Undergraduate Economist

Perspectives of an economics student

Archive for the 'Francois Quesnay' Category

Urbanization in India: What does it mean?

Posted by Alex M Thomas on 26th August 2011

 

In the recent past, there have been a lot of discussions and commentaries on the merits of urbanization in India. In addition to this, we also hear about the poor, rather pathetic, living conditions of migrants who work in urban spaces, there are pressing environmental concerns especially regarding air and water pollution, public transport is in a disarray, etc. The latter concern has led to the rise of ‘new’ areas of learning and research such as urban studies, urban economics, urban ecology, urban sociology and urban planning. These are extremely important areas of learning considering the fact that urban centers attract both labour and capital. This blog post tries to understand some economic issues relating to the process of urbanization that is taking place in India. In particular, we seek to understand the limits of urbanization and in the process we try to know what it means to achieve economic growth.

According to the World Bank, “Urbanization is not a side effect of economic growth; it is an integral part of the process.”  McKinsey states that “Urbanization is critical to India’s development.” Further, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India notes that “It is important to note that the contribution of urban sector to GDP is currently expected to be in the range of 50-60 percent. In this context, enhancing the productivity of urban areas is now central to the policy pronouncements of the Ministry of Urban Development. Cities hold tremendous potential as engines of economic and social development, creating jobs and generating wealth through economies of scale. They need to be sustained and augmented through the high urban productivity for country’s economic growth. National economic growth and poverty reduction efforts will be increasingly determined by the productivity of these cities and towns.”

From the above excerpts, some important assumptions (or rationales) for promoting urbanization can be understood.

(1)    Economic growth is synonymous with urbanization.

(2)    India has to urbanize in order to attain economic growth and development.

(3)    Urban spaces need to be promoted because they generate about 50% of the Indian GDP.

(4)    Cities are potential engines of economic and social development.

 Economic growth

In a macro sense, economic growth refers to the sustained growth in national output – GDP. However, for policy purposes it is important to look at per capita GDP. This is a proxy for looking at how much on income an average person possesses. The objective of economic growth (and economics) is to ensure that all individuals are employed (who seek work), have adequate food, have access to drinking water, transport, etc. In no way should we consider the objective of increasing GDP to be our aim. It is a necessary means to an end- better life.

Urbanization is understood as an increase in the population of urban spaces. This also means that there is a growth in employment, capital inflow, infrastructure, etc. In turn, such large increases in population will result in an increased pressure on resources – water, space, housing, transportation, office space, air, etc. Communication seems to be the only one which has relatively negligible supply problems.

Given this, how can the Central Government or Planning Commission argue that urbanization is the way to go forward? This means – fatten urban spaces and neglect rural areas! Both, as we know, are not desirable. Fattened urban spaces will present a whole new set of issues to tackle with; neglecting rural areas will mean that agriculture and those dependent on agriculture (around 60% of India) will not be encouraged. Clearly, this does not increase the well being of majority of Indians. More importantly, it is illogical and unwise to argue that urbanization is (or leads to) economic growth. Yes, it leads to economic growth, but only in a very superficial manner and not in any substantive way.

India: Rural and Urban

As per Census 2011, 69 % of Indians live in rural areas and only 31 % in urban spaces. It seems to be the case that the policy makers are interested in improving the “urban spaces”. This does not necessarily include improving the living conditions of the majority of Indians. It is strange how language plays a dividing role too: urban habitats versus rural areas! It is true that the urban sector contributes roughly around 50% of India’s Net Domestic  Product (NDP). The remaining comes from rural India which comprises majority of the populace. As for agriculture, rural areas contribute 94% (for the year 2004-05) of total agricultural output. So, if urban areas are targeted at the cost of rural areas, those employed in agriculture, which is a very difficult occupation, are going bear the brunt.

It is strange that the Government and policy makers (including private think tanks) argue that cities are potential engines of economic growth, when 60% of Indians depend on agriculture for their livelihood which is mainly located in rural areas. This tendency of policy making to favour any method which just boosts the numerical value of GDP without any qualitative change must be stalled. By qualitative change, I refer to improvements in quality of life – food, shelter, education, water, health and so on.

