Outline:
1st The problem
2nd The Say's theorem
3rd The increase in demand for more free time
4th The saturation thesis in a narrower sense
5th The robotisation thesis
6th The stagnation thesis of Alvin Hansen
1st The problem
In
the course of the history of economic doctrines, we repeatedly encounter the
thesis that sustained economic growth would not be possible at all in the long
term, since at least the market-based economic systems would inevitably head
towards stagnation, which would ultimately be triggered because the people
would very quickly reach a state of saturation. The growth process was abruptly
interrupted because the demand for goods saturated was very soon and because
the economic system then had to collapse due to a lack of demand. This
stagnation then manifested itself especially in a too low demand for labour.
The demand for labour was always induced by the demand for goods and if the
demand for goods stagnated or even decreased, then the demand for labour would
inevitably decline, with the result that more and more workers would not find a
job anymore.
We
encounter these pessimistic teachings as early as the time of the classics,
with whom modern economic theory had begun in the late 18th century. At that
time, people spoke of underconsumption theories and understood this to mean the
thesis that the employment of all workers who were able and willing to work
failed because the demand for goods was not sufficient to employ all workers
due to a general saturation.
Even
if this decidedly pessimistic view was not shared by the majority of the early
classicists - at least Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory,
developed a decidedly optimistic picture of the development possibilities of a
free market economy - it was above all David Ricardo - also a main
representative of the classical period - who described a dynamic model that
likewise ended in stagnation. David Ricardo based this on the likewise very
pessimistic population theory of Robert Malthus.
The
theme of classical underconsumption theories was then taken up in the 20th
century when John Maynard Keynes again attributed mass unemployment to a
shortage in the demand for goods during the Great Depression of the late 1920s.
However, while Keynes had seen unemployment primarily as a problem of the cyclical
downturn, it was Alvin Hansen, a student of Keynes, who was convinced that
in the late capitalist phase mass unemployment would also prevail in the long
run, since a secular stagnation in the demand for goods had to be expected.
The
stagnation theories listed here are only a few particularly extreme examples of
a whole army of theorists who have conjured up the spectre of saturation
repeatedly in the course of history. It was above all Joseph Alois Schumpeter
who drew attention to this recurring tendency in his History of Economic
Analysis, but who also pointed out that the temporary crises that occurred were
always overcome and that these proponents of the various saturation theories
simply lacked the fantasy to imagine that humanity would never be satisfied
with what had been achieved so far and that the scarcity of goods would
continue, although basic needs had long been satisfied, at least in the highly
developed industrial societies. The expansion of production possibilities was
always followed by the discovery of new needs.
Now,
one can certainly not speak of these theories of stagnation, which were
repeatedly dusted off, as being the only or even the most important ideas about
how market-economy systems will develop in the long term. Quite in contrast to
these theories of stagnation, on the other hand, there have always been future
scenarios which, although they also believed they had to predict a collapse of
the economic systems, attributed the collapse of the economic systems to an
overly high demand for goods in the highly developed industrial societies. The
market economy systems, so it was argued, would inevitably lead to an
exploitation of natural resources with the result that future generations would
lack the natural resources that were necessary for survival.
2nd The Say's theorem
In
contrast to these decidedly pessimistic views of the future, however, the
mainstream of classical economic theory was of the firm optimistic conviction
that these crisis phenomena did not necessarily have to occur and that
satisfactory results of the economic process could very well be achieved
through the free economic order outlined by liberalism.
At
the time of the early classicists, it was mainly John Baptiste Say who tried to
prove that mass unemployment was by no means to be feared for the reason that
the demand for goods was too low.
Jean
Baptiste Say lived from 1767 to 1832 and was one of the main representatives of
French classicism. He became famous primarily for Say's theorem, which is named
after him.
