Agricultural Planning And Development

It has been previously stated that in implementing rural development project in developing countries, a good starting point is to develop the agriculture in the area. In this section, we shall survey the pre-requisites for such a development and then study the factors of importance to be taken into consideration when agricultural development is initiated in an area, a region or in a country.

In developing countries, a large part of the total population still lives on the land and depends on it for their livelihood. In many developing countries, present estimates indicates that two-thirds of the national income and four-fifths of the exports come from agriculture and, traditionally, on little changed systems of crop and animal production. Under such conditions people generally are poor and average incomes barley exceed USD 100 per head per year. In the some of the developing countries, the average increase of the gross national product, over a specific period of time, was just over five percent per year, but between two-to-three percent of this national growth was used by the added population, thus making the rate of growth too slow and too small to have any political, social, economical impact on the population.

Generally speaking, in developing countries, agriculture is the main source of income, its supports the bulk of population, and is the largest potential market and has the greatest growth prospects. It can provide part of the capital for industrial development and can earn badly needed foreign exchange in order to develop other sector of the economy as well as health and social services. Agriculture also has to provide the raw material for other industries and use the manufactured goods of these industries. For example, if rural development is set so as to have industries. For example, if rural development is set so as to have industries and other non-agricultural development located in rural areas, then agriculture will cater for the needs for the rural community and thus it can be most effective. Such small scale rural and non-rural industries plus non-agricultural development will bring in such infrastructures as roads, bridges, electricity, water supply networks, irrigation systems, storage facilities, and established industries which produce or service essential agricultural inputs such as farm machinery and equipment, tools agrichemicals (insecticides, wee killers fungicides, etc), fertilizers, seeds, service and repair shops, etc. Moreover, rural inhabitants, peasants, small farmers small-holders and their  families can purchase agricultural products and manufactured outputs such as plastic goods, paper, textiles, shoes, clothing, food, drinks, tobacco, etc. In this way the market for local products is expanded and employment opportunities in rural areas are enhanced.

During the last four decades, due to rapidly growing populations and many other social and political factors, many developing countries have not been able to accumulate capital for agricultural and rural development rapidly enough.

To start with, traditional farmers of developing countries can accumulate and invest a modest capital if they are not restricted by high rents or interest rates, and are organized into sound and efficient cooperatives. However, in general, the amount of capital saved is small. So the capital for exports is obtained through taxation and marketing boards. Under such conditions a considerable amount of capital for development is obtained by using freely available local materials, self-help projects and party or totally available labor, if national, and local motivations are strong and local labor forces are seasonally under employed. China and Israel are two examples where major capital works have been constructed from freely given labor, and  rural people have volunteered to build roads, drains, bridges farm buildings, public baths, houses, village halls, community schools, etc.

In recent years, due to self sufficiency of developed countries which are the major buyers of raw agricultural materials, and the introduction of synthetic substitutes, the developing nations have been competing severally among themselves. Attempts to regulate this competition through community agreements have not been satisfactory. The result has been lower exchange earning in the face of cut-price competition by other developing nations offering the same commodities. This was the case with cotton export

It is possible for developing countries to improve agricultural production technology, decrease the cost per unit of production, increase export prices without diminishing profits, and making better use of foreign exchange, which at present, may frequently be spent on food and  other agricultural commodities, most of which could easily be produced locally. But many of the poorer developing countries have not been able to alleviate their trading situation by greater exports of agricultural products and thus have turned top the developed countries for investment and capital. In reality, although some of the developing countries may be politically independent, they have to look a board for a considerable part of their capital needs. In recent years there have been substantial foreign developing countries. Where the political situation has been unfavorable, both native private investment and foreign investment has declined. International provision of capital and aid to governments and their subsides have also dimensioned.

Assuming the major step in implementing rural development is to secure increased productivity of the agricultural sector of the national economy, we now proceed to examine how to plan agricultural development at the national level.