According to a recent paper (July-August 2011) by Gilles Pison in Population & Societies, India is expected to become the most populous country by 2050 and will overtake China. Yes, we have heard that India has been blessed with the demographic dividend; but we must remember that it is no dividend unless there are employment opportunities, and they should not just be in urban spaces. This paper also notes that India records the highest number of deaths under age one – 13,96,000.

Hence, the Planning Commission has considered it imperative that the next 5 Year plan will include urbanization as a key challenge. This, however, is a myopic strategy and especially because of the neglect of agriculture. In addition, employment generation should be the key challenge. Jayati Ghosh also argues in a similar fashion in a recent article of hers. She points out that “The number of urban settlements has increased from 5161 in 2001 to 7935 in 2011, an increase of 54% that dwarfs the 32% growth in urban population.” This means that urban statistics have swelled up because of a reclassification and not mainly because of rural-urban migration. This key information poses further problems for policy makers; actually, it poses problems only for the ‘concerned’ policy makers!

Conclusion

To sum up, it would be disastrous to formulate policies which targeted the urban spaces at the cost of rural areas. The objective of economic policies must be to improve the well-being of the people and not to increase the percentage of GDP by a few points! In fact, even in France and Europe, when the process of urbanization began in the early 18th century, agriculture was neglected. However, a group of economists known as Physiocrats argued that agriculture cannot and should not be neglected as it will lead to a downfall of the economy (see more). It is time that we realized the interdependence present in the economy between rural and urban areas and also high time we acknowledged the significance of creating employment opportunities to the majority of the population.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agricultural sector, Demographic Dividend, Demography, Development Economics, Economic Growth, Economics, Employment, Francois Quesnay, GDP, India, Macroeconomics, Political Economy, Poverty, Richard Cantillon, Unemployment, Urbanisation | 10 Comments »

Economics: The Study of Commodities

Posted by Alex M Thomas on 18th December 2010

The study of commodities has been central to economic theory. Mercantilists considered gold, a commodity to be wealth. Later economists argued that an increase in commodities, both agricultural and manufactured, implied an increase in wealth. The increase in the production of commodities is still the most widely used indicator of economic growth/progress. This indicator is none other than the real GDP. In 1985, Amartya Sen published a book titled Commodities and Capabilities. In this work, Sen challenges the dominant view in economics regarding the role of commodities, i.e. he maintained that an increase in commodities cannot be taken as the sole factor in assessing economic development. Sen emphasised the importance of examining capabilities, which subsequently led to the creating of the Human Development Index (HDI). This post discusses the rationale behind economists’ obsession with commodities. It also examines Sen’s critique of commodities and how his (Aristotelian) concept of capabilities differs from it. This post concludes by arguing for a strengthening of classical economics, which studies the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of commodities, for the considerations of ethics can be easily integrated into this approach.

Economics as a distinct form of inquiry begins with the works of Sir William Petty in the 17th century. Petty was interested in assessing the comparative wealth of England and Ireland. Some of the indicators he chose were the number of houses and population. The idea behind this being that a surplus of food results in more population and therefore more houses. Having a large population was considered to be beneficial to the state. His successor, Richard Cantillon, an economist par excellence, pointed out that wealth of a state is reflected in the quantity and nature of commodities it produces – necessities, comforts and luxuries. This brief historical excursus is to point out the nature of economic inquiry, which is essentially an analysis of quantities and prices. Examples of quantities are employment, income, exports, investment, money supply, etc. Examples of prices are WPI, interest rates, foreign exchange rate, commodity prices, share prices, etc. That is, an analysis of commodities is an examination of quantity and price at the same time. Therefore, an analysis of commodities subsumes an examination of their production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Production includes the structure and relations of production; distribution pertains to the process and mechanism through which the incomes/surplus from production is divided among its participants; exchange refers to the mode and institution through which commodities are sold; finally, consumption illuminates the channels through which consumption of commodities aid production in the next period and how production in the current period aids current consumption. Thus, classical economists such as Petty, Cantillon, Quesnay, Smith and Ricardo were interested in the theory of production, distribution and exchange of commodities. Their interest was motivated by the need to find out ways of improving the general well-being of their respective societies.

