498 DISCUSSION 



narrowly conceived, has not been pursued to the exclusion of all other con- 

 siderations ; that the method of selecting industries already described has 

 not been followed in all cases, and that the system of competition has not 

 been free from regulation. 



In many industries competition is found to be self-eliminating ; the 

 quest for profits has led to the creation of monopoly. In extreme cases, such 

 as local transport and the production of gas and electricity, that duplication 

 of units of supply which is an integral part of competition is obviously 

 wasteful. Such industries are known as technical monopolies, and are either 

 owned and operated by public authorities or operated as public utilities. 

 But even in other cases, in which the public advantages of monopoly control 

 are not so obvious, and may be seriously questioned, monopolistic control 

 has been substituted for corqpetition. Moreover, such monopolies are now 

 frequently called ' plans ' ; monopoly control is regarded as a form of 

 planning and approved (as in the case of steel) by public authorities. In 

 some cases, for other reasons, the State has not merely approved a privately 

 constructed monopoly, but even tried to institute monopoly control. 



Within the large framework of competition the State has been ' plan- 

 ning ' in the past. It has restricted competition for social reasons ; it has 

 fostered the growth of selected industries for the purpose of defence ; it 

 has controlled technical monopolies ; it has favoured monopoly control in 

 appropriate cases. Each case has been taken on its merits, in the national 

 interest. This brings us back to the question, What, precisely, do we 

 mean by planning ? What purpose have we in view ? Do we wish to 

 build up a much larger agricultural industry, though the heavens fall ? Do 

 we wish to plan the land in such a way that national welfare is increased, 

 even though such a plan mean the sacrifice of agriculture ? Do we intend 

 to assume world peace or perpetual danger of war ? Do we desire the State 

 to embark upon a new policy, with a new purpose, or merely to pursue its 

 present policy of taking each case on its merits, with a presumption against 

 direct interference and a further presumption in favour of efficiency ? 

 Before one can answer the question ' Do you believe in a planned economy ? ' 

 one requires to know what is to be planned, and for what purpose and by 

 what method. 



We are often told that we live in a rapidly changing world, which calls for 

 changes in the control of the economic system. Reference has been made 

 again and again to the problem of the Special Areas, and to the Royal Com- 

 mission that has been appointed to examine the larger problem of geographic 

 trends in industry and population. We have heard much about the im- 

 mobility of labour, the need to attract industries to depressed areas and 

 thereby avoid the ' social oncosts ' involved in the development of new areas. 

 The first step in planning is to examine the powers and responsibilities of 

 the authorities that are likely to be called upon to administer such pro- 

 posals. The first stage in planning is to ' plan ' appropriate public authori- 

 ties. And here we meet with the first practical difficulty involved in any 

 scheme of planning on a large scale — the difficulty of centralisation. 



We cannot handle human beings like pawns on a chessboard. For this 

 reason a scheme which, on paper, may appear inferior to another may prove 

 to be wiser, in practice, than the latter. 



The third difficulty is that a new plan, however carefully it may be pre- 

 pared, is usually found to be seriously defective when brought into opera- 

 tion. The result is that many see in its defects not those of the specific 

 plan but those inherent in any plan. A reaction may set in which will 

 prevent any extension of planning to spheres of activity in which it is equally 

 necessary. 



