- Email: [email protected]
Why is there no US national plan?
COMMEAT
Why is there no US national plan? National planning -in the sense of a more rational and systematic allocation of resources-will become more widespread in the USA in the next decade. The primary driving forces are: slower growth, more limited resources, greater economic uncertainties (unemployment and inflation), and growing expectations with respect to health and safety. At the national level, the evidence is provided by the creation of new agencies to assist Congress (Congressional Budget Office, Office of Technology Assessment, Institute for Congress) and the creation or expansion of the power of particular regulatory agencies dealing with health and safety (Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration). National planning-in the extreme form in which government decision making progressively replaces the market mechanism-is, at best, a remote possibility. The reason is clear: the existence of a highly pluralistic society that has great difficulty in defining national goals, setting priorities, or deciding how to implement them. Many recent examples can be cited to support this view, in national behaviour with respect to energy, transportation, urban development, and health insurance. The extreme forms of national planning are, however, not entirely dead. The Humphrey-Javits bill (creation of a national economic planning board) and the Humphrey-Hawkins bill (limits on unemployment) are not likely to be considered seriously unless the USA experiences severe and long depressions, inflation. If massive unemployment (above lOoh), or sustained double-figure such severe economic dislocations do occur, then the clamour from some sectors for government to step in to replace market mechanisms (by, for example, price and wage control, credit allocation schemes, or industry sector output controls, or by the government acting as employer of the last resort) will grow and will probably not be ignored. Are such measures likely to work? Not any better than they have in the past in the USA; therefore, even under these circumstances, national planning as defined above is not likely to develop a lasting toehold in the next decade.
Roy Amara
Roy Amara is President of the Institute for the Future.
FUTURES
December 1977
Why is there no US national plan? National planning -in the sense of a more rational and systematic allocation of resources-will become more widespread in the USA in the next decade. The primary driving forces are: slower growth, more limited resources, greater economic uncertainties (unemployment and inflation), and growing expectations with respect to health and safety. At the national level, the evidence is provided by the creation of new agencies to assist Congress (Congressional Budget Office, Office of Technology Assessment, Institute for Congress) and the creation or expansion of the power of particular regulatory agencies dealing with health and safety (Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration). National planning-in the extreme form in which government decision making progressively replaces the market mechanism-is, at best, a remote possibility. The reason is clear: the existence of a highly pluralistic society that has great difficulty in defining national goals, setting priorities, or deciding how to implement them. Many recent examples can be cited to support this view, in national behaviour with respect to energy, transportation, urban development, and health insurance. The extreme forms of national planning are, however, not entirely dead. The Humphrey-Javits bill (creation of a national economic planning board) and the Humphrey-Hawkins bill (limits on unemployment) are not likely to be considered seriously unless the USA experiences severe and long depressions, inflation. If massive unemployment (above lOoh), or sustained double-figure such severe economic dislocations do occur, then the clamour from some sectors for government to step in to replace market mechanisms (by, for example, price and wage control, credit allocation schemes, or industry sector output controls, or by the government acting as employer of the last resort) will grow and will probably not be ignored. Are such measures likely to work? Not any better than they have in the past in the USA; therefore, even under these circumstances, national planning as defined above is not likely to develop a lasting toehold in the next decade.
Roy Amara
Roy Amara is President of the Institute for the Future.
FUTURES
December 1977