The
Say's theorem opposes the underconsumption theories according to which too
little demand for consumer goods would cause unemployment. According to Say's
theorem, too little demand for goods cannot explain general unemployment, since
every supply created its own demand. However, Say does not deny the occurrence
of mass unemployment, but he does not attribute it to a insufficient demand for goods, but to incorrect
price relations, i.e. to control errors, in his theory of clogged sales
channels.
The
value of supply turns in fact completely into income and this in turn becomes
completely demand, since savings are invested always. General unemployment can
therefore only be explained by structural causes.
Let
us look at the individual steps of this theorem more closely. The first step is
to establish that all sales proceeds become income. We are not looking at a
single enterprise here, but at a consolidated balance sheet of all enterprises.
On the right side of the balance sheet in the upper part of the graph, we enter
on the income side the sales proceeds, i.e. the value of the supply, which the
sellers of the final products achieve. Here we have to consider that a part of
these sales proceeds is needed to purchase semi-finished products and raw
materials from other enterprises. Here, the expenditures of the final product
enterprises coincide with the sales proceeds of the semi-finished product
enterprises and raw material enterprises, so we can neglect these amounts in a
consolidated total balance sheet.
The
sales proceeds of the final product enterprises continue to be used to
remunerate the purchased factors of production, wages are paid to the employed
workers, land rents to the land owners and interest to the capital providers.
The remaining sum from the sales proceeds flows to the entrepreneur as profit
income. We can thus conclude that the entire sales proceeds sum becomes income.
Next,
we turn to the use of this income. Income can be used for the purchase of
consumer goods or can be saved. Both together correspond always to the total
purchase sum. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume a closed economy
without economic activity by the state.
The
savings serve the enterprises to finance their investments, i.e. to purchase
capital goods. Thus, not only the part of the income that is used for the
purchase of consumer goods becomes demand, but also the savings sum is fully
used for the purchase of investment goods.
However,
this proves that all supply (sales proceeds) becomes demand, either as consumer
demand or as investment demand. Which had to be proven.
How
are the assumptions made here to be evaluated? The first step, the proof that
the sum of sales proceeds becomes completely income for the final product
producer, results from logical considerations. The profit of the enterprise (G)
is defined in such a way that it corresponds to the difference between sales
proceeds (P * X) and the remuneration of the production factors employed (EF).
The equations therefore apply:
Let
us therefore turn to the second step in the analysis of Say's theorem. The fact
that a part of the income (EF + G) is consumed and therefore leads
to the demand for consumption goods is again the result of logical connections,
whoever consumes goods must as a rule have bought them beforehand.
The
second thesis, that savings are always fully invested, is to be assessed more
critically. However, this assumption arises from the fact that during Jean
Baptiste Say's lifetime, the predominant form of enterprise was the partnership
and that its entrepreneurs had to raise the required capital from their own
income in the form of savings, since the income of non-entrepreneurs was still
too low to save larger portions of their income. The only reason to save was
therefore that entrepreneurs needed capital for their investments.
Entrepreneurs therefore only saved when they had a need for investment. Their
capital needs could only be met through their own savings, not by borrowing on
the capital market. In the time in which Say lived, it was quite true that
almost all savings were used for the purchase of capital goods.
In the meantime, two major changes
occurred in this question. On the one hand, corporations emerged which had such
high capital requirements that the savings of the entrepreneurial owners were
not sufficient and therefore additional capital had to be demanded on the
capital market. On the other hand, the income of large parts of the population
had risen so much in the meantime that non-entrepreneurial households were also
able to save part of their income and offered these savings on the capital
market.
Although
savers and investors were no longer the same people, and although it was
therefore to be expected that the aggregate savings sum would be larger or
smaller than the aggregate investment sum, neoclassical theory continued to
assume that Say's theorem remained valid, since the capital market now ensured
that savings and investment correspond with each other in the state of
equilibrium towards which a free market was automatically heading.