The process of decision making by governments for the agricultural development policies and implementation of such policies over a certain period of time is generally termed national planning for agricultural development. In preparing a plan of policies and action for agricultural development, whether in developed or developing countries, we must consider the following points.

  1. What are the present needs of agriculture in different regions of the country?
  2. What steps must be taken to meet these needs now and in the foreseeable future?
  3. What are the nature and amount if natural, physical, financial and manpower resources available to present, or they can be mobilized in the near future meet the requirements of agricultural development? Agricultural needs must be worked out and available for planning
  4. Identification definition of priorities and decision making  n such priorities in the agricultural development sector in order to use available resources efficiently
  5. The national plan for agricultural development must be flexible and continuous. This is to allow for changing priorities of agriculture, and changes in national policies and different  related sectors of the economy
  6. Technical knowledge and competence of those responsible for agricultural plans as well as general fields and industries is essential for sound planning, if the programs are to be effective and operative.

In planning for agricultural development at the national level for a developing country, the following points deserve especial attention

  1.  In a national planning program for agriculture, development or crop and animal production, marketing, local availability inputs, introduction of new technology, incentives to farm operators, and transportation should be given top priority. Unless these are present and working properly, other programs of agriculture will not show the expected and desired results
  2. parallel to development of the top priorities mentioned programs which encourage and accelerate agricultural development such as credit, education  of farm and rural people and improvement of agricultural land and other related fields should be planned and undertaken
  3. Agricultural planning at the national level can never be complete. In the same way as other partial governmental programs can be planned, because actual production of crops and other farm products cannot be planned in the same manner as for rural health or road building programs. In the final analysis, for greater productivity, many decision must be left to farmers, in the  light of the conditions prevailing the country or region at the time
  4. National agricultural plans must consist of separate regional agricultural plans. Actions taken to increase agricultural productivity vary enormously from one region to another in the same country. Regions with similar potential agricultural advancement will not have the same productivity under given conditions. Normally, the more advanced region will have a different priority, plan of development greater and faster increase in production, compared with less advanced regions.
  5. For the poorer rural people with low-fertility agricultural development must be made in order to prepare them for more advanced development plans. Here, implementation of farming systems research and extension training and service command special attention.
  6. Production of crops and animal products and also markets must be developed simultaneously. Farm products produced in a region and profitably sold, determine the agricultural potential of that region. Therefore, in planning for the national or regional development of agriculture, estimates of probable internal or foreign demand for selected farm products over the next few years should be made. Foods such as milk, mea, eggs, fruit and vegetables are consumed at a greatest rare than wheat, corn (Maize) and bean. Also the demand for these foods increases rapidly with industrial and urban development. Demand projections should be made for those farm products which give the greatest and fastest increase and return, if the necessary technology and facilities are available.
  7. Increased profitability of farming

At national or regional level, increasing the production particular farm crop or animal product over cast for the securing the maximum margin of returns over cast for the business of farming as a whole. Farmers use different types of crops, farm equipment, fertilizers, manures, insecticides etc, depending on which combination of inputs yields them the highest net return. Thus, in planning agriculture at national or regional levels, care should be taken not to use the total acreage under crops or the total number of livestock as the main criteria for judging success. It is the net return of an immense number of farm business and enterprises of different sizes and types which produce different products that contribute to the national agricultural economy. It is arriving at the correct combination of these various types by planning that makes each of these small farms profitable, and it is this experience of a good margin of profit that means that the planning at all levels has been successful.

