Comment by xpe

Comment by xpe 7 hours ago

To make sure we’re on the same page… In economics, “central planning” refers to a system where a central authority (typically the state) makes comprehensive decisions about production, investment, and resource allocation across an entire economy, replacing market mechanisms. This is associated with command economies like the Soviet Union’s Gosplan system.

And of course I will grant firms use hierarchical coordination mechanisms internally (managers allocate resources by command rather than prices).

I suppose my angle here is to be clear that firms are typically a kind of hybrid entity: they mix various coordination mechanisms (prices and hierarchy). This makes them quite different from centrally planned economies.

scotty79 3 hours ago

There almost never are any markets within any single company. Which makes internals of any company a planned "economy".

Reply View 1 reply

xpe 43 minutes ago

I’ve worked at many companies with market mechanisms of sorts in play enough to matter. As one example, product lines that do better (as evidenced by market feedback) get more clout and revenue and command more influence. As another, there are a wide variety of ad-hoc teams that form not because of hierarchy but because people have learned who they like working with and have seen results with. These are closer to markets than C&C or hierarchical decision making.
Next, to avoid a definitional stalemate and talking past each other, let me try a different angle. If you want to predict what a company will do next, what mix of models do you use upon?
If I were to predict a company’s production choices, I would model them as being very sensitive to costs and changing dynamics to maximize profit . I would not do that when modeling a centrally planned economy. For that I would use longer time scales and do long supply chain analysis in the service of a social welfare function. See what I mean? What am I missing from your POV?

Reply View | 0 replies