In this chapter the nature of the business system is explored through consideration of controversies surrounding it. Regulative and antiregulative (or laissez faire) policies are associated with communitarian and individualistic ideologies, respectively. Command economies (towards which regulation tends) and free market economies (towards which absence of regulation tends) are different ways of solving the fundamental economic problem of coordinating the production and distribution of goods. Since pure command and pure free market extremes seem unworkable, all existing economies are mixed, incorporating elements of both: nevertheless heated controversy remains concerning the extent to which regulation is morally justifiable and economically advisable, to what ends, and under what circumstances.
Followers of John Locke argue for minimal regulation on the grounds that free market economies best conserve negative life, liberty, and property rights: regulation interferes with individuals’ free exercise of their natural rights to use and control their own property. Critics of the Lockean case may appeal to positive life and liberty rights or to offsetting concerns about distributive injustices of Capitalist distribution.
Followers of Adam Smith argue for minimal regulation on utilitarian grounds: free market economies, they maintain, are economically most efficient and, thus, best promote the general welfare. Criticisms of Smiths’ defense of free markets focus on various dubious assumptions and, again, to offsetting concerns about injustices of Capitalist distribution. Keynesian economists argue that some regulation and “public sector” investment actually helps to stabilize markets and moderate the business cycle.
Social Darwinism argues capitalism can be morally justified as leading to the improvement of the human species since under capitalistic competition, as in biological evolution, the fittest survive. It is generally thought to be fallacious, however, to argue from facts (fitness for survival in a given [economic] environment) to values (the human or moral superiority of the survivors), as Social Darwinism seems to do. There are further objections to Social Darwinism, especially the individualistic version.
Karl Marx and his Communist followers allege that the distributive injustice of Capitalism leads to increasing immiseration of workers and increasingly severe economic depressions; and these are fatal flaws, calling for wholesale replacement of the Capitalist system of private ownership and “free” exchange by a command economy wherein the means of production are communally controlled rather than privately owned. Defenders of free markets reply that Capitalist distribution is not fatally flawed – increasing immiseration increasingly severe economic depressions have not occurred as Marx predicted. Neither are free markets distributively unjust, defenders claim, according to contribution-based justice.
In reality, what exist today are all mixed economies – mixing free market economic and command economic elements. There remain substantial differences between national economies as to the degree to which command or free market elements predominate. There also remains substantial debate regarding what is the best mix of governmental regulation and property rights & free markets.
Page or section numbers given are not the only places where the terms are found in the text. Many of theses terms will appear on the module exams. You should write a definition of each term as you encounter it in your reading for use as a convenient review.
Self-Diagnostic Exam Items |
Textbook Pages |
Objective |
1 |
128 |
1 |
3 |
130-1 |
2 |
4, 5, 10 |
135-6, 138-9, 136-7 |
3 |
6 |
139-41 |
4 |
7 |
141-2 |
5 |
8, 9 |
150, 146 |
6 |
2 |
153-4 |
7 |
In this chapter the nature of the business system is explored through consideration of controversies surrounding it. Here, regulative and antiregulative (or laissez faire) policies are associated with communitarian and individualistic ideologies, respectively. Command economies (towards which regulation tends) and free market economies (towards which absence of regulation tends) represent different ways of solving the fundamental economic problem of coordinating the production and distribution of goods. Under command systems, control is centralized and "top-down": a governing authority decides system wide policy and communicates its decisions to those responsible for carrying it out as enforceable commands. The U. S. and British economies during WW2 as well as the Soviet economy (especially between 1928 and 1953) provide examples of command economies. In free market systems control is decentralized and "bottom up": individuals and privately owned and controlled corporations make their own production decisions and seek the most advantageous prices in exchanging their goods with other firms and consumers. Price level fluctuations in such exchanges, due to supply and demand, serve to coordinate system wide production by encouraging investment in profitable enterprises and discouraging investment in unprofitable ones. The two main components of a free market system are
Few advocate an absolutely pure market system – putting no restraints on rights of ownership and exchange whatever: this would allow trade in sex (prostitution), drugs, and even people (slavery). All real market systems impose restrictions on ownership and exchange out of concern for the public welfare. Still debate continues over to what extent governments should intervene in the workings of the market system.
