Which economic system is owned by the government?
|
Economic Systems: Command, Market, and Mixed Show The way in which a society answers the three fundamental economic questions is called an economic system. More formally, an economics system is a process or mechanism for answering the three fundamental questions. We can classify any type of economic system by two characteristics: who owns the resources? And who answers the fundamental questions? There are three main types of economic systems: command, market, and mixed. We will briefly describe each of these three types. Command Economy In a command economy, what goods and services are produced, how they are produced, and for whom they are produced are all questions answered by government planning. The government makes economic decisions for the good of society. In a pure command economy, all resources are owned by the government, so the government can direct them to produce what is best for society as a whole, rather than what might be in the interests of private individuals. So government owned the land, government owned the businesses, and government even told people what their occupations would be. Historically, command economies were associated with a political system known as communism, where the goals of society as a whole were given priority over individual goals. The Soviet Union until its breakup in the late 1980s was an excellent example of a command economy. Cuba and North Korea are good examples in today�s world of command economies. One of the biggest changes in the world in the last 15-20 years has been the fall of communism and command economies. The number of command economies in the world has fallen dramatically in the last decade. While the theoretical objective of a command economy is to use economic resources for the good of the whole society, as a practical matter command economies didn�t do that very well. In a command economy, government-owned producers are not allowed to go out of business, so they had little incentive to produce quality products at low cost. Since private individuals could not own means of production, they had no incentive to search for better ways of serving consumers� wants and desires. Rather than growing and prospering, command economies typically were stagnant. Market Economy In a market economy, resources are owned by private individuals. The goods and services that are produced are not determined by the government. Rather, production is determined by businesses responding to the wants and desires of consumers. (This process occurs through the interaction of demand and supply, about which we will have much more to say starting next week.) Consumers determine what will be produced. (You might have heard the expression �consumer sovereignty,� which suggests that in a market economy, consumers are king.) Adam Smith is often regarded as the first economist. In his famous book published in 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (often referred to simply as The Wealth of Nations), Smith described the advantages of a market economy. Smith said that a market economy is controlled as if by an invisible hand � producers produce the things that consumers want without government telling them what to do. The invisible hand expression suggests that if the economy allows people to pursue their own individual interests, the result will be the best for society as a whole. Producers who want to make as much profit as they can will have to produce the things that consumers want. Profit thus is an incentive for producers to satisfy consumers wants and desires. Critics of a market economy argue that while it might do a good job of answering the first two fundamental questions (What to produce, How to produce), it does not do so well answering the third question (For whom to produce). Critics argues that producers satisfy the wants and desires of consumers who have the money to express those wants and desires, while those people without money are not served. In a market economy, critics say, there may be a wide gap between rich and poor. Mixed Economy A mixed economy is a blend of market and command economies. In a mixed economy some parts or sectors of the economy are left to private ownership (market) while in other sectors there is substantial government ownership or government-directed production (command). In a mixed economy, government intervenes in those sectors where private ownership is believed to be not in the best interests of society as a whole. For example, in a mixed economy the government might control the production and distribution of health care (as in Great Britain and Sweden). Mixed economies are relatively common in Western Europe, in countries such as France, Sweden, and Italy. Learning Objectives
The two major economic systems in modern societies are capitalism and socialism. In practice, no one society is purely capitalist or socialist, so it is helpful to think of capitalism and socialism as lying on opposite ends of a continuum. Societies’ economies mix elements of both capitalism and socialism but do so in varying degrees, so that some societies lean toward the capitalist end of the continuum, while other societies lean toward the socialist end. For example, the United States is a capitalist nation, but the government still regulates many industries to varying degrees. The industries usually would prefer less regulation, while their critics usually prefer more regulation. The degree of such regulation was the point of controversy after the failure of banks and other financial institutions in 2008 and 2009 and after the BP oil spill in 2010. Let’s see how capitalism and socialism differ. CapitalismCapitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. By means of production, we mean everything—land, tools, technology, and so forth—that is needed to produce goods and services. As