Pros and cons
Sir: I was away when Sir Roy Harrod's review of my book appeared (13 September). Since the one specific objection he makes in- volves a point of much practical importance, I would like to make a belated comment.
In discussing policy questions it is seldom worth pressing charges of inconsistency, and I did not do so with regard to Sir Roy's inclu- sion or non-inclusion of leisure in his concept of the growth objective, to which he gives `priority over all other objectives.' If Sir Roy had read on to the very next sentence (p. 209) he would have come to the main point, which is the precise relationship between this over- riding (growth) objective and the full employ- ment objective, to which he also seems to give overriding priority. For Sir Roy writes (as I immediately go on to quote): 'Any policy measures deliberately designed to increase the level of unemployment are morally wrong. . . . I prefer the Swedish target which they cannot of course achieve fully, of having the unemployed at 0 per cent.'
Of course no one knows at all precisely just what levels of these two objectives are compatible in the British economy at any par- ticular time—(along with satisfactory levels of other objectives). But it is quite possible, and may well be probable, that the realistic policy choice may sometimes rest between very low levels of unemployment and a rather lower growth rate, and vice versa—(especially if export-led growth is considered crucial). Any- how, it is obscurantist and utopian completely to ignore this possibility and to lay down two objectives in absolute, overriding, maximum terms which may well conflict at the mai gin. The discussion of economic policy in Britain has suffered much from economists and poli- ticians blandly assuming that all the objectives they prize must be fully compatible, instead of facing the need for choice and elucidating its probable realistic range.
T. W. Hutchison Faculty of Commerce and Social Science, the University of Birmingham
Previous page
