Clarifications on democracy and economic planning: an engagement with Robin Hahnel

Abstract

Models developed by Robin Hahnel and Pat Devine both claim to rest on democratic planning in an ecosocialist society. Whereas Hahnel depends on a neoclassical framework (commensurability of goods, assumption of homo economics, reliance on marginal costs-benefits), Devine relies on knowledge in different forms as articulated at the individual, institutional, and societal levels by the social owners at each level and incorporates a transformatory dynamic through which particular interests are negotiated into a socially constructed general interest. This paper is part of the “Democratic Economic Planning” theme.

Keywords:

• Democratic economic planning
• Devine
• Hahnel
• participatory planning

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Simon Tremblay-Pepin for his support during the writing of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning; Devine, Democracy and Economic Planning; see also the recent contribution by Legault and Tremblay-Pepin, Democratic Planning, for a detailed exposition of these two approaches. For Parecon, see Albert, Parecon, as well as Albert and Hahnel, Looking Forward. For modifications and extensions of Devine’s model, see Adaman and Devine, “The Economic Calculation Debate,” “On the Economic Theory of Socialism,” “On the Theory of Entrepreneurship,” “Democracy, Participation and Social Planning,” and “Revisiting the Calculation Debate.”

2 The multicriteria decision-making tool provides a framework to assess a set of alternative projects/policies with reference to different (and sometimes conflicting) evaluation criteria. Usually the problem is represented in the form of a matrix depicting the evaluation of each alternative with reference to each criterion. See, for example, Munda, Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation.

3 All quotations in this section are from Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning.

4 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 335.

5 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 335.

6 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 326.

7 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 342.

8 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 331.

9 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 332.

10 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 332

11 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 332.

12 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 327.

13 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 329.

14 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 328.

15 Hahnel, Democratic Economic Planning, 328.

16 For further discussion, see Adaman and Devine, “Democracy, Participation and Social Planning.”

17 Devine, Democracy and Economic Planning, 198.

18 For a recent discussion of degrowth, which promotes a slowing down in our economic activities, see Akbulut, “Degrowth.”

19 Adaman and Devine, “On the Economic Theory of Socialism,” 79.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Fikret Adaman

Fikret Adaman teaches Economics at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Turkey, working on economic democracy and ecological economics.

Pat Devine

Pat Devine is an honorary research fellow at Manchester University in Manchester, United Kingdom. He is an economist concerned mainly with industrial economics and comparative economic systems.