 What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions, the answer is simple enough. If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic. That is, the answer to the question of what is the best use of the available means is implicit in our assumptions. The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form. Put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses. This, however, is emphatically not the economic problem which society faces, and the economic calculus which we have developed to solve this logical problem, though an important step toward the solution of the economic problem of society, does not yet provide an answer to it. The reason for this is that the data from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society given to a single mind which could work out the implications, and can never be so given. The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate given resources, if given is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these data. It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know, or to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality. This character of the fundamental problem has, I am afraid, been obscured rather than illuminated by many of the recent refinements of economic theory, particularly by many of the uses made of mathematics. Though the problem with which I want primarily to deal in this paper is the problem of a rational economic organization, I shall in its course be led again and again to point to its close connections with certain methodological questions. Many of the points I wish to make are indeed conclusions toward which diverse paths of reasoning have unexpectedly converged, but as I now see these problems this is no accident. It seems to me that many of the current disputes with regard to both economic theory and economic policy have their common origin in a misconception about the nature of the economic problem of society. This misconception in turn is due to an erroneous transfer to social phenomena of the habits of thought we have developed in dealing with the phenomena of nature. In ordinary language we describe by the word planning the complex of interrelated decisions about the allocation of our available resources. All economic activity is in this sense planning and in any society in which many people collaborate this planning whoever does it will in some measure have to be based on knowledge which in the first instance is not given to the planner but to somebody else which somehow will have to be conveyed to the planner. The various ways in which the knowledge on which people base their plans is communicated to them is the crucial problem for any theory explaining the economic process and the problem of what is the best way of utilizing knowledge initially dispersed among all the people is at least one of the main problems of economic policy or of designing an efficient economic system. The answer to this question is closely connected with that other question which arises here that of who is to do the planning. It is about this question that all the dispute about economic planning centres. This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not. It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally by one authority for the whole economic system or is to be divided among many individuals. Planning in the specific sense in which the term is used in contemporary controversy necessarily means central planning. Direction of the whole economic system according to one unified plan. Competition on the other hand means decentralised planning by many separate persons. The halfway house between the two about which many people talk but which few people like when they see it is the delegation of planning to organised industries or in other words monopoly. Which of these systems is likely to be more efficient depends mainly on the question under which of them we can expect that fuller use will be made of the existing knowledge and this in turn depends on whether we are more likely to succeed in putting at the disposal of a single central authority all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals or in conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to fit their plans with those of others. It will at once be evident that on this point the position will be different with respects to different kinds of knowledge and the answer to our question will therefore turn on the relative importance of the different kinds of knowledge. Those more likely to be at the disposal of particular individuals and those which we should with greater confidence expect to find in the possession of an authority made up of suitably chosen experts. If it is today so widely assumed that the latter will be in a better position this is because one kind of knowledge namely scientific knowledge occupies now so prominent a place in public imagination that we tend to forget that it is not the only kind that is relevant. It may be admitted that as far as scientific knowledge is concerned a body of suitably chosen experts may be in the best position to command all the best knowledge available though this is of course merely shifting the difficulty to the problem of selecting the experts. What I wish to point out is that even assuming that this problem can be readily solved it is only a small part of the wider problem. Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge but a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation. We need to remember only how much we have to learn in any occupation after we have completed our theoretical training how big a part of our working life we spend learning particular jobs and how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people of local conditions and of special circumstances. To know of and put to use a machine not fully employed or somebody's skill which could be better utilized or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies is socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques and the shipper who earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of tramp steamers or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary opportunities or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences of commodity prices are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others. It is a curious fact that this sort of knowledge should today be generally regarded with a kind of contempt and that anyone who by such knowledge gains an advantage over somebody better equipped with theoretical or technical knowledge is thought to have acted almost disreputably to gain an advantage from better knowledge of facilities of communication or transport is sometimes regarded as almost dishonest although it is quite as important that society make use of the best opportunities in this respect as in using the latest scientific discoveries. This prejudice has in a considerable