Saturday, November 30, 2013

Why Hayek’s Theory of Prices and Knowledge is Flawed

Frederic S. Lee explains in the passage below from insights by the British economist George Richardson:
“After reading Friedrich Hayek’s article on economics and knowledge (Hayek, 1937), Richardson became concerned with the theoretical problem of the market conditions under which the enterprise could expect to generate the necessary information on which to base its investment decisions. Approaching the problem theoretically, Richardson first argued that the perfectly competitive model used by economists was incapable of answering the problem. He then argued that the market conditions which enabled the enterprise to obtain the requisite information generally included coordination among the market enterprises and social constraints on their market action. More specifically, Richardson argued that the information necessary for making investment decisions could be only obtained in markets where the market price was unchanged for many sequential transactions and did not represent the market conditions peculiar to each transaction. It was in this manner that Richardson came to consider the relationship between social-economic rules and institutions and the market price … .

Richardson approached the relationship between social-economic institutions and market prices by considering two types of prices with respect to investment decisions – short-period fluctuating prices and long-period stable prices. The former prices, through short-period price competition, were responsive to the conditions surrounding each and every transaction in the market and, hence, were market-clearing prices. Thus, as the short-period conditions continually changed, so would the market price change. However, because of its fortuitous, flexible nature, the short-period market price could not generate the information needed by enterprises for making investment decisions. On the one hand, buyers could not make long-term buying plans, such as the buying of investment goods or consumer durables, based on the goods’ relative prices since they could change in a haphazard unpredictable manner; on the other hand, if the total sales of the enterprise were associated with many different prices, then it could not make long-term sales predictions based on sales trend, stock movements, state of orders, or market share. The information needed by the enterprise to make investment decisions would consequently simply not exist.

To eliminate short-period fluctuating prices, Richardson argued, enterprises resorted to developing codes of behavior and social-economic institutions to enforce them. For example, to eliminate secret price shading and therefore the possibility of price wars, a social rule against price cutting would be propagated throughout the market and backed by social-economic institutions such as open-price systems, price notification schemes, cartels, trade associations, or price leaders. Specifically, to eliminate short-period fluctuating market prices, the market enterprises would establish codes of social behavior and social institutions which would establish a single market price based on the normal cost prices of the enterprises in the market that would remain unchanged for many transactions – that is, a stable long-period market price. As a result, sales trends would provide the information enterprises needed to make long-term investment decisions, since the price/quantities combinations which make it up would not be related to short-term market conditions. Thus not only was the socially determined market price stable over time, it also generated the investment information the enterprises required since the indicators would reflect the permanent market conditions.” (Lee 1998: 135–136).
Of course, inside the comparatively small sector of the economy where flexprices really are important, the informational role of prices in terms of communicating knowledge about supply and demand has some merit, but so much of any modern market economy is not flexprice.

The private sector mostly shuns the price flexibility of neoclassical and Austrian price theory, and itself establishes many practices and conventions for stabilising prices.

But, above all, it is administered prices which allow the price stability that is highly useful in investment decisions. As Nicholas Kaldor argued, in normal times (outside, say, a very severe recession) “in actual adjustment of supply and demand, prices play only a very subordinate role, if any [sc. role]” (Kaldor 1985: 25).

In the mark-up pricing sector, therefore, prices cannot be communicating relevant and important Hayekian information about changes in demand and supply or relative scarcity.

For Richardson’s work in general, see Richardson (1960, 1965, 1967 and 1972).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1985. Economics Without Equilibrium. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Lee, Frederic S. 1998. Post Keynesian Price Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

Richardson, G. B. 1960. Information and Investment: A Study in the Working of the Competitive Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Richardson, G. B. 1965. “The Theory of Restrictive Trade Practices,” Oxford Economic Papers 17: 432–449.

Richardson, G. B. 1967. “Price Notification Schemes,” Oxford Economic Papers 19: 359–369

Richardson, G. B. 1972. “The Organization of Industry,” Economic Journal 82.327: 883–896.

10 comments:

  1. yes, but what you don't understand, LK, is that you have to *pretend* that reality doesn't exist. Then you will have a proper understanding of basic austrian concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Firms can set prices all they want. They do. This does not change the underlieing flexibility of prices on the market. Firms try hard to get the set price right but that doesn't mean they always get it right. This results in losses for them. Either in profits or sales.
    Set the price too low they lose profits.
    Set it too high and they lose customers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Firms can set prices all they want. They do. This does not change the underlieing flexibility of prices on the market."

      And that is what we call the non sequitur.

      Delete
    2. That's what I'm saying! They have no connection. The two have little to do with each other. Firms set the price they want to sell their products at. This does not have any bearing on how consumers value that product.

      Delete
  3. "Of course, inside the comparatively small sector of the economy where flexprices really are important, the informational role of prices in terms of communicating knowledge about supply and demand has some merit, but so much of any modern market economy is not flexprice"


    Surely the "informational role of prices" is absolutely key in cost+markup. It is what matches qty demand to qty supplied. If relative prices are incorrect in a cost+markup model then the system works inefficiently.

    An efficient cost+markup system requires the prices of labor and raw materials to be set by supply and demand.

    If that condition is met and all other sectors practice cost+markup and match supply to quantity demanded then (in a static model) an equilibrium will be reached the same as if supply and demand was used in all markets.

    If supply and demand are not used to set the prices of labor and raw materials in a cost+markup model then all prices and outputs will have an arbitrary element that will prevent resources being used efficiently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "An efficient cost+markup system requires the prices of labor and raw materials to be set by supply and demand."

      It does not -- and if you mean it requires all wages and raw materials prices to be set by supply and demand, then the real world most definitely refutes what you've said: many wages are set by institutional and social factors and even a good many raw materials have prices subject to commodity stabilisation programs (e.g., price floors and ceilings, subsidies, etc.), buffer stock interventions, price controls, even control by producers' associations, etc.

      However, the mark-up pricing sector can still efficiently equate output supply to demand.

      Delete
    2. "many wages are set by institutional and social factors and even a good many raw materials have prices subject to commodity stabilisation programs "

      In as much as this is true then it must create shortages or surpluses elsewhere in the system if their output and pricing are based on these non-market clearing prices for originary factors.

      Delete
    3. A simple example of this:

      A raw material is in limited supply and its price is set administratively to below its market clearing price.

      This administered prices is then used in manufacturing processes by firms which use cost+markup.

      It is obvious that manufacturers of these goods will see an excess of demand at the cost+markup price that they will not be able to fulfill by increasing supply (as all the supplies of the needed raw material have been used up at the current price).

      The only solution to this shortage is to increase the prices of the raw material to its market clearing price or increase the mark-up on the good that uses it.

      Keeping stocks of the raw material or the good may temporary changes in supply or demand but will not solve the real problem.

      Delete
    4. "It is obvious that manufacturers of these goods will see an excess of demand at the cost+markup price that they will not be able to fulfill by increasing supply

      It is not "obvious" at all. The business might be able to import the raw material.

      Quantity supplied will match quantity demanded.

      Delete
    5. "Quantity supplied will match quantity demanded"

      This is just wishing the problem away. Do you think that all goods have supplies that will increase to meet demand no matter how low the price and no matter what physical limitations there may be on supply.?

      If that were true then many of the worlds economic problems could be solved just by administratively setting the price of all raw materials and all skilled labor to zero !.

      Delete