Lindblom - The Market System - Afghan Journalists' Committee

174 What To Make of Itit to the recipients to make the most of their shares. How dothey decide on sizes of share to each citizen? They look athistorical precedent, patterns in other societies, politicallyfeasible patterns, and the like; they shrink from askingquestions about efficiency. Watching what ensues, they seethat recipients create a market system through which, bytrading, as in the game in the gym, each efficiently improveshis or her position.Of the first case we can say that, since all choices are approachedas problems in efficiency, the level of efficiencyachieved will depend on the competence of the officials. Allocationsmay reach a high degree of efficiency, althoughthey probably will not, given limits on the human brain andthe complexity of the task. Of the second case, we can saythat there is no hope for efficiency. All that can be hoped foris that the society achieves those limited improvements inthe original distribution that can be achieved by voluntaryexchanges. That is a small claim when put in perspective.Our third and final conclusion is, in short, this: Marketsystems, wisely or foolishly, largely in effect give up thepossibility of an efficient resource allocation and pattern ofproduction. They settle instead on inefficient allocationsimproved to the limited degree that voluntary transactionsmake improvement possible. That they make such a choiceis ordinarily hidden from the eye. But the choice process hasrecently been conspicuous and flagrant in Russia. There themove toward the market system has set in motion an extraordinaryand harsh struggle over the “prior” determinationof who is to have the assets once owned by the state. Power,greed, and corruption are creating a highly inegalitarian allocationof assets that will shape market-system outputs indefinitely.Am I saying more than that the market system is rooted