measure affected the attitude toward commerce in general compared with that toward production. Even economists who regard themselves as definitely immune to the crude materialist fallacies of the past constantly commit the same mistake where activities directed toward the acquisition of such practical knowledge are concerned. Apparently because in their scheme of things all such knowledge is supposed to be given. The common idea now seems to be that all such knowledge should as a matter of course be readily at the command of everybody and the approach of irrationality leveled against the existing economic order is frequently based on the fact that it is not so available. This view disregards the fact that the method by which such knowledge can be made as widely available as possible is precisely the problem to which we have to find an answer. If it is fashionable today to minimize the importance of the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place this is closely connected with the smaller importance which is now attached to change as such. Indeed there are few points on which the assumptions made usually only implicitly by the planners differ from those of their opponents as much as with regard to the significance and frequency of changes which will make substantial alterations of production plans necessary. Of course if detailed economic plans could be laid down for fairly long periods in advance and then closely adhered to so that no further economic decisions of importance would be required the task of drawing up a comprehensive plan governing all economic activity would be much less formidable. It is perhaps worth stressing that economic problems arise always and only in consequence of change. So long as things continue as before or at least as they were expected to there arise no new problems requiring a decision no need to form a new plan. The belief that changes or at least day-to-day adjustments have become less important in modern times implies the contention that economic problems have also become less important. This belief in the decreasing importance of change is for that reason usually held by the same people who argue that the importance of economic considerations has been driven into the background by the growing importance of technological knowledge. Is it true that with the elaborate apparatus of modern production economic decisions are required only at long intervals as when a new factory is to be erected or a new process to be introduced? Is it true that once a plant has been built the rest is all more or less mechanical determined by the character of the plant and leaving little to be changed in adapting to the ever-changing circumstances of the moment? The fairly widespread belief in the affirmative is not as far as I can ascertain borne out by the practical experience of the businessman. In a competitive industry at any rate and such an industry alone can serve as a test the task of keeping cost from rising requires constant struggle absorbing a great part of the energy of the manager. How easy it is for an inefficient manager to dissipate the differentials on which profitability rests and that it is possible with the same technical facilities to produce with a great variety of costs are among the common places of business experience which do not seem to be equally familiar in the study of the economist. The very strength of the desire constantly voiced by producers and engineers to be allowed to proceed untrammeled by considerations of money costs is eloquent testimony to the extent to which these factors enter into their daily work. One reason why economists are increasingly apt to forget about the constant small changes which make up the whole economic picture is probably their growing preoccupation with statistical aggregates which show a very much greater stability than the movements of the detail. The comparative stability of the aggregates cannot however be accounted for as the statisticians occasionally seem to be inclined to do by the law of large numbers or the mutual compensation of random changes. The number of elements with which we have to deal is not large enough for such accidental forces to produce stability. The continuous flow of goods and services is maintained by constant deliberate adjustments by new dispositions made every day in the light of circumstances not known the day before by B stepping in at once when A fails to deliver. Even the large and highly mechanized plant keeps going largely because of an environment upon which it can draw for all sorts of unexpected needs, tiles for its roof, stationary for its forms, and all the thousand and one kinds of equipment in which it cannot be self-contained and which the plans for the operation of the plant require to be readily available in the market. This is perhaps also the point where I should briefly mention the fact that the sort of knowledge with which I have been concerned is knowledge of the kind which by its nature cannot enter into statistics and therefore cannot be conveyed to any central authority in statistical form. The statistics which such a central authority would have to use would have to be arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor differences between the things by lumping together as resources of one kind items which differ as regards location quality and other particulars in a way which may be very significant for the specific decision. It follows from this that central planning based on statistical information by its nature cannot take direct account of these circumstances of time and place and that the central planner will have to find some way or other in which the decisions depending on them can be left to the man on the spot. If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place it would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them. We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which after integrating all knowledge issues its orders. We must solve it by some form of decentralization but this answers only part of our problem. We need decentralization because only thus can we ensure that the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place will be promptly used but the man on the spot cannot decide solely on the basis of his limited but intimate knowledge of the facts of his immediate surroundings. There still remains the problem of communicating to him such further information as he needs to fit his decisions into the whole pattern of changes of the larger economic system. How much knowledge does he need to do so successfully? Which of the events which happen beyond the horizon of his immediate knowledge are of relevance to his immediate decision and how much of them need he know? There is hardly anything that happens anywhere in the world that might not have an effect on the decision he ought to take but he need not know of these events as such nor of all their effects. It does not matter for him why at the particular moment more screws of one size than of another are wanted, why paper bags are more readily available than canvas bags, or why skill labor or particular machine tools have for the moment become more difficult to obtain. All that is significant for him is how much more or less difficult to procure they have become compared with other things with which he is also concerned, or how much more or less urgently wanted are the alternative things he produces or uses. It is always a question of the relative importance of the particular things with which he is concerned and the causes which alter their relative importance are of no interest to him beyond the effect on those concrete things of his own environment. It is in this connection that what I have called the economic calculus proper helps us, at least by analogy, to see how this problem can be solved and in fact is being solved by the price system. Even the single controlling mind in possession of all the data for some small self-contained economic system would not every time some small adjustment in the allocation of resources had to be made go explicitly through all the relations between ends and means which might possibly be affected. It is indeed the great contribution of the pure logic of choice that it has demonstrated conclusively that even such a single mind could solve this kind of problem only by constructing and constantly using rates of equivalence or values or marginal rates of substitution, i.e. by attaching to each kind of scarce resource a numerical index which cannot be derived from any property possessed by that particular thing but which reflects or in which is condensed its significance in view of the whole means-end structure. In any small change he will have to consider only these quantitative indices or values in which all the relevant information is concentrated and by adjusting the quantities one by one he can appropriately rearrange his dispositions without having to solve the whole puzzle ab initio or without needing at any stage to survey it at once in all its ramifications. Fundamentally in a system in which the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coordinate the parts of his plan. It is worth contemplating for a moment a very simple and commonplace instance of the action of the price system to see what precisely it accomplishes. Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material say tin has arisen or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose and it is very significant that it does not matter which of these two causes has made tin more scarce. All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin they used to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere and that in consequence they must economize tin. There is no need for the great majority of them even to know where the more urgent need has arisen or in favor of what other needs they ought to husband the supply. If only some of them know directly of the new demand and switch resources over to it and if the people who are aware of the new gap thus created in turn fill it from still other sources the effect will rapidly spread throughout the whole economic system and influence not only all the uses of tin but also those of its substitutes and the substitutes of those substitutes the supply of all the things made of tin and their substitutes and so on and all this without the great majority of those instrumental in bringing about these changes knowing anything at all about the original cause of these changes the whole acts as one market not because any of its members survey the whole field but because their limited individual fields of vision sufficiently overlap so that through many intermediaries the relevant information is communicated to all the mere fact that there is one price for any commodity or rather that local prices are connected in a manner determined by the cost of transport etc brings about the solution which it is just conceptually possible might have been arrived at by one single mind possessing all the information which is in fact dispersed among all the people involved in the process we must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function a function which of course it fulfills less perfectly as prices grow more rigid even when quoted prices have become quite rigid however the forces which would operate through changes in prices still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract the most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action in abbreviated form by a kind of symbol only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned it is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement of course these adjustments are probably never perfect in the sense in which the economist conceives of them in his equilibrium analysis but i fear that our theoretical habits of approaching the problem with the assumption of more or less perfect knowledge on the part of almost everyone has made us somewhat blind to the true function of the price mechanism and led us to apply rather misleading standards in judging its efficiency the marvel is that in a case like that of a scarcity of one raw material without an order being issued without more than perhaps a handful of people knowing the cause tens of thousands of people whose identity could not be ascertained by months of investigation are made to use the material or its products more sparingly i.e. they move in the right direction this is enough of a marvel even if in a constantly changing world not all will hit it off so perfectly that their profit rates will always be maintained at the same constant or normal level i have deliberately used the word marvel to shock the reader out of the complacency with which we often take the working of this mechanism for granted i am convinced that if it were the result of deliberate human design and if the people guided by the price changes understood that their decisions have significance far beyond their immediate aim this mechanism would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind its misfortune is the double one that it is not the product of human design and that the people guided by it usually do not know why they are made to do what they do but those who clamour for conscious direction and who cannot believe that anything which has evolved without design and even without our understanding it should solve problems which we should not be able to solve consciously should remember this the problem is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind and therefore how to dispense with the need of conscious control and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do the problem which we meet here is by no means peculiar to economics but arises in connection with nearly all truly social phenomena with language and with most of