Democracy and Progress by David McCord WrightReview by: B. S. KeirsteadThe Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique etde Science politique, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov., 1948), pp. 533-534Published by: Wiley on behalf of Canadian Economics AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/137841 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 04:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and Canadian Economics Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique et deScience politique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.127 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:35:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books 533

Democracy and Progress. By DAVID MCCORD WRIGHT. New York: Mac- millan Company [Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada]. 1948. Pp. xviii, 220. ($3.50)

ALTHOUGH Professor Wright is careful to dissociate himself from Professor Hayek, and is careful also to establish points that Professor Hayek was content to assume, his argument in this little book is not essentially different from that of The Road to Serfdom.

Professor Wright believes that individual freedom is a good in itself, and that political and economic freedom are mutually dependent and are both necessary to progress. While he has technical purposes in mind, he believes that technical progress and progress in civilization are intimately connected, and both arise from the same social causes. Professor Wright argues that progress is not possible without freedom and he insists that freedom is gravely threatened by what he loosely describes as "economic planning," "socialism," and the policies of "the left." He also points out, quite fairly, that the pro- tectionist and cartel policies of "the right" are likewise damaging to liberty and progress. Professor Wright recognizes that both "right" and "left" are responding to a swing in popular feeling away from the idea of progress to the idea of stability. He thinks, however, that this popular demand could be met by contra-cyclical fiscal policy and a minimum of social security measures. For the rest, Professor Wright is an advocate of competition, "economic freedom," and equality of educational opportunity.

It is difficult, I find, to pass even a temporary reviewer's judgment on this book. Taken point by point or chapter by chapter, the book contains much sound sense, trenchant arguments, and sardonic exposure of the myths, slogans, and cliches of both "right" and "left." I particularly liked what Professor Wright has to say about contemporary education. But the whole is put together so as to constitute what I cannot help but regard as a perverse and mischievous effect. There is no fundamental analysis of the causes of social change or of the nature of the social process. We are presented with a highly simplified choice between the bad cartellists of the right, the bad planners of the left, and the nice liberal middle way of competition. To be fair, one must hasten to add that Professor Wright is quite clear that the competition would not be the perfect competition of the text-books. It would be imperfect, but that, as he quite rightly says, is all we ever had. As long as we have enough of it, however, progress and liberty are protected. Both, Professor Wright believes, would disappear if the cartellists or the planners had their way.

Now I have suggested that this is perverse. The demand for security on the part of the masses, and for stability on the part of business men is no historical accident. The extension of the powers of government and of the economic functions of government has come as a result of fundamental changes in our economy. It is true that competition was always imperfect, in the strict sense, but the imperfect competition of the modern industrial economy in- volves great concentrations of power and the sharpening of conflict between worker and employer. Repeatedly the public interest, as contrasted with the private interests of one group or another, has necessitated government regu-

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.127 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:35:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

534 The Canadian Journal of Econom-ics and Political Science

lation. Similarly contemporary urban society has lost the capacity of more primitive, more self-sufficient societies, to withstand the vicissitudes of the business cycle. Not only is the demand for greater security a natural social outgrowth, freedom itself is rendered dubious. Freedom means the right to participate consciously in the social judgment, as much as the right to live one's own individual life as one chooses. To what extent can a society claim to be free when its citizens are both unaware of the true nature of the social events which fix their destiny, and, even if aware, are unable to exercise the necessary social controls to direct their economy towards the ends they desire? Thus, on the one hand, the conscious control of the economic process by responsible officers of the society is essential both to freedom and to the security which citizens of the modern state demand.

On the other hand the identification of all the abuses of bureaucracy with "planning," "socialism," and "the left" is a piece of sloppy thinking that cannot be allowed. The British literature on the problem of bureaucracy is extensive, and includes both official documents and academic writing. If Professor Wright is not familiar with this literature, he cannot be ignorant of American academic discussions. The technical nature of much administration, the role of the expert, the intermingling of the administrative, legislative, and judicial processes have all combined to create a trend towards increased administrative powers, and towards an irresponsible and arbitrary exercise of these powers. It would be going too far to say that this problem of bu- reaucracy has nothing to do with economic planning, because undoubtedly the increase in the economic functions of the state will intensify it. But the problem is perversely stated if we are led to believe that we are to choose between freedom and economic planning. If we choose either alternative of that dilemma we shall lose both freedom and security. Our real problem is to decide how much planning, whether on a national, regional, or municipal basis (it is a common fallacy of which Professor Wright is not guiltless to suppose all planning to be national and to contribute to the increase in the power of the national state) and at the same time to safeguard responsible government and individual rights against the abuses of administrative power. Already, in parliamentary governments, some headway has been made in devising techniques to protect freedom against administrative abuses. More remains to be done, and must be done whether or not there is an extension of economic planning.

Professor Wright has busied himself solving unreal problems and flogging dead horses. Towards the study of the real problem he contributes little but confusion.

B. S. IKEIRSTEAD

McGill University.

The Farmer in the Second World War. By WALTER W. WILCOX. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press. 1947. Pp. xii, 410. ($4.00)

THERE can be no doubt that Professor Wilcox has made a real contribution by writing this book. The worthwhileness of the volume results from the im- portance and comprehensiveness of its subject-matter, together with the

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.127 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:35:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions