Hayek's Road to Serfdom Excerpts from The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek, Routledge, 1944, pp. 13-14, 36-37, 39-45. |
|
The Abandoned Road
When the course of civilization takes an unexpected turn -- when, instead of
the continuous progress which we have come to expect, we find ourselves
threatened by evils associated by us with past ages of barbarism -- we
naturally blame anything but ourselves. Have we not all striven according to
our best lights, and have not many of our finest minds incessantly worked to
make this a better world? Have not all our efforts and hopes been directed
toward greater freedom, justice, and prosperity?
If the outcome is so different from our aims -- if, instead of freedom and
prosperity, bondage and misery stare us in the face -- is it not clear that
sinister forces must have foiled our intentions, that we are the victims of
some evil power which must be conquered before we can resume the road to better
things?
However much we may differ when we name the culprit -- whether it is the wicked
capitalist or the vicious spirit of a particular nation, the stupidity of our
elders, or a social system not yet, although we have struggled against it for a
half a century, fully overthrown -- we all are, or at least were until
recently, certain of one thing: that the leading ideas which during the last
generation have become common to most people of good will and have determined
the major changes in our social life cannot have been wrong.
We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our
civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result
of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most
cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those
which we expected....
That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not
only unachievable, but that to strive for-it produces
something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be
prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection
has been laid bare in all its aspects.
Individualism and Collectivism
Before we can progress with our main problem, an
obstacle has yet to be surmounted. A confusion largely
responsible for the way in which we are drifting into things which nobody wants
must be cleared up. This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism
itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social
justice, greater equality, and security, which are the ultimate aims of
socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists
hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only
methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense
socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of
the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned
economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a
central planning body....
"Planning" owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody
desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems as rationally as
possible and that, in so doing, we should use as much foresight as we can
command. In this sense everybody who is not a complete fatalist is a planner,
every political act is (or ought to be) an act of planning, and there can be
differences only between good and bad, between wise and foresighted and foolish
and shortsighted planning. An economist, whose whole task is the study of how
men actually do and how they might plan their affairs, is the last person who
could object to planning in this general sense. But it is not in this sense
that our enthusiasts for a planned society now employ this term, nor merely in
this sense that we must plan if we want the distribution of income or wealth to
conform to some particular standard. According to the modern planners, and for
their purposes, it is not sufficient to design the most rational permanent
frame work within which the various activities would be conducted by different
persons according to their individual plans. This liberal plan, according to
them, is no plan -- and it is, indeed, not a plan designed to satisfy
particular views about who should have what. What our planners demand is a
central direction of all economic activity according to a single plan, laying
down how the resources of society should be "consciously directed" to
serve particular ends in a definite way.
The dispute between the modern planners and their opponents is, therefore, not
a dispute on whether we ought to choose intelligently between the various
possible organizations of society; it is not a dispute on whether we ought to
employ foresight and systematic thinking in planning our common affairs. It is
a dispute about what is the best way of so doing. The question is whether for
this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine
himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and
initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most
successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires
central direction and organization of all our activities according to some
consciously constructed "blueprint." The socialists of all parties
have appropriated the term "planning" for planning of the latter
type, and it is now generally accepted in this sense. But though this is meant
to suggest that this is the only rational way of handling our affairs, it does
not, of course, prove this. It remains the point on which the planners and the
liberals disagree.
It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with a
dogmatic laissez-faire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the
best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of coordinating human
efforts, not an argument for leaving things just as they are. It is based on the
conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way
of guiding individual efforts than any other. It does not deny, but even
emphasizes, that, in order that competition should work beneficially, a
carefully thought-out legal framework is required and that neither the existing
nor the past legal rules are free from grave defects. Nor does it deny that,
where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make competition
effective, we must resort to other methods of guiding economic activity.