According to Sen, the kind of analysis posited above looks at opulence as the sole indicator of economic development. A shift in economic analysis came about in the 1870s with the emergence of marginal analysis, independently developed by Jevons, Walras and Menger. Terms such as utility, choice, scarcity, margins, etc made inroads into economics. In fact, standard microeconomics texts are nothing but a combination of Walrasian and Marshallian economics. In any case, the maximization of utility began to be seen as the objective of individuals, for attaining economic progress. The internal justice of free markets was imbued to this form of economic analysis. Based on utilitarian principles, the maximization of utility by individuals was seen as a way to improve human well-being and welfare. This conception of development, according to Sen, emphasised the role of utility.

Both the above mentioned analyses, according to Sen, deal with “the relation between commodities and people” (p. 1). The former approach argues for more commodities which leads to more production, which raises the incomes of the people and hence their consumption. The latter analysis points out that “more is better” and hence availability of more commodities imply more utility. The idea of “more is better” is intricately connected with their idea of economics, as a science of choice. Economics, for marginal/neoclassical economists, refers to the allocation of scarce resources amongst alternative uses, as Lionel Robbins points out. For Sen, both these analyses are limited, since they do not address the heterogeneity in the capabilities of different people, which leads to “a confounding of the state of a person with the extent of his or her possessions” (p. 16). It is precisely this argument of Sen developed in his 1985 book which widened the scope of mainstream economics. I write mainstream economics because for classical economists, economics or political economy formed only one way of looking at growth/progress/development. For classical economists, as pointed out earlier, an analysis of production included the state or condition of the producer. The best example of this form of theorising can be found in Marx, the last of the early classical economists. However, with the advent of marginal analysis, the analyses of the structure of production took a backseat. The sphere of exchange came to the forefront and along with it the explanation of the formation of all kinds of prices and quantities through the apparatus of demand & supply.

It is interesting to note that the idea of capabilities has been intrinsic to classical economics. As mentioned earlier, an increase in the production of commodities translates into an increase in income generated. In contrast with neoclassical economics, the economic processes is visualised in a circular way as opposed to a one-way street. One needs to look into the structure of production to find out to whom (which class) this increase in income accrues (theory of distribution). However, the manner in which Sen develops his capabilities approach is rooted in mainstream/neoclassical economics – via the sub-domain of welfare economics (See Benicourt 2002 and Omkarnath 2007). Although, Sen deserves credit for bringing back humanitarian concerns into the discourse of neoclassical economics. Omkarnath further points out that the capabilities approach rooted in the Walrasian tradition is static in nature, for it mainly concentrates on the formation of capabilities. Whereas, classical economics has numerous insights on the relation between capabilities and commodities. This sort of analysis calls for a careful examination of the structure of production, distribution and exchange present in various economies in the classical political economy tradition, which has more scope for including social, cultural and political factors as well as ethical concerns.

References

Benicourt, E (2002), “Is Amartya Sen a Post-Autistic Economist?”, post-autistic economics review, issue no. 15, September 4, 2002, article 4. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue15/Benicourt15.htm

Omkarnath, G (2007), “The Formation of Capabilities”, Indian Journal of Human Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 389-399.

Sen, Amartya (1985) [1999], Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford University Press: New Delhi.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Adam Smith, Classical Political Economy, David Ricardo, Development Economics, Economic Philosophy, Economics, Francois Quesnay, GDP, Karl Marx, Neoclassical Economics, Political Economy, Prices, Richard Cantillon, Utility | 4 Comments »

Sraffa: Production as a Circular Process

Posted by Alex M Thomas on 10th March 2010

This is the second in the series of posts on Sraffa. The objective of this post is to clarify the assumption of scarce resources made frequently in neoclassical economics. This is then contrasted with the notion of mass-production in capitalist economies. This facet of capitalism is understood by concepts such as ‘circular production’ and ‘production of commodities by means of commodities’ in Classical Economics.