  1. In planning for regional development of agriculture, it should be noted that certain types of investment take several years to become fully effective. Agricultural land expansion, water resource development, agricultural research, changing the attitudes of farmers to trust, respect and accept innovations, extension agents and service, all take time. Therefore, plans must  have continuity and be devised well in advance, for the  profitable and successful implementation of each sector on time
  2. Attention should also be given top the quality of production in many developing countries, large, schemes of rural education, credit  and health services are initiated without due attention to upgrading the skill and experience of those operating the schemes of working for them over the years. Therefore, allocations of funds to different sectors of agricultural development should be made wisely after careful review of the plans for each activity and the availability of relatively skilled manpower.
  3. Local coordination of the main activities essential to higher farm production, the availability of extension service, farm  supplies and equipment, as well as the local testing of some of these inputs  to convince farmers and gain their confidence, is quite important. Therefore, in preparing a national plan for agricultural development, coordination of these activities is not only necessary at national and regional levels, but also at the district, country and local levels, where farmers and rural people are involved.
  4. Experience wise judgment, reliable data and surveys in preparation for agricultural development should be used. Expenditure on in0service training for extension agents, their refresher courses, or establishment of a crop and animal research station will, indirectly, increase agricultural productivity over a period of several years. In planning to collect figures, census data, and statistics, it should be remembered that dependable and reliable answers to certain sections of the national agricultural plan can be given by correct data, but coordination of all parts of such a national plan requires quantitative judgment by experienced planners who possess a through understanding of agriculture and rural development activities in the area in a region or the country.
  5. Opinions expressed by farmers should be considered. Plans for agricultural development should be drawn up, based on adequate knowledge and information as to the needs of farmers, their problems and their preferences.
  6. Preparation of a joint plan for agriculture and industrial development. Generally, industrialization increases the number of wage earners and indirectly increases the demand for farm products, or, conversely, consumer goods produced by industry and made available in rural markets encourage farmers to produce more and sell more, in order to buy more consumer goods. Domestic industry aimed at producing farm equipment and supplies, lowers the cost of farm products produced. Therefore, any plans for agricultural development should also involve industrialization and should be related to it. In some countries, national agricultural plans complement or supplement rural development plans and rural small industries.
  7. In national plans, all that has been accomplished up to date should be included. Before, planning a new program, allocating finances, budgets, and physical and human resources careful assessment of what  has already been accomplished must be made.
  8. National plans for agricultural productivity should be continuous and reviewed as deemed necessary. The program of agricultural development may change from time to time in different developing countries and in different regions of the same country, to ensure a high level of productivity. Other governmental policies related to and affecting agriculture should also be reviewed continuously. Therefore, no policy should be regarded as permanent. For example, land reform policy introduced into a country to break up large estates and changes in agricultural technology and increasing rural employment opportunities. As a result, national agricultural plans should be made sufficiently flexible and continuous to accommodate such an important reform and he profound political and social changes that can be involved.

 Mosser (177,178) considers a series of eleven steps or principles that are most necessary for agricultural development in a region or country where already a moderately thriving agriculture is underway. Under such conditions, the considers a production. Some of the principles he proposes have already been mentioned, but they are indicated here for the sake f completeness.

  1. Modern agriculture cannot be commodity specific. As an agricultural economy changes for the better, the range of crops with time. People consume more of some foods as they earn more. Such as vegetables, fruit, milk, meat and eggs, and less of others, such as potatoes, wheat and rice. Thus the cropping pattern of a region changes s that the farm product can remain profitable. The establishment of agricultural support services such as the provision of fertilizers, insecticides, machinery service and repairs, etc, will aid patterns of land development that can be used flexibly to produce crops and animal products most profitable at different periods in the future.
  2. Careful planning from the present set up. To bring about higher agricultural productivity, a number of different facilities and services must be established in a large number of places in a yearly basis with a reasonable period of time. To plan for future development of agriculture, a careful inventory of present farming practices and agri-support activities must be available.
  3. It is important to recognize and give active support for food production in farming areas. Services to support agricultural production must be easily accessible to farmers. Those most immediately needed in farm production include sources of farm suppliers and equipment, markets for farm productions, local verification trials, sources of credit and extension services and good feeder roads to the highways connecting larger centers of consumption.
  4. Farming districts are the basic units for expanding and developing a progressive rural structure for greater agricultural productivity. District units made up of several farming localities are needed for efficient services, etc. The farming district is the smallest unit of the total rural complex of public and private agri-support services on which modern and growing agricultural production depends.
  5. Local verification trials. A favorable crop or livestock response in one location does not mean equal profitability of the same practice in each farm locality. Thus, before a new set f practices is recommended to farmers, local verification trials are needed to establish the merit of each practice. Later modifications to the trials will be needed to make them even more profitable in the local conditions.
  6. Development of rural structure for different growth potential regions. A minimum skeleton network of road is needed to give support to provision of agri-support services, social and community services, and wherever there is a possibility of increasing agricultural production, for example, areas designated as having areas will be the only areas where commodity oriented projects will be successful. Therefore, they deserve the highest priority for the creation of a progressive rural structure with sufficient number of fully equipped farming districts and localities to serve all farms.
  7. Agricultural growth and rural welfare are interdependent. Generally speaking, increasing rural welfare companies agricultural growth. The agricultural growth and the non-economic aspects of rural welfare are mutually interdependent and each has a role to play serving the broader goals of national integration, economic justice and social well-being.
  8. Commodity oriented projects increase production of specific farm products and serve in securing coordinated co-operation among various agri-support facilities and services. It is the support activities that can accomplish the success of the commodity oriented projects in areas with immediate agricultural growth potential, where economic production increases can be secured in a relatively short period of time.
  9. Intensity of rural programs should fit regional potential for agricultural growth. Different regions of developing countries have the following agricultural potentials for growth.
    1. farms and lands  where there is immediate growth potential  for agriculture
    2. Lands  of low  agricultural growth potential, but which are frequently used for  crop production
    3. Non-agricultural rural  lands such as deserts, mountains and other lands out suitable for cultivation

Each type of growth potential, according to Mosher (177,178) requires a rural welfare program and especial agricultural growth programs to suit the potential fertility and production capability of each area

  1. Initiatives in planning should be encouraged with respect to progressive rural structure. Local initiative provides first- hand knowledge of local conditions, leads to greater participation by rural people, while national planning for agriculture growth may provide the complementary elements of a progressive rural structure. All contribute to increased and enhanced agricultural development.
  2. Establishment f a set of procedural steps to give effect to these general principles. In creating a progressive rural structure, it must be decided what is to be done, in what order, in which place, over what period of time and how much it is going to cost. A procedural step in a progressive rural structure varies for each place and depends on sound information for the area already having been obtained. Generally speaking, in developing countries, agriculture is the main source of income, its supports the bulk of population, and is the largest potential market and has the greatest growth prospects.

During the last four decades, due to rapidly growing populations and many other social and political factors, many developing countries have not been able to accumulate capital for agricultural and rural development rapidly enough.

China and Israel are two examples where major capital works have been constructed from freely given labor, and  rural people have volunteered to build roads, drains, bridges farm buildings, public baths, houses, village halls, community schools, etc.

The national plan for agricultural development must be flexible and continuous. This is to allow for changing priorities of agriculture, and changes in national policies and different related sectors of the economy.

Agricultural land expansion, water resource development, agricultural research, changing the attitudes of farmers to trust, respect and accept innovations, extension agents and service, all take time. Therefore, plans must have continuity and be devised well in advance, for the profitable and successful implementation of each sector on time.

Experience wise judgment, reliable data and surveys in preparation for agricultural development should be used. Expenditure on in0service training for extension agents, their refresher courses, or establishment of a crop and animal research station will, indirectly, increase agricultural productivity over a period of several years.

Generally, industrialization increases the number of wage earners and indirectly increases the demand for farm products, or, conversely, consumer goods produced by industry and made available in rural markets encourage farmers to produce more and sell more, in order to buy more consumer goods.

To bring about higher agricultural productivity, a number of different facilities and services must be established in a large number of places in a yearly basis with a reasonable period of time. To plan for future development of agriculture, a careful inventory of present farming practices and agri-support activities must be available.

