In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, Emory economics professor Paul H. Rubin makes an interesting argument about the way economists tend to over-elevate and/or misconstrue the role of competition in the flourishing of markets.
“Competition plays a supporting role,” he argues, but “cooperation makes markets thrive”:
The way we use the term competition instead of cooperation fosters anti-market bias. “Competition” carries a negative connotation because it implies winners and losers, and our minds naturally feel sympathy for the losers. But cooperation evokes a positive response: It’s a win-win situation with no losers. And in fact the word competition doesn’t depict market activity as aptly as the word cooperation. The “competitive economy” would be better described as the “cooperative economy.”
Consider the most basic economic unit, the transaction. A transaction is cooperative because both parties gain from a voluntary exchange. There is competition in markets, but it’s actually competition for the right to cooperate. Firms must compete for the privilege of selling to consumers—for the right to cooperate with consumers. Workers compete for the right to cooperate with employers. Competition matters because it ensures that the most efficient players will gain the right to cooperate on the best terms available. But competition plays a supporting role, while cooperation makes markets thrive.
Cooperation isn’t just more important in the economic sphere—it’s also more common. We cooperate with everyone involved in making all the products we buy and sell, millions of people we’ll never know. We compete, on the other hand, with only a few individuals or firms. As economists say, in “pure competition”—a free-market model in which resources can flow to their most valuable use without government or other interference—competition doesn’t exist at all.
Further, and quite paradoxically, even our innovating alongside competitors has the potential to morph into certain forms of cooperation, whether through eventual mergers and acquisitions, participation and cross-pollination at industry associations and summits, mobility among workers from this firm to that, adoption of and modifications or improvements to a competitor’s prior invention, etc.
Microsoft and Apple have long been fierce competitors, for example, but one cannot observe the trajectory of their histories without also observing certain manifestations of collaboration along the way, whether directly or indirectly. Exchanges have taken place, back and forth and back again, with competition and cooperation overlapping in messy yet productive ways. In this aspect (and in plenty of others), competition can play a role well before and beyond merely “ensuring efficient players,” as Rubin puts it.*
But Rubin’s primary aim here is to improve the semantics of pro-market arguments and, in turn, align the popular imagination a bit closer to the way things actually work — in its politics/ideology/philosophy/what-have-you. Its a worthwhile effort, to be sure, but the need for such a perspective may be even more beneficial for the purposes of actually working, innovating, cooperating, and competing in the market.
As employees, do we view our role as collaborative, from the negotiating of our wage to the messier exchanges of skills, sweat, and capital of all colors? As managers, owners, and executives, do we view the power we’ve been given as an opportunity to further empower and unleash cooperation among those under our stewardship, and in the service of broader social/cultural/spiritual cohesion? As widget sellers or service providers, do we view our contributions to clients and customers as cooperative exchanges that, on net, contribute to the flourishing of society? As consumers, do we view our purchases in terms of exchange, rather than mere self-supporting consumption?
The fruitfulness of pro-market arguments would be greatly improved if cooperation were at the forefront of our thinking, but let us not forget, so would the prospects of the market itself.
*As long as we’re on the subject, “efficiency” is another feature of typical economist argumentation that could use some semantic embellishment. But alas, for another day.