A brief look at the history of micro and macroeconomics becomes essential. Elements of Marshall and Walras are found in modern microeconomics. Specifically, partial equilibrium analysis comes from Marshall; whereas, Walras contributed ‘general equilibrium analysis’ to economics. Usually, emergence of macroeconomics is considered to have originated with the work of Keynes. This has been contested and it has been shown with considerable evidence that William Petty (1623-1687) was the first macroeconomist. [See Murphy 2009] And that economists like Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx were talking about macroeconomics when they discussed production, distribution and accumulation. Neoclassical macroeconomics can be loosely said to comprise New Classical Economics, Neo-Keynesian Economics, variants of Computable General Equilibrium Models (CGE), etc. One of the unifying features of the above mentioned neoclassical schools/models is the assumption of ‘scarce factors’. It is owing to the assumption that factors are scare, that optimization is carried out.

Lionel Robbins defined economics as “the science which studies human behaviour as the relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Here, scarce means refers to scarce factors of production – land, labour and capital. Yes, land can be considered scarce in an economy where the pressure of population is high (or for environmental reasons). But, wouldn’t labour be scarce in some countries and abundant in others? Now for the tricky ‘capital’. Capital is understood as produced means of production. That is, tools, machinery, plants, conveyor belts, electrical appliances, tractors, etc are ‘capital goods’. Are they scarce? They would be scarce if nobody produced them. Usually, in a capitalist or quasi-capitalist economy, capital goods are produced by the private sector, the government and often, imported from abroad. Therefore, a priori, we have no reason to maintain that capital is a scarce factor. Or for that matter, even labour.

Marshall provided a theoretical partition through which one could say that factors are scarce. He introduced the concept of ‘short period analysis’. Till Marshall, the early classicals and neoclassicals analysed economies using the ‘long period method’. Through the short period, Marshall introduced an imaginary period wherein one factor is fixed (usually, capital) and the other factor (labour) is variable. In this period, it is as if one factor is scarce. In a later post, it will be shown that this sort of analysis is an improper generalisation of Ricardo’s theory of rent.

Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities deals with ‘value and distribution’. That is, he focuses on the relationship between relative prices, wages/profits and technique of production. Throughout the whole analysis, output/quantity is treated as given. This is in tune with the ‘sequential analysis’ of classical economics. Value & distribution is one level of analysis or the ‘core’, as was popularised by Garegnani. Once, the foundation is well-established, the next level is growth & accumulation. In the first level, quantities are treated as given and in the second level, prices are assumed to be given. This is done keeping in view the complexity of the economic processes. Whereas, as we know, in neoclassical theory of general equilibrium, there is a simultaneous determination of quantity, price, wage rate, employment, rate of interest and quantity of capital. That is, all kinds of prices and quantities are simultaneously determined.

A set of equations from classical and neoclassical production theory is given below. This is so as to bring out the differences in a clear way.

Production function: Ya = f(La, Ka)

Sraffa’s equations:
(AaPa + BaPb + … + KaPk) (1 + r) + LaW = APa
(AbPa + BbPb + … + KbPk) (1 + r) + LbW = BPb
. . . . . .
(AkPa + BkPb + … + KkPk) (1 + r) + LkW = KPk

where A, B …. K are the output produced in various industries, L is the labour employed in each industry, Pa refers to price/value of output A and Pk refers to value of output K, r is the rate of profit. [As these are for purposes of illustration alone, some conditions have not been mentioned]

In the first case, it represents the transformation of inputs – labour and capital into an output Y. Let me reproduce what Sraffa writes about his particular conception of production: “It is of course in Quesnay’s Tableau Economique that is found the original picture of the system of production and consumption as a circular process, and it stands in striking contrast to the view presented by modern theory, of a one-way avenue that leads for ‘Factors of production’ to ‘Consumption goods’.” [Sraffa 1960, 93]

The concept of circular production also brings to the fore the web of connections between different production structures. Both classical and neoclassical economics attempts at reducing the complexity of economic phenomena. Neoclassical economics, at the outset abstracts away from interrelated production structures through the concept of ‘representative firm’ in microeconomics. In a similar way, in the area of consumption, man as a social being is reduced to man as an individual whose utility does not depend on that of others. Classical economics carries out its analysis by taking prices as given so as to analyse interrelated production structures.

