I’m reading J. Doyne Farmer’s recent book, Making Sense of Chaos, for a discussion I’ll be involved in next week. On page 53, Farmer makes a good point, writing:
Though we often refer to pieces of the production network as supply chains, this is a bad metaphor: The production network is full of branches and is more like a tangled web than a chain. (italics in original)
It’s nice to see someone who’s not even an economist making that economic point. Here’s Don Boudreaux making it in some detail in “The Economy is Not a Series of Supply Chains,” American Institute of Economic Research, April 13, 2020:
A Web Isn’t a Chain
The first reality is that, in our modern economy nearly every productive enterprise is connected to every other productive enterprise. This connectedness is the phenomenon alluded to by the term “supply chain.” This term, however, is highly misleading. Today’s economy is not a series of supply chains running side by side with each other, each largely distinct from, and independent of, the others. If it were, there would indeed be little challenge in pulling in one or more such chains into the domestic economy so that it fully resides there, from beginning to end.
Instead of a collection of distinct supply chains, our modern economy is a single globe-spanning web of interconnectedness. Within this web every output is the product of countless inputs and each kind of input typically is used to produce countless different kinds of outputs. This web of interconnectedness – the complexity of which is beyond human comprehension – is indispensable for our modern mass prosperity. Yet its existence – its ‘everything-is-connected-in-some-way-to-everything-else’ reality – means that there are no objective and clear lines separating “critical supplies” from “uncritical” ones.
Further obliterating the existence of any such objective and clear lines is economic change – both change that is inseparable from a market economy’s creative destruction (for example, the invention of the assembly line), as well as change that is imposed on humanity by nature (for example, the depletion of an iron-ore mine). Such change at every moment rearranges – usually slightly, but sometimes dramatically – the particular connections that each node of the vast economic web has with innumerable other nodes.
Postscript:
Russ Roberts recently interviewed Farmer on his book for EconTalk. Arnold Kling recently reviewed the Farmer book here.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Aug 30 2024 at 7:52am
Further, the fact this is a “web” contributes to why central planning can have massive failures attached to it. Yes, there is the knowledge problem and all that (important critiques), but a web is very robust to failure or mistakes. Mistakes tend to dissipate in a web: firms have built in redundancies, back-up plans, and so on. If a supplier fails, firms and other economic actors readily adjust.
Conversely, when things are not a web but a chain (as is the case with central planning), mistakes tend to perpetuate and potentially grow exponentially throughout the system. These cascading failures build on one another, and even a relatively small initial failure can have disasterous consequences.
So, industrial planning schemes that aim at “supply chain robustness” do the opposite. Rather than take a fragile system and make it robust, they take a robust system and make it fragile.
Craig
Aug 30 2024 at 10:10am
At risk of carbon dating myself, back when I was in college one of the things that I read which blew my mind was I, Pencil of course. At that time there was discussion about subsidizing the semiconductor industry (the same topics come up again and again and again) and a Bush I administrator said something along the lines of “”It doesn’t make any difference whether a country makes potato chips or computer chips!””
To this day of course people discuss this because people myopically look at the end product and make their conclusion based solely on that, but once you apply a very superficial I, Pencil kind of analysis to the potato chip one quickly realizes that it sits atop its own iceberg of complexity which includes the computers, includes genetic engineering to optimize potatoes for chipping.
“And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.” and so too seems the potato chip.
“Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.”
Paradoxically those who might call for computer chip/semiconductor subsidies will opine that the importance of the industry is self-evident, but if one stops to think about that, is the tax consuming industry more important than the industries paying the tax to supply the subsidy it is dependent on?
I, Pencil for me was really a ‘wow’ moment for sure.
David Henderson
Aug 30 2024 at 11:35am
Great story!
Bill
Aug 30 2024 at 1:40pm
Second-to last paragraph, beginning “Paradoxically those who might call …”, is gold!
David Henderson
Aug 30 2024 at 2:11pm
I agree.
David Henderson
Aug 30 2024 at 11:36am
Good point.
steve
Aug 30 2024 at 11:16am
I prefer to think of it as chain link armor.
https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/chain-mail-armor
Steve
Comments are closed.