The
free market mechanism would ensure that the interest rate would fall if there
was an excess of savings over investment demand and that therefore
simultaneously less savings would be created and more investments would be
made. Similarly, if there was an excess of investment, the interest rate would
rise and for these reasons savings would increase and investment projects would
be cut. In other words, the neoclassics assumed that
the market mechanism would automatically balance savings and investment.
Thirdly,
one can of course also doubt whether consumption and saving constitute the only
uses of income. Finally, one must assume that considerable parts of the income
must be paid in the form of taxes. It can therefore be criticised that Say's
theorem assumes a closed national economy without economic activity.
In
response to this last criticism, however, it can be said that it can be very
useful to deliberately disregard certain real facts in order to better
understand complex interrelationships. Once the interrelationships have been
correctly recognised on the basis of simple models, the unrealistic assumptions
of the first model can very quickly be removed. It is easy to redefine Say's
theorem in such a way that the most important results of Say's theorem can also
be maintained for an open national economy with economic activity of the state.
Now
John Maynard Keynes has indeed pointed out that Say's theorem was based on two
unrealistic assumptions: Part of the savings would be hoarded, i.e. would not
be passed on via the banks to the enterprises for investment. At the same time,
even if the savings were offered on the capital market and if interest rates
were lowered as a result, the willingness of enterprises to invest would not be
expanded sufficiently. In times of economic downturn, in which consumer demand
declines, surplus production capacities would arise and the enterprises would
therefore have no reason to expand these production capacities through
investments.
It
is not the aim of this chapter to discuss the weaknesses and errors of this
Keynesian doctrine. This has been done in other articles on my homepage. In the
context of the saturation thesis discussed in this chapter, it is only
important to point out that with Keynes, the reduced demand for goods is just
not explained by a saturation of consumer demand, but by deficiencies in the
capital market, which was not able to automatically adjust the demand for
capital to the excessively large supply of savings.
3rd The increase in demand for more free time
Independently
of the question of the validity of Say's theorem, however, it is also necessary
to examine whether the presence of saturation in consumer demand must
necessarily also trigger unemployment. It would be very conceivable that a
restriction of consumer demand to vital products does not at all have to lead
to a supply overhang on the labour market and thus to unemployment.
In
order to better understand this thesis, let us ask ourselves how people would
proceed if we were still living in a medieval society in which production was
not yet based on the division of labour, i.e. each individual peasant family
would essentially only produce for its own needs. Let us now assume that a
farmer had learned and applied certain production techniques that would allow
him to obtain the goods necessary for his subsistence even if he limited his
work to half a day.
We
would assume in this case that this farmer would actually only work half a day
at a time, i.e. that he would devote the rest of the time to his leisure and
that he would therefore not slave away all day and produce more goods than he
needs.
Why
should such behaviour not be principally possible in an economy based on the
division of labour? If, due to technical progress, our society is in a position
to produce the quantity of goods needed for life with only half a day's work,
why should the workers, who, according to the assumption, no longer demand
goods, not strive on their own initiative to engage in gainful employment for
only half a day? In this case, the demand for labour on the part of enterprises
would indeed decrease, but this decrease would not lead to unemployment, since
the supply of labour would decrease to the same extent. In other words: In this
case, despite saturation, no major unemployment would be triggered. Here, too,
if unemployment were to occur on a larger scale despite these correlations, we
would have to attribute this condition to deficiencies in the market, so that
in this case it would not be the decline in demand that would have caused
unemployment, but some errors in the incentive system of the market economy.
4th The saturation thesis in a narrower sense
In
the further course of this chapter we will now deal with the individual
stagnation theories in somewhat more detail. Let us start with the
underconsumption theory developed in the times of the early classical era.
It
is assumed that the demand for labour depends ultimately on the demand for
consumer goods. The demand for capital goods is thus regarded here as induced ultimately
by the demand for consumer goods.
with B: labour demand, C: consumption demand
Thus,
if the demand for labour is not sufficient to guarantee full employment, then
this can either be due to the fact that the demand for consumer goods has
reached saturation (saturation thesis), or else that consumer demand would be
sufficient to provide enough jobs if technology remained the same, but that
fewer and fewer labourers are needed to produce a unit of consumer goods due to
technical progress (robotisation thesis).
Let us
initially turn to the saturation hypothesis: According to this hypothesis,
needs were limited; average real income had risen so strongly in recent decades
that a further increase in demand for consumer goods could not be expected on a
large scale. Above all, it is no longer to be expected that the average demand
for consumer goods would increase so strongly that unemployment could be
reduced to a large extent.
This
view is based on the conviction that on the one hand, in the course of
industrialisation, the production of consumer goods could be increased
enormously compared to pre-industrial production, but that on the other hand,
the needs of the people were largely predetermined and constant.
Although
the first Gossen's law, named after Herrmann Heinrich
Gossen, was not developed until 1854, the saturation
thesis is obviously based on a similar correlation. As is well known, Gossen's first law states that the more of a good is
consumed, the more the utility increase of a unit of consumption diminishes.
The first glass of water may save a person dying of thirst from death and thus
bring an infinitely high utility, a second or third glass of water may still
have been associated with a certain utility, but the increase in utility of
each further glass of water decreases and very soon reaches zero.
Similarly,
the saturation thesis assumes that with a permanent increase in per capita
income, a condition is reached very soon from which on a saturation of all
basic needs has occurred, from which an increase in consumption can no longer
bring any further utility.
We
had already mentioned that Joseph Alois Schumpeter accused the advocates of
such a saturation thesis of being unimaginative and of having been refuted time
and again by history, every phase of stagnation has so far been followed by a
renewed upswing after a few years and these upswings have been characterised by
the fact that the real quantity of goods has increased from business cycle to
business cycle.
The
flaw in the saturation theories is twofold. On the one hand, these theories
fail to recognise the possibility of enormously increasing the utility of
consumer goods through quality improvements. It is true that one will not be
able to fill one's stomach more than full, but an expansion of production by no
means lies only in the fact that more quantity units of a good are produced and
consumed. Rather, economic growth is characterised above all by the fact that
the quality of the individual goods has been improved steadily. In the past,
for example, a pencil (writing tool) and a few sheets of paper were enough to
write down some thoughts. Today's authors can use highly complicated computers
and sophisticated text and image programmes to write down their thoughts.
Moreover, there are almost no limits to improving the quality of food.
At
the same time, technical progress has contributed to people being able to
afford things today that people could only dream of in the past. Just think of
the possibility of flying. Or if we ask about domestic conveniences such as
bathrooms, shower facilities, refrigerators, which are now taken for granted by
more than 90% of the population, these are luxuries that the Sun King Louis XIV
could only dream of and would envy the commoners living today.
This
means that we cannot assume a demand structure that is given a priori for all
times; in reality, the average demand of people has increased almost as fast as
the production of the individual goods.
5th The robotisation thesis
Another
reason for the stagnation in labour demand lies in the hypothesis of robotisation: Within the framework of this thesis, the
opinion is held that technical progress would necessarily lead to more and more
labour being replaced by capital, namely in that more and more work processes
are taken over by robots. This mechanisation process would lead to the
destruction of more and more jobs and that the remaining jobs - even if
consumer demand was actually high - would no longer be sufficient to guarantee
full employment.
This
thesis is argued above all with regard to the physical labour force. The
invention of steam power at the beginning of industrialisation and the electric
motor initially made it possible to support physical labour. The further fact
that due to the invention of the computer, the mental abilities of machines
could also be simulated, then made it possible to develop robots that could
take over the physical work processes on the one hand and on the other hand
monitor the individual work steps independently. Nevertheless, it still
requires the mental effort of humans to make new inventions, to determine which
goals are to be pursued with the help of these production machines and to check
to what extent technical processes can actually fulfil their task.
It
can hardly be denied that such a development has occurred in the last century.
