.8 per cent in Q1 of 2010-11 to 11.4 per cent in Q2 of 2012-13, the latest quarter for which comparable set of data are available.’ Hence, in order to increase investment, the authors’ want to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). But, the problem is not a lack of investment but a deficiency of demand.

In a similar line of supply-side thinking, the ES argues that fiscal consolidation or a lowering of government expenditure will result in a ‘higher growth in real GDP.’ As the ES clearly states,

Staying on the indicated fiscal consolidation path is critical to sustaining the desirable macroeconomic outcomes not only in terms of higher growth in real GDP and lower inflation, but also in easing the financing of the widening current account deficit (CAD), for which India’s sovereign credit rating is important. (p. 56)

While it is unfortunately true that credit rating agencies and foreign capital considers government spending to be a threat, the claim that fiscal consolidation enables faster growth seems to lack any solid proof. Unless, we treat inflows of foreign capital to be a source of sustainable and high economic growth!

In sum, the theoretical framework underlying the current Economic Survey is problematic because of its inability to explain labour unemployment (or excess capacity) as a permanent feature of capitalist economies. This unemployment is primarily owing to a deficiency of aggregate demand. Furthermore, owing to the supply-side underpinnings, the recommendations are to increase savings. This is clearly stated as objectives in the ‘Press Statement on Release of Economic Survey: 2012-13’. (1) ‘Increase government savings, especially by reducing distortionary subsidies’ and (2) ‘increase opportunities for savers to get strong real returns on financial investment.’ Therefore, a deficiency in saving is identified as the main hurdle for the Indian economy.

II

In this part we briefly examine the reasons why fuel subsidies are harmful to India in the long run and the problems surrounding India’s current account deficit. Fuel is a basic commodity in the sense that it enters as an input into the production of all commodities. And, petroleum is an exhaustible resource. The price in the international market does reflect its scarcity. A high price indicates that demand is over stripping supply. Fuel subsidies are a short term solution which takes the burden of innovation from Indian oil companies and the responsibility of proper use from Indian consumers onto the shoulders of the Government. Yes, workers need to be insulated from high oil prices. One way to do this is by indexing wages to inflation. A high fuel price also quickens the search for alternative sources of energy and better agricultural and manufacturing machinery which uses less fuel. One final point. The argument that fuel subsidies need to be reduced so as to reduce budget deficit so that there is economic growth is, as pointed out earlier, based on the flawed economics of supply-side growth theory.

India’s current account deficit has reached worrisome levels. The value of imports has been rising mainly on account of higher international oil price. Exports have fallen due to a slowdown in foreign demand. India’s main imports are (1) petroleum, (2) pearls (for re-export) and (3) gold. Owing to the surplus in invisibles (services such as transport and software; and private investment income transfers) some of the deficit in the merchandise trade balance is absorbed. Apart from the surplus in invisible trade, the other avenue for meeting the merchandise trade deficit comes from the capital account. The major source of (net) capital inflow is foreign investment, which comprises foreign direct investment and portfolio investment. The other source of foreign exchange is loans. Given this situation, the Economic Survey proposes measures which attract foreign investors and by imposing duties which make gold imports costlier. Both these are extremely short-sighted measures and the latter one makes economic growth to hinge crucially on foreign capital which is not advisable. The long term solution, as suggested in the case of oil subsidies, ought to be technological innovations in the export industries so that they are internationally competitive. Also, the propensity to imports should be reduced by promoting industries which can produce similar commodities. Moreover, there is a huge potential in the Indian tourism industry. And, as the ES also recognises, ‘the best way to reduce gold imports in a sustainable way will be to offer the public financial investment opportunities that generate attractive returns.’

Conclusion

The move to reduce government spending and measures which attract foreign capital are therefore based on the flawed supply-side theory of economic growth; we require an increase in employment and incomes and in aggregate demand. Moreover, the proposed measures to deal with structural problems of the Indian economy are not just short-term but short-sighted and unsustainable in the long-run. These measures also discourage technological innovations especially in the area of alternative energy sources.  Oligopolistic markets should be replaced with competitive markets with good labour laws which ensure that part of the productivity gains go to the workers.

Alexander Vasilevich Chayanov, the Russian agricultural economist published the essay ‘On the Theory of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems’ in 1924 and Peasant Farm Organization in 1925, both in Russian. This blog post presents a selective summary of the English translations of these two works, one of the aims being to comment on Chayanov’s method of doing economics. He wrote around 60 books and essays during his lifetime. This blog post, it must be noted, is not an exhaustive survey of the essay and the book.

I

Chayanov’s essay on non-capitalist economic systems questioned the dominant approach of economic theorising which is conducted in the framework of capitalism. One of the characteristic features of the capitalist system is the presence of wage labour. So, how does such a theoretical framework understand peasant economies, where wage labour is non-existent? This is Chayanov’s question. Since labour is entirely provided by the peasant family, there exists no labour market and therefore no concept of wage labour. Moreover, the peasant family undertakes agricultural production (and engages in simple manufacturing) with the family labour and the surplus (or net product) arising from production cannot be resolved into wages and profits. The notions of profitability present in a family run enterprise, according to Chayanov, is very different from a capitalist enterprise. Chayanov terms the returns from the enterprise as the net product.