outlined by famed Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723–1790), widely considered the founder of modern economics, the most important goal of capitalism is the pursuit of personal profit (Smith, 1776/1910). As individuals seek to maximize their own wealth, society as a whole is said to benefit. Goods get produced, services are rendered, people pay for the goods and services they need and desire, and the economy and society as a whole prosper. One important hallmark of capitalism is competition for profit. This competition is thought to help ensure the best products at the lowest prices, as companies will ordinarily try to keep their prices as low as possible to attract buyers and maximize their sales. As people pursue personal profit under capitalism, they compete with each other for the greatest profits. Businesses try to attract more demand for their products in many ways, including lowering prices, creating better products, and advertising how wonderful their products are. In capitalist theory, such competition helps ensure the best products at the lowest prices, again benefiting society as a whole. Such competition also helps ensure that no single party controls an entire market. According to Smith, the competition that characterizes capitalism should be left to operate on its own, free of government intervention or control. For this reason, capitalism is often referred to as laissez-faire (French for “leave alone”) capitalism, and terms to describe capitalism include the free-enterprise system and the free market. The hallmarks of capitalism, then, are private ownership of the means of production, the pursuit of profit, competition for profit, and the lack of government intervention in this competition. SocialismThe features of socialism are the opposite of those just listed for capitalism and were spelled out most famously by Karl Marx. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned, usually by the government. Whereas the United States has several airlines that are owned by airline corporations, a socialist society might have one government-owned airline. The most important goal of socialism is not the pursuit of personal profit but rather work for the collective good: the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual. Because of this view, individuals do not compete with each other for profit; instead they work together for the good of everyone. If under capitalism the government is supposed to let the economy alone, under socialism the government controls the economy. The ideal outcome of socialism, said Marx, would be a truly classless or communist society. In such a society all members are equal, and stratification does not exist. Obviously Marx’s vision of a communist society was never fulfilled, and nations that called themselves communist departed drastically from his vision of communism. Recall that societies can be ranked on a continuum ranging from mostly capitalist to mostly socialist. At one end of the continuum, we have societies characterized by a relatively free market, and at the other end we have those characterized by strict government regulation of the economy. Figure 13.1 “Capitalism and Socialism Across the Globe” depicts the nations of the world along this continuum. Capitalist nations are found primarily in North America and Western Europe but also exist in other parts of the world. Figure 13.1 Capitalism and Socialism Across the Globe
Comparing Capitalism and SocialismPeople have debated the relative merits of capitalism and socialism at least since the time of Marx (Bowles, 2007; Cohen, 2009). Compared to socialism, capitalism seems to have several advantages. It produces greater economic growth and productivity, at least in part because it provides more incentives (i.e., profit) for economic innovation. It also is often characterized by greater political freedom in the form of civil rights and liberties. As an economic system, capitalism seems to lend itself to personal freedom: because its hallmarks include the private ownership of the means of production and the individual pursuit of profit, there is much more emphasis in capitalist societies on the needs and desires of the individual and less emphasis on the need for government intervention in economic and social affairs. Yet capitalism also has its drawbacks. There is much more economic inequality in capitalism than in socialism. Although capitalism produces economic growth, not all segments of capitalism share this growth equally, and there is a much greater difference between the rich and poor than under socialism. People can become very rich in capitalist nations, but they can also remain quite poor. As we saw in Chapter 9 “Global Stratification”, several Western European nations that are more socialist than the United States have fewer extremes of wealth and poverty and take better care of their poor. Another possible drawback depends on whether you prefer competition or cooperation. As we saw in Chapter 3 “Culture”, important values in the United States include competition and individualism, both of which arguably reflect this nation’s capitalist system. Children in the United States are raised with more of an individual orientation than children in socialist societies, who learn that the needs of their society are more important than the needs of the individual. Whereas U.S. children learn to compete with each other for good grades, success in sports, and other goals, children in socialist societies learn to cooperate to achieve tasks. More generally, capitalism is said by its critics to encourage selfish and even greedy behavior: if individuals try to maximize their profit, they do so at the expense of others. In competition, someone has to lose. A company’s ultimate aim, and one that is generally lauded, is to maximize its profits by driving another company out of