In a first phase of industrialisation, the physical labour of animals was
replaced by work-performing machines. Whereas in antiquity and the Middle Ages,
for example, people moved from one place to another on horseback or in
horse-drawn carriages, this task of locomotion was taken over by the car or
also by rail vehicles such as trams and trains. Later on, the use of aeroplanes
was also introduced.
In
addition, other machines took over partial tasks, such as excavating soil or
moving heavy objects of all kinds, which required a particularly large physical
effort, however, these machines were initially still used and controlled by
humans in a purposeful manner. It was not until the invention of the computer
that a development began in which ever larger sections of an enterprise
independently take over the entire work process.
In
fact, a large part of the work in industry today, which was still done by
workers in the early stages of the industrial age, is nowadays done more or
less by machines working independently. From an economic point of view, the
production factor labour has been increasingly replaced by the use of capital.
However,
it would be wrong to assume that this development was unavoidably given and
could not be stopped by conscious human intervention. The fact that this
development could be observed in recent decades is closely related to the kind
of technical progress. However, technical progress does not fall out of the sky
like manna from heaven. The fact that labour-saving technical progress has
occurred to a very large extent in recent decades is closely related to the
incentives of our economic system.
In
general, we distinguish between labour-saving and capital-saving progress.
According to a definition by J. R. Hicks, we speak of labour-saving progress
whenever, with a constant wage-interest ratio, the labour intensity (the number
of labour units per unit of capital employed) decreases. In a similar way, we
speak of capital-saving progress when, with a constant wage-interest ratio,
labour intensity increases. If, despite technical progress, labour intensity
was to remain constant with a constant wage-interest ratio, and if therefore
productivity increases were reflected equally in savings of labour and capital,
this would be known as neutral technical progress.
The
type of technical progress that entrepreneurs decide on depends largely on the
wage-interest ratio. The more the wage rate rises in relation to the interest
rate, the more entrepreneurs strive to replace labour with capital and thus to
initiate a robotisation of industrial production. If
capital becomes cheaper in comparison to labour, an enterprise can reduce its
unit costs by replacing labour with capital and thus gain a competitive
advantage.
As
long as the wage-interest ratio reflects the scarcity relations of labour to
capital, a substitution of labour and capital would also be desirable from both
an economic and a social point of view. Wages would rise in comparison to the
interest rate precisely when labour became scarce and when, because of this
scarcity, certain goods and with them certain needs of people could not be
satisfied. In this case, production and thus general economic welfare can be
increased if labour-saving techniques are introduced; more products can now be
produced per unit of labour employed. But at the same time, full employment is
guaranteed; since the labour-saving technical progress was only chosen because
there is a shortage of labour force and because without these labour-saving
methods merely a lower level of production could be achieved.
In
a functioning market economy, the wage rate rises in relation to the interest
rate only when labour is scarce. If, however, the wage rate rises in relation
to the interest rate even though unemployment prevails, labour-saving progress
still leads to an increase in productivity, more products can still be produced
with one unit of labour, but in this case this additional production could also
have been achieved by employing the now unemployed workers. In this case,
labour-saving technical progress is not a social progress, since the employment
of all workers who are able and willing to work should always have priority
over an increase in the quantity of production.
Now we have already pointed out elsewhere
in this lecture that the Keynesian employment policy is supported by a policy
of cheap money and that here the interest rate of the central bank is
deliberately pushed below the interest rate which would have made equilibrium
possible on the capital market. In this way, a wage-interest ratio is targeted
that is below the wage-interest ratio that would have guaranteed full
employment. In other words, employment policy contributes to the fact that
unemployment actually increases in the long term: Because the interest rate is
too low, more labour-saving technical progress is carried out, with the result
that additional workers are laid off.
This
effect is further strengthened if, in addition to the policy of cheap money,
the trade unions enforce an expansive wage policy in which the increase in wage
rates exceeds the increase in labour productivity. In this case, the
wage-interest ratio rises on the one hand because interest rates fall, and on
the other because wage rates rise.
