Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

3 I 6 Economics
made to bridge the gap between micro and macro approaches, and to equip
those responsible for micro-economic decisions with such tools of economic
calculus as will ensure consistency in the decisions taken in the macro-economic
context.
d. A wide application of what Kalecki calls ‘variant thinking’. After eliminating
the inefficient solutions, the economist, as a rule, still has several alternatives
which cannot be unequivocally rated according to their ‘value’, since not one,
but two or more evaluation criteria are applied. Only in exceptional situations is
one variant absolutely better than the others, i.e. it yields maximum advantages
according to a certain criterion and is at least equal to the others on all the other
criteria applied. In such a case, there is only one solution i.e. one absolutely efficient
variant, all the others being inefficient.
‘Variant thinking’ decides the economist’s r61e in society. Unless he is also a
statesman, basic political decisions are not his concern. He is however required
to indicate the decisions to be taken, to describe the choices, and to point out the
possible consequences of alternative solutions.6~
The above analysis of the methodological aspects of growth theory calls for
four additional comments.
I. Growth theory is still only in its initial stages. Further development calls
for much more detailed models that can take account of a greater number of
inter-relations between economic factors and ‘non-economic factors’ in the currently
accepted sense of the term (which, incidentally, is open to question, since
‘non-economic’ factors are ‘economic’ to the extent to which they influence the
economy).
Methods for optimizing the consumption pattern are also needed, together
with further research in the zone of demarcation between growth theory and the
theory of the functioning of the economy.
Another problem of the utmost importance still pending is that of the relation
between growth theory and multiple-goal planning. Hitherto, economics has
usually taken a uniform objective, consisting of the maximum (or minimum)
magnitudes that can be attained for such items as national income, consumption,
and so on, with due regard to the existing constraints; Tinbergen and
other outstanding economists have even been using weights to harmonize heterogeneous
aims into one uniform planning objective. The actual weights to be
used are a matter for the policy-makers, and mathematicians are right in stating
that rigorous multiple-goal planning is not feasible unless a hierarchy of aims is
supplied from outside.63
But is this not to ask too much from policy-makers? How can they work out
such weights (which they would present as ‘scientific’) without taking arbitrary
decisions ? Perhaps it is better to acknowledge openly that some decisions are
‘political’ and, at the present level of development of political science, quite pedestrian.
This does not imply any scepticism regarding the possibility of improved
decision-making through the use of some of the ingenious methods of
ranking aims and projects that have been worked out in recent years by specialists
in operational research; it is simply to realize that such methods are still
far from entering current planning practice. Furthermore, it would be dangerous