the market altogether. If so, that company succeeds even if some other party is hurting. The small Mom-and-Pop grocery stores, drugstores, and hardware stores are almost a thing of the past, as big-box stores open their doors and drive their competition out of business. To its critics, then, capitalism encourages harmful behavior. Yet it is precisely this type of behavior that is taught in business schools. Democratic Socialism The economies of Denmark, pictured here, and several other Western European nations feature a combination of capitalism and socialism that is called democratic socialism. In these economies, the government owns important industries, but private property and political freedom remain widespread. bobthemagicdragon – Majestic – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Some nations combine elements of both capitalism and socialism and are called social democracies, while their combination of capitalism and socialism is called democratic socialism. In these nations, which include Denmark, Sweden, and several other Western European nations, the government owns several important industries, but much property remains in private hands, and political freedom is widespread. The government in these nations has extensive programs to help the poor and other people in need. Although these nations have high tax rates to help finance their social programs, their experience indicates it is very possible to combine the best features of capitalism and socialism while avoiding their faults (see the “Learning From Other Societies” box). Learning From Other SocietiesSocial Democracy in Scandinavia The five Scandinavian nations, also called the Nordic nations, are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. These nations differ in many ways, but they also share many similarities. In particular, they are all social democracies, as their governments own important industries while their citizens enjoy much political freedom. Each nation has the three branches of government with which most people are familiar—executive, judicial, and legislative—and each nation has a national parliament to which people are elected by proportional representation. Social democracies like the Scandinavian nations are often called controlled capitalist market economies. The word controlled here conveys the idea that their governments either own industries or heavily regulate industries they do not own. According to social scientist Tapio Lappi-Seppälä of Finland, a key feature of these social democracies’ economies is that inequality in wealth and income is not generally tolerated. Employers, employees, and political officials are accustomed to working closely to ensure that poverty and its related problems are addressed as much as possible and in as cooperative a manner as possible. Underlying this so-called social welfare model is a commitment to universalism. All citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status or family situation, receive various services, such as child care and universal health care, that are free or heavily subsidized. To support this massive provision of benefits, the Scandinavian nations have very high taxes that their citizens generally accept as normal and necessary. This model has been praised by political scientist Torben Iversen, who lauds its goal of achieving full employment and equality. This attempt has not been entirely free of difficulties but overall has been very successful, as the Scandinavian nations rank at or near the top in international comparisons of health, education, economic well-being, and other measures of quality of life. The Scandinavian experience of social democracy teaches us that it is very possible to have a political and economic model that combines the best features of capitalism and socialism while retaining the political freedom that citizens expect in a democracy. (Berman, 2006; Iversen, 1998; Lappi-Seppälä, 2007) Key Takeaways
For Your Review
ReferencesBerman, S. (2006). The primacy of politics: Social democracy and the making of Europe’s twentieth century. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bowles, P. (2007). Capitalism. New York, NY: Pearson/Longman. Cohen, G. A. (2009). Why not socialism? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Iversen, T. (1998). The choices for Scandinavian social democracy in comparative perspective. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14, 59–75. Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2007). Penal policy in Scandinavia. Crime and Justice, 36, 217–296. Smith, A. (1910). The wealth of nations. London, England: J. M. Dent & Sons; New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. (Original work published 1776). What economy is owned by the government?Socialism is, broadly speaking, a political and economic system in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the state or government. Socialism is based on the idea that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society.
What is economic system of government?An economic system is a means by which societies or governments organize and distribute available resources, services, and goods across a geographic region or country. Economic systems regulate the factors of production, including land, capital, labor, and physical resources.
Is capitalism owned by the government?Key Takeaways. Capitalism is a type of economic system in which trade and industry are driven by private owners and the individual rather than the government.
What parts of the economy are controlled by the government?In the United States, the government influences economic activity through two approaches: monetary policy and fiscal policy. Through monetary policy, the government exerts its power to regulate the money supply and level of interest rates. Through fiscal policy, it uses its power to tax and to spend.
|