John Locke, and his followers argue that a free market system best serves to guarantee fundamental human "natural rights" to life, liberty, and property. Governments are instituted, by the consent of the governed, in order to protect these rights and the consensual nature of this compact or covenant imposes moral limits on government. Governmental interference with the life, liberty, and property of individuals – except in order to prevent their infringement on the same rights of others – is unjust and unwarranted. Government regulation of the marketplace infringes on individuals' natural rights without such just warrant and, hence, is a wrongful violation of individual rights that should not be tolerated. Critics of Locke complain, that Locke's assertion of natural rights is baseless and his assertion of the priority of negative (life, liberty, and property rights) is too. If humans do have natural (life, liberty, and property) rights, it doesn't follow that such rights override positive rights to food, housing, and medical care (for instance). Furthermore, critics maintain, Lockean (life, liberty, and property) rights conflict with and may sometimes be overridden by the demands of distributive justice, and free market economies by their very natures create distributive injustices. Finally critics dispute the individualist assumptions underlying Locke's approach, contending that individuals are endowed with life, liberty, and property not by nature alone, but as members of society: since these rights are granted by society, society may rightfully restrict these rights when doing so best promotes the general welfare.
Adam Smith and his followers argue that free market systems best promote the general welfare by maximizing economic utility. Such a system ensures that the economy produces what consumers want with maximum efficiency: the law of supply and demand causes the marketplace to produce the goods consumers desire, and competition between producers puts the inefficient out of business. Consequently, free markets best serve economic efficiency. In such markets agents motivated only by self-interest (a desire for their own profit) are led to serve society's needs "as if by an invisible hand." Government intervention in the workings of the market interferes with the self regulating effect of competition, thus reducing its beneficial consequences, since human planners can never regulate markets as efficiently as the "invisible hand." Critics complain, first, that his argument rests on several false assumptions.
Critics also point to many successful attempts at economic planning as showing that planning is feasible. But, Velasquez observes, it may only be feasible so long as it remains one component within a largely market based economy.
John Maynard Keynes and his followers maintain that government, by investment in the "public sector" and other interventions can help moderate the ups and downs of the business cycle. By judicious governmental intervention, the periodic recessions and depressions that unregulated free markets suffer can be controlled if not avoided entirely. Given the immense economic and human costs of such economic downturns, Keynes maintains, timely governmental interventions to enlarge effective demand and decrease unemployment improve on Smith's laissez faire approach when it comes to maximizing social utility. Post Keynesians address the seeming paradox of stagflation – inflation in conjunction with unemployment – and explain this as the effect of nonmarket forces (especially, unions and monopolies & oligopolies). Post Keynesians propose an even larger role for government: besides boosting aggregate consumption and demand (as Keynes advocated) governments should also curb the power of oligopolies and monopolies.
Social Darwinism maintains that economic competition works like natural biological selection to insure the "survival of the fittest" and thus the improvement of humanity since, under Capitalism, only the fittest individuals and enterprises survive and prosper. In its individualistic form, Social Darwinism is biologically naive in its understanding of "fitness", logically dubious in its transition from the fact of survival to the goodness of the survivors, and mean-spirited with its let-the-weak-die attitude. Social Darwinist sorts of claims when reinterpreted as applying to the evolution of firms or corporations, however, may be more defensible.
Karl Marx and his Communist followers develop the most thorough and severe criticism of the capitalist system of private ownership and free markets. According to Marx the exploitative excesses of early capitalism were symptomatic of the underlying dynamic of a system that promotes distributive injustice, undermines communal relations, and causes alienation. Alienation severs the connection between the worker and both the process of and the products of the production: the product of the wage laborer or proletarian's labor belongs to another, and the process of the production is dictated and controlled by that other, the capitalist. The capitalists or bourgeoisie own the factories and other means of production. The real purpose of government being to serve the interest of the ruling class, in capitalist societies, the government is, in effect, "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (Marx & Engels). Other aspects of capitalist culture constitute an ideology that seeks to justify the continued rule of that class. Capitalism, however, contains the seeds of its own destruction in the form of
These contradictions must eventually give rise to a violent revolution wherein workers seize control of the means of production for themselves and institute the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Under this regime the means of production will be collectively (rather than privately) owned and the economy will be centrally planned and managed (rather than left to the working of the market). With the advent of a classless society and the "new socialist man," it's maintained, the dictatorship of the proletariat will gradually "wither away." Critics complain, first, that Marx's predictions have proved false: immiseration of workers has not occurred; the business cycle has been controlled; and capitalism has not caused the breakdown of community (if this has occurred, it can plausibly be blamed on other factors, and communism causes worse breakdowns). Critics also defend the morality of capitalism on the grounds that capitalist distribution is just on contribution based accounts of distributive justice, and that the utilitarian benefits of capitalist production outweigh any injustices there may be.
In reality, what exist today are all mixed economies – mixing free market economic and command economic elements. There remain substantial differences between national economies as to the degree to which command or free market elements predominate. There also remains substantial debate regarding what is the best mix of governmental regulation and property rights and free markets. The ideal mixture would best combine the efficiency of free-markets with social-welfare serving and justice preserving effects of governmental regulation. Intellectual property rights issues seem to require a similarly mixed approach balancing individual-ownership and community-access considerations.
