Kenneth Arrow Quotes

We have the possibility of diverting other resources to the medical field, but that means some subtraction somewhere else. We are sufficiently close to full employment that there is no great amount of unused resources to draw upon for this purpose. We do, of course, draw to some extent upon doctors trained in other countries, but quantitatively speaking, this is not very much of a help. The basic scarcity problem cannot be avoided.

May I remark, especially for the benefit of economists, that consideration of the medical care market and of the insurance situation represents not only an application of economic principles but also a reconsideration of some of the principles that we take for granted.

I expect that ethical codes and informal nonprice organizations will continue to evolve where needed, for example in the control of product quality, to permit transactions which would be impossible because of differential information in markets where all individuals behaved in a purely selfish manner. The evolution of ethical codes is facilitated by the fact that productive units are organizations, not individuals, and individuals are mobile among these organizations.

The economic value of information offers no great mysteries in itself. It is easy to prove that one can always do better, whether as a producer or as a consumer, by basing decisions on a signal, provided the signal and the economic variables are not independently distributed. But this remark has an implication for economic decisions; the economic agent is willing to pay for information, for signals.

The members of an economy—the firms, the consumers, the investors, and the government—make choices. To give a common name to them all, I will refer to them as agents, for indeed their most salient characteristic is that they act. That they make choices implies that they have alternatives, that what was chosen was not inevitable but was in fact only one in a range of opportunities. The opportunities available to a consumer are determined by the income he has and the prices he has to pay for commodities of different use-values.

Once the capital goods prices are known, it is clear that the consumption goods prices are uniquely determined; for each consumption good, the activity chosen will be the one which is cheapest in its use of capital goods, valued at the known capital goods prices. Thus, all balanced growth prices in an indecomposable pure capital model with no joint production are determined by the technology.

To the extent that individuals are really individual, each an autonomous end in himself, to that extent they must be somewhat mysterious and inaccessible to each other. There cannot be any rule that is completely acceptable to all. There must, or so it now seems tome, be the possibility of unadjudicable conflict, which may show itself logically as paradoxes in the process of social decision-making.

Let us turn from the epistemological problems of the current decision-maker for society to those in the original position. Individuals are supposed to know the laws of the physical and the social worlds, but not to know who they are or will be. But empirical knowledge is after all uncertain, and even in the original position individuals may disagree about the facts and laws of the universe.

The problem of interpersonal comparison of utilities seems to bother economists more than philosophers. As already indicated, utility or satisfaction or any other similar concept appears in economic theory as an explanation of individual behavior, for example, as a consumer. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the individual chooses his consumption so as to maximize his utility, subject to the constraints imposed by his budget. But, for this purpose, a quantitatively measurable utility is a superfluous concept. All that is needed is an ordering, that is, a statement for each pair of consumption patterns as to which is preferred.

There is also one particularly needed elaboration of the model (which is not to say that it doesn't cry out for elaboration in many other directions). This is the relation between college filtering and on-the-job filtering. Once an employee has been hired, the employer can gradually draw on more directly obtained information to determine his productivity. However, this filtering may be costly. To the extent that the employer does filter and does so accurately, the Value of the college filter is reduced. The employer pays the average product of a group with given educational achievement only during the period before his own filter has become effective. Conversely, however, an increase in the college population will mean (and has meant) a depreciation in the quality of non-college students (this is not necessarily the same as a decrease in the quality of college students).

The conventional view among economists is that education adds to an individual's productivity and therefore increases the market value of his labor. From the viewpoint of formal theory, it does not matter how the student's productivity is increased, but implicitly it is assumed that the student receives cognitive skills through his education. Educators, on the other hand, have long felt that the activity of education is a process of socialization, with the latent content of the process—the acquisition of skills such as the carrying out of assigned tasks, getting along with others, regularity, punctuality, and the like—being at least as important as the manifest objectives of conveying information. This last doctrine has been revived by radical economists, though with a negative rather than a positive valuation. But from the viewpoint of economic theory, the socialization hypothesis is just as much a human capital theory as the cognitive skill acquisition hypothesis. Both hypotheses imply that education supplies skills that lead to higher productivity. I would like to present a very different view. Higher education, in this model, contributes in no way to superior economic performance; it increases neither cognition nor socialization. Instead, higher education serves as a screening device in that it sorts out individuals of differing abilities, thereby conveying information to the purchasers of labor.

The forces of competition and the tendency to profit-maximization operate to mitigate these differences. However, the basic fact of a personnel investment prevents these counteracting tendencies from working with full force. In the end, we remain with wage differences coupled with tendencies to segregation.

General competitive equilibrium above all teaches the extent to which a social allocation of resources can be achieved by independent private decisions coordinated through the market. We are assured indeed that not only can an allocation be achieved, but the result will be Pareto efficient. But, as has been stressed, there is nothing in the process which guarantees that the distribution be just. Indeed, the theory teaches us that the final allocation will depend on the distribution of initial supplies and of ownership of firms. If we want to rely on the virtues of the market but also to achieve a more just distribution, the theory suggests the strategy of changing the initial distribution rather than interfering with the allocation process at some later stage.

In fact, is is not a mere empirical accident that not all the contingent markets needed for efficiency exist but a necessary fact with deep implications for the workings and structure of economic institutions. Roughly speaking, information about particular events, even after they have occurred, is not spread evenly throughout the population. Two people cannot enter into a contract contingent on the occurrence of a certain event or state if only one of them in fact will know that the event has occurred. A particular example of this is sometimes known as “moral hazard” in the insurance and economic literature. The very existence of insurance will change individual behavior in the direction of less care in avoiding risks.

My own interest first centered on the relations between Pareto efficiency and competitive equilibrium. In particular, there was considerable discussion among economists in the late 1940’s about the inefficiencies resulting from rent control and different proposals for arriving at the efficiency benefits of a free market by one or another transition route. Part of the informal efficiency arguments hinged on the idea that under rent control people were buying the wrong kind of housing, say, excessively large apartments. It struck me that an individual bought only one kind of housing, not several. The individual optima were at corners, and therefore one could not equate marginal rates of substitution by going over to a free market. Yet diagrammatic analysis of simple cases suggested to me that the traditional identification of competitive equilibrium and Pareto efficiency was correct but could not be proved by the local techniques of the differential calculus.