Economic liberalism is opposed, however, to competition's being supplanted by
inferior methods of coordinating individual efforts. And it regards competition
as superior not only because it is in most circumstances the most efficient
method known but even more because it is the only method by which our
activities can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary
intervention of authority. Indeed, one of the main arguments in favor of
competition is that it dispenses with the need for "conscious social
control" and that it gives the individuals a chance to decide whether the
prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the
disadvantages and risks connected with it.
The successful use of competition as the principle of social organization
precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life, but it
admits of others which sometimes may very considerably assist its work and even
requires certain kinds of government action. But there is good reason why the
negative requirements, the points where coercion must not be used, have been
particularly stressed. It is necessary in the first instance that the parties
in the market should be free to sell and buy at any price at which they can
find a partner to the transaction and that anybody should be free to produce,
sell, and buy anything that may be produced or sold at all. And it is essential
that the entry into the different trades should be open to all on equal terms
and that the law should not tolerate any attempts by individuals or groups to
restrict this entry by open or concealed force. Any attempt to control prices
or quantities of particular commodities deprives competition of its power of
bringing about an effective co-ordination of individual efforts, because price
changes then cease to register all the relevant changes in circumstances and no
longer provide a reliable guide for the individual's actions.
This is not necessarily true, however, of measures merely restricting the
allowed methods of production, so long as these restrictions affect all
potential producers equally and are not used as an indirect way of controlling
prices and quantities. Though all such controls of the methods of production
impose extra costs (i.e., make it necessary to use more resources to produce a
given output), they may be well worth while. To prohibit the use of certain
poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit
working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible
with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the
particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs
which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an
extensive system of social services -- so long as the organization of these
services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over
wide fields.
It is regrettable, though not difficult to explain, that in the past much less
attention has been given to the positive requirements of a successful working
of the competitive system than to these negative points. The functioning of a
competition not only requires adequate organization of certain institutions
like money, markets, and channels of information -- some of which can never be
adequately provided by private enterprise -- but it depends, above all, on the
existence of an appropriate legal system, a legal system designed both to
preserve competition and to make it operate as beneficially as possible. It is
by no means sufficient that the law should recognize the principle of private
property and freedom of contract; much depends on the precise definition of the
right of property as applied to different things. The systematic study of the forms
of legal institutions which will make the competitive system work efficiently
has been sadly neglected; and strong arguments can be advanced that serious
shortcomings here, particularly with regard to the law of corporations and of
patents, not only have made competition work much less effectively than it
might have done but have even led to the destruction of competition in many
spheres.
There are, finally, undoubted fields where no legal arrangements can create the
main condition on which the usefulness of the system of competition and private
property depends: namely, that the owner benefits from all the useful services
rendered by his property and suffers for all the damages caused to others by
its use. Where, for example, it is impracticable to make the enjoyment of
certain services dependent on the payment of a price, competition will not
produce the services; and the price system becomes similarly ineffective when
the damage caused to others by certain uses of property cannot be effectively
charged to the owner of that property. In all these instances there is a
divergence between the items which enter into private calculation and those
which affect social welfare; and, whenever this divergence becomes important,
some method other than competition may have to be found to supply the services
in question. Thus neither the provision of signposts on the roads nor, in most
circumstances, that of the roads themselves can be paid for by every individual
user. Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of
farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories be confined to the owner of the
property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an
agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the
regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the
substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the
proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should
suppress competition where it can be made to function.
To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to
supplement it where it cannot be made effective, to provide the services which,
in the words of Adam Smith, "though they may be in the highest degree
advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the
profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of
individuals" -- these tasks provide, indeed, a wide and unquestioned field
for state activity. In no system that could be rationally defended would the
state just do nothing. An effective competitive system needs an intelligently
designed and continuously adjusted legal framework as much as any other. Even
the most essential prerequisite of its proper functioning, the prevention of
fraud and deception (including exploitation of ignorance), provides a great and
by no means yet fully accomplished object of legislative activity.
Copyright © 1944 (renewed 1972), 1994
by The