Progressive utilization theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:07, 7 March 2023

Revision as of 12:59, 16 March 2023

Line 53:

Nonetheless, Sarkar observed aspects of [[Economic planning|market planning]] that help to create and sustain a healthy economy.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|title=Growing a new economy|last1=Bjonnes|first1=Roar|last2=Sevaergrah|first2=Caroline|publisher=Inner World Books|year=2016|isbn=9781881717539}}</ref> In summary, Proutist thought considers that planning allows the market to protect its stakeholders from the meanderings of [[Neoliberalism|neo-liberal economics]] where profit-motive speaks highest.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=http://www.prout.org.au/books/Self-Reliant%20Regional%20Development.pdf|title=Self-Reliant Regional proutist development|last1=Ghista|first1=Dhanjoo|last2=Towsey|first2=Michael|website=Prout.org|page=7}}</ref> However, he stresses that a planning committee at a national level should only outline the broader aspects of economic development, leaving the details to be resolved by planning bodies at a local level where problems are best understood and more easily dealt with.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.proutinstitute.org/download/block-level-planning/|title=Block-level planning|last=Logan|first=Ronald}}</ref> (see [[diseconomies of scale]]). Consequently, this kind of top-down planning will leave communities, enterprises and ultimately workers with a significant level of freedom to decide their own economic future (see [[Decentralized planning (economics)|decentralized planning]]).<ref name=":6" />

Prout also claims that the [[nationalization]] of enterprises is inefficient due to the larger costs and amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep state-controlled industries running.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Human Society part 1|last=Sarkar|first=Prabhat|publisher=Ananda Marga Publications|year=1959}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/12/economist-explains-1|title=Why nationalisation has fallen out of favour in Britain|worknewspaper=The economist}}</ref> Yet, there are some industries that should be nationalized, operating on a "no-profit, no-loss" principle.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Prout in a Nutshell volume 4 part 21|last=Sarkar|first=Prabhat|publisher=Ananda Marga Publications|year=1986}}</ref>

Concerning wealth distribution among the population, Sarkar argues for an "optimal inequality" where the wage gap between the richer strata of society is substantially subsided.<ref name=":5" /> [[Richard B. Freeman|Richard Freeman]], a Harvard economist, points out income inequality comes from the monopoly of power and other activities with "negative consequences" in terms of social development.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/edsall-just-right-inequality.html|title=Just Right Inequality|last=Thomas|first=Edsall|date=2014|work=The New York Times}}</ref> Nonetheless, Prout is not in favour of total income equality, claiming that in a society where material motivation to work is absent, the willingness to strive for financial success and to thrive in the creative development of industry and society will be lost in its citizens. Therefore, this theory argues for the implementation of a policy allowing the most meritorious in society to receive added perks for the added benefits they bring to society. It is thus theorized that the communist's motto of [[from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs]] cannot work in the real world. Prout proposes instead a minimum and maximum wage, roughly attributed according to the value the work of each person brings to society. We see examples of attempts in this direction in companies like [[Mondragon Corporation|Mondragon]] or [[Whole Foods Market|Whole Foods]].