Paul Narcyz Rosenstein-Rodan · 1961
Rosenstein-Rodan’s essay, written in the context of India’s Planning Commission, is less a statistical review of the Five Year Plans than a theory of democratic development policy. Its governing claim is that planning is meaningful only when it openly ranks competing ends: higher growth, present consumption, employment, equality of opportunity, reduced inequality, and limits on concentrated power.
Development is not only a technical but a social and economic problem.
The opening argument distinguishes technical efficiency from social choice. A society has resources, technologies, and institutions, but it also has a hierarchy of aims. Planning therefore cannot be reduced to maximizing output; it must decide what forms of sacrifice are legitimate and for whom. India’s objectives—raising living standards while building a more egalitarian social order—are compatible only over time, because investment for future growth restricts immediate consumption and may delay visible social gains.
By contrasting a system of means (given human and natural resources and ways of using them made possible by a given technology) with a system (hierarchy) of ends the society expresses its choice of economic and social policy.
The economic sections frame development as a problem of social time preference. A poor country must decide how much consumption the present generation can forgo in order to enlarge the productive capacity available to the future. Rosenstein-Rodan rejects both simple growthmanship and simple immediatism: rapid accumulation is necessary, but so is attention to the burdens imposed by accumulation. The plan must also choose between alternative techniques of production, because labour-intensive methods may relieve unemployment now while producing less surplus for later expansion.
A series of choices between eating ('somewhat' or 'much') less today for the sake of eating ('somewhat' or 'much') more tomorrow has to be made.
This trade-off is also social. Employment is not merely an output of growth but a condition of citizenship and equality of opportunity. Rosenstein-Rodan treats unemployment and the rural-urban divide as central inequalities, not secondary consequences of poverty. Public works, technical training, and carefully chosen labour-using projects can soften the hardship of development, but they cannot abolish the underlying scarcity of capital. Policy must therefore combine immediate relief with measures that increase future productive power.
More labour-intensive but less efficient methods of production can increase employment today at the expense of producing a lower-value output, and notably less surplus which provides investible funds for more output and employment tomorrow.
Education occupies a privileged place in the essay because it joins economic and social objectives. Rosenstein-Rodan treats general education as social overhead capital: its returns are indirect, delayed, and widely distributed. A narrow accounting of short-run productivity would understate its value, whereas a democratic developmental state must see education as a foundation for mobility, participation, and eventual productivity. Equality of opportunity, in this reading, is not achieved chiefly by redistributing existing income but by transforming the capabilities through which people can enter economic and civic life.
The discussion of wealth and economic power is pragmatic rather than doctrinaire. Industrialization may require large firms, scale economies, and some concentration of resources; the problem is to prevent concentration from hardening into unaccountable social power. Rosenstein-Rodan therefore defends the price mechanism for allocation while looking to taxation, public investment, estate duties, capital gains taxation, and institutional controls to restrain inherited and corporate dominance.
The essay’s lasting significance lies in its disciplined refusal of easy harmonies. A socialist pattern cannot mean redistribution alone, nor can development mean growth alone. India’s plans appear as an attempt to sequence sacrifices: to accumulate without ignoring present hardship, to expand employment without destroying future surplus, to use markets without surrendering to private power, and to democratize opportunity through education and institutional reform. Rosenstein-Rodan’s contribution is to present planning as an ethical-economic practice under scarcity, where every objective is real but no objective is costless.
This work was divided into 5 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 5 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian