390. Forms of
efficiency
In economics efficiency is defined purely in terms of costs of input relative
to output. Contribution to quality of process, such as labour, or virtues, such
as justice, do not count.
Economics recognizes three forms of such efficiency: allocative, productive
and dynamic. Allocative efficiency forms the core of market thinking: scarce
resources are optimally allocated to where needs are highest. Productive
efficiency concerns the use of resources for production. That depends on a
number of factors, such as economies of scale. Dynamic efficiency concerns
efficiency in innovation.
All three are desirable, and are adduced as arguments for markets, but
in fact, they obstruct each other.
Increase of scale can yield higher productive efficiency but tends to
reduce competition, lowering allocative efficiency. Concentration in large
firms allows firms to hinder entrance of tot the market of new competitors,
yields powers of lobbying for advantage, and can slow down innovation by obstructing
its development. There is the incentive to protect existing investments and
prolong their life. Small innovators may be bought to slow down the further
development and introduction of their innovations.
Dynamic efficiency
is the most difficult because of the uncertainty involved, which economics cannon
well deal with, as discussed in a preceding item in this blog. Because of
uncertainty, one needs reserves to absorb misfiring innovation, but for
allocative efficiency there should be no such reserves.
In the literature
on innovation there has been a long discussion whether large or small
independent enterprises are the most innovative. Large firms have the advantage
of more financial reserves, spreading risks across a portfolio of products,
cross-subsidization of weak products by strong ones, lobbying power to affect
the choice of projects for subsidy and its acquisition, and the establishment
of technical standards and standards for safety, and that again reduces
allocative efficiency.
Small firms have
advantages of speed of development and flexibility to change direction when
needed, due to less bureaucracy, more motivation to succeed, since success
yields the entrepreneur’s income, and closer proximity of management to the
market and to incoming technology. They can suffer from high costs of small
scale, lack of specialized support, difficulty of attracting finance, which all
reduce productive efficiency.
Which form of efficiency deserves precedence? In fact, there are often
combinations and compromises between them.
Concerning
strengths and weaknesses large and small business are complementary. For
example, in biotechnology small firms invent and develop new active substances
or new processes of production which are then taken over by large firms with
advantages for further development, testing, regulatory approval, and large
scale production, distribution and brand name of products.
With
digitalisation and informatisation, effects of scale in innovation have
decreased, since production is now more virtual than physical, machines are
replaced by computers, large production facilities are no longer needed,
production can be better automated, and testing can often be virtual rather
than physical, in computer simulation. On the other hand, new effects of a
scale have come up, as in the large internet platform companies where volume of
customers is part of the business model.
No comments:
Post a Comment