The required consumption of each family member is set by custom and habit. Chayanov computes an ‘internal equilibrium for the well-being of the family’ which is given by the intersection of their well-being and drudgery functions (p. 5). The gross product can be increased if more land is cultivated and/or an increase in labour intensity; remember, that the number of workers are given for any peasant farm organization. (This can change, perhaps in the very long-run, if the birth rate of the family is greater than its death rate.) The net product is arrived at by deducting the necessary consumption of the family and necessary consumption of the capital equipment from the gross product. The increase in labour intensity has definite physical limits; according to Chayanov, the family as a farm unit will increase labour intensity (drudgery) until the point when the net product is sufficient to meet the consumption needs of the workers and their dependants (children, parents and grandparents). The family’s access to land will depend on the land price and their ability to buy/lease more land will be constrained by their net product.

After laying out the basic relationships prevalent in a peasant farm, Chayanov concludes the essay by listing the various economic systems (p. 25). The extreme forms are capitalism and communism. In between, he introduces the family economy, slave economy and the feudal system (comprising landlord economy and peasant economy). Chayanow wishes for multiple economic theories catering to the needs of different economic-systems, as his last sentence in the essay shows:

…we have no doubt that the future of economic theory lies not in constructing a single universal theory of economic life but in conceiving a number of theoretical systems that would be adequate to the range of present or past economic orders and would disclose the forms of their coexistence and evolution. (p. 28)

 II

In Chayanov’s 1925 work entitled Peasant Farm Organization, his team carries out a detailed analysis of the agricultural situation in various districts of Russia based on zemstvo statistics, state statistics, independent research and budget studies (p. 38). At the outset, Chayanov points out the ‘coexistence and evolution’ of the capitalist and non-capitalist forms. When the peasant as worker-entrepreneur is unable to make sufficient earnings (owing to a bad harvest, increased input cost or some other factor), he temporarily abandons his undertaking and becomes a wage-labour in order to avoid being unemployed (p. 40). A peasant farm, to reiterate, does not make use of hired labourers.

The peasant farm is an organization that makes use of family labour and receives a single labour income. And, the trade-off between physical effort and material results (already noted in the previous section) is re-emphasised (p. 41). Responding against criticisms against their employing the method of marginalist economics, Chayanov maintains that the trade-off between family member as consumer and as labourer (labour-consumer balance) determines the volume of family economic activity but he does ‘not at all consider it possible to deduce from this a whole system of the national economy’ (p. 46). His objective is not, in modern terms, macroeconomics. The concept of a family has its basis in ‘the purely biological concept of the married couple, living together with their descendants and the aged representatives of the older generation’ (p. 54). Moreover, the gross product of the labour farm includes income from ‘agriculture’ as well as ‘crafts and trades’ (p. 70).

Given the trade-off between manual work and well-being, ‘the annual intensity of labor declines under the influence of better pay, because to remain the same it is absolutely essential that the productivity of the year’s labor (and equally the standard of well-being) should grow in proportion to the increase in the pay of a unit of labour’ (p. 80). In conclusion, as Chayanov states:

Thus, any labor farm has a natural limit to its output, determined by the proportions between intensity of annual family labor and degree of satisfaction of its demands. (p. 82)

One of the problems of such a principle is the exclusion of the relationship between labour intensity and consumption needs of the labourers. For instance, when income increases, there might arise a heightened demand to consume more of luxury products. The consumption needs certainly have a lower limit or a floor, but it is not bounded from above. In other words, labour intensity and consumption needs are interrelated factors.

One final observation before we move to conclusions. Chayanov, with a view to aiding practical policy, was interested in finding the ‘optimal farm size’ because ‘the optimal combination gives the highest income, and any deviation from it gives the proprietor a reduced profit rate’ (p. 91). In part, and by large, the combination is based on the technical relations between inputs and outputs. Therefore, ‘[a]ny excess of production means available to labor or of land above the technically optimal level will be an excessive burden on the undertaking’ (p. 92). It is also on account of the technological relationship that  the ‘volume of agricultural activity is not a simple arithmetic derivative of the size of area used’ (p. 94). Some of these technological relationships can be better grasped by taking recourse to ‘the basic laws of contemporary agricultural science’ (see especially pp. 138-47 for a rich account of crop rotation, manuring, etc).

III

First, Chayanov is dissatisfied with economic theory studying capitalist systems alone. But, (neoclassical) microeconomics can perhaps explain certain features of the peasant farm, especially the trade-off between drudgery and well-being (the backward bending labour supply curve is a good example). Also, the search for the optimal farm size can also be conducted by certain microeconomic procedures. One does not need to accept the marginal productivity theory of distribution which is a central feature of microeconomics. To put it differently, the ‘science of choice’ can explain the trade-offs which Chayanov is talking about by making appropriate changes in the parameters.

Secondly, treating the farm output as being ‘determined by the proportions between intensity of annual family labor and degree of satisfaction of its demands,’ as noted earlier, assumes them to be independent of each other which need not be the case. But in his credit, Chayanov undertakes a very detailed analysis of the farm households which provides content to the maximization problem. Also, the tabular and visual representation of the data is remarkable.

Finally, the co-existence of different economic organizations like capitalist and peasant farms is characteristic of economies like India. Often, they are called a dual economy. Self-employment, as opposed to wage employment is a significant feature of the Indian labour force; so is informal versus formal employment. Understanding their innate dynamics as well as their interrelationships is of much use. They require a combination of good theory, data collection methods, statistical analysis and an understanding of the socio-economic history of the particular locality.