The following questions will help you judge your comprehension of the materials covered in Unit 3. Please remember you are responsible for the glossary terms above. You need to check your responses against the key included.
Self-Test Key
Question |
Answer |
Objective |
Pages |
1 |
A |
1 |
128 |
2 |
D |
7 |
153-4 |
3 |
B |
2 |
130-1 |
4 |
B |
3 |
135-6 |
5 |
A |
3 |
138-9 |
6 |
D |
4 |
139-41 |
7 |
C |
5 |
141-2 |
8 |
A |
6 |
150 |
9 |
C |
6 |
146 |
10 |
C |
3 |
136-7 |
NOTE: The questions on the module end examination will be closely based on the self-test you have just taken. Often, the examination will even repeat the question-part of self-test questions while varying the answers and distracters (A, B, C, D) choices. For example, question 10 above might appear instead with this set of options –
– making “market forces” (A) the correct answer, since supply and demand are market forces.
CONSEQUENT ADVICE: The self-test questions can be very useful for studying for the module end examination, but only if used in the right way. As the example above shows, ” in the absence of background understanding, (from reading the text, and the study materials) it might not have been helpful to have studied for the exam by memorizing that the answer to the one about market regulation according to Adam Smith was “supply and demand.” In the absence of background understanding, from reading the text, and the study materials, just memorizing “supply and demand” might even be counterproductive in misleading you into guessing “None of the above” (D), which is incorrect. The following points are noteworthy in this connection:
In taking the module end examination it is extremely important that you read the examination questions and options carefully: a little word like not or and can make all the difference between a right and a wrong answer. Pay attention to italicized words and phrases – italics are for emphasis and often provide clues to the questions being asked and the answers being sought.
Competition gets its moral importance from that fact that the self-regulative abilities of free markets – due to supply and demand – provide the main benefits alleged for free markets:
Monopolies (single seller markets) and oligopolies (where a few sellers control a market), being anticompetitive, keep markets from delivering these benefits. Monopolies & oligopolies foster distributive injustices (e.g., price gouging), distributive inefficiencies (demand is less well served), and productive inefficiencies (due do lack of competitive pressure); and monopolies & oligopolies undermine economic liberty in various ways (limiting consumers' discretionary preferences and sellers' access to markets).
True monopolies are rare, but oligopoly conditions are common and have similar anticompetitive dynamics and effects due to the ease with which the few firms controlling the market can join forces and create virtual monopoly conditions thereby. Horizontal mergers between former competitors are the chief cause of oligopolistic conditions. There are three principle schools of thought regarding what, as a matter of public policy, to do in light of this long-term trend in our economy towards diminishing competition.
Page or section numbers given are not the only places where the terms are found in the text. Many of theses terms will appear on the module exams. You should write a definition of each term as you encounter it in your reading for use as a convenient review.
Self-Diagnostic Exam Items |
Textbook Pages |
Objective |
5 |
168 |
1 |
3, 6 |
167-8, 180(LH) |
2 |
2, 9 |
176/181, 181 |
3 |
4 |
169 |
4 |
2, 7 |
176/181, 181 |
5 |
8, 10 |
185, 187 |
6 |
1 |
188-194 |
7 |
If free markets are moral it's because they allocate resources and distribute commodities in ways that are just, that maximize utility, and that respect the liberty of buyers and sellers. Since markets having these benefits depend crucially on their competitiveness, anticompetitive conditions and practices are morally dubious. Monopoly practices and markets and oligopoly practices and markets are two principle types of anticompetitive practices and conditions that free market economies spawn. Under monopoly conditions a single seller controls a market segment. Under oligopoly conditions just a few sellers control a market segment.
Though real markets are all imperfect, perfect competition serves as a useful idealization both for economic purposes of explaining and predicting market behavior, and for ethical purposes, for understanding and assessing the moral case for keeping markets competitive. A perfectly competitive market is defined in terms of seven conditions:
Freely competitive markets, in addition, presuppose
Perfect competition gets its ethical import from that fact that the self-regulative abilities of free markets – in response to supply and demand – provide the principle arguments for their morality. Where supply exceeds demand, prices, profits, and production decrease; where demand exceeds supply, prices, profits, and production increase: thus under conditions of perfect competition production naturally tend toward the equilibrium point (where supply equals demand).
The principle moral benefits alleged for free markets are three:
Even so, this would-be moral justification is limited by additional considerations of positive rights, of care and of character; and it is challenged by competing egalitarian, needs-based and socialist-contribution-based conceptions of distributive justice. Finally, to the extent that actual "free-market" policies fail to be perfectly competitive, their claim to actually having the alleged benefits (and with it their claim to morality) is diminished. Monopoly and oligopoly conditions are morally problematic due to their violation, especially, of the two "basic conditions" for the existence of perfect competition, distribution, and openness.
