In the previous article, the first of
this Risk Mitigation and Economic Planning Series I am writing, I made a strong
play in favour of anticipating risks and actively planning for their
mitigation. In this relatively short article today, I look at one model that
was developed in the 1950s – The Rehn Plan, which was implemented in Sweden in
the 50s to the 70s. I do not recommend
this for India; this example is used to underscore and highlight how proper
planning needs to proceed, and how we need to anticipate and plan rather than
be reactionary; and how we need to develop solutions as per our own internal
needs.
In the normal scheme of things in the
modern capitalistic context, readjustment of employment is considered a natural
outcome, and that the market for labour will adjust accordingly. This is a very
hard hearted approach, leaving the readjustment to market forces, which can
result in loss of productive resources as well. The assumption is that the individual will retrain himself
or herself, without a proper examination of the alternatives available – these are
highly productive and skilled people; and a developing nation can ill-afford a
productive skilled resource to be idle.
THE REHN PLAN {Rehn/Meidner Model}
The Swedish system was designed by a
union leader and top economist Goesta Rehn in the 1950s. He realized that
Sweden had to change Industrial and Economic Structure, as well as shrink
low-technology and low-productivity industry. He also realized that the worker
desires security. While Drucker credits
only Goesta Rehn, most other sources identify this with the much larger
initiative called the Rehn/ Meidner Model, developed by Rehn with another
Swedish top economist and union leader Rudolf Meidner.
The Rehn Meidner Model, though never
fully and consciously applied, did have a golden period in the 50s to the 70s. Those of you interested in a full Economic
Study of the Rehn-Meidner Model can consult the Bibliography {The
Rehn-Meidner model in Sweden: its rise, challenges and survival – Lennart Erixon,
Stockholm U}; I have used Drucker { Managing in Turbulent Times /
Management – Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices} as the main source,
while using the wider economic analysis as a reference point and to
cross-verify Drucker.
Under the Swedish System, industries were
not encouraged to maintain employment. They used what the working paper
referred to above called an active labour market policy, allocating measures to
stimulating occupational and regional mobility and improving the matching
capacity of labour markets. The Swedes encouraged industries to anticipate any
redundancy in employment that might
result from technological development or economic change. At the same time,
businesses and industries expected to anticipate future needs for worker, as
well as their skills.
This information was fed to the Rehn
Board, a semigovernment, semiprivate organization in which government,
employers and labour unions work together. The board then underwrites the
income of the redundant employee, retrains him, finds a new job for him and
places him in it. The Rehn Plan explains in large measure the economic
transformation of Sweden – something attested to and accepted by many sources, identifying
it as a success factor. The Sweden of the 50s was almost an underdeveloped country
for most of her population. The bulk of the labour was employed in low
productivity low income activity.
20 Years later, Sweden had become one of
the technological leaders of the world with a living standard second only to
the United States. A larger proportion of the workforce than in any other
country has moved from one kind of employment to another with a minimum of
disruption, with almost no resistance to change, and with extraordinary
willingness to acquire new skills and learn new things!
DRAWING LESSONS
The above abridged version, taken from
the two Drucker sources, with a few aspects from the Research paper quoted, should
be good enough for our purposes – which is to learn how others have handled
change, grown from pre-industrial or low-development status to developed
status. We shall subsequently look at Singapore, Japan and a few other cases –
so that we can understand deeper the macro thought processes required, analyse
how they succeeded, and learn to transfer those lessons to our settings. Not copy
– but develop a deeper understanding.
I do not advocate copying this – or any
other model. We have to find our own solutions. But what is critical is that in
the above case we can see how nothing was left to chance or market forces;
contingencies were anticipated and catered to. Sure there would have been
issues in implementation {consult references}, but they were overcome, as even
the {mildly} critical paper admits. Planning
may be anathema to hardcore capitalists, who would {might} regard this as
socialist; I respectfully submit this is hardcore capitalist, as a performing
productive potential resource has been saved, upskilled and put into productive
use ; to say nothing of the overall decency and humanity this approach entails.
Can we think of similar out-of-the-box solutions to our dilemmas? A start has been made – many Government
schemes bear testimony to that; but are they comprehensive enough? This is a
question we all have to face and answer for ourselves, and one that Media needs
to answer for us!
REFERENCES
1. Management - Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices - Peter F Drucker
2. Managing in Turbulent Times -Peter Drucker
Hi Vishal,
ReplyDeleteIs there a way to subscribe to your posts?