TOO MANY SHOPS ?
By G. L. SCHWARTZ The Retail Trade Committee set up by the Board of Trade is now busily formulating proposals for the closing down of shops, and in both the second and third of its reports there is an addendum con- tributed by the representatives of Labour, which insists, almost angrily it appears, that the present difficulties of the retail trades are partly due to the absence in the past of any planned economy, " Which meant that anyone was free to open a shop without regard to the actual requirements and needs of the public. This indiscriminate opening of shops produced competitive trading of the worst kind." Not confining themselves to the immediate problem, they express the definite view that " as the indiscriminate opening of shops in the past has led to such unfortunate results, post-war retailing should be controlled." The Times rightly interprets this as-implying some curtailment of what has hitherto been the unquestioned right of any- body who wishes to do so to set up a shop, whenever and wherever he likes, to sell whatever goods he prefers to handle.
Well, the war is imposing a ruthless closing of shops, " without regard to the actual requirements and needs of the public," and we can wait until the end of it to ascertain whether the public suffers more from indiscriminate opening than from controlled closing. My Personal view is that the public is going to miss sadly the little shop round the corner. But if wartime difficulties are a pertinent argu- ment against pre-war freedom, it can be pointed out—and the Labour representatives would probably agree—that retail shops are not unique in this respect. The difficulties of the prohibited areas partly &rise from the fact that anyone was free to lip at the seaside. Is it tactless to point out that difficulties in war production—problems of dilution, trade practices, demarcation, &c.—partly arise from the fact that anyone was free to organise a trade union? Can we not sym- pathise with overworked officials, harassed by the problems of pro- visioning and sheltering the population, if they attribute their diffi- culties as partly due to the fact that anyone was free to be born?
As good democrats, the Labour representatives ought to have some qualms about preventing Bill's missus from acquiring a little general shop. They ought, moreover, to ask themselves where else in the economic system the people excluded from retailing are to fit in. In all proposals for the sectional planning of industry, nobody con- cerned with the scheme for a particular industry has any plan for the people it is proposed to keep out of the industry. But they are obsessed with,the notion that freedom of enterprise inevitably pro- duces chaos arising from " competitive trading of the worst kind." They would argue, as so many people do, that chaos in the retail trades is evidenced by the number of shopkeepers who go bankrupt or only hang on by the skin of their teeth, being dead but refusing to lie down. In many cases the trader, it is emphasised, is really living on capita! and ekeing out a living by dissipating his substance. Suppose this were true: is it a decisive argument?
In the first place, it is in some ways a curious argument to come from people who are always denouncing the profit motive. Here is a group of conscious or unconscious philanthropists who do not abide by the strict market test: they do not demand for themselves the remuneration which it is assumed an impartial informed tribunal would regard as adequate. They could and ought to earn more. Now in what way does the community suffer by this behaviour? Suppose Bill had won his million and had generously decided-to pass on some of its benefits to his fellow-men. One method of bestowing £5,000 in charity would be to open a shop in a place where sordid enterprise would not operate. Is this any different from opening a clinic, a swimming-pool or a lending library in a place where the profit motive would not provide such amenities?
Or suppose Bill confined his philanthropy to the family and argued in the following sophisticated way: " Of course, it doesn't pay on a strict accounting basis. The missus sits there all the week for about 18 bob return on her labour. But she's happy. I could have taken her on a world cruise and then set her up in a luxury flat. But she's happier where she is." The economist is bound to concede that the missus' satisfaction is part of the National Income equally with the eighteen shillings. Nor is this behaviour confined to the retail trades. My own profession, the academic one, embraces hundreds of people—I do not claim to be one myself—who are not earning as much as they could in other fields. The meagre rewards in the literary world are a byword : does this justify " a curtailment of the hitherto unquestioned right of anyone who wishes to take up a pen whenever and wherever he likes to write upon any subject he prefers to treat "?
There remains the argument that this may be all very well for the people who can afford to indulge themselves, but it spoils the market for the people who depend solely upon the occupation for a living. The answer is that 'this is one of the factors affecting economic relationships ; that nearly every occupation is subject to it in some degree or other, and that the economic organisation is adjusted to this situation. I regard myself as eminently qualified by training and character to give simple Bible lessons to young children on Sunday mornings. My notion of a reasonable fee is two guineas per hour. The whole demand for Sur.day-school teachers is satisfied by a supply which is forthcoming for no remuneration at all. This is surely a benefit to the community, even if it rules out Sunday-school teaching as a means of livelihood. This is an extreme case, but other occupations differ only in degree. The supply of people hoping to earn a living by administering justice must adapt itself to a market in which thousands of J.P.s perform the work for nothing. My price for acting as a legislator is Li,5oo a year; a sufficient number of what in some occupations are known opprobriously as scabs undercut this price and do the job for ,C600. A literary or journalistic career is subject to the competition of people who are not only willing to write for nothing, but actually pay to see their stuff in print. Even in peace-time, the scope for green- grocers is reduced by the activities of allotment-holders, and char-
women have to reconcile themselves to the fact that many house- wives scrub the floors themselves.
The examples are endless, but one of the most flagrant is that of my own occupation of professional economist. There are over 20
million adults in this country, and I calculate that 19 million of them are ready to pronounce upon economic problems at any time of the day or night. Talk about the indiscriminate opening of shops : it is nothing to the indiscriminate opening of mouths on this highly expert science. I could represent this as a very serious matter, and protest against the losses and hardships inflicted on me by this un- fair competition. I could borrow the jargon of other occupations and talk bitterly of blacklegs, incompetents, quacks and charlatans, and, of course, I could be subtle enough to argue that the community ought to be protected against this sort of thing. The thought of a licensing system as applied to economists makes my mouth water.
But, alas! new shops have opened with grand window displays by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. J. B. Priestley, Mr. H. G. Wells and a host of other people, more of whom would receive a licence from a body half as exacting as the Traffic Commissioners. Now I come to think of it, the Retail Trade Committee, pronouncing upon a subject of high economic import, is composed of twelve persons with only one professional economist, and all of them are doing the job for nothing. I would have charged too guineas (counsel's opinion) and been astonished at my own moderation. With all this indiscriminate competition, the economic profession should be in a state of appalling chaos, but I can testify that it enjoys a consider- able degree of stability. We orthodox economists are supposed to be the apostles of a sordid self-seeking creed. Let me claim this: NI& have never demanded the licensing of our profession ; we have never imposed demarcation, trade practices, or restrictions of any kind, and it is inconceivable that we should ever do so. If some of us believe in freedom of enterprise, give us credit for this, that our practice conforms to our precept.
There has been some complaint of the vagueness and generalities of the Atlantic and other charters of liberty which have been prom mulgated of late. Let me give concrete expression in one field to these human aspirations—the right of anyone, regardless of race, religion, colour or any other distinction, to go anywhere in the world and open a little general shop. But I have the.melancholy feeling that the people who would subscribe to, and faithfully abide by, this interpretation could all be served by one little general shop.
Previous page