our cultural inheritance and constitutes really the central theoretical problem of all social science as alfred whitehead has said in another connection quote it is a profoundly erroneous truism repeated by all copy books and by eminent people when they are making speeches that we should cultivate the habit of thinking what we are doing the precise opposite is the case civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them end quote this is a profound significance in the social field we make constant use of formulas symbols and rules whose meaning we do not understand and through the use of which we avail ourselves of the assistance of knowledge which individually we do not possess we have developed these practices and institutions by building upon habits and institutions which have proved successful in their own sphere and which have in turn become the foundation of the civilization we have built up the price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use though he is still very far from having learned to make the best use of it after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it through it not only a division of labor but also a coordinated utilization of resources based on an equally divided knowledge has become possible the people who like to deride any suggestion that this may be so usually distort the argument by insinuating that it asserts that by some miracle just that sort of system has spontaneously grown up which is best suited to modern civilization it is the other way round man has been able to develop that division of labor on which our civilization is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible had he not done so he might still have developed some other altogether different type of civilization something like the state of the termite ants or some other altogether unimaginable type all that we can say is that nobody has yet succeeded in designing an alternative system in which certain features of the existing one can be preserved which are dear even to those who most violently assail it such as particularly the extent to which the individual can choose his pursuits and consequently freely use his own knowledge and skill it is in many ways fortunate that the dispute about the indispensable of the price system for any rational calculation in a complex society is now no longer conducted entirely between camps holding different political views the thesis that without the price system we could not preserve a society based on such extensive division of labor as ours was greeted with a howl of derision when it was first advanced by von Mises 25 years ago today the difficulties which some still find in accepting it are no longer mainly political and this makes for an atmosphere much more conducive to reasonable discussion when we find Leon Trotsky arguing that quote economic accounting is unthinkable without market relations unquote when professor Oscar Lange promises professor von Mises a statue in the marble halls of the future central planning board and when professor Abba P. Lerner rediscovers Adam Smith and emphasizes that the essential utility of the price system consists in inducing the individual while seeking his own interest to do what is in the general interest the differences can indeed no longer be ascribed to political prejudice the remaining dissent seems clearly to be due to purely intellectual or more particularly methodological differences a recent statement by professor Joseph Schumpeter in his capitalism socialism and democracy provides a clear illustration of one of the methodological differences which i have in mind its author is preeminent among those economists who approach economic phenomena in the light of a certain branch of positivism to him these phenomena accordingly appear as objectively given quantities of commodities impinging directly upon each other almost it would seem without any intervention of human minds only against this background can i account for the following to me startling pronouncement professor Schumpeter argues that the possibility of a rational calculation in the absence of markets for the factors of production follows for the theorist quote from the elementary proposition that consumers in evaluating demanding consumers goods ipso facto also evaluate the means of production which enter into the production of these goods end quote taken literally this statement is simply untrue the consumers do nothing of the kind what professor Schumpeter's ipso facto presumably means is that the valuation of the factors of production is implied in or follows necessarily from the valuation of consumers goods but this too is not correct implication is a logical relationship which can be meaningfully asserted only of propositions simultaneously present to one and the same mind it is evident however that the values of the factors of production do not depend solely on the valuation of the consumers goods but also on the conditions of supply of the various factors of production only to a mind to which all these facts were simultaneously known with the answer necessarily follow from the facts given to it the practical problem however arises precisely because these facts are never so given to a single mind and because in consequence it is necessary that in the solution of the problem knowledge should be used that is dispersed among many people the problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts if they were known to a single mind as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist would uniquely determine the solution instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge to assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world that an economist of professor champita's standing should thus have fallen into a trap which the ambiguity of the term datum sets to the unwary can hardly be explained as a simple error it suggests rather that there is something fundamentally wrong with an approach which habitually disregards an essential part of the phenomena with which we have to deal the unavoidable imperfection of man's knowledge and the consequent need for a process by which knowledge is constantly communicated and acquired any approach such as that of much of mathematical economics with its simultaneous equations which in effect starts from the assumption that people's knowledge corresponds with the objective facts of the situation systematically leaves out what is our main task to explain i am far from denying that in our system equilibrium analysis has a useful function to perform but when it comes to the point where it misleads some of our leading thinkers into believing that the situation which it describes has direct relevance to the solution of practical problems it is high time that we remember that it does not deal with the social process at all and that it is no more than a useful preliminary to the study of the main problem