Local initiative provides first- hand knowledge of local conditions, leads to greater participation by rural people, while national planning for agriculture growth may provide the complementary elements of a progressive rural structure. All contribute to increased and enhanced agricultural development.

~~ These are the notes from my Rural Development class @ UoM ~~

Share

IT Consulting Ethics – Part 3 – Benefit-Cost Analysis and Government Considerations

If the principal objective of a not-for-profit organization is to maximize some aspect of its non-pecuniary mission, the marginal comparison criteria applied in the for-profit sector to revenues and costs should be equally applicable in the not-for-profit sector to the quantifiable    characteristics of the mission being pursued. “Benefit-cost” analysis may provide decision criteria for the organization manager in the government and not-for-profit sectors. The sum of all benefits (non-pecuniary as well as revenue) resulting from mission pursuit constitutes the numerator, B, of the benefit-cost ratio. Its denominator, C, consists of the sum of all costs (non-pecuniary as well as pecuniary) incurred in pursuing the mission. If the value of the ratio is a number greater than unity (i.e., B/C > 1), then the activity under analysis is justifiable; any benefit-cost ratio less than unity (i.e., B/C < 1) suggests that the activity is unwarranted.

Simple benefit-cost analysis has been extended to the concept of marginal benefit-cost analysis. This version is applicable to situations where the question is whether to do more or less of the activity which is already in progress. The numerator of the marginal benefit-cost ratio includes only the additional benefits which are expected to flow from some increment of the activity; the denominator sums only the increased costs incurred by the activity increment. The same decision criterion holds for the marginal as for the simple benefit-cost ratio: a value greater than unity warrants the activity increment while a value less than unity indicates that the activity increment should not be undertaken. While marginal benefit-cost analysis has been used most often as a decision criterion in the not-for-profit sector, it is apparent that the for-profit criteria of marginal revenue and marginal costs are special cases of marginal benefits and costs where the benefits and costs are pecuniary values (or equivalents).

Both simple and marginal benefit-cost analyses are subject to bias and fraught with the potential for abuse. The bias follows from the requirement to include all benefits (psychic and other non-pecuniary benefits as well as any revenues resulting from the activity) and all relevant costs (non-pecuniary psychic and opportunity costs as well as explicit money costs). The problem is that a decision maker who is has a predisposition favoring a proposed activity tends to exhaustively identify all possible benefits and also tends to overestimate their money value equivalents. A decision maker with such a predisposition also tends to be more casual about identifying the relevant costs, and may also be inclined to underestimate their money value equivalents. By the same token, a decision maker with a predisposition against an activity tends to do the opposite, i.e., to casually overlook some benefits and underestimate the values of those identified, while exhaustively finding all relevant costs and carefully estimating their full money-value equivalents. Because of the subjectivity involved, it is entirely possible for two decision makers, confronted by precisely the same prospects and with the same information, to estimate widely divergent benefit-cost ratios and reach opposite decisions about whether to proceed with the activity.

Because capitalism (or market economy) is the form of economic organization to which the world seems to be drawn, I shall presume its general characteristics in subsequent discussion of the role of government. Given this presumption, there are six principal points of contact between firms and the government.

(1) Along with other entities in the economy, the government is a demander of goods and services from private-sector business firms; i.e., firms function as suppliers to the government. Since the government is likely to be the single largest economic entity in any economy, the prospect of supplying the government should provide market opportunities for a great many firms in the economy. However, firms seeking to function as suppliers to government should be aware of becoming too highly dependent upon government orders.

(2) Firms pay taxes to the government. The taxes may be related to the firms’ profits, their sales, their inventories or other assets, or the wages which they pay to their employees. Tax-related record keeping and reporting often become burdensome to business firms, and tax liabilities and rates are subject to change at the dictatorial or parliamentary whims of the state.