References

Sraffa, P (1960), Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, A (2009), The Genesis of Macroeconomics: New Ideas from Sir William Petty to Henry Thornton, New York: Oxford University Press.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Alfred Marshall, Classical Political Economy, Economics, Francois Quesnay, Neoclassical Economics, Piero Sraffa, Sraffa, Sraffian Economics, William Petty | 7 Comments »

Piero Sraffa: An Introduction

Posted by Alex M Thomas on 24th January 2010

In the first half of 20th century, Marshallian economics dominated economic theory and policy. Keynes in his 1936 book (The General Theory) tries to break away from the orthodoxy by challenging its concepts such as full employment and equality of savings and investment. In 1960, Sraffa mounted a strong critique through his book Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities.

Concepts such as utility, capital, prices, marginal product, marginal cost, etc were questioned by Sraffa. In fact, not only were they challenged, but they were also shown to be problematic. The following paragraphs will show how Sraffa pointed out the inadequacies with the above mentioned neoclassical conceptions of the economy.

Traditional theory lists land, labour and capital as ‘factors of production’. This means that production is carried out using some combination of the above factors. However, the process of production is seen as a one-way avenue from factors of production to production of final goods for consumption. Sraffa, in the tradition of classical economists argued that production is a circular process, or to use Myrdal’s phrase- production is a circular and cumulative process. This was in the tradition of the Classical economists who visualised the economy as an interdependent entity- Francois Quesnay was the first to provide a systematic account of interdependence in his Tableau Economique.

As we know, neoclassical theory of equilibrium prices (value) is built on the twin pillars of production and consumption. It is the production side that provides the supply function; and the consumption side provides the demand function. Through the interaction of demand and supply, equilibrium prices or value is created. This seems plausible and true, at the very outset. Why? When we think of the production of, say, a car, we presume that both the buyer and the seller has some role in price fixing. Yes, this would be the case if we viewed production (of cars) as an independent activity. Whereas, in reality, production is a social activity and so is consumption. Marshall’s partial equilibrium analysis sought to understand equilibrium price and quantity formation in isolated firms/industries. Sraffa’s 1960 book provides a framework for understanding values (or in neoclassical terms, equilibrium prices) in an economy where production is a social activity and where the nature of production is circular. Hence the title of his book: production of commodities by means of commodities. This highlights the interdependent production structure, which is the case in today’s economies.

In the preface of his 1960 book, Sraffa points out the obvious problems of the ‘marginal method’. To have marginal cost, one needs to pay attention on change. To illustrate, suppose Hero Cycles produce 100 cycles a day using 10 machines and 10 labourers. And production is carried out in this way. How does one calculate marginal cost? Do we add a machine and see how much extra output is produced? Or do we ask one worker to work in Hero Cycles for a day?

The above paragraphs are only meant to introduce a reader to Sraffa. To me, Sraffa’s work has brought about a change in how I visualise the economy. Earlier, the linkages between various macroeconomic variables and their micro counterparts were vague. In the following posts, the above mentioned concepts will be explained in more detail. And, concepts such as increasing/diminishing returns, scarcity and prices, joint production, surplus approach, capital theoretic problems, etc will be tackled in the following posts.

Tags: ,
Posted in Alfred Marshall, Classical Political Economy, Economic Philosophy, Economic Thought, Economics, Francois Quesnay, Piero Sraffa, Sraffa, Sraffian Economics | 3 Comments »