Ian Murray wrote:
> ========================
>
> [from an interview with Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing in
> yesterday's Guardian]
>
> In the six years since he and his executive team put
> together
> Vision 2016, they have transformed Boeing from a maker of
> airplanes into a "systems integrator", a vision, he says,
> buttressed by this week's merger. Now, building on the
> experiences
> of the war in Afghanistan and, with savage irony, the
> opportunities provided by September 11, he wants to go
> further and
> place Boeing at the forefront of what the Pentagon calls
> "system-centric warfare": commanding and controlling the
> low- or
> no-casualty (of friendly forces) battlefield of the
> future.
>
>
> ***So the issue seems to be whether markets and planning
> are complementary institutional processes and it would
> seem to be an empirical matter as to what kinds of
> decentralization would be workable.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
I don't think decentralization is the word in this context. Markets are
extremely centralizing institution. And there is no inherent reason
planning needs to centralized. As you say, degree of centralization and
decentralization is an empircal question. But this is true in both
markets and planning.