(3) Depending upon the government’s particular political, social, and military programs, various firms in the economy may become objects of support by the government. Such support may take the forms of subsidies, approval of licenses, preferential contracts, or other encouragements. The government may attempt to structure such activity as a coherent industrial policy for the promotion of international competitiveness of domestic companies.

(4) In pursuit of its agenda, government’s interests in firms may extend beyond support to efforts to control the activities of firms. Objects of governmental controls may include directions of research and development efforts, determination of product mixes and item specifications, selection of capital investment alternatives, eligibilities for import or export licenses, and employment practices. These activities may become elements in a more comprehensive industrial policy.

(5) The private sector may become an object of regulation by the government in the interest of employees, consumers, or other interests in the economy. Such regulation almost always imposes additional costs upon business firms, and consequently squeezes profits or results in higher market prices.

(6) And finally, the private sector may become the object of efforts either to promote and encourage competition, or to stifle or prevent competition. In the former case, “antitrust” or “antimonopolies” laws may be enacted and enforced; in the latter case the government may become the prime mover in the effort to “rationalize” or cartellize industry (also a possible component of industrial policy).

In their extreme manifestations, points (1) and (4) above may devolve to the characteristics of fascism. I may also note that the government can effect a ready transformation to the characteristics of socialism simply by nationalizing private-sector firms so that they become government-owned and directed enterprises. Our purpose in making these observations and otherwise identifying the various points of contact between firms and the government is to note that the operation of government in a capitalistic economy may pose threats to private sector firms as well as provide opportunities which they may attempt to exploit.

The most fundamental role for government to play in the market economy is the maintenance of an environment which is hospitable to the functioning of market economy and the exercise of entrepreneurship. At very minimum this means establishing the rules for holding, transferring, and arbitrating disputes over the possession of private property, determining weights and measures, providing a stable money supply, insuring the sanctity of contracts, and otherwise maintaining law and order. John Stuart Mill during the nineteenth century referred to these minimal roles for government as the “night-watchman” functions.

Beyond the night-watchman functions are four other significant rationales for governmental involvement in the market economy: to maintain competition, to reallocate resources, to redistribute incomes, and to stabilize the economy. Each of these rationales is founded upon some fault, shortcoming, or failure in the functioning of the market.

From this perspective it may be noted that any problem in the functioning of a market may invite some response from government to address the perceived problem. And if market mechanisms exhibit traumatic failure or become fundamentally distrusted by the political leadership of the society, these constitute the rationales for shifting to fascism by conferring product-mix decision making upon a central authority, or to socialism by nationalizing privately-owned productive resources and imposing central planning and direction. By the same token, failure of authoritarian socialism constitutes the rationale for shifting from authoritarian control to some form of market economy. It appears that this latter phenomenon is being widely experienced in the Eastern Europe even as some economies of the West experiment with more statist orientations.

Viable competition among business firms in each market is the sine qua non of market capitalism. It is competition which ensures that firms efficiently produce only those goods and services demanded by the consumers of the society. But there is an inherent divergence of interest between the firms in an industry and their customers. Although customers surely benefit from adequate competition (lower prices, higher quality merchandise, greater product variety), firms might achieve greater profits in cooperation with each other or as sole monopolists of their respective markets.

Governments of democratic societies then find rationale to undertake the promotion and preservation of competitive conditions in their economies. This is usually done by enacting legislation which declares the existence of monopoly to be unlawful (in the U.S. this is accomplished by Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) and the perpetrator of monopoly to be guilty of an unlawful act (Sherman, Section 2), or which enumerates specific acts or activities which diminish competition and which are thus unlawful (the Clayton, Robinson-Patman, and Wheeler-Lea acts). But the enactment of legislation alone is not enough. The government must further establish an enforcement authority (in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice) and resolve to make effective the enforcement of the relevant legislation. This resolve may differ significantly according to the political party in office and the particular agenda which it is attempting to implement.

The managerial implications of the determined enforcement of laws which are intended to preserve and maintain competition are that managers of business firms must make themselves knowledgeable of the pertinent laws, and they must make calculated judgments as to whether to risk violating such laws in any of their sourcing, producing, or marketing activities. It may also be worthwhile to note that in a society governed by law (as is the U.S.), innocence is presumed until guilt has been established. The significance of this is that no act undertaken by the management of a business firm is necessarily in violation of the law until it has been tested in the courts.

In a legal environment of presumed innocence, even though a law may declare a certain act unlawful and other firms engaging in the act have been indicted and successfully prosecuted, the act may be repeated by yet another firm. In order for the firm to be penalized under the law, the act must be detected, indicted by an appropriate legal authority, and successfully prosecuted in court. Because failure may occur at any of these stages, the management of a firm may behave rationally to assess the probability of detection, the probability of indictment if detected, the probability of successful prosecution if indicted, and the magnitude of the penalty if found guilty under the law. Then if the “expected value” of the penalty (i.e., the conditional probabilities multiplied by the likely penalty) is judged small enough, the management may deliberately assume the risks of detection and prosecution by engaging in the act. Indeed, it is not uncommon for business firms to maintain legal staffs or contingency funds to cover legal fees and any penalties which are actually assessed.

Two cautionary notes are appropriate at this point. First, even though the behavior described in the paragraph above may be rational, the reader should not take this acknowledgement as an advocacy of the assumption of risk in knowingly breaking the law. And second, although the liability of corporate shareholders is limited to their investment in the firm, corporate managers should beware of the possibility of both criminal prosecution and civil liability suits when their firms have been found guilty of violation of the law.

Suffice it to say at this point that the rationale is based upon the conclusion that the particular allocation of resources resulting from the normal functioning of the market economy is not satisfactory and needs adjustment. This conclusion may emerge if there are so-called “public goods” desired by society but not producible in response to market incentives, or if there are positive or negative externalities (or “spillovers”) resulting from the market production of goods or services. The managerial implication of this rationale is that declining profits or losses will likely emerge in industries from which resources are diverted, but profitable opportunities should be found in industries toward which resources are reallocated.

The income redistribution rationale follows from a social and political judgment that incomes are being inequitably distributed across the population of the society by the normal functioning of the market economy. There is little doubt that any market economy distributes incomes unequally because of the fundamental reward mechanism of capitalism: to each according to his or her contribution to the process of production of demanded goods and services. Since members of any population possess differential abilities and experience varying intensities of drive and motivation, there will occur different contributions to the production process, and as a consequence an unequal distribution of income.

Social action becomes warranted only when it is judged that the inequality of distribution is also inequitable. The governmental vehicles for redistribution include progressivity of income and profits taxation, the taxation of capital appreciation, and any of a wide range of possible transfer payments. One managerial implication of governmental redistribution is that business net incomes, assets, and wages paid are likely to be objects of taxation to raise revenue for redistribution to lower-income members of society. Another is that businesses catering to transfer recipient clienteles may benefit from the redistributions. However, there may be little hope for managements of business firms to exert significant control or influence upon the political process which determines how incomes are to be redistributed.

The rationale for bringing the offices of government to bear upon the stability of the economy is based upon the view that market economies are naturally unstable, that the degree of instability is intolerable, and that some force must be applied to counteract the natural instability of the market economy. Of course, the only entity in the economy which can possibly bring enough force to bear upon the problem of instability is the government.

Share

Where Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell.dll Is

I had this come up with a developer at a client that was trying to build some administrative tooling for their internal development environment. After looking all through the SharePoint environment, I found it actually doesn’t exist anywhere besides the GAC by default. If you need to export it, you can just open a command prompt, navigate to c:\windows\assembly\gac, go into the GAC_64 directory, open the directory for the PowerShell assembly, then run a copy command to your desired directory.

Share