Such
an expansionary wage policy was justified by the fact that in this way demand
for consumer goods and thus indirectly also demand for labour could be
triggered. However, we have already had to point out elsewhere that within the
framework of Keynes' theory only an increase in autonomous consumption
demand has a production-increasing effect and thus also an
employment-increasing effect, while an increase in consumption demand due to a
rise in wage income only represents an induced increase in demand. Only when
the demand for consumer goods rises more strongly than the income does then the
consumption function shifts upwards and therefore a goods equilibrium with greater
employment is headed for. An increase in consumption demand due to an increase
in wage income merely represents a movement along a constant consumption
function and does not lead to a new, higher equilibrium on the goods markets.
However, if there is no increased production in the long run, a sustained
increase in employment cannot be expected.
6th The stagnation thesis of Alvin Hansen
We
have already pointed out that Keynesian theory primarily assumed that
unemployment was a cyclical and thus temporary problem; periods of depression
would eventually be replaced by periods of recovery. Within the Keynesian
movement, however, there were also attempts to develop a theory of secular
stagnation. Alvin Hansen, the main representative of this direction, was
convinced that industrial societies were facing the danger of long-term
stagnation with persistent unemployment. With this, Alvin Hansen took up
considerations that were already widespread in the classical doctrine in
connection with the thesis of underconsumption.
In
contrast to the classical theory (Malthus), which attributed the stagnation
tendencies to excessive population growth, Alvin Hansen assumed that modern
industrial societies were characterised by population stagnation. On the one
hand, the development of modern social security and pension systems had
eliminated the compulsion that existed in pre-industrial societies to have as
many children as possible to provide for old age. On the other hand, the
development of contraceptives has also made it possible to bear fewer children
without abstinence.
This
decline in the birth rate has now led to a drastic decline in the volume of
investment. As long as the birth rate was high, the demand for new housing and
jobs was high, and in both cases high investment was necessary to ensure this
demand. This need for investment ceased to exist when the population stagnated
and therefore neither new housing nor jobs had to be created. The demand for
investment had thus fallen, while at the same time the savings rate and the
volume of savings had risen due to productivity growth. The result was a
permanent oversupply on the capital markets, with the consequences for the
labour market described in Keynesian theory. The state could only counteract
this tendency through a permanent deficit in the national budget.
This
theory must be countered by the fact that population stagnation in
industrialised nations is not inevitable. As the example of the USA shows, it
is precisely in economies with a very high level of prosperity that an increase
in the population growth rate can be expected. On the other hand, the example
of France shows that a correction in population development can also be
initiated through population policy measures. It is also wrong to think that
only the creation of additional housing and additional jobs will trigger
sufficient investment needs. High and sufficient investment needs can also come
about by improving the quality of housing and jobs. Especially in connection
with environmental problems, an enormous need for investment is likely to be
triggered in the future.
If
we do not limit ourselves to the development within the older industrial
societies, but ask ourselves about the population development of the entire
world, we are nowadays not so much faced with the problem of population
stagnation, but with an enormous growth of the population, which is so strong
that there is a danger of having reached the limits of growth. The stock of
natural resources is no longer sufficient to support this population growth for
a longer period of time, less and less scarce resources are being passed on to
future generations, and at the same time, the past energy supply via fossil
fuels (coal, oil and gas) has led to dangerous, life-threatening climate
change.
This
rapid population growth in the economically developing and emerging countries
is similar to the population development that the European industrial nations
also experienced in their initial phase. Just as in the European industrialised
nations a population stagnation set in after a certain time, it could be
assumed that today's emerging countries will also eventually reach a stage in
which the population stagnates due to increased prosperity. However, it is to
be feared that without dramatic changes in energy supply and the industrial
mode of production, the 'world economy' will run into serious difficulties.