Katika makala yake ya hivi karibuni kwa Wall Street Journal, Profesa wa Uchumi wa Emory Paul H. Rubin anafanya hoja ya kuvutia kuhusu jinsi wanauchumi wanavyoelekea kuongeza kupita kiasi na au kutofautisha jukumu la ushindani katika kusitawi kwa masoko. "Mshindano una jukumu la kusaidia", anasema, lakini "ushirikiano hufanya masoko yaendelee kusitawi": Njia tunayotumia neno ushindani badala ya ushirikiano huendeleza upendeleo dhidi ya soko. "Mshindano" una maana hasi kwa sababu unamaanisha washindi na washindwa, na akili zetu kwa kawaida huhisi huruma kwa washindwa. Lakini ushirikiano husababisha majibu chanya: Ni hali ya kushinda-kushinda bila washindwa. Na kwa kweli neno ushindani haina kuelezea shughuli ya soko kama aptly kama neno ushirikiano. "Uchumi wa ushindani" ungefafanuliwa vizuri kama "uchumi wa ushirikiano". Fikiria kitengo cha msingi cha kiuchumi, shughuli. Biashara ni ya ushirikiano kwa sababu pande zote mbili hupata faida kutokana na kubadilishana kwa hiari. Kuna ushindani katika masoko, lakini ni kweli ushindani kwa ajili ya haki ya kushirikiana. Makampuni lazima kushindana kwa ajili ya upendeleo wa kuuza kwa watumiaji - kwa ajili ya haki ya kushirikiana na watumiaji. Wafanyakazi hushindana kwa ajili ya haki ya kushirikiana na waajiri. Ushindani ni muhimu kwa sababu inahakikisha kwamba wachezaji wenye ufanisi zaidi watapata haki ya kushirikiana kwa masharti bora yanayopatikana. Lakini ushindani hutimiza fungu la kuunga mkono, huku ushirikiano ukifanya masoko yaendelee kusitawi. Ushirikiano si tu muhimu zaidi katika uwanja wa kiuchumi - pia ni ya kawaida zaidi. Sisi kushirikiana na kila mtu kushiriki katika kufanya bidhaa zote sisi kununua na kuuza, mamilioni ya watu sisi kamwe kujua. Kwa upande mwingine, tunashindana na watu au makampuni machache tu. Kama wanauchumi wasemavyo, katika "ushindani safi" mfano wa soko huru ambapo rasilimali zinaweza kutiririka kwa matumizi yao yenye thamani zaidi bila serikali au uingiliaji mwingine - ushindani haupo kabisa. Zaidi ya hayo, na kwa kushangaza kabisa, hata ubunifu wetu pamoja na washindani una uwezo wa kugeuka kuwa aina fulani za ushirikiano, iwe kupitia kuunganishwa na ununuzi wa mwisho, ushiriki na msalaba wa msalaba katika vyama vya sekta na vikao vya kilele, uhamaji kati ya wafanyakazi kutoka kampuni hii hadi ile, kupitishwa na marekebisho au maboresho ya uvumbuzi wa awali wa mshindani, na kadhalika. Microsoft na Apple wamekuwa washindani wakali kwa muda mrefu, kwa mfano, lakini mtu hawezi kuchunguza trajectory ya historia yao bila pia kuchunguza maonyesho fulani ya ushirikiano njiani, ama moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja. Mabadiliko yametokea, nyuma na mbele na nyuma tena, na ushindani na ushirikiano unaofanana kwa njia zisizo na utaratibu lakini zenye kuzaa. Katika kipengele hiki (na katika mengi ya wengine), ushindani unaweza kucheza jukumu vizuri kabla na zaidi ya tu "kuhakikisha wachezaji ufanisi", kama Rubin anaweka. Lakini lengo kuu la Rubin hapa ni kuboresha semantics ya hoja za pro-soko na, kwa upande mwingine, align mawazo ya watu karibu kidogo na jinsi mambo kweli kazi katika siasa yake, itikadi, falsafa, na nini-una. Ni juhudi yenye thamani, bila shaka, lakini haja ya mtazamo kama huo inaweza kuwa hata zaidi ya manufaa kwa madhumuni ya kweli kufanya kazi, kubuni, kushirikiana, na kushindana katika soko. Kama wafanyakazi, je, tunaona jukumu letu kuwa la ushirikiano, kuanzia kujadili mshahara wetu hadi kubadilishana kwa ustadi, jasho, na mtaji wa rangi zote? Kama wasimamizi, wamiliki, na watendaji, je, tunaona nguvu tumekuwa na kama fursa ya zaidi kuwezesha na kutolewa ushirikiano kati ya wale chini ya usimamizi wetu, na katika huduma ya pana ya kijamii / kitamaduni / kiroho mshikamano? Kama wauzaji wa vifaa au watoa huduma, je, tunaona michango yetu kwa wateja na wateja kama kubadilishana kwa ushirikiano ambao, kwenye mtandao, huchangia kusitawi kwa jamii? Kama watumiaji, je, sisi huona ununuzi wetu katika suala la kubadilishana, badala ya matumizi ya kujitegemeza tu? "Uzuri wa hoja za ""pro-soko"" ungeongezeka sana ikiwa ushirikiano ungekuwa mbele ya mawazo yetu, lakini tusisahau, hivyo pia matarajio ya soko yenyewe." *Maadamu sisi ni juu ya mada, "ufanisi" ni kipengele kingine cha kawaida uchumi hoja ambayo inaweza kutumia baadhi ya embellishment semantic. Lakini alas, kwa siku nyingine.