Monopoly markets, being – "markets in which a single firm is the only seller . . . and which new sellers are barred from entering" (p. 221) are by definition not distributed (rather, concentrated) and not open (rather, closed). Under monopoly conditions, the nonexistence of competition and the inability of competitors to enter (to increase supply and bid prices down) results in artificially high prices; prices above the equilibrium point or natural price. This equilibrium point, being the point at which investors make a fair return (equal to the going-rate across comparable markets), is the point at which capitalist justice is served. Consequently, under monopoly conditions such justice is ill served: the seller charges more and the buyer is forced to pay more than the goods are worth (i.e., their natural price). Furthermore, monopolies foster distributive inefficiency, since demand is less well served; and monopoly conditions remove competitive pressures ordinarily making for increased productive efficiency. Discretionary preferences of consumers also suffer under monopoly conditions: consumers are forced to cut back more on other items than they would have had to (under "normal conditions") to afford the monopolized goods. Finally, monopoly conditions do no so well safeguard economic liberty as open competition does: sellers are not free to enter the market; and buyers buy overpriced products under duress in the absence of alternative vendors.
True monopolies are rare but oligopoly conditions – where a few firms control most of the market – are common and have similar anticompetitive dynamics and effects. Horizontal mergers – between former competitors – are the chief cause of oligopolistic conditions. Oligopoly markets, not unlike monopolies, are not distributed, but largely concentrated: the fewer firms control the market the more "highly concentrated" the market is said to be. Such markets are not open, but relatively closed due to various factors, including anticompetitive stratagems on the part of the oligopoly firms. The anticompetitive effects of oligopolies are aggravated by the ease with which the few firms controlling the market can join forces and create virtual monopoly conditions by their collusion. The anticompetitive effects of such collusion are similar to those of actual monopolies, with the same detrimental effects: capitalist justice is ill served; utility in the form of productive and distributive efficiency is undermined; and rights of economic liberty are infringed. Anticompetitive practices frequently used to maintain oligopolistic control of markets include the following.
Whether a payment is a bribe – and how wrongful a bribe it is – depends on three factors:
Factors 1 and 2 are aggravating: the more these apply the more wrongful the payment, and the more it constitutes a bribe. Factor 3 is mitigating: where no competitive advantage is expected in return, customary payments may -- in effect -- not be bribes at all.
Oligopolies pose a special public policy challenge since the long-term trend in our economy is towards diminishing competition. There are three principle schools of thought regarding what to do in light of this fact. The Do-Nothing view maintains this trend is no problem, claiming competition between industries with substitutable products takes the place of competition within industries; that the countervailing forces of other large organization (especially governments and labor unions) blunts the effects of economic concentration; that markets can be economically efficient with as few as three competitors (as the "Chicago School" claims); and that economies of scale more than offset any ill-effects due to diminished competition. The Anti-trust View advocates breaking up larger firms into smaller units each controlling not more than 3-5% of the market in order to restore competition with all its beneficial effects. The Regulation View advocates the middle course of allowing concentration to preserve economies of scale while using regulation to prevent collusion and ensure that oligopoly firms maintain competitive relations among themselves.
The following questions will help you judge your comprehension of the materials covered in Unit 4. Please remember you are responsible for the glossary terms above. You need to check your responses against the key included.
Question |
Answer |
Objective |
Pages |
1 |
C |
7 |
188-194 |
2 |
B |
3,5 |
176/181 |
3 |
C |
2 |
167-8 |
4 |
D |
4 |
169 |
5 |
D |
1 |
168 |
6 |
C |
2 |
180(LH) |
7 |
C |
5 |
181 |
8 |
B |
6 |
185 |
9 |
A |
3 |
181 |
10 |
D |
5 |
187 |
NOTE: The questions on the module end examination will be closely based on the self-test you have just taken. Sometimes the examination will slightly modify the question-part of self-test questions while varying the answers and distracters (A, B, C, D) unchanged. For example, question 1 above might – keeping the same distracter/answer options the same – be changed to read as follows:
This makes “the regulation view” (D) the correct answer.
CONSEQUENT ADVICE: The self-test questions can be very useful for studying for the module end examination, but only if used in the right way. As the example above shows, ” in the absence of background understanding, (from reading the text, and the study materials) it would not have been helpful to have studied for the exam by memorizing that the answer to the one about public policy was "the anti-trust view." In the absence of background understanding, from reading the text, and the study materials, just memorizing “the anti-trust view ” might even be counterproductive in misleading you into answering “the anti-trust view” (D) to this different question, which is incorrect. The following points are noteworthy in this connection:
In taking the module end examination it is extremely important that you read the examination questions and options carefully: a little word like not or and can make all the difference between a right and a wrong answer. Pay attention to italicized words and phrases – italics are for emphasis and often provide clues to the questions being asked and the answers being sought.